| 09 May 2009 01:03 am |
Nonsense won't be tolerated Rep: 72  Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 7,292 OFFLINE | some one new again wrote:
Gplex wrote:
son 5000 wrote:
Actually the differences in the translations of the canon gospels (message wise) is not as drastic as the skeptics make them out to be. Thats the whole reason why they were chosen. The message was consistent and they were older. Now the “lost books” that got a lot of attention semi-recently with the Da vinci code and everything were the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gospels, written sometime after the first century, were with a message that even changed the message of the OT. From what I read they were a lot like the apocrypha in the aspect that they were designed to make up an explaination or go into more depth. Here we get stories like Judas being chosen by Jesus to betray him or Jesus' hijinks as a child.
Later on we see obscure ideas of Jesus often kissing Mary Magdaline on the ________ and Jesus not actually dying on the cross (a theory which would later lead to islam). These were the books that were weeded out and for good reason IMO.
Jesus spent 6 hours on the cross, before he was taken down, if the story is true, it is unlikely that he died in only 6 hours.
When I said Jesus not dying on the cross I mean he was never crucified. Some one took his place/his spirit left his body before. Thats a gnostic idea that would later be incoperated into islam.
But in real life, if someone in their 30s was nailed to a cross for 6 hours we would assume that, person wasn’t up on the cross long enough to suffocate.
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
 | | | | 12 May 2009 09:48 am |
SAMO© Rep: 38 Joined: 10 Sep 2005 Posts: 16,855 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
some one new again wrote:
Gplex wrote:
son 5000 wrote:
Actually the differences in the translations of the canon gospels (message wise) is not as drastic as the skeptics make them out to be. Thats the whole reason why they were chosen. The message was consistent and they were older. Now the “lost books” that got a lot of attention semi-recently with the Da vinci code and everything were the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gospels, written sometime after the first century, were with a message that even changed the message of the OT. From what I read they were a lot like the apocrypha in the aspect that they were designed to make up an explaination or go into more depth. Here we get stories like Judas being chosen by Jesus to betray him or Jesus' hijinks as a child.
Later on we see obscure ideas of Jesus often kissing Mary Magdaline on the ________ and Jesus not actually dying on the cross (a theory which would later lead to islam). These were the books that were weeded out and for good reason IMO.
Jesus spent 6 hours on the cross, before he was taken down, if the story is true, it is unlikely that he died in only 6 hours.
When I said Jesus not dying on the cross I mean he was never crucified. Some one took his place/his spirit left his body before. Thats a gnostic idea that would later be incoperated into islam.
But in real life, if someone in their 30s was nailed to a cross for 6 hours we would assume that, person wasn’t up on the cross long enough to suffocate.
heh, except for one little fact. do you know what flogging is? here’s a brief summery:
“Flogging- basically they tied his hands and tied him against a pole. And his buttocks were shown to the audience. He is completely and totally naked. They have the whip of the 'cat of nine tails'. It has bones and steel balls in it. The bones are put in so that, when he is whipped the bones will stay in his body. And they will rip it back and rip his skin apart. He’s been awake for over 24 hours. And now he’s standing there, as the steel balls hit him and start hammering away at his bones. And as they rip it back there is blood and skin flying all over his body. His bones start sticking out of his chest and his back. As they continue to hit him… 1, 2, 3,… 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 times. Each time they hit Him and bring it back the bones from the whip continue to rip His skin apart."
at this point in the torture, most people would DIE. many of their innards are now ripped out of their body from the back by a several tailed whip. this is BRUTAL stuff. but, jesus made it through. i’d say that any time he lasted on the cross is pretty amazing. considering that, 6 hours was easily enough time.
 | | | 15 May 2009 04:56 pm |
Nonsense won't be tolerated Rep: 72Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 7,292 OFFLINE | kev360 wrote:
Gplex wrote:
some one new again wrote:
Gplex wrote:
son 5000 wrote:
Actually the differences in the translations of the canon gospels (message wise) is not as drastic as the skeptics make them out to be. Thats the whole reason why they were chosen. The message was consistent and they were older. Now the “lost books” that got a lot of attention semi-recently with the Da vinci code and everything were the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gospels, written sometime after the first century, were with a message that even changed the message of the OT. From what I read they were a lot like the apocrypha in the aspect that they were designed to make up an explaination or go into more depth. Here we get stories like Judas being chosen by Jesus to betray him or Jesus' hijinks as a child.
Later on we see obscure ideas of Jesus often kissing Mary Magdaline on the ________ and Jesus not actually dying on the cross (a theory which would later lead to islam). These were the books that were weeded out and for good reason IMO.
Jesus spent 6 hours on the cross, before he was taken down, if the story is true, it is unlikely that he died in only 6 hours.
When I said Jesus not dying on the cross I mean he was never crucified. Some one took his place/his spirit left his body before. Thats a gnostic idea that would later be incoperated into islam.
But in real life, if someone in their 30s was nailed to a cross for 6 hours we would assume that, person wasn’t up on the cross long enough to suffocate.
heh, except for one little fact. do you know what flogging is? here’s a brief summery:
“Flogging- basically they tied his hands and tied him against a pole. And his buttocks were shown to the audience. He is completely and totally naked. They have the whip of the 'cat of nine tails'. It has bones and steel balls in it. The bones are put in so that, when he is whipped the bones will stay in his body. And they will rip it back and rip his skin apart. He’s been awake for over 24 hours. And now he’s standing there, as the steel balls hit him and start hammering away at his bones. And as they rip it back there is blood and skin flying all over his body. His bones start sticking out of his chest and his back. As they continue to hit him… 1, 2, 3,… 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 times. Each time they hit Him and bring it back the bones from the whip continue to rip His skin apart."
at this point in the torture, most people would DIE. many of their innards are now ripped out of their body from the back by a several tailed whip. this is BRUTAL stuff. but, jesus made it through. i’d say that any time he lasted on the cross is pretty amazing. considering that, 6 hours was easily enough time.
So what you are saying is that he bleed out? You and I both know someone wouldn’t die nail to a cross in less than 20 hours.
You miss my entire point. If a girls drowns in a frozen lake, and comes back to life and hour later, we don’t contribute that to a magic man, why they are you making a special case for jesus.
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
| | | 17 May 2009 06:28 pm |
Nonsense won't be tolerated Rep: 72Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 7,292 OFFLINE | ---
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
| | | 24 May 2009 06:01 pm |
Regular Rep: 8 Joined: 27 Apr 2009 Posts: 699 OFFLINE |
LMFAO @ he’s going to be serving the devil.....seperation...once again one of the mainstays of religion... ---
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts | | | 24 May 2009 06:57 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 49 Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Posts: 4,226 OFFLINE | riptorn311 wrote:
LMFAO @ he’s going to be serving the devil.....seperation...once again one of the mainstays of religion...
Odd, my sound works everywhere except MvC.
 | | | 24 May 2009 07:06 pm |
s.o.n or SON(not the user) Rep: 54 Joined: 23 Sep 2008 Posts: 5,819 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
kev360 wrote:
Gplex wrote:
some one new again wrote:
Gplex wrote:
son 5000 wrote:
Actually the differences in the translations of the canon gospels (message wise) is not as drastic as the skeptics make them out to be. Thats the whole reason why they were chosen. The message was consistent and they were older. Now the “lost books” that got a lot of attention semi-recently with the Da vinci code and everything were the gnostic gospels. The gnostic gospels, written sometime after the first century, were with a message that even changed the message of the OT. From what I read they were a lot like the apocrypha in the aspect that they were designed to make up an explaination or go into more depth. Here we get stories like Judas being chosen by Jesus to betray him or Jesus' hijinks as a child.
Later on we see obscure ideas of Jesus often kissing Mary Magdaline on the ________ and Jesus not actually dying on the cross (a theory which would later lead to islam). These were the books that were weeded out and for good reason IMO.
Jesus spent 6 hours on the cross, before he was taken down, if the story is true, it is unlikely that he died in only 6 hours.
When I said Jesus not dying on the cross I mean he was never crucified. Some one took his place/his spirit left his body before. Thats a gnostic idea that would later be incoperated into islam.
But in real life, if someone in their 30s was nailed to a cross for 6 hours we would assume that, person wasn’t up on the cross long enough to suffocate.
heh, except for one little fact. do you know what flogging is? here’s a brief summery:
“Flogging- basically they tied his hands and tied him against a pole. And his buttocks were shown to the audience. He is completely and totally naked. They have the whip of the 'cat of nine tails'. It has bones and steel balls in it. The bones are put in so that, when he is whipped the bones will stay in his body. And they will rip it back and rip his skin apart. He’s been awake for over 24 hours. And now he’s standing there, as the steel balls hit him and start hammering away at his bones. And as they rip it back there is blood and skin flying all over his body. His bones start sticking out of his chest and his back. As they continue to hit him… 1, 2, 3,… 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 times. Each time they hit Him and bring it back the bones from the whip continue to rip His skin apart."
at this point in the torture, most people would DIE. many of their innards are now ripped out of their body from the back by a several tailed whip. this is BRUTAL stuff. but, jesus made it through. i’d say that any time he lasted on the cross is pretty amazing. considering that, 6 hours was easily enough time.
So what you are saying is that he bleed out? You and I both know someone wouldn’t die nail to a cross in less than 20 hours.
You miss my entire point. If a girls drowns in a frozen lake, and comes back to life and hour later, we don’t contribute that to a magic man, why they are you making a special case for jesus.
You keep saying that the cross shouldn’t have killed him. His point was the Cross wasn’t the only thing he was subjected to.
 
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom! | | | 24 May 2009 07:10 pm |
s.o.n or SON(not the user) Rep: 54Joined: 23 Sep 2008 Posts: 5,819 OFFLINE |
Usually the Christian compromises their beliefs when in a relationship when with some one from a different belief system (or lack thereof). Technically he’s right in saying there is no middle ground. ---
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!Last edited 24 May 2009 07:10 pm by some one new | | | 25 May 2009 03:27 am |
Nonsense won't be tolerated Rep: 72Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 7,292 OFFLINE | some one new wrote:
You keep saying that the cross shouldn’t have killed him. His point was the Cross wasn’t the only thing he was subjected to.
You miss my point where none of this was ever recorded by any historians...
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
| | | 25 May 2009 10:04 am |
Regular Rep: 8Joined: 27 Apr 2009 Posts: 699 OFFLINE | some one new wrote:
Usually the Christian compromises their beliefs when in a relationship when with some one from a different belief system (or lack thereof). Technically he’s right in saying there is no middle ground.
You should re-read 1 Cor. 7: 12-14...It states:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Here’s the problem...
The very next book that is in the new testament, and still written by Paul (supposedly) contradicts what he stated in 1 Cor.
2 Cor 6: 14 - 17 states:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Paul either had a revalation between writing those books or he was a loon...Besides, the bible (being infallable) should never contradict itself, only confirm itsself....No logic whatsoever...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. RobertsLast edited 25 May 2009 10:06 am by Sleazy P. Martini | | | 25 May 2009 03:21 pm |
Regular Rep: 8Joined: 27 Apr 2009 Posts: 699 OFFLINE | riptorn311 wrote:
some one new wrote:
Usually the Christian compromises their beliefs when in a relationship when with some one from a different belief system (or lack thereof). Technically he’s right in saying there is no middle ground.
You should re-read 1 Cor. 7: 12-14...It states:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Here’s the problem...
The very next book that is in the new testament, and still written by Paul (supposedly) contradicts what he stated in 1 Cor.
2 Cor 6: 14 - 17 states:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Paul either had a revalation between writing those books or he was a loon...Besides, the bible (being infallable) should never contradict itself, only confirm itsself....No logic whatsoever...
Try to bump this once again...
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts | | | 25 May 2009 03:33 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 49Joined: 03 Apr 2009 Posts: 4,226 OFFLINE | That’s it Rip, get us to arguin bout the Bible again. We don’t have enuff arguments on here now. ---
| | | 25 May 2009 03:50 pm |
Regular Rep: 8Joined: 27 Apr 2009 Posts: 699 OFFLINE | Chilly man wrote:
That’s it Rip, get us to arguin bout the Bible again. We don’t have enuff arguments on here now.
Last time I checked this was a debate forum....Rather than say we have enough arguments so lets move on and sweep this under the table, lets look at how people reconcile those 2 passages... How do you personally reconcile them?
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts | | | 25 May 2009 10:54 pm |
s.o.n or SON(not the user) Rep: 54Joined: 23 Sep 2008 Posts: 5,819 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
some one new wrote:
You keep saying that the cross shouldn’t have killed him. His point was the Cross wasn’t the only thing he was subjected to.
You miss my point where none of this was ever recorded by any historians...
Thats debatable.
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom! | | | 25 May 2009 11:13 pm |
s.o.n or SON(not the user) Rep: 54Joined: 23 Sep 2008 Posts: 5,819 OFFLINE | riptorn311 wrote:
some one new wrote:
Usually the Christian compromises their beliefs when in a relationship when with some one from a different belief system (or lack thereof). Technically he’s right in saying there is no middle ground.
You should re-read 1 Cor. 7: 12-14...It states:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Here’s the problem...
The very next book that is in the new testament, and still written by Paul (supposedly) contradicts what he stated in 1 Cor.
2 Cor 6: 14 - 17 states:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Paul either had a revalation between writing those books or he was a loon...Besides, the bible (being infallable) should never contradict itself, only confirm itsself....No logic whatsoever...
The first scripture was about a clean person influencing an unclean person and the second was vice versa. As you know, Christians are supposed to be examples to the world. A person with a strong relationship with Christ would potentially “plant a seed” in the spirit of the nonbeliever just be the life they live around them. Now on the other hand according to the second scripture a person who doesn’t have a strong a relation with Christ (perhaps for circumstantial reasons) may be easily influenced by the unclean person. In any case their really is no middle ground. And you just confirmed that.
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom! | | | 26 May 2009 01:01 am |
Nonsense won't be tolerated Rep: 72Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 7,292 OFFLINE | some one new wrote:
Gplex wrote:
some one new wrote:
You keep saying that the cross shouldn’t have killed him. His point was the Cross wasn’t the only thing he was subjected to.
You miss my point where none of this was ever recorded by any historians...
Thats debatable.
The start a topic so we can.
Cid wrote:
You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews
| | | 26 May 2009 01:03 am |
Smoke THIS!!! Rep: 46 Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 7,894 OFFLINE | ---
 | | | 26 May 2009 10:03 am |
Regular Rep: 8Joined: 27 Apr 2009 Posts: 699 OFFLINE | some one new wrote:
riptorn311 wrote:
some one new wrote:
Usually the Christian compromises their beliefs when in a relationship when with some one from a different belief system (or lack thereof). Technically he’s right in saying there is no middle ground.
You should re-read 1 Cor. 7: 12-14...It states:
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Here’s the problem...
The very next book that is in the new testament, and still written by Paul (supposedly) contradicts what he stated in 1 Cor.
2 Cor 6: 14 - 17 states:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
Paul either had a revalation between writing those books or he was a loon...Besides, the bible (being infallable) should never contradict itself, only confirm itsself....No logic whatsoever...
The first scripture was about a clean person influencing an unclean person and the second was vice versa. As you know, Christians are supposed to be examples to the world. A person with a strong relationship with Christ would potentially “plant a seed” in the spirit of the nonbeliever just be the life they live around them. Now on the other hand according to the second scripture a person who doesn’t have a strong a relation with Christ (perhaps for circumstantial reasons) may be easily influenced by the unclean person. In any case their really is no middle ground. And you just confirmed that.
Confirmed what?...Those 2 statements are totally contradictory....On one hand Paul says that it’s o.k. to be with an unbeliever in the hopes you might rub off on him or her and that your children will be right in the eyes of god.
The other statement says the exact oppisite. For what fellowship hath rightousness with unrightousness. You said " The first scripture was about a clean person influencing an unclean person and the second was vice versa." Don’t those 2 walk hand in hand? Look at it this way, in both cases youve got 1 clean person and 1 unclean person. The person that sent the question in to ole Pat stated that they were going to marry and it was obvious that they were happy with each other..How does the first scripture not apply? Even if it doesn’t it still drives home a very important issue. The issue of seperation.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts | | | 26 May 2009 06:25 pm |
s.o.n or SON(not the user) Rep: 54Joined: 23 Sep 2008 Posts: 5,819 OFFLINE | "Clean” biblically speaking is a rather subjective term. David was seen as perfect in the sight of God despite what he did in the past because he truely repented of his sins. Job, on the other hand, did nothing wrong and was Also seen as being upright. You can be “clean” but not as spiritially strong in resisting evil (and thus can be influenced by the world) Jesus, being perfect, fellowshipped with sinners at a supper, Solomon was given wisdom from God yet he made the decision to worship the idols of his many wives (two clean people aren’t equal). The Bible is also a book that can cause conviction for believers. Although it’s not always specifically stated One verse may be meant for one person and another verse for another person.
Heres a more clear example if you couldn’t understand my jargon above. When a person gives their life to Christ the are saved (biblically speaking) and are therefore cleansed of their sins.
That person wouldn’t be as spiritially resistant to the lusts of the flesh as a experienced Christian would be. Hope that makes sense. ---
Sound DBZ logic cannot be destroyed; the efforts of the so-called super elite will always be in vain. Have at thee Krom!Last edited 26 May 2009 06:52 pm by some one new | | | 26 May 2009 10:31 pm |
Regular Rep: 8Joined: 27 Apr 2009 Posts: 699 OFFLINE | some one new wrote:
“Clean” biblically speaking is a rather subjective term. David was seen as perfect in the sight of God despite what he did in the past because he truely repented of his sins. Job, on the other hand, did nothing wrong and was Also seen as being upright. You can be “clean” but not as spiritially strong in resisting evil (and thus can be influenced by the world) Jesus, being perfect, fellowshipped with sinners at a supper, Solomon was given wisdom from God yet he made the decision to worship the idols of his many wives (two clean people aren’t equal). The Bible is also a book that can cause conviction for believers. Although it’s not always specifically stated One verse may be meant for one person and another verse for another person.
Heres a more clear example if you couldn’t understand my jargon above. When a person gives their life to Christ the are saved (biblically speaking) and are therefore cleansed of their sins.
That person wouldn’t be as spiritially resistant to the lusts of the flesh as a experienced Christian would be. Hope that makes sense.
So...it’s o.k. for a spiritually strong person to be married to an unbelieving spouse...But, if the partner is not strong spirituality, then they should seperate? Thats kinda what I got from what you said.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts | | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
|
Religion 
