'Sound doctrine' has left the building! (Messiah, priests, Abraham, Jewish)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After posting on the CD Christianity forum for several years, I've pretty much moved on and only check back occasionally to see if anything has changed. Things have even gotten worse as it appears that more and more Bible-believing Christians are abandoning the CD Christianity 'free-for-all.' Every time sound doctrine appears, the Bible detractors and false teachers pile on, to the point where this entire forum is filled with those offering nothing, but, 'clever' comebacks and false doctrine. But, I guess that is consistent with scripture teaching that, 'there will come a time when people will no longer endure sound doctrine.'
As long as there is a God and a recognized, authoritative 'truth standard', what everyone 'thinks' is nothing more than 'relative truth', which is really 'no truth at all.' Everything Christians know about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God's ways, truths, plans, purpose and promises -- comes from scripture/the Bible. The Bible does not contradict itself, nor do God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit contradict one another ... except, of course, in the minds and words of those presenting a different doctrine. This is not about people having different views of what scripture says, but, rather, about those who have abandoned scripture altogether --- except for giving it lip-service. Yes, 'Sound Doctrine' has all, but, left the CD Christianity forum 'building.'
No, Jesus did not dismiss sin, but according to many here we are supposed to dismiss it, or else be accused of intolerance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Note: you can NOT be intolerant to YOURSELF, Finn. That means you are referring to someone else's sin!
You definitely were referring to someone else's sin when you talk about intolerance. Now who is up to his old habits, Finn???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I am not intolerant to anyone. That's the point which flies over your head. You make it about intolerance, not me. I am accused of being intolerant, when I call sin a sin. I am not talking about any particular person. I can talk about the act of lie, or murder without naming anyone.
There is a difference of being something, and being falsely accused of being something.
Finally you have an opportunity to see your error.
You are up to your old habits, because you insert intolerance to where there is none. It is a false accusation.
Come on, Finn. YOU brought it up in YOUR post about NOT dismissing sin? The ONLY way you can be accused of intolerance is when you do NOT DISMISS someone else's sin. That is why I am asking what it is you need to dismiss about someone else's sin.
No, Jesus did not dismiss sin, but according to many here we are supposed to dismiss it, or else be accused of intolerance.
Can you quote Jesus challenging sin in sinners the way you are suggesting that he did and you do?. Again i know he did this with those who thought they had no sin and had the right to judge it in others....... you guessed right...... the fundies of his day.
Come on, Finn. YOU brought it up in YOUR post about NOT dismissing sin? The ONLY way you can be accused of intolerance is when you do NOT DISMISS someone else's sin. That is why I am asking what it is you need to dismiss about someone else's sin.
Yes, I brought up the false accusations. Was it hard to understand, or is there another reason why you keep inserting your words in my mouth?
This is quite an extensive post. I will take the time to read the entirety of it as time permits, however I have skimmed through it, and at first glance i must respond with:
Jesus also said "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'" and "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'"
So by your reasoning, these two commandments were added by the lying pen of the scribes? God really never forbade murder, nor adultery then?
Additionally your paragraph immediately following this post is very condescending. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are 100% correct and I am ignorant of these facts that you are revealing to me now. How does that make me a Bible idolator? I am faithful in my study and in my love for my brother. I pray that the Spirit might reveal His truth to me. Obviously I still do things I regret and there are many times I see a better way too late. I am but a fallen man.
I have learned long ago to not use a person's attitude or behavior to judge the content of their message. So with that in mind I will still give your argument its fair review, but I must tell you when you are supposedly shining light towards us fundamentalists who are stumbling around in the dark, it really doesn't promote the love you are supposedly intent on showing, when you follow up your illuminating post with a short paragraph full of ridicule and vinegar.
Hi Chadgates, glad you got back to me.
[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]Glad to here that[/color]
That's what you took out of what was shown? The difference is Jesus in the quotes I gave contradicted what was in the law of Moses.So the question is why did Jesus contradict those laws if they were the laws of God?
Chad you are going to have to show me the paragraph you are speaking about as I never said anything about being a bible idolator in my post. Are you sure it was my post where you seen this?
You're thinking from the point of view of someone who is desperately trying to defend a person they hold near and dear and believe in with all their heart, namely Jesus of Nazareth. That's not what historians do. Historians have to be cold and impassionate and look at what is before them with an unbiased attitude.
WW2 is a horrible example because in addition to all the testimony, people a hundred years from now would have film footage, billions of artifacts, books written by innumerable people FROM THAT ERA, radio interviews, monuments, grave stones at Arlington, and numerous other things dating back to 1939-1945.
What have we got for Jesus?
Absolutely nothing. Don't take my word. Check for yourself. Easily done.
1. Nothing written by Jesus
2. Earliest writings are of Paul mentioning Jesus 25 years after his crucifixion, but not an earthly Jesus---a celestial Jesus. Paul claims he gets everything NOT FROM MAN, including the apostles, but from a Jesus who talks to him. I have an uncle in a ward who claims Napoleon talks to him and has visions of him. Paul never mentions one earthly event in Jesus' life.
3. Earliest gospels written 40-100 years after Jesus' death. The writers were Greeks who never met Jesus, but were listening to stories passed around for generations before someone wrote down the gospel called Mark. This Jesus is not divine and doesn't claim to be divine. He calls one person good--God. Later accounts gradually deify Jesus more and more until we have the Jesus/God of John.
4. Not one contemporary historian of Jesus' time mentions him even once. There are hundreds of them but the most famous was Philo of Alexandria (25 BC-50 AD) who had relatives living in Jerusalem during Jesus' time. Don't you think they would have send back reports to Philo of something---ANYTHING of all the turmoil caused by Jesus at his crucifixion and resurrection? That would have been news all over the Roman world. But Philo never mentions Jesus once.
5. There is not one artifact left behind that is associated with Jesus--nothing to show he was a real person.
6. There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All there is are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased.
7. The Dead Sea Scrolls, also known as the Qumran texts, contain no mention of Jesus. Paul, credited with spreading “Christianity” shortly after the supposed death of Jesus, never says that Jesus was a real person — even in the Bible itself.
These are the major reasons. There are dozens of minor, more historical nit-picking details but there's not enough space to go into them.
Washington Post article: "Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up."
In summary, do I believe A Jesus existed? Sure! Hundreds of them. One was singled out and used to build this elaborate legend around. It was a common thing to do at the time. If Jesus had never been made the official god of the Roman empire by Constantine in 325 AD at the Council of Nicaea we'd all likely be Hindu today. Constantine put Jesus "on the map" so to speak. The Roman Catholic Church did the rest once their power was consolidated.
Like I said, the truth is out there. You just have to get past your church's four walls and make a sincere effort to look for it.
[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]You missed the point thrill, the reason you gave concerning no Jesus was that there was no reference to Jesus outside of the bible. However that is NOT the case. John, Peter and the boys wrote of Jesus and their writings or witness of Jesus was NOT part of any bible for about 300 years. They were simply letters that were written and gathered together by the RCC and made a part of what is today's bible. Which is something historians are simply not taking into account. Just because theses letter were gathered together into one book does NOT make them not a historical record. So though you think my example a horrible one, it still stands.[/color]
Your assuming that in a 1000 years there would still be devises to used to do so. And even if there were how would those people know whether it was true or just some type of tv show?
Did you forget about peter , John and the boys so soon?
[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]You missed the point thrill, the reason you gave concerning no Jesus was that there was no reference to Jesus outside of the bible. However that is NOT the case. John, Peter and the boys wrote of Jesus and their writings or witness of Jesus was NOT part of any bible for about 300 years. They were simply letters that were written and gathered together by the RCC and made a part of what is today's bible. Which is something historians are simply not taking into account. Just because theses letter were gathered together into one book does NOT make them not a historical record. So though you think my example a horrible one, it still stands.[/color]
Your assuming that in a 1000 years there would still be devises to used to do so. And even if there were how would those people know whether it was true or just some type of tv show?
Did you forget about peter , John and the boys so soon?
No, no, of course I didn't forget about them.
You seem like a pretty level-headed guy, pneuma---a real cut above the rest of the fundamentalists around here so I'll try to explain myself a little better.
Peter really cannot count, can he---because when you get down to it he's got a vested interest in seeing that Jesus gets promoted. I mean, if Peter really was a real person (personally I'm not sure he was) we'd have to agree he's not what you would call a secular historian by any stretch. This is not to mention we now know that both of his epistles were forgeries. I mean the guy was a lunkhead---a backwater uneducated fisherman who could barely read nor write Aramaic, never mind cultured Greek, which is what the two epistles attributed to him were written in. Here:
Quote:
Most scholars today conclude that Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors. Wikipedia
So we can dismiss Peter out of hand. As for John, well, again everybody knows John did not write John---any of it. All written by others who tagged John's name onto them to give them credibility. Again, don't take my word. The proof is there.
As for WW2, well if a WW3 came about it'd throw us back into the Stone Age and nobody would remember anything, least of all Jesus Christ as the few pitiable survivors would be too busy scratching the soil to grow a plant to eat to bother with religion. But barring such a cataclysm, no I think we'd be advanced enough to have even better equipment to view history 1000 years back. I maintain the two are not the same. Records were so poorly kept back in Jesus' time it's a wonder anything survived. What did that's of any value were the Dead Sea scrolls and the Qumran documents recently unearthed, because they were kept out of the prying fingers of dirty churchmen.
At the end of the day the consensus of the Washington Post article still stands: no secular historians of Jesus' time had a word to say about him and that's more than extraordinary---it's impossible, unless the person portrayed in the gospels never existed. With the exception of six letters by Paul, everything in the New Testament amount to forgeries. And, to repeat, Paul NEVER talks about an earthly Jesus---never refers to any events in his life prior to his crucifixion. It's like Paul doesn't know a single detail about his life: his virgin birth, his ministry, his trial--nothing. That, too, is extraordinary.
You seem like a pretty level-headed guy, pneuma---a real cut above the rest of the fundamentalists around here so I'll try to explain myself a little better.
Peter really cannot count, can he---because when you get down to it he's got a vested interest in seeing that Jesus gets promoted. I mean, if Peter really was a real person (personally I'm not sure he was) we'd have to agree he's not what you would call a secular historian by any stretch. This is not to mention we now know that both of his epistles were forgeries. I mean the guy was a lunkhead---a backwater uneducated fisherman who could barely read nor write Aramaic, never mind cultured Greek, which is what the two epistles attributed to him were written in. Here:
So we can dismiss Peter out of hand. As for John, well, again everybody knows John did not write John---any of it. All written by others who tagged John's name onto them to give them credibility. Again, don't take my word. The proof is there.
As for WW2, well if a WW3 came about it'd throw us back into the Stone Age and nobody would remember anything, least of all Jesus Christ as the few pitiable survivors would be too busy scratching the soil to grow a plant to eat to bother with religion. But barring such a cataclysm, no I think we'd be advanced enough to have even better equipment to view history 1000 years back. I maintain the two are not the same. Records were so poorly kept back in Jesus' time it's a wonder anything survived. What did that's of any value were the Dead Sea scrolls and the Qumran documents recently unearthed, because they were kept out of the prying fingers of dirty churchmen.
At the end of the day the consensus of the Washington Post article still stands: no secular historians of Jesus' time had a word to say about him and that's more than extraordinary---it's impossible, unless the person portrayed in the gospels never existed. With the exception of six letters by Paul, everything in the New Testament amount to forgeries. And, to repeat, Paul NEVER talks about an earthly Jesus---never refers to any events in his life prior to his crucifixion. It's like Paul doesn't know a single detail about his life: his virgin birth, his ministry, his trial--nothing. That, too, is extraordinary.
I would be a far cry from a fundy thrill, but hey call me what you will.
Your showing your bias here thrill. A historian does not just look at the writing of secular history but takes ALL account/writings into consideration. Thus the writings of Peter, John and the boys have to be taken into consideration. If these writings are not being taken into consideration then the historian is simply being bias. Would you call a biblical historian a true historian if he did not take into account secular history? Of course you would not, yet you are asking me to do that which you would not do yourself, and then say I am the one being bias. go figure.
No we cannot dismiss them so easily thrill, just because some believe Peter and John did not write anything does not make what they believe to be true. Some people also believe the book of Matthew was in fact Matthews translation into Greek of a Hebrew written by Peter. The historian would have to explore these possibilities before coming to a conclusion, I have yet to see any historian actually do this have you? if not the best you can say is you believe the evidence you see in regards to there being no Jesus over the evidence given that there was in fact a Jesus.
Thrill you just answered your own questions you keep asking. Records were so poorly kept back in Jesus' time it's a wonder anything survived.then turn around and make the complaint that there are no records of Jesus.
It does not stand thrill, the article added red herrings throughout that have nothing to do with whether Jesus was historical or not, and you simply fell for the red herrings. I will point those red herring out to you later as time permits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
