Messages

Nothing like picking and choosing what one wants to believe with no regard as to whether it is true or not. That is a very dangerous approach.

I am here because there is so much error being passed as truth regarding Christianity it is astounding. I don't think I have ventured outside the Christian partition of these forums, it is you who comes in. If you don't like it, you don't have to come in.

I was warning of the extreme liberal viewpoints that come out of eastern Canada, but I suppose it is all lost on these forums.

Gandalf,

I'm curious, do you think that logic and rationalism are things that man made up, or are they inherent in all of us, that is, are they put there by "something" in the ultimate reality?

indeed, it is a joke. Why does it cost 300$ to get back into the church if you've been banned?

Where did you ever get this idea from?

Beth,

I am not looking for piece of anyone nor am I 'ticked' off.

Ex, we have been down this road before. If you do not want to know anything new...then just don't read my posts

If we've been down this road before, then how can your posts have anything new...? Just curious.

you do know how to ignore posts...don't you?

Of couse I do. But I cannot ignore posts that purposely portray Christianity as something it is not.

I was responding to a member who asked a legitimate question to which I gave a legitimate answer

But that is the whole point isn't it? You gave a very one-sided, fallacious answer.

Tom,

Why is it that when people go to heaven it is not reincarnation?

Perhaps one can offer a definition of reincarnation before we get to far into this.

Christians obviously think that they will leave a physical body and take up a different body in heaven.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44, "42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."


Eastern Canadian alert (NickJW)


Gandalf,

Do you think that we are unable to come to a knowledge of the truth? Do you not think that as rational agents we have the capacity to determine which is more logical of two or more things? Perhaps you think that man made up logic and rational thinking, that it wasn't already there and we just discovered it or have all been given it.

There really is no reason to begin with a negative view of reality and go from there, thinking that we may not be able to know anything at all. Why not start from the point of believing that truth exists and that truth relates to the ultimate reality in such a way that at least some of it, if not most it, can be discovered through reason.

Why would anyone want to have a set of beliefs or adhere to a given belief system if their beliefs lack coherence and are contradictory? I would much rather believe that which is most rational and coherent as it is likely to be the truth, or at least closer to the truth than everything else.

Remember that one Exothen when you start arguing over which belief system is more logical...
an analogy might be two dimensional creatures (on a flat world) trying to understand 'ultimate reality'.. however they are never going to get anywhere near understanding the world from their limited 2 dimensional perspective which cannot conceive of the 3 dimensional world.. all their theories will be flawed because of this.

Then this analogy is flawed as well and I have no reason to believe it, nor your whole post. Again, there is no reason to believe that we can't discover what 'ultimate reality' really is.

Beth,

My answer is--a very long time ago, some very powerful people demanded that people believe these stories to be real and all others to be false or merely fiction. After generations of making good on the demands through censure, torture, hanging, burning, and various other techniques of submission, accepting these stories as being historical and the literal truth became the only way for people to survive.

This is an entirely fallacious argument. First, it ignores that the Apostles and other initial followers of Christ really believed that they say the resurrected Christ. Paul makes mention of hundreds of people who saw Him.

Second, you ignore the thousands of people who believed apart from any religious control, torture, etc. You fallaciously make it seem like the only reason people believed was because they were forced to. And certainly this happened, I am not denying that, but it goes way beyond that.

Third, you ignore the thousands who believed in the literal resurrection of Christ and believed in him as their Savior despite themselves being tortured and killed for doing so.

Why do people still believe all of this? I guess the answer is individual and unique, but I also know that when given no other real options, staying with tradition seems to be easiest thing to do--and many people like for the answers to be provided for them rather than going to the trouble to seek the answers themselves.

Here, again, you employ the same fallacious reasoning, ignoring the fact that thousands believe these things because they have found them to be true.

Knowledge of original Christianity has remained hidden for almost two thousand years.

You don't really believe that stuff, do you Beth? Surely someone as educated as you knows better. You sound like you have bought into Dan Brown's work of fiction.

p.s. Just because these stories are not historically true, does not mean that they are not valuable. The stories themselves do have a lot to offer us, but we must read them as the moral fables, allegories and parables that they are.

You have offered no reason to believe that these stories are not historically true and that we should consider them "moral fables."

If the stories of Christ, his virgin birth, incarnation, death and resurrection, and everything in between are merely "moral fables," then there is nothing moral about them. In fact, they would be completely immoral and no one should have anything to do with them. They would be nothing but a bunch of lies taught by a liar and written down by those He deceived.

Potential,

Didn't Jesus have older brothers, go figure.  

Nope.

[No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him]

Mustardseed,

Great post.

People seem to use the Word in a random sort of way, and overlook things that are not in alignment what they expect for themself.

Yeah, that is a huge problem with most/all Christian churches and all denominations - ignore what you don't like or causes you difficulty.

Let me see how you see this. Exothen I really ask to want to know and I am not setting a trap, please trust me.

I certainly trust you Mustardseed.  I do see this passage as being literal, but there is much lost in the translation from Greek to English. As you may know, Greek has 7 tenses whereas English has 3. This allows the Greek to present things as continuously happening, and I think that this is what is happening here in Revelation – one who continuously lives in those sins.

We are all sinners and we all sin everyday. Do Christians have fear? Certainly, but we shouldn't:

1 John 4:18, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love." (I'll post the Scriptures for those who may follow along.)

Do Christians sometimes not believe? Of course. Commit idolatry; lie? Yes. Now, no Christian should be involved with sorcery or whoremongering, period. You get the idea of what I am saying.

This passage is referring to those whose life is characterized by those sins. And certainly there are others listed in a couple of passages in the NT. The whole point of the gospel, as you know, is that through Christ we can be saved from the penalty of sin, which is death/separation from God. This should always result in a life not characterized by sin, that is, continually sinning. I'm getting lost in my thoughts, so I'll post a couple of verses which should shed some light on what I trying to explain.

1 John 3:5-6, "5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him."

1 John 5:18, "18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him."

All that comes after John stated this:

1 John 1:8-10, "8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

So what is John saying? He is saying that anyone who is "born of God" (ie. a follower of Christ) sins, but that their life will not be characterized by sin. From what I have heard and read, that is backed up by the Greek, but I haven't learnt Greek yet for myself so I'll leave it at that.

That is what I believe it is saying and I am quite sure it is correct. I should also clarify what I mean by "we all sin everyday" and "a life characterized by sin." Let's say that I lie today, tomorrow, and everyday for a week. Does that make me a liar? Not if I ask forgiveness and am truely repentant.

A liar, as the passage in Revelation would speaking of, is someone who continually lies, feels no remorse, and does not seek God's forgiveness - that is "a life characterized by sin."

That is all the time I have at the moment, but I will certainly try to answer the rest tonight as those are even weightier points you make.

This is a very good, thought-provoking topic, thank you for the great discussion.

[imperishable]

Mustardseed,

I somehow knew that I could count on someone to jump on that one, and you did not let me down.

I wouldn't want to let you down.

This abolition will be accomplished by God making all alive (1Cor.15:22).

Not only is that not stated in 1 Cor. 15, Rev. 20:14 tells us when death will be abolished:

"14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire."

The believer had eonian life. He lives until there is no death. Hence he practically has "everlasting" life. But such is not the statement of the Scriptures. They are concerned with the eons. They do not promise us life thereafter, because ALL receive it then.

Not too sure what is being said here.

The believer receives the life of the ages, not eternal life.

I am curious as to why Mr. Koch makes the above points with 1 Cor. 15:22 and 26 as support, but fails to continue on in the chapter. Note the following:

1 Cor. 15:42-44, "42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

15:51-55, "51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55 "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?""

This is where 1 Tim. 1:17 comes in:

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen."

For the moment, I will focus on the word 'immortal'. The word is aphthartos in Greek and is the same word used in 1 Cor. 15:52 in speaking of the dead being raised 'imperishable,' or 'incorruptible.'

"The "everlasting punishment" of Matthew 25:46 lasts for that eon, little over a thousand years. The eonian life of the believer lasts for two eons. How can anyone have eonian life after the eons are past? All then have life, for death is also past.

Not sure what is being said here either. He seems to be arguing that no one gets eternal life, only eonian life. But then states that all have life after the eons are past. I don't get it. What am I missing?

The Greek words aion (age or eon) and aionios (age-abiding or eonian) are never used of endlessness.

This I do understand and will attempt to refute. For this, I will focus on 'eternal' in 1 Tim. 1:17, quoted above. The Greek literally reads "unto the ages of the ages." This phrase "unto the ages of the ages," is translated as "forever and ever" 16 times in the NT, 12 in reference to God.

Some of importance are as follows:

Rev. 4:9,10 "9 And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying,"

Rev. 10:6, "and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE EARTH AND THE THINGS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND THE THINGS IN IT, that there will be delay no longer"

The 4 times it is not used of God show that punishment is eternal for the unbeliever and life is eternal for the believer, 3 of which I will post:

Rev. 14:11, "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Rev. 20:10, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Rev. 22:5, "And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever."

Also of importance is:

Rev. 21:4, "4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."


So, there you go, 2 hours of my time including the second time. I am not sure what I missed from the first time since I did have more, but this should give us something to go on.

I would also like to ask you to consider this with an open mind to the scripture. Obviously you count yourself somewhat of a scholar and I have read your post with interest.

I always try and keep an open mind, but it is susceptible to what I already believe, as is everyone's mind. I do not fancy myself a scholar of any sort (my lack of understanding of what Mr. Koch was stating proves this ), just a student of theology.

Is it possible to discuss a theory such as the one above, matching scripture with scripture, or is your mind made up?

Yes, it is quite possible to discuss it. My mind is made up only insofar as that I have found my beliefs to be true through the Scriptures I posted above. However, I try to keep open to correction.

This friggin sucks. I had a rather large response for you Mustardseed and I lost it. I'll try again...ugh. Why don't I ever learn to type it in Word?

I not only reject the concept of reincarnation for theological reasons, but for philosophical ones as well - it really is an irrational idea frought with contradictions.

karnautrahl,

I certainly am no troll. I post to attempt to dispell all the misconceptions about Christianity and the Bible that are so prevelant around here.

Gandalf,

I certainly am not soma-sight nor narrow path. Life has been extremely busy the last month-and-a-half so I haven't been around, but I will try to agitate you a little more often as things are winding down a wee bit.

I do miss narrow path though...remember, he once believed like all of you but quickly gave it up when he found the truth. And did he ever turn.

Palehorse,

And I see no reason whether from scripture or logic, to believe that gateway is "for a limited time only!" and will slam shut on a person just because they happened to end a single lifetime without figuring out or saying the magical password

Heb. 9:27, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment"

I, too, am just recovering from being very busy and don't feel up to posting a response. I'll post when I feel recovered, whenever that will be.

[I said, 'I am the Son of God]

kalratri,

I know in the neo-religious traditions of the middle east, you are supposed turn off your brain and just believe, but that's not the eastern way.

That is not it at all. The Bible commands people to think and use reason, not to turn off one's brain. But this is so with eastern religions. Is that not the whole purpose of meditation: to forget everything, empty one's mind and become one with the universe?

But it seems you are not after the truth, but simply after continuing to believe what you believe.

This, of course, implies that I don't have the truth and you do, which proves that you are just trying to win an argument.

First of all, Jesus was not THE son of God, he claimed he was "ONE WITH THE FATHER" or one with God, that is why he is beyond other "sonS of God".

Are you reading what I'm posting?

Joh 10:36  do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

What else do you want? Clearly Jesus said he is the Son of God. He also says that the Father "sanctified" him, which means "to set apart" or "make holy." This also shows that the phrase "Son of God" meant something much different when used of Jesus. Jesus also states that he was sent by the Father into the world.

Second of all, Jesus said that the son of God is not exclusive and he was NOT the only son of God, sons of God are mortal and die like men, but since he became one with God he was immortal

I take it that you haven't studied what I suggested? The use of the phrase "sons of God" as it applies to men, only meant that they were righteous representatives of God; it is used of kings and rulers anointed by God. The Jews as a whole were to make the one and only God, Yahweh, known to the rest of the world. You would know this if you studied what I suggested.

Thirdly, the claim of being "ONE WITH GOD" or "ONE WITH THE WAY" is largely found in eastern traditions from Hinduism to Taoism.

So what? The use of it by Jesus is a claim of equality with God - he was one in essence and nature. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus was God in the flesh, God incarnate. This is the very opposite of what eastern traditions believe.

So the church is wrong once again, since thousands upon thousands of people besides Jesus have become "ONE WITH GOD"....So Jesus is not the ONLY one.

Well, Jesus and the Bible are in strong disagreement with you.

The concept of Avatars, or "God becoming flesh" is quite ancient.

So what?

Er, okay so he had a revelation in a shaman ritual, so did he get any revelation of Christ in a church ritual...?

Not as far as I know, but his revelation was very much in agreement with Christian theology. He used to be quite like you actually - strongly disliked Christianity, was into all the eastern philosophy and spiritual practices, like AP (which is why he was a member here). And I'm quite certain that he isn't the only one who has had revelations of the real Satan and real Jesus.

I was lucky enough and saw the solar Christ after falling asleep in my house after chanting Hindu mantras...so any doubt on whether or not Jesus actually became the "Christ" or resurrected became erased. So I always pay my respects to all these immortals. Since Christ is relatively easy to see, it means he is the most easily pleased of all dieties and is willing to help you in every way to go higher...so I guess you can say he is one of my "gurus"...

Then that was not the Christ of the Bible that you saw (and there are no other Christs). If you want to disagree then explain how others' spiritual experiences don't match up with yours, and then read the following:

Rev 1:12  And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13  And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14  His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15  And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 1:17  And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18  I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Again, I'm not against followers of Christ and his true teachings, but evangelists, now they are another story.

And again, you suppose that you have the truth while Christians do not. On what basis do you believe that your interpretation is correct and the Church's wrong? The Church has been around for 2000 years, before the writing of the NT. As such, their interpretation has much support, yours does not.

Quite honestly Gandalf, I don't know what astral projection is or how it is done. If you remember, way back when, I was invited to these boards by a user who had a revelation of Christ while taking part in a Shaman ritual. He used to post vehemently against Christianity on a Christian site I mod at, but when he came back from a week in the Rocky Mountains and shared his experience, he was a completely changed, and scared, person. A couple of months after that, he stated he had become a Christian.

Anyway, you probably remember his attacks against "New Age" philosophy and zeal for Christianity which got him booted from these forums. I just stuck around because I see a lot of incorrect things said about Christ and the Bible. Plus it gets to be very pointless and frustrating debating Christians over doctrinal issues.

Gandalf,

ok, but if that person's beliefs have nothing to do with the christian bible then you dont have any beef with it in that case?

On the one hand, no, I don't have a beef with it. But on the other hand, Jesus did command the disciples to preach the gospel everywhere and to everyone. It is hard when one believes they have the Truth, as I believe I do, and that truth is exclusive of all other religions. If what the Bible says is true, then there are a lot of people in a lot of trouble and they need to hear what the Bible says so they can be saved.

Having said all that, I am trying not to shove Christ down anyone's throats, but I am compelled to speak the Truth whenever the opportunity arises.

I know where you are coming from but is it not the case that people can read the same line from the bible and come to a completely different interpretation of it, which can lead to problems?

In many cases, yes. However, there are some fundamental truths which define Christianity and all Christians believe. Some Christians call these the "essentials" while remaining doctrine is often termed "unessential," for salvation that is.

There are general rules of biblical interpretation and exegesis (getting the meaning from the text) that help determine the interpretation of the texts. While this really cuts down on the disagreements, some continue to use poor interpretive skills or purposely twist the Bible to support erroneous beliefs.

Am I claiming that I've got it all right? Not at all. I am open to correction, but until good evidence is given as to why I shouldn't hold to a certain position, I have no reason to abandon what I believe.

Its just that i bet there are others out there who disagree with some of your views on a text as strongly as you might disagree with theirs... this must contribute to all the factionalism that you get within christianity..

Don't I know it. I mod at a Christian board where the fur really flies. I disagree with people and people disagree with me. Although this contributes to most of the factionalism in Christianity, some of it is just Church government and structure. Yes, Christians can be very petty (in case you hadn't noticed).

As a matter of interest what branch would you consider yourself as? and i dont' mean 'the truth' or some other such answer, but rather what real world category of christianity do you generelly identify with?

Evangelical Protestant, but more specifically, Pentecostal. But I have stepped back a bit due to my disagreement with some practices and beliefs of Pentecostals in particular, and some Evangelical beliefs in general.

Thanks for the friendly discussion.

fuji,

The bible is a hate book.

You sound pretty hateful yourself.

Gandalf,

Cant we leave people to believe what they want?

I can't. While I respect a person's right to believe what they want, I cannot sit back when someone twists what the Bible says to support beliefs which are completely contradictory to it.

[many]

kalratri,

You WERE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Are you even interested in finding the truth or are you just trying to win an argument?

You claimed Jesus claimed the sole mantel of being the son of God.

Again, you are twisting what I have said. Anyone can go back and look at what I have posted. I clearly stated that the Bible does use "sons of God" in reference to men and angels. I also clearly stated that the phrase "Son of God" carries a very different connotation when applied to Christ. This is something that one could easily find out with some studying.

Perhaps I should put it this way: Jesus is the "one and only" Son of God, the "only begotten" Son.

If you want to ignore that the use of "sons of God" simply refers to those who are representatives of God, anointed by him to carry out tasks (usually kings and rulers), then go ahead. But quit twisting what I am saying.

Shame on you! Hindus and Buddhists have libraries and libraries of revealed scripture AND YOU GUYS HAVE ONE BITTY BOOK and you can't even understand one little book properly.

So what? What is your point (besides showing your poor reasoning)?

Yahweh, the divine name actually means , " I will be who I will be"...

Again, so what? They say the same thing.

Jews were NEVER expecting a man to claim YAHWEH (GOD)status. THAT WAS NOT A PART OF JEWISH TRADITION. They were expecting someone like King David to rule Israel. SURPRISE!

Again, so what?

Jews to this day don't except Jesus as the Messiah.

You should have said "many Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah." There are Messianic Jews that do accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Yes and it was blasphemous according to Jewish tradition where being a son of God is acceptable, but GOD? No.

And here your argument comes undone, by your own words. You are essentially conceding what I have said all along: that when Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, it carries a different meaning than when "sons of God" is used of humans.

The Jews knew what "sons of God" meant and weren't bothered by its use, as John 10:34-35 states. But they also knew that when Jesus used "Son of God" for himself, he was claiming equality with God, so they accused Jesus of blasphemy, as stated in John 10:33, 36.

Now take your own advice and study a little before you make comments that display your gross ignorance and lack of knowledge of history and world religion.

If you want to be immature in your debating, go somewhere else.

Have you no response to what I actually wrote?

[I am]

kalratri,

Hmm, now atleast I got you to admit that there's more than one of son of God...I'm getting there...better than before...

You're getting nowhere actually. Do not misconstrue what I say to fit what you believe. I made it clear that although the phrase "sons of God" is used of humans, it has a very different connotation than the phrase "Son of God" as it pertains to Jesus.

Now of course, Jesus said nothing of the sort that he is greater, he simply said "before Abraham was I"... in other words he attained higher than the founder of the Jews and ishmaelis, Abraham

You're twisting what the Bible says. Jesus clearly says "before Abraham was I am." As I pointed out earlier, the phrase "I am" is comes from Exodus 3:14:

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'""

Jesus is clearly using the name of God, which the Jews would have recognized, to make the distinction between the previous temporary existence of Abraham and his own eternal pre-existance. Jesus is God in the flesh, so only he can make such a claim. The Jews recognized this as claiming equality with God and picked up stones to stone Jesus.

Now please tell me where the BIble says "I and the father are one" from Jewish scriptures...that's a VERY HINDU THING TO SAY>..

Just because it appears to be something similar to something a Hindu would say doesn't mean that he was teaching Hindu philosophy.

Nah, you're just making that up...you're saying Jesus was a blasphemer AND Jewish ---one of them is wrong. Either Jesus wasn't Jewish since he goes further and actually says he is one with God, a very Hindu thing to say or he's Jewish and refuses to claim such a "blasphemous" thing. Which one is it?

I said that the Jews recognized Jesus' statement of equality with God. They recognized that he was claiming to be God, that is, Yahweh and so they accused him of blasphemy.

If you're not going to bother studying something that you seem to think you know lots about, then I'm not going to help you. Either study up on what I suggested or your opinion on the matter is useless.

SO WAS JESUS A HINDU THEN TO DARE TO CLAIM ONENESS WITH GOD?

Not at all, that is absurd. His teachings fly in the face of Hinduism. Jesus, being the Jewish Messiah, claimed to be one in essence and nature with God, that is, God in the flesh.

Gandalf,

history is only partially similar to this: history is about trying to find the most 'likely' facts for real world events; it uses a logic based system, but is still subjective....

I accept this and dont see any evidence that jesus went to india, however this issue is not just a secular historical one, it is also a belief issue which is a different ball game entirly in my view.

But if Jesus was a historical figure and history tries to find out the most likely facts, then we can know things about Jesus and what is most likely to be true about him. Although both history and theology can subjective, that doesn't mean that one cannot know anything obective about them.


fuji,

if there was a historical Jesus he either went to India to learn or was heavily influenced by religions/lifestyles of that region.

But that is the whole point: Jesus' teachings contradict the religions of the far east. Was he ignorant of them? Maybe not. Was he influenced by them? Unlikely.

Jesus quotes from a passage that has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which shows that he was a least in part familiar with the writings of the Essenes. Jesus was very much a Jew and this is reflected in his teachings.

fuji257,

God gave us the stars to look for signs according to genesis.

Can you provide the verse for this?

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live; the word from which WITCH was translated actually was from a word that referred to a person that assassinated people using poisons - - not Wiccans.

You might have in mind the Greek word pharmakeia, which is translated as "sorcery" or "witchcraft," but is likely referring to the administering of potions to induce abortion. However, it may also be used of one that mixes potions.

Also, your argument doesn't work because there are other words such as magos and periergos which are translated as "magician" and "magic," respectively.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12:

"10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. 12 "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you."

2 Chronicles 33:6, "He made his sons pass through the fire in the valley of Ben-hinnom; and he practiced witchcraft, used divination, practiced sorcery and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him {to anger.}"

Acts 19:19, "19 And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of everyone; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver."

Revelation 21:8, " 8 'But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.'"

If you stop blinding accepting what "the church" tells you to fill their collection plates and actually STUDY what the bible teaches, I believe you will be surprised at what is acceptable and what is not.

Four problems here. You are assuming that: (1) those who accept the Church's teachings accept them blindly, (2) the Church only says certain things to get money, (3) personal study will lead one to different conclusions than the Church's, and (4) your interpretation is correct and Christianity's is not.

How do you know that you are right and the Church, which has been around for 2000 years, is wrong?