- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by chessartistUmm...had you read the last post I addressed to you, you would have noticed that I am an atheist.
what is there to be surprised about about the doctrine of the trinity...it's as made up as your god is. of course i know what your belief of the trinity is. my point is it's another concept to baffle simple minds into thinking there is a god who wants people to worship out of fear.
I guess you're in awe of this concept of the trinity. show me something other than your fear of god and his punishment.
in reality fear is your only god
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by galveston75Hummm? I believe that this is what your saying here..Is it not?????????
""As I have been at pains to explain, however, Christians do not believe that Christ or the Apostles explicitly taught any such doctrine. Nor do they believe that it was taught by the Jews (Jesus Christ, after all, is supposed to be the ultimate prophet.)""
Hummm? I believe that this is what your saying here..Is it not?????????
The point here is tha ...[text shortened]... tp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/538274/Shamash
http://mikeblume.com/pagantr.htm
The point here is that is was not taught by them ever.
Actually, I am the judge of what my post is. I am not, in any way, arguing that the Trinity was not taught by Jesus. I believe, as I have argued before, that many teachings in the Bible substantially prove the Trinity. All I said, however, is that the Bible lacks an explicit teaching of the Trinity, that is, the word 'Trinity' is never used.
And any trinity of any form has it's roots from Babylon and Egypt wether you personally don't see or even read the facts.
Well, no. As I have said before, the examples from ancient civilisations are not really 'trinities', as Christians understand the word. You need to make a distinction between what is a triad and what is a trinity.
Again, I strongly recommend you look up the expression 'peer-reviewed'.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatan example of roman rule. the man called spartacus actually lived and fought against the romans and lost. he and the remaining soldiers several hundreds were all nailed to crosses and left to die a very slow death along the appian way road leading into rome as an example of people who went against roman rule. now you think if the romans thought jesus was a trouble maker spreading messages about a god who was going to deliver them into freedom they wouldn't think twice about nailing someone to a cross.
Generally I agree with you in this thread, but this point is not correct. Roman rule generally benefited the subject peoples and they were, again generally, fully aware of this. Roman rule was almost always a better deal for most people than the alternative, both in rights and opportunities.
edit - And in fact, the Roman authorities really didn' ...[text shortened]... My understanding is that they were pressed into it by the Sanhedrin - the Jewish authorities.
The story about barrabbas(?) is false as well. The romans never let people choose between 2 people, which one lived and which one was to die on a cross. totally false story.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by chessartistThe assumption here is that Romans and Roman law can be characterised as unified and homogeneous. They were not. The Jews themselves had been granted a number of exemptions from Roman law, for example, the religious obligations. It would not be surprising if the Jews did have a tradition of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover.
an example of roman rule. the man called spartacus actually lived and fought against the romans and lost. he and the remaining soldiers several hundreds were all nailed to crosses and left to die a very slow death along the appian way road leading into rome as an example of people who went against roman rule. now you think if the romans thought jesus was ...[text shortened]... ose between 2 people, which one lived and which one was to die on a cross. totally false story.
Anyway, according to the Gospels at least, Jesus did not claim to be God and the evangelists emphasise that Pilate could not find any legitimate reason to crucify Jesus (he is, rather, compelled by the crowds.) The Romans had no disagreement with him.
Originally posted by chessartistI never said the Romans were kind and lovely people. And they operated a slave economy, which is not very nice either. But the fact remains that they largely left the running of their vassal states to selected locals unless something went very wrong. According to the gospels (a weak source but the best we have) Jesus was arrested by Temple authorities, not Romans, was not found guilty initially under examination by either the Roman Prefect of Judea, Pilate or the puppet ruler of Galilee, Herod Antipas (who had incidentally not suppressed Jesus' movement prior to his arrest). That said, he was clearly sentenced to death under Roman law, not Jewish, so clarity in the issue remains obscured. The story of Barrabas is a difficult one to argue since it has no reference outside the gospels, but I don't see how you can conclude with such certainty that it is totally false.
an example of roman rule. the man called spartacus actually lived and fought against the romans and lost. he and the remaining soldiers several hundreds were all nailed to crosses and left to die a very slow death along the appian way road leading into rome as an example of people who went against roman rule. now you think if the romans thought jesus was ...[text shortened]... ose between 2 people, which one lived and which one was to die on a cross. totally false story.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatquick question. after jesus died and you believe he rose from the grave, how long was it before matthew, mark luke and john wrote their stories?
I never said the Romans were kind and lovely people. And they operated a slave economy, which is not very nice either. But the fact remains that they largely left the running of their vassal states to selected locals unless something went very wrong. According to the gospels (a weak source but the best we have) Jesus was arrested by Temple authori ...[text shortened]... he gospels, but I don't see how you can conclude with such certainty that it is totally false.
do you know?
Originally posted by chessartistYeah, I don't believe Jesus rose from the grave. Pretty sure Mark's gospel came first in around 70CE.
quick question. after jesus died and you believe he rose from the grave, how long was it before matthew, mark luke and john wrote their stories?
do you know?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by chessartistYou have to stop this assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be a Christian. And anyway, Christians are quite aware that the composition of the gospels was sometime after the death of Jesus. You are not exactly raising some superb, unknown objection.
quick question. after jesus died and you believe he rose from the grave, how long was it before matthew, mark luke and john wrote their stories?
do you know?
The Catholics teach heresy because Mary is not the way to the most high. Only Jesus. I agree with your perspective on money. Many preachers are money hungry vagabonds and they have turned the people of God into merchandise for their own profit, but they will be rewarded for their works. No-one forces you or anyone else to give anything when you go to church. You choose. At the end of the day, the false preachers aren't the only one to blame, if people would read their BIBLE and see what it says for themselves instead of believing the words of a man whose agenda they may not be sure about, the money hungry preachers would not find success.
The fool says in his heart there is not GOD, vile and corrupt are his ways. Not to sound harsh, but it is true. Scenario: Suppose you are standing on top of a building and you jump off believing there is no gravity. You will still plummet to your death. That is how it works with the most high whose son is Jesus Christ. He is not subject to your beliefs, you are subject to his. When you talk about God, you are talking about a being who is able to turn your heart any way to accomplish his will, and that is exactly what he is doing with the world leaders today who are pushing the New World Order. You see my friend, there is no escaping the will of God, all are subject to his monarchy.
Originally posted by Conrau KThe fool says in his heart there is not GOD, vile and corrupt are his ways. Not to sound harsh, but it is true. Scenario: Suppose you are standing on top of a building and you jump off believing there is no gravity. You will still plummet to your death. That is how it works with the most high whose son is Jesus Christ. He is not subject to your beliefs, you are subject to his. When you talk about God, you are talking about a being who is able to turn your heart any way to accomplish his will, and that is exactly what he is doing with the world leaders today who are pushing the New World Order. You see my friend, there is no escaping the will of God, all are subject to his monarchy.
Umm...had you read the last post I addressed to you, you would have noticed that I am an atheist.
GOD IS. No matter what you believe or what you may be inclined to accept. The heart testifies of the existence of God the father and his son Jesus Christ. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, regardless of whether I believe it or not, GOD is. Most of the people who say there is no GOD have never sought him and never will, so they hold their opinion from a perspective of ignorance. If anyone seeks GOD through Jesus Christ they will find out just how real he is, because you don't take the time to view both perspectives, you just ridicule and criticize the believers (who were just like you before they actually investigated this GOD and Jesus thing) you are left in the darkness of ignorance and blindness, mentally asleep and screaming blasphemies to the creator who is right in front of your face, but your eyes are closed so you cannot see him. If you don't believe in GOD through Jesus Christ, give me the reason, for in reason are you justified, but in chosen ignorance you are condemned.