Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 11:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.


What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.


Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass



Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.


Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

So?

Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

You write
"Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols." "

NO! Paul is the inconsistent one. Allow me to elaborate

The Source of Paul’s Theology
One might assume that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, but he didn’t. I’ve imagined going back in time to ask him what he thought it was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell me how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual answer to the question would be a long time arriving.

Paul wrote,
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother's womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.) This is from one of his best-known letters. He specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He bragged that his God, a character he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:
“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.) He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he bad-mouthed anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus). Moreover, Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,
“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.) The source of this was
“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.) Paul replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology. One of Paul’s main themes was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. He wrote,
“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.) However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself, is never explained in today’s Christian circles.
Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, (discussed in chapter 7) had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html).
I think Paul manufactured his Christ to counter the dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a political messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism, his own imagination, and maybe elsewhere (explained later.) He was clearly a master confabulator, inventing fictions and interpretations to support his own views. I don’t think any of his possible sources add any credibility to his theology.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He wouldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people who, judged by today’s standards, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.

You write
"Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law."

Agreed. Yet you don't understand the following. Paul just made it all up. I'll repeat that again slowly for your benefit. Paul… just… made… it… all… up. The "freedom" he talks about is the freedom from having to obey the dictates of the Jewish law.

Paul said that the key tenets of Judaism no longer existed. Jesus, Peter, James John and all the disciples of Jesus would've been repulsed by that thought. Being Jewish was all about obeying "the law"... "the law" that had allegedly been given to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai by God, to Moses. Ask any traditional Jew today about this and they'll tell you nothing has changed. Paul knew he couldn't change traditional Jewish thinking, so he let them be.

Paul was a "big picture" man. He wanted his version of Judaism spread throughout the Roman Empire. He knew he had to make that version attractive for Gentiles. So he said there was no need for circumcision, no need to follow the dietary kosher rules, no need to stop working on the sabbath, no need to marry only other Jews, and no need for the kingdom of Israel. He downplayed the importance of being Jewish and he downplayed the importance of the Temple in Jerusalem. He wanted everyone in the Empire obeying the government i.e. his Roman masters. He didn't want patriotic Jews causing trouble. The guy was a propagandist. He was employed by the Roman government to spread propaganda and to try to prevent a war. He was spectacularly unsuccessful, as a large-scale war broke out in Palestine in 66 CE. That war was inspired by messianic patriotic Jews such as the real Jesus (had been) and his followers. Paul was trying to undermine them.

Has the penny dropped for you yet?

If by penny dropped you mean to ask if I am confused as to why you are ignoring the body of my work that went point by point to show you where and why your arguement and exegesis completely failed, in favor at another red herring to try and take focous off your complete failure, then yes the penny has drop.

If you want to further this discussion I insist that you address the points I took time to make line by line as I did with you. otherwise I will take anyother red herring attempts to change the topic as your concession to this discussion.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 11:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 04:18 PM)Drich Wrote:  the accusation is well founded. The following is a sad attempt to try and save face by simply dumping references... The very next topic is a perfect example of that.


What you did here is simply dump a verse that half way supports your commentary, and just start spouting off whatever it is you 'think.'

This is the perfect example, and sums up the body of your 'work.' what you have left me above, is proof positive that you are completely ignorant of not only what the bible says but you are guilty of ignoring what you do not want to hear.

In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James, when in fact in verse 19 Paul clears says he did.

(Pay attention to how I pair my statement/Claim with a proper Primary source so that the opposition can not refute my rebuke) t
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

This is how you properly quote something, to support what you have said.. When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source. The two do not agree with each other. This is a 'reference dump.' A reference dump is based on a 'proof by verbosity' arguement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity
I can see it was your hope by just dumping a bunch of empty sources it would silence me... If that was your intent know it is about to go very bad for you.


Again empty commentary without source or reference. I am assuming it was your intention to pair this commentary with the source you mention in Gal, 1 and was hoping to build off of that. The problem there is two fold. One, your initial commentary did not match with the conclusions of the source material, and this sumation clearly does not support anything you have made claim to. So all of this can be dismissed with a "Shoo fly.'
Smartass



Which further proves what I said in the beginning, that Their is not one way to worship under Christianity.

He explains the the orginal 11 were needlessly binding themselves to the Law by making new converts go through the steps of Judaism first then convert to Christianity. Even though they themselves had witnessed a sucessful conversion without having to first go through said conversion (will quote the scripture later on in my response.)

No, The orginal disciples were interested in first honoring thier Jewish Heritage and then allowing one to convert to Christianity, while Paul preached a message of freedom from the law/Judaism.


Not true Paul was a Pharisee. Some even speculate that he was also a weaver/net/tent maker after He left the temple..

As a trained Prarisee He would have been able to do this if this was His goal, but as you pointed out in Galations Paul was seperating Himself from Judaism.

Then why did he preach those beliefs and made them accessiable to the Romans? It was the orginal 11 who preached of a salvation that excluded all non jewish people. That anyone who wanted salvation would have to be first become a Jew then a Christian. When Paul was able to preach a doctrine that had anyone (Jew or Gentile) come to God just as they were.

Absolutly not true. For the Jew He acted like and held fast to Jewish tradition to help them understand and ease into freedom from the Law as a means to righteousness, but for the gentile He acted as if He were free from the law so that He could bring salvation to them.

1Cor 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law,[c] that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God,[d] but under law toward Christ[e]), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as[f] weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.


Laugh out load
14 Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.[g] 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 17 Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient— 19 in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”[h]

You know when you read only the snipit you isolated from the actual context you have a valid point. But, when one looks at the whole context of that passage it shows that at best your being intentionally deceptive.

So?

Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols."
In romans 14:14-20
Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law.
Followed by 1 cor 8 (the whole chapter) and 1 cor 10:23-33

It seems like EVERYTHING you know and have said about Paul is completely untrue to this point... Almost like you've ONLY read a few websites who's views were slanted against paul, and you've just piled on your own empty thoughts... Otherwise you would have seen at least one or two of the passages I have pointed out that disproves your personal version of the anti Paul/God commentary you have been spouting thus far. So tell me again of that decade long study you immersed yourself with on this subject..Rolleyes

Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter
The lift of Dietary restrictions:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV start at verse 9.

The lift of the bann of circumcision was also first instituted by peter in Chapter 10 as well:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
The Jewish converts believed all who were saved through Christ must first be a Jew. (That it what it identifies them as those of the circumcision)

Then as peter preached they were endowed by the Holy Spirit. It was because the Same Holy Spirit indewelled the Apstoles indewelled the GENTILES Peter declared them saved, and had them baptized in the Church.

The change of the Sabbath to the first day of the week was spear headed by Peter as he taught the first church service on sunday. Here are the other reason we worship on sunday as well:
Jesus rose on the first day of the week not the Sabbath: Mk 16:9
All 6 appearances of Jesus happen on two Sundays, none on Sabbath. Mk 16:9; Mt 28:5-9; Lk 24:34; Lk 24:13-15; Lk 24:33,36 + Jn 20:19; Jn 20:26
Christians are recorded assembling three times on Sunday after resurrection and before ascension, never on the Sabbath. Jn 20:19 Jn 20:26 Acts 2:1 (We do not claim that these were worship services, just the early starting point of Sunday gatherings)
The only time Christians are recorded to have assembled together was on a Sunday in Acts 20:7, never does it say the disciples assembled on the Sabbath.
The only day ever mentioned when Christians broke bread was on Sunday: Acts 20:7
Christians are commanded every Sunday to give into a common treasury of the church: 1 Cor 16:1-2
Jesus was declared the Son of God on Sunday: Rom 1:4
Ps 2:7 "Today I have begotten thee" was fulfilled on Sunday when he rose: Acts 13:33
The sign that Jesus was glorified was given on Sunday: Jn 7:39 + Acts 2:1,32
The church officially began on Pentecost Sunday: Acts 2:1
Jesus was crowned king on a Sunday: Acts 2:33-36
The disciples reception of the promise of the Father on Sunday: Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit first fell upon the apostles on a Sunday: Acts 2:1-4
Salvation first preached by Peter on Sunday: Mt 16:19; Acts 2:1,38,40-41
The Keys to the Kingdom of God were first used on Sunday: Mt 16:19
The great "Triumphal entry" (also called "Palm Sunday") happened on the first day: Luke 13:32
The time between the Lord's resurrection (sheaf waving day) and Pentecost was Sunday to Sunday counting of 50 days. The starting and stopping time was on the 1st day.
First time Jesus worshiped after resurrection was on the first day by Thomas (Jn. 20:26).
The first time we could be born again to a living hope was on a Sunday: 1 Pet. 1:3
The first time Jesus had communion after his resurrection with His disciples, was on a Sunday: (Lk. 24:1, 13, 28-35)
Pentecost was a Sunday - Sunday duration of 50 days. The starting point and stopping point of counting the 50 days was a Sunday - Sunday period!
http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-significanc...stians.htm


Again empty commentary with out proper documentation.

Flat out not true. Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body.

Again How do you not know this stuff? Or is it your hope by the simple verbosity of your reply i would not read your misrepersentation of Scripture/Christianity?

Again Everything to this point has been across the board flat out untrue. It seems you have little to NO Understanding of biblical Christianity.

Without source material your commentary can be dismissed as wishful thinking.. Shoo fly..

All of this is at BEST is tertiary source material, that MAY only loosly reference secondary source material. The VAST Majority of it is empty conjecture and pointless commentary based on personal 'feeling' and general hatred of christianity..

That like quoting a Nazi propagandist about Jewish culture and history as a legitmate source material.. You can't be seriously present this hot mess as anything other than a joke right? Or do you really not know any better?Drinking Beverage

You write
"Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter" ( I think you must mean "you're"....your editor must be dyslexic too!)

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!
We have not one authentic word written by Peter the disciple of Jesus. As mentioned, the only primary sources we have from this time on the topic are the writings of Paul. You go on in some depth quoting the gospels and the book of Acts in an attempt to justify your beliefs about Peter. Stop for a moment and think about the historical reality.

Peter, if he ever even existed, was a peasant Galilean fisherman. He spoke Aramaic. He couldn't read or write. He was bought up as a Jew. He would've hated the Romans. If there's any truth to the Garden of Gethsemane story he cut off someone's ear when a cohort of soldiers came to arrest Jesus. His main man, jesus, was knocked off by the Romans for being a political insurgent. Peter was left behind in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' brother, James, who was a fundamentalist Jew (just like his brother.) We know from Paul's writings that he argued with Paul. Despite what the Vatican claims there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he ever went to Rome. So Peter was a peasant fundamentalist Jew, just like Jesus. and not a Christian.

The first gospel, Mark's, was probably written at the earliest in the 70s, and Peter was probably dead by then. This Gospel was interpolated for many centuries afterwards. There is no valid connection between the Gospel of Mark and the Nazarene community. The other gospels added their own floss to the story of Mark. My point is that the gospels are unreliable as history. You can quote them as much as you like and pretend to yourself that it's all true but that doesn't make it so. I don't believe anything the gospels say about Peter.

The book of Acts is even worse. It's an early second century invention, also with an unknown author, and one who had no known connection with the genuine Nazarene community. The book of Acts was written primarily as propaganda to create some sort of connection between the Jewish Nazarenes and Paul's prattle. For example, the author of Acts wrote that Peter
“fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things and birds of the air. And a voice came to him: ’Now Peter; kill and eat!’ but Peter answered, ‘Certainly not, Lord; I have never yet eaten anything profane or unclean.’ Again a second time, the voice spoke to him: ‘What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane.’ This was repeated three times and then suddenly the container was drawn up into heaven again” (Acts 10:11–16, NJB.) The only person who could have told anyone about these visions was Peter himself, and he would hardly have admitted he questioned Yahweh! This was a bumbling attempt to portray that Yahweh told Peter, a Jew, how to be a good Christian by giving up his kosher diet. The obstinate Peter needed to be told three times, by God! Those damn Jews, even those who’d (allegedly) become Christians, were sticklers for tradition!

I don't believe anything that Acts claims about Peter is history.
You are now also a hypocrite, for you have appealed to a Doubble standard to make your arguement. you were using and quoting the bible to build a profile for Paul, but when anyone elses attempts to use the same standard you used to build your arguement you are now saying it is no longer a valid standard.

Look old sport if you can't hang into a topical conversation just stop responding. I wont come after you. It's when you make foolish statement like the post I am responding to, that I feel almost obligated to point out your folly.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 09:04 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 08:59 AM)Drich Wrote:  You are now also a hypocrite, for you have appealed to a Doubble standard to make your arguement. you were using and quoting the bible to build a profile for Paul, but when anyone elses attempts to use the same standard you used to build your arguement you are now saying it is no longer a valid standard.

Oh, you precious thing. Do you ever even approach coherence?

Let's consider this:
(21-03-2014 08:59 AM)Drich Wrote:  you were using and quoting the bible to build a profile for Paul, but when anyone elses attempts to use the same standard you used to build your arguement you are now saying it is no longer a valid standard.

Shucks. That sounds like exactly what you just did. Funny, that.

You appear not to have learned what I graciously told you a week ago:
(14-03-2014 07:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 06:15 AM)Drich Wrote:  ... as I've seen your tired arguement (in better form) before. It's all conjecture and speculation without source material.

It's okay if you don't agree with him.

But the sources he has based his opinions on are the same freaking texts themselves. He has precisely the same source material Christians do.

So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-03-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 08:59 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 11:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You write
"Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter" ( I think you must mean "you're"....your editor must be dyslexic too!)

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!
We have not one authentic word written by Peter the disciple of Jesus. As mentioned, the only primary sources we have from this time on the topic are the writings of Paul. You go on in some depth quoting the gospels and the book of Acts in an attempt to justify your beliefs about Peter. Stop for a moment and think about the historical reality.

Peter, if he ever even existed, was a peasant Galilean fisherman. He spoke Aramaic. He couldn't read or write. He was bought up as a Jew. He would've hated the Romans. If there's any truth to the Garden of Gethsemane story he cut off someone's ear when a cohort of soldiers came to arrest Jesus. His main man, jesus, was knocked off by the Romans for being a political insurgent. Peter was left behind in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' brother, James, who was a fundamentalist Jew (just like his brother.) We know from Paul's writings that he argued with Paul. Despite what the Vatican claims there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he ever went to Rome. So Peter was a peasant fundamentalist Jew, just like Jesus. and not a Christian.

The first gospel, Mark's, was probably written at the earliest in the 70s, and Peter was probably dead by then. This Gospel was interpolated for many centuries afterwards. There is no valid connection between the Gospel of Mark and the Nazarene community. The other gospels added their own floss to the story of Mark. My point is that the gospels are unreliable as history. You can quote them as much as you like and pretend to yourself that it's all true but that doesn't make it so. I don't believe anything the gospels say about Peter.

The book of Acts is even worse. It's an early second century invention, also with an unknown author, and one who had no known connection with the genuine Nazarene community. The book of Acts was written primarily as propaganda to create some sort of connection between the Jewish Nazarenes and Paul's prattle. For example, the author of Acts wrote that Peter
“fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things and birds of the air. And a voice came to him: ’Now Peter; kill and eat!’ but Peter answered, ‘Certainly not, Lord; I have never yet eaten anything profane or unclean.’ Again a second time, the voice spoke to him: ‘What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane.’ This was repeated three times and then suddenly the container was drawn up into heaven again” (Acts 10:11–16, NJB.) The only person who could have told anyone about these visions was Peter himself, and he would hardly have admitted he questioned Yahweh! This was a bumbling attempt to portray that Yahweh told Peter, a Jew, how to be a good Christian by giving up his kosher diet. The obstinate Peter needed to be told three times, by God! Those damn Jews, even those who’d (allegedly) become Christians, were sticklers for tradition!

I don't believe anything that Acts claims about Peter is history.
You are now also a hypocrite, for you have appealed to a Doubble standard to make your arguement. you were using and quoting the bible to build a profile for Paul, but when anyone elses attempts to use the same standard you used to build your arguement you are now saying it is no longer a valid standard.

Look old sport if you can't hang into a topical conversation just stop responding. I wont come after you. It's when you make foolish statement like the post I am responding to, that I feel almost obligated to point out your folly.

[Image: 1337300600284.png]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-03-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(20-03-2014 11:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you write
"Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body."

Oh come on, please get real and grow up!

The Last Supper

Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) when in the first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. He had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. He used a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, and even claimed to quote him, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together.
“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord.
Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What’s surprising is that he acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person ate and drank with others; nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation.
There are three compelling reasons why this story isn’t historical.

No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/dad. Yeshua would have had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners.
Absolutly not true. If you found the passage in 1cor concerning the establishment of the New covenant by paul that same google search would have also pointed to the gospel accounts of Jesus actually telling his disciples He was indeed establishing a new covenant.
Luke 22:
14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve[a] apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the[b] new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Mat 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[b] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, [b]“This is My blood of the new[c] covenant, which is shed for many.


Quote:He was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah. To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules.
"New Covenant" New rules. In 3 of the Gospel accounts Christ Himself has been recorded in say he will establish a new covenant.


Quote:Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Yeshua would’ve been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.
Which is the purpose and intent of the OP to state that Christians are still bound by the laws of Judaism. We are not as we are two completely seperate religions.

Quote:This Last Supper scene wasn’t something new. It was borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. Mithraic initiates believed that by eating a bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm). This was supposed to give physical strength, and bring salvation to the soul. Yeshua wouldn’t have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, made this up to mimic a popular pagan practice.
Ah, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_...ef_systems

Mithraism closest link to Christianity concerning blood is here:
A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum (c A.D. 200)[24] in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti (?) . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this text is unclear, although presumably it refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. However the servasti is only a conjecture.[25] According to Robert Turcan,[26] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil.[27]

Which puts it's belief 200 years after Christianity.

Quote:The synoptic Gospels have similar verses, and their inspiration was probably Paul’s letter.

The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Masses in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, yet it has no truthful basis.
Here is another example of your Hyprocriful double standard. You have on many occasions tried to use scripture to define the attributes of Paul and his beliefs and in every instance have no problems quoting large sections of the bible. But as soon as the bible can be used to refute your untruths, you comically march out some lame reason to dismiss a whole book.. Dude you have to be a Poe.

Quote:Christianity blends guilt, dependence and ceremony.
Nuupe. Biblical Christianity is freedom from guilt, dependence and cermony.

Quote:The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you’re a sinner.
Again out and out lie. Christ in 3 seperate books established this cermony Himself. Paul simply follow His teachings.

The Index: A/S/K Ask Seek Knock as outlined by Luke 11:5-13
Ot Old testament
Nt New testament
H/S Holy Spirit

If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 07:28 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 08:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, congratulations on actually reading my post. And, you've even made an attempt to address some of the comments I've made! Nice to see you're not being so lazy. However it's a bit disappointing to see you're still resorting to making general derogatory comments without being specific. I guess you need to vent. Your spelling and grammar is a little improved, but is still way below par. If you are using an editor you need to get a new one.

I'll respond to the specific points you've made, but I won't response to your ad hominems because it's pointless, and boring for anyone else to have to read.

You write
"In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James,"

I assume you mean "on and on."
I DID NOT say "jesus did not see James." In fact I made the point they were brothers. What I did say was that the author of James, that is the book in the bible, says nothing about what Jesus said or did, and that that is an extraordinary fact.

You wrote
"When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source."
This comment doesn't make sense. Get a new editor.

You wrote
"Again empty commentary without source or reference." in reference to my comment
"Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written
yet"

I don't need to reference anyone because
- it's a fact that the author of James never mentions Jesus.
- it's a fact that in all of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul, he never mentions Jesus' miracles, sayings or deeds (with the exception of one section. where he talks about what Jesus allegedly said at the Last Supper; this is almost certainly an interpolation) You claim to know your bible backwards... I challenge you to prove me wrong.
-it is a fact that Paul's epistles were written well before the Gospels.
I have assumed that most people already know these well-established facts...you obviously didn't.

To be continued...

Wow, you really are lost, or your desperatly hoping I'll bite on this red herring your using to try and redirect to topic with.

Sorry old Sport I see a chance for you to eat some crow before your peers (the ones who think so highly of you,) and I am going to make you eat it.

I quoted the passage in gal 1: 15-20 the SAME Passage that you used to make the claim that 'Paul went to Jeruselem and never spoke with James the Brother of Jesus.'

From that statement I pointed out that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE PASSAGE YOU QUOTED FROM!!! because in verse 9 in that block of scripture Paul clearly says James the 1/2 brother of Christ was one of the only 12 apstoles he did indeed speak with.

The greater point I made in post 91 is that this sloppy exegesis of scripture is just one instance of your misuse and misquoting of the rest of the bible. In fact every single time you attempted to quote or reference the bible in post 74 you misquote or intentionally ignore context or you out and out LIE about what scripture states. I went line by line providing you with the full context of the word and have shown you where your arguement has failed..

What was your response? Personal attack, an attempt at a broad brush dismissal stating that my efforts were ad hoc or ad hom attacks, and your crowning fail was this indepth appeal to a red herring (about James letter not containing gospel content.)
Which btw is easily defeated by pointing out James' letter was not a gospel account, but a letter of correction to a specific church. Once a church as been established what is the point of re-establishing the gospel? If you were the president's brother would you everything you said or did reference that fact? would every letter you write contain information about the president?

Oh, you've come back for more. Goody!

You write

"Sorry old Sport I see a chance for you to eat some crow before your peers (the ones who think so highly of you,) and I am going to make you eat it.
I quoted the passage in gal 1: 15-20 the SAME Passage that you used to make the claim that 'Paul went to Jeruselem and never spoke with James the Brother of Jesus.'
From that statement I pointed out that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE PASSAGE YOU QUOTED FROM!!! because in verse 9 in that block of scripture Paul clearly says James the 1/2 brother of Christ was one of the only 12 apstoles he did indeed speak with."

I've already explained to you I said nothing of the sort. In fact this is exactly what I wrote (from post 79)
"Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter."

I was making the point that after he claimed Christ was revealed to him he says he immediately shot off to Arabia...a very strange thing to do. Let me explain it to you again. Read the following S...L...O...W...L...Y

Paul didn't give a fig tree about the details of Jesus’ life, family, miracles or his teachings. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamin...not-much/, http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm). The only thing that mattered to him was that a Christ was crucified and resurrected. Paul rambled on and on about the supposed significance of Christ's death and resurrection, not about the details of Christ’s life. Consider Galatians:
“Then god who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I might preach the Good News about him to the pagans. I did not stop to discuss this with any human being nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were already apostles before me, but I went off to Arabia at once and later went straight back from there to Damascus. Even when after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days, I did not see any of the other apostles; I only saw James, the brother of the Lord, and I swear before God that what I have just written is the literal truth” (Gal. 1:15–20, NJB.) After God “called” him, he more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d thought Yeshua was the son of God, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, Jesus’ brother, and Peter and Mary, two of his close associates. He should have been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Yet he very obviously wasn’t. Something more important enticed him to Arabia. In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers. Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, and there is definitely something very odd about the way he casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples. I think this is more strong circumstantial evidence that Yeshua never was Paul’s Christ.

So...Paul gets his Christ revealed to him, doesn't go to Jerusalem, pisses off to Arabia for 3 years, comes back and meets only Peter and James. Surely even you can follow this. Surely even you can understand that it is odd behaviour for someone who allegedly thought Jesus was the son of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 05:19 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 07:28 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 08:22 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, congratulations on actually reading my post. And, you've even made an attempt to address some of the comments I've made! Nice to see you're not being so lazy. However it's a bit disappointing to see you're still resorting to making general derogatory comments without being specific. I guess you need to vent. Your spelling and grammar is a little improved, but is still way below par. If you are using an editor you need to get a new one.

I'll respond to the specific points you've made, but I won't response to your ad hominems because it's pointless, and boring for anyone else to have to read.

You write
"In the example above you go one and on for a few sentences about how Jesus did not see James,"

I assume you mean "on and on."
I DID NOT say "jesus did not see James." In fact I made the point they were brothers. What I did say was that the author of James, that is the book in the bible, says nothing about what Jesus said or did, and that that is an extraordinary fact.

You wrote
"When you 'quoted' Gal 1:15-20 you paired your own personal commentary, with an actual a source."
This comment doesn't make sense. Get a new editor.

You wrote
"Again empty commentary without source or reference." in reference to my comment
"Interestingly, the author of the epistle of James, who may have been Jesus’ brother, also neglected to document a single fact about Jesus. Neither Paul or James knew Jesus was going to become a hero-figure…because the gospels hadn’t been written
yet"

I don't need to reference anyone because
- it's a fact that the author of James never mentions Jesus.
- it's a fact that in all of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul, he never mentions Jesus' miracles, sayings or deeds (with the exception of one section. where he talks about what Jesus allegedly said at the Last Supper; this is almost certainly an interpolation) You claim to know your bible backwards... I challenge you to prove me wrong.
-it is a fact that Paul's epistles were written well before the Gospels.
I have assumed that most people already know these well-established facts...you obviously didn't.

To be continued...

Wow, you really are lost, or your desperatly hoping I'll bite on this red herring your using to try and redirect to topic with.

Sorry old Sport I see a chance for you to eat some crow before your peers (the ones who think so highly of you,) and I am going to make you eat it.

I quoted the passage in gal 1: 15-20 the SAME Passage that you used to make the claim that 'Paul went to Jeruselem and never spoke with James the Brother of Jesus.'

From that statement I pointed out that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ THE PASSAGE YOU QUOTED FROM!!! because in verse 9 in that block of scripture Paul clearly says James the 1/2 brother of Christ was one of the only 12 apstoles he did indeed speak with.

The greater point I made in post 91 is that this sloppy exegesis of scripture is just one instance of your misuse and misquoting of the rest of the bible. In fact every single time you attempted to quote or reference the bible in post 74 you misquote or intentionally ignore context or you out and out LIE about what scripture states. I went line by line providing you with the full context of the word and have shown you where your arguement has failed..

What was your response? Personal attack, an attempt at a broad brush dismissal stating that my efforts were ad hoc or ad hom attacks, and your crowning fail was this indepth appeal to a red herring (about James letter not containing gospel content.)
Which btw is easily defeated by pointing out James' letter was not a gospel account, but a letter of correction to a specific church. Once a church as been established what is the point of re-establishing the gospel? If you were the president's brother would you everything you said or did reference that fact? would every letter you write contain information about the president?

You write
"In fact every single time you attempted to quote or reference the bible in post 74 you misquote or intentionally ignore context or you out and out LIE about what scripture states."

I don't quote the Bible once in post 74. Sloppy, Drich, sloppy.

You write
"and your crowning fail was this indepth appeal to a red herring (about James letter not containing gospel content.)
Which btw is easily defeated by pointing out James' letter was not a gospel account, but a letter of correction to a specific church. Once a church as been established what is the point of re-establishing the gospel? If you were the president's brother would you everything you said or did reference that fact? would every letter you write contain information about the president?"

You're sadly lacking in your knowledge of the times. There were no churches in the 40s 50s and 60s. Christianity had barely been invented other than in the fertile pastures of Paul's over imaginative mind. James was not a Christian, he was a devout Jew, just as his brother Jesus had been.

Let's discuss the book of James and let people come to their own conclusions...

James’ Letter (The Epistle of James)

Many Christians aren’t aware that Yeshua’s brother may have his very own letter in the bible. Yet it’s there, tucked inconspicuously under the thirteen letters attributed to Paul.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims there’s no doubt who the author was:
“Internal evidence (contents of the Epistle, its style, address, date, and place of composition) points unmistakably to James, the Lord’s brother, the Bishop of Jerusalem, as the author; he exactly, and he alone, fulfils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle.” Yet it’s surprising that the authors acknowledge James was Jesus’ brother here, when it’s denied elsewhere in the same publication by calling him Jesus’ cousin. They call James a bishop, thereby implying he was a Christian, which he most definitely wasn’t. There’s never been a Jewish bishop. Nor did Christian bishops exist anywhere until (at earliest) the 90’s CE, thirty years after James died.

I don’t think we can be sure Yeshua’s brother wrote James’ letter, but even if he didn’t, it’s from an early Jewish source, so one probably close to Yeshua. Many scholars date it to about 60 CE, (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html) although the Catholic Encyclopedia states “about A.D. 47.”

The letter is addressed to the twelve Jewish tribes of the dispersion, so was to be distributed outside Jerusalem. It has a mildly authoritarian tone, as one would expect from a leader. The author doesn’t mention the word “church.” The communities he wrote to (outside Jerusalem) worshipped in synagogues:
“Now suppose a man comes into your synagogue…” (James 2:2, NJB.)

James says nothing about his famous brother’s exploits. He doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. Let’s imagine ourselves in James’ sandals. If you thought your brother, or your close associate, was a miracle working son of God, and you knew he’d risen from the dead, there wouldn’t be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter isn’t, because he didn’t believe bullshit about Jesus.
He was a pious Jew. A central theme of the letter is that it’s important to obey “the Law.”
“You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all” (James 2:10 JB.)
“But the man who looks steadily at the perfect law of freedom and makes that his habit - not listening and then forgetting, but actively putting it into practice - will be happy in all that he does” (James 1:25 JB.) He was referring to the Jewish Law, which the Jerusalem bible admits in a footnote. This is the opposite of Paul’s proposition that salvation is secured by releasing oneself from obedience to the Law, an admission also admitted in another footnote.

James wrote that faith was pointless without good works:
“Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has never done a single good act but claims that he has faith. Will that faith save him? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty’, without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? Faith is like that: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead” (James 2:14–17, NJB.) He emphasized the importance of action:
“If there are any wise or learned men among you, let them show it by their good lives, with humility and wisdom in their actions” (James 3:13, NJB.) It’s obvious James had heard Paul’s preaching about faith, and quite rightly rebutted it as nonsense.

Consider the following:
“Remember this, my dear brothers, be quick to listen but slow to speak and slow to rouse your temper, God’s righteousness is never served by man’s anger.” (James 1:19–20, NJB.) James was cut from a different cloth to the self righteous, often angry Paul, a man who rarely listened to others.

James wrote
“Above all, my brothers, do not swear by heaven or by earth, or use any oaths at all. If you mean ‘yes,’ you must say ‘yes;’ if you mean ‘no,’ say ‘no’. Otherwise you make yourselves liable to judgment” (James 5:12, NJB.) This is refreshingly real, although one might hope to hear something a little more profound from the brother of the son of God!

The author of James believed in Jewish scripture. He didn’t tolerate hypocrisy. He had some almost socialist ideals, which one would expect from a pious Essene. Yeshua may have believed something similar.

There’s nothing to suggest an anti-Roman stance, but the letter may have been edited. It’s also possible James knew that if any anti-Roman literature found its way into the government’s hands he’d suffer the same fate as John and Yeshua.

James’ letter only just made it into the canon. In the fourth century, its status was disputed. Augustine and Jerome accepted it very reluctantly, so probably others couldn’t ignore the connection with Yeshua.

Martin Luther thought the letter had little doctrinal value because it so blatantly contradicted Paul’s teachings. Paul was Luther’s hero. He called James’ letter “an Epistle of straw.” (http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_ canon.htm). He clearly had a very limited understanding of the real history. Modern readers have the benefit of another 500 years of scholarship.

References:
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/siljampe.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ebionites/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej_Z3sTZ6PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 05:47 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 08:54 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 11:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You write
"Again, your commentary/thoughts are not consistant with what Paul taught or preached. In addition to 1cor 9 where Paul tells us to the Jew he acted and work with them under the law (which is in direct contradiction to what you have claimed) Paul also talks about "eating Meat offered to idols." "

NO! Paul is the inconsistent one. Allow me to elaborate

The Source of Paul’s Theology
One might assume that Paul had a legitimate and verifiable source for his hypotheses, but he didn’t. I’ve imagined going back in time to ask him what he thought it was. He got anxious when his credibility was questioned, so his answer would be intense. He frequently wrote at length about himself, so he’d probably tell me how hard he works, how genuine he is, how he’s suffered for his beliefs, and how sure he is that what he preaches is the truth. The actual answer to the question would be a long time arriving.

Paul wrote,
“The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this, the Good News I preached is not a human message that I was given by men, it is something I learned only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. You must have heard of my career as a practicing Jew, how merciless I was in persecuting the Church of God, how much damage I did to it, how I stood out among other Jews of my generation, and how enthusiastic I was for the traditions of my ancestors. Then God, who had specifically chosen me while I was still in my mother's womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his son in me, so that I may preach the Good News about him to the pagans” (Gal. 1:11–24, NJB.) This is from one of his best-known letters. He specifically stated that the message he preached came not from human sources, but from God, “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

This was not the only occasion he said God inspired him;
“I, Paul, appointed by God to be an apostle” (1 Cor. 1:1, NJB) and
“But our sufficiency is from God” (2 Cor. 3:5 NKJB.)

What he meant was that he thought he had a God given talent enabling him to interpret scripture. That was, after all, the job description for a Pharisee. He bragged that his God, a character he thought he had a special relationship with, was the source of his “Good News.” That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but today we can read any number of over imaginative accounts from people who also claim, without evidence, that they’ve talked to God. Some of them are mentally unwell. Paul had no more credibility than them.

Paul took things one step further than his more traditional colleagues when interpreting scripture. He thought he alone had a divine mandate from God. Consider the opening lines of his letter to the Romans:
“From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus who has been called to be an apostle, and specially chosen to preach the Good News that God promised long ago through his prophets in the scriptures” (Rom. 1:1–3, NJB.) He promoted himself as a uniquely special interpreter of scripture, and he bad-mouthed anyone who happened to disagree with him (see 1 Corinthians 15:1–3, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...sion=KJV).

Yet Jewish scholars are adamant that Paul’s “good news” isn’t in scripture. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...f-tarsus). Moreover, Paul often changed the meaning of scripture to suit himself. For example, he wrote,
“so that all beings in the heavens, on earth and in the underworld, should bend the knee at the name of Jesus and that every tongue should acclaim Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of the Father” (Phil. 2:10–11, NJB.) The source of this was
“Before me every knee shall bend, by me every tongue shall swear, saying ‘From Yahweh alone come victory and strength.’” (Isa. 45:23–24, NJB.) Paul replaced Yahweh with Christ, to fit with his own manufactured theology. One of Paul’s main themes was that Gentiles could be God’s special people too. He wrote,
“Well, we are those people; whether we were Jews or pagans we are the ones he has called. That is exactly what God says in Hosea: ‘I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘you are my people,’ and to a nation I never loved ‘I love you’” (Rom. 9:24, NJB.) However a reading of chapters one and two of Hosea (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=KJV) reveals that “God” wasn’t referring to Gentiles, but Jews whom he was accepting back under his wing after a misdemeanor. Paul changed the meaning of scripture to sell his own story to Gentiles living in Rome.

Just why “God” would need to talk to Paul via “a revelation of Jesus Christ,” when Jesus could speak for himself, is never explained in today’s Christian circles.
Mithras, the pagan god of an ancient Persian cult, (discussed in chapter 7) had remarkable similarities with Paul’s Christ, and Paul’s home town was a major center of Mithraic belief. (http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...ism.html).
I think Paul manufactured his Christ to counter the dreams of the Nazarenes, who were hoping for a political messiah.

Paul’s theology was the product of a complex mishmash of concepts from other cults, innovative interpretations of Jewish scripture, his personal ambitions, his desire to undermine messianic Judaism, his own imagination, and maybe elsewhere (explained later.) He was clearly a master confabulator, inventing fictions and interpretations to support his own views. I don’t think any of his possible sources add any credibility to his theology.

He must have known he was fabricating, but didn’t let that niggle at his conscience. He was on a mission to snare converts, and the end justified the means. I suspect the more he thought and talked about the divinity of Christ, his sacrificial death, and his resurrection, the more real and useful these ideas became to him. I think it either didn’t bother him, or he wasn’t aware, that his ideas were fundamentally odd. He wouldn’t have wasted time questioning his own themes. He was too busy for that, too obsessed with winning people over. He wouldn’t have known his letters would one day be critically examined and compared with each other.

He was preaching and writing to people who, judged by today’s standards, were naïve, unsophisticated, isolated, and unread. Most of them would have had Paul’s epistles read to them. A well-written letter must have been impressive. When he appeared in person he was probably a self-righteous and confident teacher, which would have been enough to give him some credibility. He presumed his readers would be impressed by his claims that God inspired him, yet there’s clearly no objective reason why modern readers should be.

You write
"Also note the Larger message of Romans 14 is to not allow one's freedoms in Christ obstruct the faith of a weaker brother who need bind himself to the Law."

Agreed. Yet you don't understand the following. Paul just made it all up. I'll repeat that again slowly for your benefit. Paul… just… made… it… all… up. The "freedom" he talks about is the freedom from having to obey the dictates of the Jewish law.

Paul said that the key tenets of Judaism no longer existed. Jesus, Peter, James John and all the disciples of Jesus would've been repulsed by that thought. Being Jewish was all about obeying "the law"... "the law" that had allegedly been given to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai by God, to Moses. Ask any traditional Jew today about this and they'll tell you nothing has changed. Paul knew he couldn't change traditional Jewish thinking, so he let them be.

Paul was a "big picture" man. He wanted his version of Judaism spread throughout the Roman Empire. He knew he had to make that version attractive for Gentiles. So he said there was no need for circumcision, no need to follow the dietary kosher rules, no need to stop working on the sabbath, no need to marry only other Jews, and no need for the kingdom of Israel. He downplayed the importance of being Jewish and he downplayed the importance of the Temple in Jerusalem. He wanted everyone in the Empire obeying the government i.e. his Roman masters. He didn't want patriotic Jews causing trouble. The guy was a propagandist. He was employed by the Roman government to spread propaganda and to try to prevent a war. He was spectacularly unsuccessful, as a large-scale war broke out in Palestine in 66 CE. That war was inspired by messianic patriotic Jews such as the real Jesus (had been) and his followers. Paul was trying to undermine them.

Has the penny dropped for you yet?

If by penny dropped you mean to ask if I am confused as to why you are ignoring the body of my work that went point by point to show you where and why your arguement and exegesis completely failed, in favor at another red herring to try and take focous off your complete failure, then yes the penny has drop.

If you want to further this discussion I insist that you address the points I took time to make line by line as I did with you. otherwise I will take anyother red herring attempts to change the topic as your concession to this discussion.

"If by penny dropped you mean to ask if I am confused as to why you are ignoring the body of my work that went point by point to show you where and why your arguement and exegesis completely failed,"

I made it very clear why your multiple quotes from the gospels and the book of Acts about Peter's supposed role in the early Christian Church were not historical. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the book of Acts and the gospels were products of the Roman catholic church. They were written many years after Peter allegedly lived and there is no proven connection between the real Jesus/Peter and what's written in them. The Gospels and Acts are faith documents written to encourage people to join the new cult. They cannot be relied on as history. We can however deduce some real history from the writings of Paul as he was a major player in the events well after Jesus' death i.e. in the 50's and early 60's.

The penny that I hope drops for you is that Jesus, John the Baptist, James, Jesus' family and his disciples were all fundamentalist Jews, implacably opposed to the Gentile world represented by Paul and also therefore implacably opposed to the fabricated nonsense that became Christianity. This means that the very basis of your nonsense religion has no foundation based in reality.

If I'm not addressing what you're referring to, please quote the post number (and try to get that right) and I'll answer you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 05:49 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 08:59 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 11:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You write
"Either your a practice fool who pretends to be something he is not or your a liar.
Paul was not the one who did any of these things. It was Peter" ( I think you must mean "you're"....your editor must be dyslexic too!)

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!
We have not one authentic word written by Peter the disciple of Jesus. As mentioned, the only primary sources we have from this time on the topic are the writings of Paul. You go on in some depth quoting the gospels and the book of Acts in an attempt to justify your beliefs about Peter. Stop for a moment and think about the historical reality.

Peter, if he ever even existed, was a peasant Galilean fisherman. He spoke Aramaic. He couldn't read or write. He was bought up as a Jew. He would've hated the Romans. If there's any truth to the Garden of Gethsemane story he cut off someone's ear when a cohort of soldiers came to arrest Jesus. His main man, jesus, was knocked off by the Romans for being a political insurgent. Peter was left behind in Jerusalem under the leadership of Jesus' brother, James, who was a fundamentalist Jew (just like his brother.) We know from Paul's writings that he argued with Paul. Despite what the Vatican claims there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he ever went to Rome. So Peter was a peasant fundamentalist Jew, just like Jesus. and not a Christian.

The first gospel, Mark's, was probably written at the earliest in the 70s, and Peter was probably dead by then. This Gospel was interpolated for many centuries afterwards. There is no valid connection between the Gospel of Mark and the Nazarene community. The other gospels added their own floss to the story of Mark. My point is that the gospels are unreliable as history. You can quote them as much as you like and pretend to yourself that it's all true but that doesn't make it so. I don't believe anything the gospels say about Peter.

The book of Acts is even worse. It's an early second century invention, also with an unknown author, and one who had no known connection with the genuine Nazarene community. The book of Acts was written primarily as propaganda to create some sort of connection between the Jewish Nazarenes and Paul's prattle. For example, the author of Acts wrote that Peter
“fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things and birds of the air. And a voice came to him: ’Now Peter; kill and eat!’ but Peter answered, ‘Certainly not, Lord; I have never yet eaten anything profane or unclean.’ Again a second time, the voice spoke to him: ‘What God has made clean, you have no right to call profane.’ This was repeated three times and then suddenly the container was drawn up into heaven again” (Acts 10:11–16, NJB.) The only person who could have told anyone about these visions was Peter himself, and he would hardly have admitted he questioned Yahweh! This was a bumbling attempt to portray that Yahweh told Peter, a Jew, how to be a good Christian by giving up his kosher diet. The obstinate Peter needed to be told three times, by God! Those damn Jews, even those who’d (allegedly) become Christians, were sticklers for tradition!

I don't believe anything that Acts claims about Peter is history.
You are now also a hypocrite, for you have appealed to a Doubble standard to make your arguement. you were using and quoting the bible to build a profile for Paul, but when anyone elses attempts to use the same standard you used to build your arguement you are now saying it is no longer a valid standard.

Look old sport if you can't hang into a topical conversation just stop responding. I wont come after you. It's when you make foolish statement like the post I am responding to, that I feel almost obligated to point out your folly.

You write
"You are now also a hypocrite, for you have appealed to a Doubble standard to make your arguement. you were using and quoting the bible to build a profile for Paul, but when anyone elses attempts to use the same standard you used to build your arguement you are now saying it is no longer a valid standard."

I was using Paul's writing to build a profile of Paul. Straight from the horse's mouth. I take everything else that is written about Paul in the Bible with a grain of salt, particularly the book of Acts.

You write
"Look old sport if you can't hang into a topical conversation just stop responding. I wont come after you. It's when you make foolish statement like the post I am responding to, that I feel almost obligated to point out your folly."

You just don't understand my responses. Please keep coming after me… I'm enjoying myself!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 06:10 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 12:42 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 11:44 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Drich, you write
"Christ introduced the "New Covenant" himself in the Last supper when He directed the disciples to drink the wine which repersented His blood and eat of the Bread that was to repersent His broken body."

Oh come on, please get real and grow up!

The Last Supper

Paul had almost nothing to say about Jesus the person. There is, however, one notable exception, (although it may be an interpolation) when in the first letter to the Corinthians, the author claimed he knew what Jesus said on the night he was betrayed. He had just finished lecturing women on what they should wear and what to do with their hair, when he turned to instructing the community on when to eat and drink. He used a story about Jesus at the Last Supper, and even claimed to quote him, in an attempt to get the Corinthians to eat their meals together.
“For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn passed on to you: that on the same night he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and thanked God for it and broke it, and he said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this as a memorial of me.’ In the same way he took the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me.’ Until the Lord comes, therefore, every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are proclaiming his death, and so anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be behaving unworthily toward the body and blood of the Lord.
Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world. So to sum up, my dear brothers, when you meet for the Meal, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:23–34, NJB.)

If Paul actually wrote this, he was attempting to change some of the social habits of the community, perhaps to foster unity between different classes of people who finished work at different times, and invented a weak story about the Lord to do it. What’s surprising is that he acknowledged that a flesh-and-blood person ate and drank with others; nowhere else do any of the genuine Pauline letters discuss what Jesus supposedly said, which is why I suspect this passage was an interpolation.
There are three compelling reasons why this story isn’t historical.

No sane person would predict his own impending death as part of a covenant with his god/dad. Yeshua would have had no intention of dying, and most definitely not as a sacrifice to save sinners.
Absolutly not true. If you found the passage in 1cor concerning the establishment of the New covenant by paul that same google search would have also pointed to the gospel accounts of Jesus actually telling his disciples He was indeed establishing a new covenant.
Luke 22:
14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve[a] apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the[b] new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Mat 26:27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[b] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mark 14:22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, [b]“This is My blood of the new[c] covenant, which is shed for many.


Quote:He was Jewish, as were his disciples, and they obeyed the Torah. To them, eating human flesh or drinking blood, even in a symbolic sense, would have broken the strict kosher dietary rules.
"New Covenant" New rules. In 3 of the Gospel accounts Christ Himself has been recorded in say he will establish a new covenant.


Quote:Even today Jews still insist on draining blood from slaughtered animals, as written in scriptures, (Lev. 7:26–27, 17:10–14) and will only eat the meat from animals that chew cud and have cloven hooves (Lev. 11:3, Deut. 14:6.) Yeshua would’ve been repulsed by the thought of anyone drinking his blood or eating his body.
Which is the purpose and intent of the OP to state that Christians are still bound by the laws of Judaism. We are not as we are two completely seperate religions.

Quote:This Last Supper scene wasn’t something new. It was borrowed from Mithraism, a religion that had existed for two thousand years before Jesus, and with which Paul was familiar. Mithraic initiates believed that by eating a bull's flesh and drinking its blood they would be born again. (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/rcc14-transubstantiation.htm). This was supposed to give physical strength, and bring salvation to the soul. Yeshua wouldn’t have copied these concepts from a competing cult. Paul, or one of his interpolators, made this up to mimic a popular pagan practice.
Ah, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_...ef_systems

Mithraism closest link to Christianity concerning blood is here:
A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum (c A.D. 200)[24] in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti (?) . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this text is unclear, although presumably it refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. However the servasti is only a conjecture.[25] According to Robert Turcan,[26] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil.[27]

Which puts it's belief 200 years after Christianity.

Quote:The synoptic Gospels have similar verses, and their inspiration was probably Paul’s letter.

The reenactment of this scenario is part of some modern Masses in which bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, yet it has no truthful basis.
Here is another example of your Hyprocriful double standard. You have on many occasions tried to use scripture to define the attributes of Paul and his beliefs and in every instance have no problems quoting large sections of the bible. But as soon as the bible can be used to refute your untruths, you comically march out some lame reason to dismiss a whole book.. Dude you have to be a Poe.

Quote:Christianity blends guilt, dependence and ceremony.
Nuupe. Biblical Christianity is freedom from guilt, dependence and cermony.

Quote:The ritual that Paul discusses here brings people together to do something. Communion commemorates the sacrifice of a man dying because you’re a sinner.
Again out and out lie. Christ in 3 seperate books established this cermony Himself. Paul simply follow His teachings.

You write...

"Mithraism closest link to Christianity concerning blood is here:
A painted text on the wall of the St. Prisca Mithraeum (c A.D. 200)[24] in Rome contains the words: et nos servasti (?) . . . sanguine fuso (and you have saved us ... in the shed blood). The meaning of this text is unclear, although presumably it refers to the bull killed by Mithras, as no other source refers to a Mithraic salvation. However the servasti is only a conjecture.[25] According to Robert Turcan,[26] Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil.[27] Which puts it's belief 200 years after Christianity."

No no no. Wrong dates, wrong facts. Let me school you about Mithraism...

Mithraism

In the hundred years before and the few hundred years after Jesus’ death, the most popular religion in the Roman Empire was Mithraism. Many of the main mantras of Mithraism found their way into the bible and the traditions of Christianity.

It was one of the oldest religious systems on earth, dating from the dawn of written history, circa 2000 BCE, long before Judaism, and before the primitive Iranian race divided into the branches that became Persian and Indian. It dominated Persia and the vast regions of the Orient in ancient times. Zoroaster, a Persian philosopher who gave final form to the faith, lived at least six hundred years before Christ, (some say earlier, http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/monot...aster.htm) so when the Christ myth was new, Mithraism was already ancient.

It involved the idolization of the Indo-Iranian sun-god Mithra. It was a monotheistic religion, a feature sometimes falsely claimed to be peculiar to the Abrahamic traditions. The Persians who practiced Mithraism influenced the Jewish scripture writers during the Babylonian Captivity.

The religion entered Europe following the conquests of Alexander the Great. The faith found its way to Rome in the 60s BCE, when Pompey’s legions first encountered it in Syria and brought it back home. Its foremost fans in the Roman Empire were the legionnaires (who were the soldiers in a Roman legion.)

Mithraism did not flourish in Rome until the beginning of the second century AD, when it spread with great rapidity. It was patronized and protected by a number of emperors up to and including Constantine (Emperor from 306-337 CE.) Several of them built temples to Mithras (Mithra became Mithras in the empire’s version of the cult.) By the year 200 CE, it flourished throughout the empire. It had spread widely throughout the army, and also among traders and slaves. Sites of Mithraic worship have been found in Armenia, Britain, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, North Africa, Persia, Romania, Syria, and Turkey. It reached its zenith during the third century, only to be stamped out by Christianity in the fourth.

There were no Mithraic scriptures, and no texts written by its adherents have survived. Most of what we know about this cult has been surmised only from the archaeological evidence. Consequently, historians often have markedly different spiels about the details, and the topic of Mithraism’s influence on Christianity is a lively one on the Internet.

The religion revolved around reverence of the sun. The character Mithras was the son of the “sun god.” Mithras represented fidelity, manliness, and bravery. The cult emphasized fellowship and brotherliness among its members. It excluded women.

The mysteries of Mithras were celebrated in underground temples, built in imitation of caves, called methraei. In every Mithraic temple, the place of honor was occupied by a tauroctony, an image of Mithras killing a sacred bull. Mithras is depicted as an energetic young man, wearing a cap, a short tunic that flares at the hem, pants, and a cloak that streamed out behind him. He grasps the bull to force it into submission, with his knee on its back and one hand heaving back its head, while he stabs it in the neck with a short sword. This scene was reenacted in real life, when each initiate into the religion was baptized in the bull’s blood, partaking of its life-giving properties.

Joseph Wheless, writing in the 1930s, provided some of the following insights into Mithraism. (http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...r_1.html). Mithras was the mediator between God and humans. There was an ethical system built upon the principle that a war raged between good and evil. A Good Spirit had given men his divine revelation and law through the prophet Zarathustra (Zoroaster). An Evil Spirit tempted people to transgress the Law. Humans had free will, able to place themselves on the side of good or evil. The believers were good guys who battled on Mithras’ side.

Virtues and vices were enumerated and estimated. Special value was attributed to the virtues of adherence to religious practices, truthfulness, purity, and generosity to the poor. Importance was placed on the necessity of goodness in thought, word, and deed. Heresy, untruthfulness, perjury, sexual sins, violence, and tyranny were especially frowned upon.

After death, one’s destiny was decided according to whether the Good Spirit had been obeyed. It was hoped one’s soul would pass over a bridge into a happy eternity, heaven. The wicked soul fell from the bridge into hell.

I think Paul, the creator of Christian theology, incorporated Mithraic ideas into what became Christianity. Some commentators have even suggested Paul was a Mithraic priest. Christian pioneers copied details of Mithraism too. As a result, there are some remarkable similarities between Mithras and Jesus. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBfAHsUHt...nity.html, http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html, http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/gospel-mithras.html).

Mithras’ virgin mother was the “mother of God.”

Mithras was born on the twenty-fifth of December, three days after the winter solstice. Long before Jesus, every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, his birth was celebrated. The sun “dies” on December 22, the winter solstice, when it stops its movement south. On December 25, the Natalis Invictis, the rebirth of the winter sun occurs, and the sun resumes its movement north. At the first minute of December 25, priests in white garments celebrated the birth of Mithras, the son of God. The temples of Mithras were lit with candles, and boys burned incense. It was only in the fourth century that Western Christians chose the twenty-fifth of December to celebrate Jesus’ birth.

Mithras was baptized and remained celibate throughout his life. He performed miracles. He was called “the Good Shepherd” and the “Light of the World,” terms that came to be used when referring to Jesus.

Mithras celebrated a “Last Supper” with his twelve disciples, who each stood for a sign of the zodiac.

Mithras sacrificed himself by dying on a cross for the sins of mankind. His body was laid to rest in a rock tomb. He descended into the underworld, and appeared in heaven three days later.

Sunday was the sun god’s holy day. Onto Jesus’ head fell Mithras’ sun disc, the halo.
For those who worshipped Mithras, invoking his name was supposed to heal the sick and work miracles. They believed Mithras would grant them immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They drank wine and ate bread, which symbolized the blood and body of Mithras.

There were “fathers” of the Mithraic religion. Their chief, who lived in Rome, was called Pater Patratus. He wore a red cap and a ring and carried a shepherd's staff, attire afterwards adopted by Christian bishops.

At the end of time, the story is strikingly similar to that of the Apocalypse in the book of Revelations. A colossal combat takes place between the savior, Mithras and demons, who he destroys. Mithras orchestrates the resurrection of the dead, the judgment and then the renewal of the whole world. A terrible fire rages, which cleanses all creatures; the wicked are cleansed of all stains. A new heaven and earth appear.

Mithraism was flexible, universal and appealed to the men in all classes in society, yet Mithras was not an historical god-man savior. Nor was he directly connected to Judaism, which I think the government was trying to undermine. He had to be replaced by a more suitable candidate; someone Jewish who the common people could relate to. Enter Jesus.

The Church Fathers Justin, Origen, and Tertullian were very familiar with Mithraism. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch70.htm , http://www.religionfacts.com/greco-roman...aism.htm). The standard explanation they gave for the unmistakable similarities with Jesus was that Satan had gone back in time and copied contemporary Christianity! Critics at the time were not slow to point to the truth: Christianity had simply reproduced the popular beliefs of a prominent pagan cult.

There were some differences between Christianity and Mithraism. There were no bulls in Christianity. Mithraism was tolerant of other cults; Christianity was exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, even Judaism.

When Christianity became the official religion of the empire, Mithraism was driven from the scene by attacks from Christians. It had no hierarchical organization, lacked a professional clergy, and was heavily dependent upon State patronage, so soon came to an ignominious end. During the reign of Emperor Gratian (367–383 CE), its sanctuaries were sacked of their wealth and wound up. Christians seized Mithra’s cave-temple on the Vatican Hill in 376 A.D. Part of the Vatican was built on top of it. (http://www.ambrosiasociety.org/mithra__avesta.html, http://www.websitesonadime.com/ffwic/mithra.htm). Christianity’s architectural and theological foundations were both Mithraic!

Thirty years later, the Emperor Theodosius made worship of Mithras punishable by death. Mithraism vanished, vanquished by the cult of Christ.

References:
Atwill, Joseph “Caesar’s Messiah”
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html
http://www.crystalinks.com/mithraism.html
http://mlk kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/article/volume_i_13_september_to_23_november_1949/
http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/scriptures...mithra.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development...ible_canon
http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion...mithra.htm
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/...anity.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historic...istianity/
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://www.hiddencodes.com/sherry/churches.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U1Grl4HSRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1IfFMoIZQ
http://www.egodeath.com/bensonmysteryrels.htm
http://department.monm.edu/classics/cour...ropattern/
http://fuzzyquark.comxa.com/original.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRKhZ81aqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lGG1fgSkl4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJk_nBNqejg
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: