Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 06:06 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(21-03-2014 12:42 PM)Drich Wrote:  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.


"New Covenant" New rules. In 3 of the Gospel accounts Christ Himself has been recorded in say he will establish a new covenant.


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.

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.

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.

Nuupe. Biblical Christianity is freedom from guilt, dependence and cermony.

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

TL/DR but I am pretty sure you know the bible more then a lot of people. Which reminds me do you think that John 3:16 is talking about everyone or just other christians?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 06:26 PM
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
"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."

I'm not going to repeat myself about why the gospels and Acts can't be relied upon as history.

Rather, Drich, I'll offer a challenge to you. Please provide one single piece of good evidence that is undisputed that links Jesus, his followers or his family with what is written in the Gospels and in Acts.

Second, third or fourth century commentary from church fathers, is not acceptable unless it's accompanied with solid evidence.

By the way, there is a little bit of evidence that might link them with some of the things written in Matthews Gospel. I wonder whether you can find it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 06:36 PM
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 wrote
"New Covenant" New rules. In 3 of the Gospel accounts Christ Himself has been recorded in say he will establish a new covenant."

There never was any such thing as a "new covenant" other than in Paul's imagination. He only appeared on the scene long after Jesus was dead. The Gospels were only written after Paul had sprouted his bullshit. Get it yet?

You write
"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."

Agreed! However you fail to see the irony of this in that Jesus, John, James, Peter and all the disciples were all fundamentalist Jews and opposed to the Gentile world that invented Christianity. Jesus was knocked off by the Romans, then three centuries after they killed him they turned him into a god and disparaged his religious beliefs. They crucified the poor bastard twice!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-03-2014, 06:49 PM
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

"Again out and out lie. Christ in 3 seperate books established this cermony Himself. Paul simply follow His teachings."

I'm having trouble deprogramming all the brainwashing here, probably due to the thickness of your skull.

Paul didn't have any of the Gospels when he wrote. Do you understand that? Nor did he get any of his ideas from Jesus' followers who were still alive. He admits this in his letters. Forget what is written in the book of Acts. He admits he got all his authority from God himself. That's right… god talked to Paul....in exactly the same way god talks to Billy Graham, Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts. Think about that for awhile, then think about it some more, and let it slowly penetrate your consciousness.

Maybe, just maybe, it will dawn on you where Christianity came from… the fertile imagination of Paul of Tarsus.

Just why he imagined what he did is another story which we may get on to later.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
21-03-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Quote:This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology

Assuming he existed. Otherwise it is just the nom de plume of whatever opinionated, manipulative, over-imaginative weasel of a man who invented him.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
21-03-2014, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 10:24 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
BTW, Drich,
You continue to assert the initial bullshit you came out with saying that all the various iterations of Christianity were merely multiple forms of worship. Not one scholar on the planet agrees with that crap, AND are you REALLY so retarded you cannot distinguish between the forms of worship, and the content of belief ? Weeping
You think you are capable of playing in the big kids sandbox, when in fact you shouldn't even be outside without a nanny.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-03-2014, 09:25 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Christians today try to disconnect them selves from the old testament.

They do? Who are these Christians you speak of?


(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  The old testament is the first part of the bible, and contains laws that should be followed.

True go on.

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  I will explain 3 reasons Christians today don't want to follow the old testament

Who are these Christians again?


(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  There are three reasons Christians try to get rid of following the old testament laws are:

1. They are trying to make Christianity look like the most peaceful of all the religions.. The old testament contains laws that are extremely violent and stupid. For example here is a verse for an example Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13.

2. They are already accustomed to the lives they live. Christians get a kick out of doing things like working on the Sabbath or eating a bacon wraped catfish with fried shrimp. They want to still live their lives they way they do.

3. It is so that they can make christianity seem more logical. The laws like stoning people for working on the Sabbath would be reasonable to somebody who follows the law, but to no one else and because christians have to make more sense then the other religions that have to make sure they don't follow such a ridiculous law.

Who are these Christians? I do not know any Christians that have the attitude towards the OT that you claim they do.

Maybe you mean to say: "Some of the Christians I have personally spoken with on whether or not the OT is applicable."?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  However Christians don't know that they should follow the old testament.

How do you know what a Christian does or does not know?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  1. Jesus is said to have told people that the old testament should still be followed. For example this verse "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

How does the above lead you to the conclusion that Jesus told people that the OT should still be followed? Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. He also stated that not one letter would pass from the Law until all things have taken place.

No where in the passage you provided do we find Him telling people the OT should still be followed.

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  So this would mean that the old testament still applies.

What do you mean "applies"?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  2. The fact that those who don't follow the old testament will be called least in heaven. Sure you could see this as not bad but would you rather have a old car or a sports car? Well think of least in heaven as a old car and heaven for those who follow the old laws as a sports car?

If that is the case then Jesus has the old car, for He did not stone the woman caught in adultery which was the penalty prescribed by the Law. Surely Jesus did not think Himself to be least in the Kingdom of Heaven did He?

(08-03-2014 12:08 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  3. The fact that many things from the old testament christians follow now. For example the ten commandments are found only in the old testament. Another thing Christians follow is masturbation is evil. However christians will use old testament laws to justify this. So they them selves will use old testament laws they like in a attempt to justify their motives, but will ignore laws they don't like.

Who is this addressed to?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 10:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  True go on.

Wrong. Paul said they were freed from the old law.
Do you ever plan on learning even a little about the Babble ?
So .. Christians may kill their disobedient children then, and it's an abomination to wear plaids ?

(21-03-2014 09:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law. He also stated that not one letter would pass from the Law until all things have taken place.

Jebus actually said nothing of the sort. His followers made claims about what he said. There is no evidence he ever even existed.

So ... banned at AF, and you come here. Can you tell us why you're here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-03-2014, 09:38 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
edit : double post

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 10:20 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2014 10:26 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(21-03-2014 06:57 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology

Assuming he existed. Otherwise it is just the nom de plume of whatever opinionated, manipulative, over-imaginative weasel of a man who invented him.

True.

It's well established that at least 6 of "his" letters weren't written by him.

And we can't be sure the others were either.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: