Christians must follow the old testament.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
my pastor says people dont understand drich
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes seroasha's post
19-03-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(19-03-2014 07:20 AM)seroasha Wrote:  my pastor says people dont understand drich

Drich doesn't even understand Drich... Facepalm

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-03-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(18-03-2014 05:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "history of Christianity has nothing to do with it's intended practice."

What UTTER NONSENSE!. Think about what you've just written. If it's true, there's no monotheism, no heaven and hell, no Jesus, no Paul, no lecturing people based on biblical bullshit.
You do not understand what was said by "The history of the bible has nothing to do with how it is practiced."
EVERYTHING you just mention are addressed in biblical Doctrine. Meaning all of your concerns you have attributed to a historical source are infact witten in the bi-laws of Christianity. The history of the practice of Christianity has divereged from this doctrine many times. (the darkages being a prime example.) so again what determines Christian 'Doctrine' is not christian History but the direction set forth in the bible.

Quote:"the majority of what you have to say about 1st century history is at best a sloppy sumation of an anti God/Anti Paul website"
MY writing is the result of about seven years investigation into the real history. It is not lifted from any website. Google any fraction of it ...and you will find only one author ....me. As to it being "sloppy" you need to say why, because your subjective opinion means little.
One would think after 7 years you would have been able to quote a few primary sources and maybe even a couple of secondary sources... That however does not seem to be the case.

Quote:I doubt you've ever spent two years studying anything, because a scholarly person learns to spell by osmosis.
Laugh out load I know of a few people who would disagree
http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm

Quote:What is more, you haven't addressed any of my arguments, you've just made dismissive generalisations. You're a lazy, uneducated , loudmouth sod.
My efforts reflect your own. again you have made broad brush generalizations referencing nothing. why should my work go indepth when I can simply "Shoo fly" you away to the same effect?

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
19-03-2014, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 07:07 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(19-03-2014 07:28 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 05:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "history of Christianity has nothing to do with it's intended practice."

What UTTER NONSENSE!. Think about what you've just written. If it's true, there's no monotheism, no heaven and hell, no Jesus, no Paul, no lecturing people based on biblical bullshit.
You do not understand what was said by "The history of the bible has nothing to do with how it is practiced."
EVERYTHING you just mention are addressed in biblical Doctrine. Meaning all of your concerns you have attributed to a historical source are infact witten in the bi-laws of Christianity. The history of the practice of Christianity has divereged from this doctrine many times. (the darkages being a prime example.) so again what determines Christian 'Doctrine' is not christian History but the direction set forth in the bible.

Quote:"the majority of what you have to say about 1st century history is at best a sloppy sumation of an anti God/Anti Paul website"
MY writing is the result of about seven years investigation into the real history. It is not lifted from any website. Google any fraction of it ...and you will find only one author ....me. As to it being "sloppy" you need to say why, because your subjective opinion means little.
One would think after 7 years you would have been able to quote a few primary sources and maybe even a couple of secondary sources... That however does not seem to be the case.

Quote:I doubt you've ever spent two years studying anything, because a scholarly person learns to spell by osmosis.
Laugh out load I know of a few people who would disagree
http://www.dyslexia.com/famous.htm

Quote:What is more, you haven't addressed any of my arguments, you've just made dismissive generalisations. You're a lazy, uneducated , loudmouth sod.
My efforts reflect your own. again you have made broad brush generalizations referencing nothing. why should my work go indepth when I can simply "Shoo fly" you away to the same effect?

Drich, you write
"what determines Christian 'Doctrine' is not christian History but the direction set forth in the bible."
Huh? The bible is a product of the history! How could it not be?

You write
"One would think after 7 years you would have been able to quote a few primary sources and maybe even a couple of secondary sources... That however does not seem to be the case."
So you've given up claiming I've pinched my ideas from a website? My next post will discuss a primary source ( Paul's writing).

So you have dyslexia? Sorry to hear that. Yet does that stop you using spellcheck? Or getting someone to edit your work? No! It's no excuse for laziness.

"My efforts reflect your own."
Really? So you've accused me of not referencing my opinions, which gives you license to summarily dismiss my conclusions and falsely accuse me of plagarism? Read my post about the OT again. It is well referenced. My next post about Paul will also be well referenced, and I'll be very interested in your scholarly reply.
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
19-03-2014, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 05:16 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(19-03-2014 06:28 AM)Drich Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 07:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

But I guess we shouldn't expect you of all people to understand what a "source" is, Mr "there's no source for Augustus".
Then 'HE' should have no problem quoting them.

To what do you refer?

To the first statement I made? Certainly Mark's direct quotes of acknowledged scripture count as primary source material.

Do you know what a source is? If Biblical writings count as a source when you use them, they count as a source when Mark refers to them. As he has explicitly and repeatedly.

Protip: your personal opinions are not a primary source.

Do you refer to the latter statement? That's here for all to see.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-03-2014, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 07:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
xxxxxx
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 07:09 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
xxxxxx
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 06:12 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Sorry about the repeats folks!

This computer is doing weird things
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2014, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2014 07:03 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
Drich, you've accused me of not referencing my work. Here is more about Paul's relationship with the Jews, including Jesus' family and disciples. It is well referenced. It touches on the very legitimacy of Pauline Christianity.

How did Paul get on with Yeshua’s disciples and family? Let’s turn to 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.)

Paul was bragging about the fact that his personal God, a character only he had contact with, was the source of his ideas. That may have impressed naïve people two thousand years ago, but it shouldn’t impress today’s rationalists who can read the accounts of hundreds of people who claim they’ve talked to God.

After having the Son of God revealed to him, Paul more or less snubbed Yeshua’s family and supporters by shooting off to Arabia for three years. If he’d suddenly “seen the light” and become a believer in Yeshua, surely he would have jolted to Jerusalem to meet James, the son of God’s half brother, and Peter and Mary. Surely he would’ve been anxious to meet the other Mary, Yeshua’s mum, the mother of God! Apparently not! Something more important enticed him to Arabia.
Three years later, he visited Jerusalem again, but still didn’t meet Yeshua’s family or disciples, except for James and Peter.

The Gospel stories are sadly short of genuine historical facts about Jesus. Things could’ve been different. Paul, who was educated and literate, could’ve saved much of the painstaking guesswork of historians over the last three hundred years ( Jesus’ historicity has only been seriously studied in this time) by jotting down some facts as related by his family and disciples. Paul should have outshone the Gospels and made them redundant. He didn’t. He only wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics. I suspect this wasn’t a deliberate omission on Paul’s part; he was obviously totally unaware that people in the future might be interested in Jesus. 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.

At the so-called “Jerusalem council,” in or about 49 CE, James, the Nazarene leader, convened a meeting to discuss tactics for promoting the group’s beliefs. 2 Galatians, written by Paul, describes this meeting. It’s a truly enlightening page of the Bible:
“It was not until fourteen years had passed that I went up to Jerusalem again. I went with Barnabas and took Titus with me. I went there as a result of a revelation, and privately I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed. And what happened? Even though Titus who had come with me is a Greek, he was not obliged to be circumcised. The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Jesus Christ, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders—not that their importance matters much to me, since God has no favorites—these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the circumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So James, Cephas and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the circumcised. The only thing they insisted on was that we should remember to help the poor, as indeed I was anxious to do. When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision. The other Jews joined him in this pretence, and even Barnabas felt himself obliged to copy their behavior. When I saw they were not respecting the true meaning of the Good News, I said to Cephas in front of everyone, ‘In spite of being a Jew, you live like the pagans and not like the Jews, so you have no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways.’” (Gal. 2:1–15 JB.)

Each sentence reveals a facet of a very strained relationship. Paul was clearly intimidated by James,’ John’s and Peter’s authority. He referred to them as “Pillars,” and “leading men,” and was well aware they mightn’t accept his proclamation of “Good News” as preached to gentiles:
“I laid before the leading men the Good News as I proclaim it among the pagans; I did so for fear the course I was adopting or had already adopted would not be allowed.”
What’s more, he barely concealed the fact he begrudged their authority:
“Not that their importance matters much to me.” Can anyone imagine him writing that about someone (James) he thought was the half brother of the son of God! He quite clearly regarded them as competition:
“I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for one moment.”
Paul mistrusted them. They didn’t
“belong to the brotherhood.” He accused them of spying on
“the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus.” He said they had
“nothing to add to the Good News I preach.” He believed they
“want to reduce us all to slavery.” He thought that the
“good news” he, and only he, preached, entitled people to be part of his brotherhood. He thought he was freeing people from the
“slavery” of the Judaic Law.
Then, he and Peter, allegedly stalwarts of the fledgling Christian movement (who the Vatican claim founded a Christian church in Rome together,) bickered with each other. Paul claimed (probably quite correctly) that Peter didn’t respect his
“good news.” He claimed he publically challenged Peter directly by accusing him of hypocrisy.

What an intriguing snippet of scripture! Paul, the first founder of Christianity, was personally and philosophically at odds with Jesus’ brother and disciples! He was angry and frustrated that they’d been undermining him, and he didn’t hold back his vindictive retort. Why the churlish, hostile attitude? Weren’t they all preaching the same message? The reason for his antagonism becomes clear when we gain a deeper understanding of Paul’s plan.
Paul the Salesman
I think Paul was a salesman with an ambitious agenda. He hoped to sell his interpretation of Judaism to the Roman world. I think he had a plan to undermine those dangerous messianic Nazarene beliefs that roused rebellion against Roman rule.

He wrote to various groups scattered throughout the Empire, and desperately insisted they believe only his theology. He was so obsessed with snaring converts that little else in his life mattered. In Romans 15:16, he wrote that Gentiles were an offering he would bring to God.
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

Most of the people he wrote to were Gentiles (pagans) associated with Jewish synagogues, (“God-fearing Gentiles,”) although he wrote to some Jews in the diaspora too. From Paul’s perspective, his patrons were in desperate need of direction and an authoritative, charismatic leader to look up to. He considered himself just the man. He knew how to win the hearts, minds, and souls of people, as he imagined himself as one of the few god fearers (i.e. Jews) who understood Gentile cultures.

Paul’s theology probably had a long and carefully thought out gestation. He knew In order to appeal to his customers. he needed a product very different to traditional Judaism, because Judaism required obedience to cumbersome dictates. The Jews believed one had to be circumcised, a painful and embarrassing procedure, not easy to sell to an adult man. They worshipped Yahweh, who is portrayed in Jewish scripture as a thunderous and violent pro-Jewish anti-gentile God. They could only eat kosher food, marry only fellow Jews, and had to stop work on the Sabbath. Jewish heritage and history were regarded as superior, and all Jews were expected to take part in the fasts and feasts celebrating the ancient epic of Israel. Many Jews thought they were one day going to be the masters of the world. Their messianic dreams were an obstacle to the peace Rome imposed on the people of the empire. Paul knew that gentiles found all this inconvenient, irksome and out of touch with reality, so he labeled these Jewish rules and beliefs as a type of “slavery.” He had to jettison the old rules, so he did, by reinventing Judaism so that it was more to the gentile world’s liking.

According to Paul, there was now no need for circumcision or to stop work on the Sabbath. The dietary kosher rules were out; bacon was back on the breakfast menu. He downplayed the importance of the Jewish Temple, and replaced the Jews’ hope for a political messiah of their own with Christ, the spiritual savior of all mankind. The “kingdom of God,” according to Paul, became a place in heaven, not in Israel. He declared Yahweh was such a decent deity he’d sent his own precious son, the Christ, to earth. He alleged gentiles were descendants of Abraham too, and that the centuries-old Jewish Law was a “curse.” All that was now required was faith in his claims about Christ. Voilà! The Christ myth and Christian theology were born.

Paul was one of history’s first examples of an ambitious cult leader who, when the rules of the established religion were no longer convenient, simply invented new ones to suit himself. He replaced the so-called “old covenant” of the Jews with his entirely fabricated “new covenant.” He was trying to reinvent Judaism and I think doing his best to dampen down Jewish messianic dreams. He was bending over backwards to infiltrate Judaism with Gentiles and Gentile ideas. He had no idea he was creating an almost entirely new religion, yet that’s precisely what his writings helped do many years later.

To help realize this remodeling of belief, he undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews were full of subversive fantasies about a messiah, but God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He knew what the newly flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He was an educated, savvy, Greek-speaking sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion to the subjects of the Empire than the anti-Roman bumpkins from the backwater of Galilee!

This opinionated, manipulative, over imaginative weazel of a man was the true founder of Christian theology....a religion that has poisoned man's thinking for nearly 2000 years now.

References;
Cupitt, D. 1979 “The Debate About Christ”. SCM Press Limited. London
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 1996 “Paul A Critical Life”. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Schonfield, H. 1977 “The Passover Plot”. Futura Publications. London
Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.
Stourton, E. 1994 “Paul Of Tarsus”. Hodder and Stoughton. London.
Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.
Cresswell, Peter 2010 “Jesus the Terrorist” O books, Winchester, UK.
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/0...ollection/
http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2007/1...ssalonica/
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul_problem.htm
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Mi...53794).htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp08.htm
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/paul_odd...acts15.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=3VFnsDu...&q&f=false
http://feeds.feedburner.com/feedburner/APRP
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h5L1Js9e...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmcyX4HHfc
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/064...nFraud.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXVR8W5N...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPhKmRmCSoE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlYL9C24rHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8HFMoyl6SY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Vg9HNlRLM
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0580Paul.php
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/questioningbelie...essiah.php
http://askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0589PaulJudaizers.php
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
19-03-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: Christians must follow the old testament.
(19-03-2014 07:28 AM)Drich Wrote:  You do not understand what was said by "The history of the bible has nothing to do with how it is practiced.".....

...so again what determines Christian 'Doctrine' is not christian History but the direction set forth in the bible.

Says the douchebag who interprets it any way he fucking wants to.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: