Jesus has returned....erhem
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/10/07 20:11
Yeah, I'll let this speak for itself.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2925021&page=1It should be interesting to see the different reactions to this. Since this is notably a secular-majority board, I suppose the most obvious reaction will be to parallel this to religion and say this is why religion is bunk.
I'll refrain from commenting for now, however.
Posted By: NITRO777
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/10/07 23:51
This guy is remarkably intelligent, charismatic and very convincing. He is also very scary, not just for the millions he is deceiving, but think also of the children of the people he is decieving. If this guy has a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid Moment" There could be a lot of tragic death.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 00:17
Quote:
Since this is notably a secular-majority board, I suppose the most obvious reaction will be to parallel this to religion and say this is why religion is bunk.
Well, yes in a way it certainly does. This basically shows the impact of a certain attitude and charisma of one person on a huge group of people. The influence he receives does have it's roots in the existance of other religions and the statement that he's the 'second comming' certainly doesn't make it a less religion-based problem.
Especially the "super raza" part makes this guy scary.
I'd say all in all this is the problem of blind faith, because like the guy says so himself, people don't care if he's a liar and demand no proof. Thát's in my opinion the most scary part and 99.9% of all religions are not free of this problem.
Quote:
"That's where Hispanics are, and then eventually I'm going to find a lot of beautiful English-speaking people who will want to believe in me and I'm going to have millions of them."
I know it's speculation on my side, but I bet he had two of those dollarsigns in his eyes when he said this.
Cheers
Posted By: soraga
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 00:47
Hmmm...according to the Apocalypse (known more commonly as the book of Revelations) in the bible, one of the signs of the end times is people impersonating Jesus Christ or acting as false prophets of Christ, and gaining millions of followers.
EDIT-
"This self-proclaimed Jesus does not believe in sin, hell, the devil or damnation of any kind."
AHAHAHA. According to the catholic church and the bible, Jesus Christ is God. God created the earth and man (Adam), and put Adam to the test. Adam failed by eating of the forbidden fruit, and as a result of that was cast out of the earthly paradise. But God, in His mercy, gave man another chance to prove themselves. This eventually leads up to the founding of the Catholic Church. So how can God, who is also Jesus Christ, who CREATED hell for the fallen angels and for man who will not heed His words, all of the sudden not believe in sin, hell, or damnation? Doesn't even believe in the devil? God created Lucifer, who in his pride fell away from God and henceforth was cast into hell. And now this "Jesus Christ", who would also be God, no longer believes in his own creation?
Besides the fact that not believing in sin or damnation would make the whole Catholic Church pointless, as it was created by Jesus to guide people around sin and into heaven, away from damnation. It's all contradictory even by the bible.
EDIT2 - Quoted from Paul's epistle to the Romans. 1:24-25, Douay Rheims version
"Therefore God has given them up in the lustful desires of their heart to uncleanliness, so that they dishonor their own bodies among themselves-they who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever, amen."
Therefore God has given them up means, from Thomas Aquinas, that God withdrew His grace from them, because they sinned. This man says St. Paul is the only gospel writer who got it right, because he said St. Paul taught that there was no sin. Yet right here in a passage of St. Paul, he is telling of sins that are committed by man. Not only is he trying to cut out any parts of the bible that contradict him, he also got it wrong about St. Paul.
Posted By: Inestical
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 01:33
I say, this man is liar. He just wants famousity and cash.
And I still insist that there is no humanity left when earth collides with the storm. At year 2010.
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 02:16
Quote:
Quote:
Since this is notably a secular-majority board, I suppose the most obvious reaction will be to parallel this to religion and say this is why religion is bunk.
Well, yes in a way it certainly does.
this actually doesn't make religion bunk -- this is merely an example of a non-religious person (unless he really believes in himself) lying and manipulating people. unless he really believes in what he is saying (and therefore inadequately understands is own religion), his motives would have nothing to do with religion.
he takes advantage of millions of people who are in religions with hundreds of rules... Jesus also saved us from these rules (while i believe true Catholics are saved, they follow hundreds of rules never touched upon in the Bible), but this guy is convincing people that his way is the only escape.
julz
Posted By: Matt_Coles
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 02:33
he's probably the anti christ
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 03:55
Ok, I'll comment now. I would be very surprised if this guy is THE anti-christ. Though it should be noted that preterists believe the anti-christ has come and gone. I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
Here's why I don't think he's the anti-christ. Number one, I think his influence is being overblown by the media. I suspect that most of the report on him is fluff. But that's just my natural skepticism of popular media at work. I might be wrong.
If you really read what they're saying however, then it appears they aren't saying much. For instance, "Some say he has a following in the millions," could mean that he has a following in the hundreds, and there are only some people who are so awed by him that they claim he has a following in the millions. But whatever.
I will agree that this shows the dangers of blind faith. It also shows a shifting attitude in society. Religion has been marginalized by the recent rise of a humanistic worldview in society, and people are disillusioned with religion. They hunger for something tangible, and I think people have generally grown tired of religion.
Its sad, but this man is really going to get it from God when he has to account for what he's doing. As Jesus said, "But whoever causes on of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Since it appears he's appealing to people who already believe in Jesus, then it doesn't look like things will be going well for him when it comes time for final judgement.
Posted By: lostclimate
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 05:57
I wonder what the look on his face will be on that particular second, when hes standing in front of god
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 15:10
Quote:
this actually doesn't make religion bunk -- this is merely an example of a non-religious person (unless he really believes in himself) lying and manipulating people.
Lying and manipulating people sounds very much like religion. I agree that the link is more indirectly, but is has everything to do with religion and how religion works.
Quote:
Here's why I don't think he's the anti-christ. Number one, I think his influence is being overblown by the media. I suspect that most of the report on him is fluff. But that's just my natural skepticism of popular media at work. I might be wrong.
I agree, the media tends to blow up stuff like this indeed. As for anti-christ or not, I don't think it's even a question you should ask, since it doesn't make much sense. According to most scriptures about the anti-christ he's supposedly very evil, right? Well, although deceiving people can be considered evil, if that's a criteria to be defined as 'anti-christ' then there are an aweful lot of anti-christs. 
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/11/07 17:06
Quote:
Lying and manipulating people sounds very much like religion. I agree that the link is more indirectly, but is has everything to do with religion and how religion works.
Forgive me for being presumptuous, but it seems this is based on some kind of experience or something. Would you then say that you reject Christianity because Christians lie and manipulate?
I'm not going to try and save you here, I'm just constantly curious about the different reasons people reject Christianity.
Quote:
I agree, the media tends to blow up stuff like this indeed. As for anti-christ or not, I don't think it's even a question you should ask, since it doesn't make much sense. According to most scriptures about the anti-christ he's supposedly very evil, right? Well, although deceiving people can be considered evil, if that's a criteria to be defined as 'anti-christ' then there are an aweful lot of anti-christs.
Well, from God's perspective, perhaps one of the most evil things possible would be leading children away from Him?
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/12/07 08:02
Quote:
Lying and manipulating people sounds very much like religion
i'm sorry you have received bad impressions from religion in general, but lying and manipulating are sinful and despicable acts that no true Christian endorses (i'm not generalizing here, if you consider yourself a true Christian and DO endorse these things you are violating the Bible's teachings).
he is taking advantage of people blindly involved in religion. religion isn't the problem; the people following their own religions blindly are embracing it and he chooses to manipulate in this way because he can do it easily; however he is the main problem and if he believed in any mainstream religion, he would not be able to do this without violating its teachings and/or provoking some sort of divine punishment. if there was no religion, this guy could probably think of other ways to do such worldly things as lie and manipulate. religion is not in anyway the problem here.
i agree wholeheartedly with Irish Farmer's perspectives in this case, plus my two cents above.
julz
Posted By: capanno
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/13/07 07:22
False prophet, and a total idiot. Its sad how many people can follow such blatant false teachings.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside are ravening wolves."
This is a good warning.
Posted By: JibbSmart
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/13/07 11:17
short and sweet, too
i think that quote well-describes this fella. only time will tell if he is dangerous in a worldly point of view, not just in a spiritual point of view. i can see this easily leading to riot and rebellion in the name of his lawless ideals, if his followers are as many in number as they say.
julz
Posted By: A.Russell
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/13/07 15:31
What a cool thing to do. 60 years old and look at all the money, fame and pussy he is getting! Whether he is lying or believes what he says is true, who cares? Good on him, he is living the American dream. Men with such spirit inspire me.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/13/07 17:16
Quote:
Forgive me for being presumptuous, but it seems this is based on some kind of experience or something. Would you then say that you reject Christianity because Christians lie and manipulate?
Yes, this is indeed based upon experiences with religion(!)* (not just Christianity), but my personal experiences aside, can't you see that having a religion in the first place makes room for guys like this? Religion teaches it's okey to belief in something without substantial evidence or infact even without any evidence at all. They encourage blind faith and this guy gladly takes advantage of that ...
*. Eventhough there are many many more, I'll give two examples;
I once met a monk who at first wasn't trying to convert me, but instead was asking for donations. Anyways we had a little talk and he found out that I study archaeology. At that particular point the whole discussion changed. He started to talk about socalled 'hidden archaeology', as if the world was one big conspiracy against his religion. It wasn't hard to read his face and find out that he a. was lying and b. wasn't sure at all about what he was saying.
I simply know this 'hidden archaeology' thing is untrue (my region of study is southeast-asia/east-asia and china) and he was really trying to manipulate me, convince me of this lie he didn't even believe in himself.
Okey, second example; A lot of Christians always tend to say the church always said the earth was round instead of flat. Well, look in the bible and you'll find out that it only mentions 'circle', not sphere. At some point it mentions 'four corners of the earth' and as you'll understand a sphere doesn't have corners. Christians also claim the church said(!) the world was round, but there are plenty of quotes from sailors saying completely the opposite. Take this famous quote from Magellan: "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." I also wonder which people Christians mean when they say 'scientists' said the world was flat, since there is no record which proves this point, nor would such a generalisation fit. Lying? Manipulating? Well, I'm sorry, but from my point of view and considered the evidence, yes!
( Oww by the way: Prov 8:26-27, Isa 40:22, Isa 40:22, Mat 4:8, Job 38:13, Job 11:9, Deu 13:7, Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8 - all reflect a view of the world as if it were flat! )
This is just one of many reasons why I reject religion, not God, not Jesus, not Budhha, but organised churches and their people turning religion into a method of taking advantage of people.
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/14/07 04:27
Although I don't like your reasons, I'll let you have them. However, seeing as how apologetics has become a hobby of mine, I will have to correct you when it comes to the bible.
They had no word for "spherical", the closest word they had indicates a "pile".
As far as you claiming that the "four corners" proves anything, I'll ask if you then run outside trying to spot a good pet to take for your own when someone tells you its raining cats and dogs.
Besides, you can't have it both ways. The law of non-contradict dictates that the earth can't be circular and have corners in the first place.
That's just a general answer.
Posted By: jcl
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/14/07 09:35
As to the new Jesus, I'm with A.Russel in that matter. If some people followed and gave their money to a Jesus 2000 years ago, why shouldn't they do the same today? Who can tell just from a newspaper article that one Jesus is better than the other?
However it's interesting that many threads always end up with bible apologetics. Where did you get the idea that there is no word for "sphere" in hebrew?
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/14/07 14:27
Quote:
Besides, you can't have it both ways. The law of non-contradict dictates that the earth can't be circular and have corners in the first place.
Indeed, but that's what the bible states, contradicting as it is.
Quote:
However it's interesting that many threads always end up with bible apologetics. Where did you get the idea that there is no word for "sphere" in hebrew?
'Sapir' is infact the Hebrew word for 'sphere', infact our word sphere is indirectly derived from it. Oww and as for scientists who said the world wasn't flat but round, there was Pythagoras, Aristotle (actually gave 3 very good arguments to support it), Ptolemy, Aryabhatta and many more. (people from both before and after christ/biblical events)
Cheers
Posted By: lostclimate
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/14/07 19:37
Quote:
Okey, second example; A lot of Christians always tend to say the church always said the earth was round instead of flat. Well, look in the bible and you'll find out that it only mentions 'circle', not sphere. At some point it mentions 'four corners of the earth' and as you'll understand a sphere doesn't have corners. Christians also claim the church said(!) the world was round, but there are plenty of quotes from sailors saying completely the opposite. Take this famous quote from Magellan: "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church." I also wonder which people Christians mean when they say 'scientists' said the world was flat, since there is no record which proves this point, nor would such a generalisation fit. Lying? Manipulating? Well, I'm sorry, but from my point of view and considered the evidence, yes!
I'm sorry but for some reason people seem to always confuse the church with christianity in generl. Im not an expert at history nor am I a theologist, but as far as I can tell the church has NOT ever been an adequate example of what christianity is, and the reason for that is that the church is made up of people, sinners. Christianity on the other had is an idea, a belief, not necessarily do all of its followers do things right according to the bible. Espescially the church, the church in general has screwed itself over so many times that its not even funny, I mean come on, you have the crusades, you have catholocism which itself is a load of crap, you have several people in the pews who listen to preachers, but dont listen to any other athority, nor consult the bible, but instead just take on there pastor/preacher ideas as there own, without any self interpretation, you can never take the "church" seriously to tell you what christianity actually is.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/14/07 23:21
I understand your point and you're right to some extent, however millions if not billions worldwide go to churches to get taught about their own belief. The problem is the massive amount of influence churches have on the christian religion. Even if what churches teach can not be considered as true christianity, the problem remains.
As for the global history of most religions, the churches throughout history did decide practically all what would be taught to the people. Right down to the bible itself, you can't look at that book whilst ignoring the church's influence on it's entire content.
In my humble opinion it's very clear all they really wanted to achieve was power and wealth. At times even right next to or together with political power (a bit like Bush now, not exactly separation of state and religion if you ask me, right?).
As for people going to churches, this seems to change somewhat lately (in the netherlands a lot of churches are rather empty now and this tendency hasn't stopped yet).
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/17/07 04:45
I don't understand why some Christians are so quick to criticize the church. Nevermind them providing decades of social aid, or the millions of families that have been counseled, lives that have been changed of the better and so forth.
Quote:
As for the global history of most religions, the churches throughout history did decide practically all what would be taught to the people. Right down to the bible itself, you can't look at that book whilst ignoring the church's influence on it's entire content.
Yes you can. Information has been free for some time now, and there's no excuse for letting yourself be led around by the church. At least no good excuse, anyway.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/17/07 15:04
Quote:
Yes you can. Information has been free for some time now, and there's no excuse for letting yourself be led around by the church. At least no good excuse, anyway.
Truth is you really can't because the history of the church actually decided what ended up in your precious bible. Off course, you are free to decide which parts of the bible you pick up and which you don't, and also which parts you will consider as good lessons and which you'll believe to be historical (eventhough evidence mostly will show you otherwise or makes it questionable, but you can always simply ignore that ).
Cheers
Posted By: Michael_Schwarz
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/19/07 21:06
Quote:
Jesus has returned....erhem
Does that mean there are no more easter vacations?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/21/07 22:12
Quote:
Truth is you really can't because the history of the church actually decided what ended up in your precious bible. Off course, you are free to decide which parts of the bible you pick up and which you don't, and also which parts you will consider as good lessons and which you'll believe to be historical (eventhough evidence mostly will show you otherwise or makes it questionable, but you can always simply ignore that
Canon selection information has been freely available. That's the nice thing about living in an "American-style" society, like your Europe is. 
So, I'll rephrase it: Until the advent of the internet (which itself made the information on the bible extremely easy to find), you might have had to do a little work, but information on how and why the bible was formed has been freely available for quite some time.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/22/07 03:03
Quote:
(which itself made the information on the bible extremely easy to find)
[sarcasm]Yeah,uuh so it's on the internet so it must be true[/sarcasm]
Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. Besides, there's not even a consensus on the information about the canon selection for the bible. Thus, which scholar's theory do you believe ánd what historic information about these selections are actually true? It's a bit more complex than you suggest here and there's no single option either ...
The church through time did not give out information about everything they've ever changed to the canon, infact they didn't even write down whatever they've changed in the early times, that's a relatively modern thing. It's the very same thing why there's no way you can claim that the bible's content has remained 100% the same through time,
Cheers
Posted By: Stansmedia
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/22/07 22:03
Perhaps its the "care free" atmosphere which is attracting so many people? If some people are told that nothing you could do would send you to hell, because there is no hell, some of them would want to follow.. and through this inspire a happy good willed church. As apposed to other religions, in which your chances of an eternity of torture and pain are pretty high.. unless you join and comit of course. It's all coming down to giving answers of the unexplainable. And if this guy's will is to help people, then all the power to him. But seeing as how he is taking a personal gain on it (jesus 2.0 driving a bmw? common...). Either way, if people arn't getting hurt I see no real problem, just a cheap comfort.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/22/07 22:17
Quote:
[sarcasm]Yeah,uuh so it's on the internet so it must be true[/sarcasm]
There is a lot of misinformation on the web. But there's also a lot of good information.
Quote:
Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. Besides, there's not even a consensus on the information about the canon selection for the bible. Thus, which scholar's theory do you believe ánd what historic information about these selections are actually true? It's a bit more complex than you suggest here and there's no single option either ...
That's about as worrisome for me as I'm sure the disagreement over gradualism and punctuated equilibrium is for you.
Quote:
The church through time did not give out information about everything they've ever changed to the canon, infact they didn't even write down whatever they've changed in the early times, that's a relatively modern thing. It's the very same thing why there's no way you can claim that the bible's content has remained 100% the same through time,
Actually, its well referenced that certain passages were added to the bible, for instance Romans 8:1 used to be much shorter than it is in some translations (my bible reads the extended ending, but notes that the second half of the verse wasn't there to begin with).
Of course, a change like that isn't very threatening at all. So until proof of some threatening change comes along, I won't worry myself too much.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/22/07 23:33
Quote:
Of course, a change like that isn't very threatening at all. So until proof of some threatening change comes along, I won't worry myself too much.
A lot of small changes eventually make up for a huge change. This is threatening in itself when it comes to integrity.
Besides, changes in texts about multiple Gods instead of one, reincarnation, women's position and origin (rib from adam or not) and for example details about Maria or Jesus's wife and children and what more are rather big changes imho...
Quote:
But there's also a lot of good information.
Yes, but it often takes (almost?) an expert to be able to determine wether the information is actually accurate or not. Some sites don't even state their sources, well I usually don't even bother to quote them, but still... Others use rather dodgy sources and the real errors can only be found if you check their 'original' sources, most people never check sources,
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/23/07 02:02
Quote:
Besides, changes in texts about multiple Gods instead of one, reincarnation, women's position and origin (rib from adam or not) and for example details about Maria or Jesus's wife and children and what more are rather big changes imho...
I'd need to know specifics. If the "multi gods" thing is referring to Elohim, then first of all, that isn't a change, its still in the text. Secondly, Elohim appears to have a looser general meaning, more akin to our "powers" than it is to "gods".
I've never heard of any textual criticism alleging that any of those things were originally in the bible. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I'd imagine that I would have heard much of the reincarnation crap, since I've talked to reincarnationists, and they didn't have anything worth noting.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/23/07 02:48
I'd have to look up some things to come with a more detailed statement as for the actual content of those subjects I've mentioned, but basically it comes down to the fact that for example Constatine has removed whole pages from the bible that dealt with reincarnation.
The multiple Gods thing does not explicitly refer to Elohim, but the word Elohim itself is one of many clues, it really mean Gods as in 'plural of God' and it would make sense within it's context too, or at least it's not like you can derive from the context that it must be one God. The 'power' translation is controversial, many scholars do not think that's what was intended there. There are also people who say that the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and God are actually 3 separate 'Gods' of equal strength so to say. Not sure on which exact biblical phrases they base this though.
About Maria and Jesus' life/wife and children are basically mere rumours, or at least I haven't seen anyone back those statements up with some acceptable evidence. Then again, there is close to zero evidence that the Jesus of the bible even existed, but we've had that discussion already, so I'll leave it be.
As for women, perhaps you know that the church wanted to get the society to move from a matriarchy society (in the Jewish society women are very important) towards a patriarchy society (the man becomes the most important) and thus removed important parts that dealt with women doing extraordinary things (miracles perhaps) or very important events that involved very important women (sorry for the lack of examples here). (The original reason why women used to be very important is because of the fact that they can give birth, making them vital for any society to last long.)
It's also the reason why Jesus as a biblical person got so much attention and became the lead person of Christianity. The church needed this solely to expand their power,
Cheers
Posted By: AlbertoT
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/23/07 19:22
No offence but I can not but wonder why these guys can prosperous in the new world only.
Here , in the old cynic Europe, nobody would follow such an imbecile
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/23/07 22:59
Quote:
No offence but I can not but wonder why these guys can prosperous in the new world only.
Here , in the old cynic Europe, nobody would follow such an imbecile
Maybe next time you can even-out the "intellectual insults against america" and "blatant grammatical errors" ratio in your next post, so that its a little less ironic.
Quote:
I'd have to look up some things to come with a more detailed statement as for the actual content of those subjects I've mentioned, but basically it comes down to the fact that for example Constatine has removed whole pages from the bible that dealt with reincarnation.
This is the second time you've made, what I would consider to be, outrageous statements. The first time being (I think this was you) the time you implied that Constantine controlled what appeared in the bible. The historical fact is that Constantine only provided the forum. In fact, his "side" in the debate lost out BIG TIME. His influence was minimal, at best.
Quote:
The multiple Gods thing does not explicitly refer to Elohim, but the word Elohim itself is one of many clues, it really mean Gods as in 'plural of God' and it would make sense within it's context too, or at least it's not like you can derive from the context that it must be one God.
Yes you could, since its often coupled with singular verbs.
Quote:
The 'power' translation is controversial, many scholars do not think that's what was intended there.
And yet many scholars do, including secular scholars. Actually, I should qualify that. Its not that they agree that "powers" is more accurate, but that it would be more accurate to attribute a meaning akin to "powers" than it would be to attribute a "gods" meaning to it.
Quote:
There are also people who say that the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and God are actually 3 separate 'Gods' of equal strength so to say.
Yes, they're called heretics.
Quote:
Not sure on which exact biblical phrases they base this though.
I'm sure they do what reincarnationists and gnostics (they're still around :\ ), etc do, which is to assume their philosophy is true (especially in spite of the context the bible was written in, or usually with an attempted revising of the context of the bible) and then read their philosophy INTO the bible, not FROM the bible.
Quote:
About Maria and Jesus' life/wife and children are basically mere rumours, or at least I haven't seen anyone back those statements up with some acceptable evidence. Then again, there is close to zero evidence that the Jesus of the bible even existed, but we've had that discussion already, so I'll leave it be.
You're being a fundy on the issue , and I have no desire to argue it. You've also demonstrated, on several occasions, that you have VERY high standards for Jesus that many other (undisputed) historical figures couldn't meet. Though, keep in mind that I wasn't following the discussion between you and Kinji, or whoever, for more than a few seconds.
Quote:
As for women, perhaps you know that the church wanted to get the society to move from a matriarchy society (in the Jewish society women are very important) towards a patriarchy society (the man becomes the most important) and thus removed important parts that dealt with women doing extraordinary things (miracles perhaps) or very important events that involved very important women (sorry for the lack of examples here). (The original reason why women used to be very important is because of the fact that they can give birth, making them vital for any society to last long.)
I don't know. I would have to see more information on it, since I haven't heard this charge before.
Quote:
It's also the reason why Jesus as a biblical person got so much attention and became the lead person of Christianity. The church needed this solely to expand their power,
I'm sorry, this is why I have trouble taking this seriously. This whole criticism isn't based on honest, factual information. Its based on the assumption that the church's main concern was power (which is patently false, even if it was one of their minor agendas), and therefore all conclusions must inevitably be drawn from this presupposition. Its hard for me to take much of this seriously.
For instance, we would have a myriad of evidence that the early church rewrote women out of the bible because we have different copies of much of the literature from before the establishment of the early church. There's also extra-biblical literature on Jewish culture pre-Christianity. This is just too incredible a claim for me to consider, because such a "conspiracy" would be blatantly obvious and indefensible from out perspective. I would need some pretty good proof.
Posted By: PHeMoX
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/24/07 01:45
Quote:
I'm sorry, this is why I have trouble taking this seriously. This whole criticism isn't based on honest, factual information. Its based on the assumption that the church's main concern was power (which is patently false, even if it was one of their minor agendas), and therefore all conclusions must inevitably be drawn from this presupposition. Its hard for me to take much of this seriously.
The 'assumption' is a 100% legit one though.
Quote:
This is the second time you've made, what I would consider to be, outrageous statements. The first time being (I think this was you) the time you implied that Constantine controlled what appeared in the bible. The historical fact is that Constantine only provided the forum. In fact, his "side" in the debate lost out BIG TIME. His influence was minimal, at best.
Nope, Constantine actually decided those pages should be left out. 'Outrageous statements' indeed, that's why it's such a big deal those things changed ...
Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer
Re: Jesus has returned....erhem - 03/24/07 22:58
Quote:
The 'assumption' is a 100% legit one though.
I tried stretching the meaning of the words, and I can't make it work. There just isn't any way that I can reconcile what I know what what you're saying. But if you were to provide a good source, then perhaps I could look into it.
Quote:
Nope, Constantine actually decided those pages should be left out. 'Outrageous statements' indeed, that's why it's such a big deal those things changed ...
Ditto.