Christianity is a death cult

a reply to: Punisher75

Don't care if Peter supposed loved Paul, Peter is not Jesus either. All this tells me is after Jesus death, Peter needed some other shmuck to fill the void, at best this makes Peter an eventual traitor as well with serious abandonment issues.

originally posted by: Puppylove
To those saying this is Christian bashing, I say phooey on you.

I think the one thing I've always hated the most about Christianity is Paul formerly know as Saul, without him Christianity is and would be a beautiful religion. In fact since Christianity is the worship of Christ and God, not Paul, I personally think this issue is the crux of the matter.

Honestly I think one of the things preventing me from being christian most is the insistence that Paul is anything more than some dude who hated Christian doctrine, had a seizure, ending up brain damaged, erratically changed as a result, and raped Jesus words after his brain deteriorating "vision."

Paul is not Jesus, without Paul, Christianity is a beautiful religion.

Christianity is not something to bash, but Paulism is a sick and twisted mutation of it, and in my opinion deserves scorn.

Jesus says to judge a tree by its fruits. What are the fruits of Paul? Did he ask to be worshiped? Was he seeking power? He challenged the great sages of his time while defending Christ. He is a true archetype for forgiveness. He was a murderer essentially and if he could be saved and repent then any of us can be. His message of salvation by grace has probably been one of the greater messages in the bible otherwise like the church selling absolution's and such people would think they could take it upon themselves to force salvation through bargaining or deeds or what have you. His ideas on the armor of God? How is that a bad fruit? What exactly did he do to earn this ire from people?. He is utterly essential because even in his appearance after the death of Christ Christians had begun to do what men always do and that was legalize salvation like the Jews had. They tried to make their own way because many were coming from pagan backgrounds and were attempting to create a synthesis between those various systems. Without Paul God's message would have been utterly lost without Christ still there to guide people in physical form. He was the Church's early custodian cleaning up its mistakes.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Well, you are wrong yet again. Islam is not a death cult. I have more muslim friends than Christian friends, and none of them go around murduring people for the Islamic State.

ISIS is a death cult, the Beohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, Zionist Talmudism, and the NAZI esoteric circles are or were at one point death cults. Even the Vatican at one time was a death cult, but you cant just call every Christian out there a death worshipper, or for that matter any innoscent individual. I dont even go that low, and Ive said some inconsiderate stuff.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So WHY doesn't Jesus mention believing in his sacrifice to be forgiven? I think that would have been his modus operendi when preaching his gospel, yet he doesn't mention anything about a sacrifice when asked what the way to life is. All he says is that you must forgive and love others.

"Jesus says to believe in him", well believing in Jesus and believing in his sacrifice are two separate things. I know you probably won't understand that, but it is true either way.

He does mention it.

Matthew 26:28
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Punisher75

Don't care if Peter supposed loved Paul, Peter is not Jesus either. All this tells me is after Jesus death, Peter needed some other shmuck to fill the void, at best this makes Peter an eventual traitor as well with serious abandonment issues.

Why do you think Peter who apparently is just fine with you would endorse Paul if they did not believe the same things?
In what way do the two of them disagree?

a reply to: Punisher75

Yet no mention of "belief" in the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins.

Again, believing in Jesus and believing in his supposed sacrifice are two separate things.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NihilistSanta

So WHY doesn't Jesus mention believing in his sacrifice to be forgiven? I think that would have been his modus operendi when preaching his gospel, yet he doesn't mention anything about a sacrifice when asked what the way to life is. All he says is that you must forgive and love others.

"Jesus says to believe in him", well believing in Jesus and believing in his sacrifice are two separate things. I know you probably won't understand that, but it is true either way.

Well if you believe he was Messiah then you would believe he was to suffer first. If you reject his suffering you reject his messiah status. He also probably didn't tell his followers because like Peter they may have attempted to thwart his death which would have been impossible really.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Punisher75

Yet no mention of "belief" in the shedding of his blood for the remission of sins.

Again, believing in Jesus and believing in his supposed sacrifice are two separate things.

Call me crazy but I would assume if he told his disciples something the expectation was that they would believe him.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Well, Paul contradicts Jesus on several occasions, that's why I do not trust him. The tone of Jesus' words and the tone of Paul's are different as well. Paul's teachings are hard to understand, Jesus' aren't.

Matthew 22
32 I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

He is NOT the God of the dead.

Romans 14
9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

He IS God of the dead.

Who is right? Paul or Jesus?

In your opinion, were Jesus' words not enough so that Paul was necessary?

a reply to: Punisher75

Peter was a human, who had spent years of his life following the inspirational leader of a cause and true friend. His friends words were being persecuted and dying, Saul himself the perpetrator of much of that. Then Saul has a seizure, becomes Paul, and turns. He then starts speaking "for" Jesus and his altered bs version of events take off. Peter seeing in Paul a bit of his old friend Jesus hops right up on the crazy train because:

A: He needed someone to follower, because Peter was a follower.

and

B: Paul's version was taking off and he was selfish enough he'd rather see his friends words live but be corrupted than dwindle and die.

and

C: He was, unlike Jesus supposedly was, human, and thus capable of and prone to faults.

Is why in my opinion, anything that came AFTER Jesus is dead is faulty at best, as once he died, it was only faulty men, with the most followed of all one who never even met Jesus and is one of the faultiest humans ever and mentally unstable.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

So Jesus was worried about something that was impossible? That doesn't make sense.

I believe Jesus is a Messiah, he teaches us the way to God. I do not believe in his sacrifice or resurrection.

well if you take the anunnaki approach to this subject, christ would've been enki-ea, returning to resolve the whole "sacrifice" issue that started with enlil, when he was angry about enki-ea making humans procreative on his (enlil's) planet. but enlil asked enki for a solution to the worker problem (the first adam race went on strike and would no longer mine the precious metals for enlil, till enlil stopped working them so hard. and this is not sitchin's interpretation, it's actually in their writings).

enki was offplanet at the time, so he when he came back to resolve the problem of enlil's worker shortage, his (enki's) solution was to make the adam males and females procreative (endless supply of slaves). enlil didn't like the solution and demanded that human dna be downgraded to have an expiration date. enlil took it to the divine court and exercised his divine law right, as owner of the planet earth, as is indicated in the passages where he's talking to the other elohim about how bad it would be if the procreative humans also had eternal bodies (access to the tree of life=population explosion in a procreative species). now follow along a moment longer:

sacrifice was enlil's punishment on humankind - animal AND human sacrifice . my theory is that enki, as jesus, came back to satisfy enlil's sacrifice requirements. the idea being that enlil said "well if you care so much about these slaves you created, prove it, you be the sacrifice in their place." and enki (jesus) agreed to it, provided enlil agreed to giving enki the deed of ownership of the planet at the end of his agreement (end of the age, perhaps?).

it isn't that jesus wanted to be a sacrifice, its that the original owner of the planet, demanded it for his end of the deal. and the guy who owned the planet is identified as satan, the accuser of mankind.

a reply to: Punisher75

Yeah, which is why Thomas believed him... oh wait, no he didn't. It wasn't until AFTER he resurrected that Thomas touched his side and believed.

I guess that means you assume wrong.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is a saying in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous that says but obviously you cannot transmit what you do not have and the paradox to that is...Yes you transmit exactly what you have.

A reply to 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think part of the contrast you notice between the writings of the Gospel and Paul's letters are due to him focusing on the gentiles. Perhaps his message makes more sense to "Pagans" for example.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Paul's words are Jesus's words. How can you believe the words attributed to Jesus in the bible but some how feel that Jesus/God would allow his words to be corrupted by Paul?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Punisher75

Peter was a human, who had spent years of his life following the inspirational leader of a cause and true friend. His friends words were being persecuted and dying, Saul himself the perpetrator of much of that. Then Saul has a seizure, becomes Paul, and turns. He then starts speaking "for" Jesus and his altered bs version of events take off. Peter seeing in Paul a bit of his old friend Jesus hops right up on the crazy train because:

In what way do you see Peter seeing Christ in Paul? Why would he not Follow James around instead? After all James was Jesus Brother.

A: He needed someone to follower, because Peter was a follower.
Peter was hardly a "follower" he founded many of his own Churches. I see no place in the text that would imply that he was any more a follower than any of the other Apostles.

and

B: Paul's version was taking off and he was selfish enough he'd rather see his friends words live but be corrupted than dwindle and die.
Again, what message did Paul give that Peter did not?

and

C: He was, unlike Jesus supposedly was, human, and thus capable of and prone to faults.

You will get no argument from me here, all of the Apostles admit to this.

Is why in my opinion, anything that came AFTER Jesus is dead is faulty at best, as once he died, it was only faulty men, with the most followed of all one who never even met Jesus and is one of the faultiest humans ever and mentally unstable.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: NihilistSanta

So Jesus was worried about something that was impossible? That doesn't make sense.

I believe Jesus is a Messiah, he teaches us the way to God. I do not believe in his sacrifice or resurrection.

Jesus own words state that he came to fulfill the law. That includes his sacrifice. Jesus came to uphold the prophets before him which include previous prophecy about his suffering that would come. The Jews rejected Jesus because they themselves did not recognize the suffering part and were waiting on essentially and earthly King. Jesus came once to suffer and then will come again to rule.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Punisher75

Yeah, which is why Thomas believed him... oh wait, no he didn't. It wasn't until AFTER he resurrected that Thomas touched his side and believed.

I guess that means you assume wrong.

No that means your hermeneutic is all kinda messed up.
Thomas doubting has nothing to do with Christs desire for them to believe him.
One is descriptive and the other prescriptive.
Not to mention Christ was telling them his death is the remission of sin, Thomas's doubt had nothing to do with that. Thomas's doubt was that he raised from the dead.

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

That would make sense, seeing as how Paul promoted the pagan "dying god" concept. Ever heard of Bacchus or Dionysus? Dionysus is the Greek equivalent of the Roman god Bacchus. Bacchus had a mortal mother and god as his father, he also died then rose from the dead... just like Jesus. He was also the god of wine, Jesus supposedly turned water into wine. He was the god of ritual madness, ever seen people speaking in tongues and flailing around on the floor? Yeah, they believe Jesus is doing that to them. That's a ritual of madness if I've ever seen one.Who is the one who induces it? Jesus. Even Peter says speaking in tongues is of God in Acts.

Paul was a Roman citizen and wrote to Roman officials in his letters, Bacchus was a Roman dying God. There was an amulet from antiquity that was lost in WWII that depicts a man hanging on a cross with "Orpheus Bacchus" written on it.

Yeah, Jesus has a lot of similarities to Roman gods. Funny that Rome is the one who promoted Jesus and Paul's "dying god" concept.