It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are 'Christians' allowed to Disagree with 'Jesus' and still be called 'Christians'?

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: 2012newstart

I think you may have mixed the numbers up. There exists about 40 gospels, and a couple of them contains texts showing Jesus and Mary Magdalen had a special relationship, even that Jesus often kissed her (Gnostic Gospel of Philip), and, that they were married and lived together (the newly discovered fragment, link above).
edit on 7-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It is possible I messed up the numbers, but that is not the important thing. I already said what I said. If someone want to catch me for the number, be my guest.

The fact is many gospel texts who were not approved in Nicaea, and those who are discovered now, speak of special relation or even marriage between Jesus and Magdalene.

The canonization is not what matters here but the historical fact. The newly discovered texts did not pass the scrutiny of Constantine.

Why aren't discovered canonical gospels papirii dating to 1st century at the time the apostles were still alive and allegedly wrote them down? Why are all dated 2nd and 3rd century? Moreover, we are talking of fragments of gospels, that before Nicaea were composed in what we have today as books.

Why aren't discovered apocrypha from 1st century? Why are the newly discovered texts, such as the ones I quoted above, dated 5 century or so? They all are copies of copies.

There are preserved older ancient documents from B.C. It was not a matter of "impossibility" it was a matter of purpose.

Does it mean Rome has deliberately destroyed every single original document dated 1st century, and then rewrote what it pleased to be canonized in a religion fit to be acceptable by the empire? We know such measures were taken against the Arians, and later. In an era of illiteracy and scarcity of documents, they would be able to do that. They had the entire power apparatus, plus full control on the religious structure. The peoples were illiterate, no matter how brave martyrs they were. To have a copy of papirus, you need a person who can read and write. To read it, you need a person who can read. Incomprehensible for today, when you click with the mouse and read centuries old papirii, translated in English.

Why Jesus didn't write a single line? Or may be he did but it was all erazed. He was supposed to be someone outside of human reach. Someone outside of sex especially not to have descendants. Because that would be deadly danger for Rome. Jesus from paintings is the convenient image who once came, said things recorded centuries later, and left with a promise to come again, leaving the elders to reinterpret what was written pretty much to its opposite meaning.

A kid born to Mary Magdalene would mean a heir of the throne. It would mean Jesus could spend more time in clouds in heaven (or for my understanding it is on another planetary realm), without the need to speed up Armageddon. That is not the taste to some. Those same people double crossed the existing Millennium of Jesus Christ in a CANONICAL BOOK. Those same people are ready to do everything to assure THEIR RULE until unclear Second Coming that many of them don't really believe in. Did you encounter clergy that doesn't believe in basic concepts about God and afterlife. Because I DID.

It is a time the religious leaders to finally tell us the truth about Lord Jesus. Or they will become irrelevant. As with the flat earth theory.
edit on 7-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

The newly discovered texts did not pass the scrutiny of Constantine.


This is a myth. Constantine had nothing to do with what books were to be included in the Bible. The emperor merely attended and provided some sort of dignity, even security or making sure none of the bleeding ecumenicals killed each other or poked each others' eyes out. The bishops could hardly agree on whether Jesus was a bird or a plane. Much less agree on which books to include or exclude from the Bible.


Why are all dated 2nd and 3rd century?


The books found in Nag Hammadi were all or nearly all 3rd and 4th century, and many of the books were hardly Christian at all. At that time the Egyptian Alexandrians challenged Rome about central theological issues and the way to lead the Church and the flock so to speak. In this process many texts were translated into Coptic. Look into the destiny of a certain presbyter of Alexandria, Arius. That'll what you call it, i n s p i r e you to learn more about what exactly happened and what not at Nicaea in 325 AD. And what exactly emperor Constantine's intentions were. And what role he filled at the council.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What does it mean"Christian" then? Is it what those elders retold us, as you characterized them? Why not the Coptic books, why not the Dead Sea Scrolls, why not the newly discovered ancient gospels? Questions that should be addressed ASAP by Francis, Kirill and others. Demonization doesn't work anymore.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

What does it mean"Christian" then?


I don't know, why don't you ask a Christian? I just like the lofty architecture and the Renaissance wossitsname?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

No. If you disagree with Jesus and prefer to follow only a part, then you cant call yourself a Christian. However, you do have to take what HE says in the context that it is being said, and look at verses in light of other verses for a greater understanding. You cannot just take one verse and think it stands alone, they never do.

But being Christian means being a follower of Jesus, in action and deed ect. You try to emulate Him, so if you aren't following His lead, you cannot call yourself a follower.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JackReyes

You wrote QUOTE "His stance on divorce is not that you cannot ever divorce ever. You forgot to add one key portion to that scripture: (Matthew 5:32) . . .However, I say to you that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of sexual immorality, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

So he said that a person has free grounds for divorce is God's eyes if the partner is guilty of adultery, that is having immoral sexual relations, having sex outside of the sacred marriage bond God has blessed. That can include many things as well (homosexual relations, bestiality, oral sex, anal sex, laying down with someone of the opposite sex, etc. you get the point).

You lied in this point. And it is proven. The whole charade of your argument fell in point one, but this point reveals your bias even more....UNQUOTE

I'm not sure who is lying here. Read Luke's rendition (16:18)

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει

Here is a translation into modern English if the Greek is not clear to you:

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." I don't see any mention of πορνεία=porneia ('illicit sex') as an exception in Luke.

and cf: Mark's (10:11) rendition of the same saying:

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπ’ αὐτήν

"and he said to them, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."

These two canonical Greek Gospel texts (what you call 'Scripture') make NO mention whatsoever of an exception for πορνεία = porneia ('illicit sex') as the author of 'Matthew' does - Divorce is never allowed according to 'Luke' and 'Mark' (whoever they were). That's two witnesses against one in my book.

So...what Bible are YOU reading?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

Jesus says the only ways to end the marriage pact is A: in cases of porneia, that is extramarital sex, or B: death. Were they performing necromancy in the name of love? Did Jesus orchestrate his own death so he could be with another?
edit on 7-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Kitana

(Are 'Christians' allowed to Disagree with 'Jesus' and still be called 'Christians'? )

You wrote QUOTE "No. If you disagree with Jesus and prefer to follow only a part, then you cant call yourself a Christian. However, you do have to take what HE says in the context that it is being said, and look at verses in light of other verses for a greater understanding. You cannot just take one verse and think it stands alone..." UNQUOTE

So according to your rule, a Divorced woman who re-marries cannot call herself a Christian. Am I correct in this assumption?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

When the pharisees were questioning Jesus he answered them. He never said divorce was illegal or impossible, He said that it is immoral to sever the marriage bond, but not that it is impossible to do so. He does not say, “Since God insures marriage, you should never get a divorce.”Jesus does not use the normal and technical term for divorce here, but instead uses the word chorizo, which is well translated “sunder.” In all the uses of this word in the New Testament it never is used as an exact synonym for divorce. Jesus does not deny the right to divorce a spouse, He merely says it is wrong to sunder a marriage covenant.

I don't think most people have a covenant that includes God in their marriage. It is more than simply getting married, there is something different there when you are both spirit filled believers and you make a covenant before God.
Jesus said: “Have you not read, that he who created them from the beginning of creation made them male and female, and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh’? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

As for me, my marriage is blessed by God, and a true Godly covenant marriage. I feel that no matter how many times my husband leaves the toilet seat up, or how many times I might disagree on what he might like to spend our extra money on, or if sex gets slightly dull in time (not happened thus far!), or whatever, he gets fat, or I get fat with pregnancy. None of this is cause for divorce. It is a covenant, not just something you can decide your just tired of, and for me it would be a definite sin but I am also convinced most people do not have such a marriage, that marriage for most is not a matched marriage between two spirit filled believers, and for them I cannot say, all I can say is for me it would be a sin to divorce. Jesus did not say a definite no however - but rather it was an enforcement of the permanency of the marriage covenant - which I don't think most people have when they get married.

As for a woman who divorces remarrying, the sin is not on the woman in the first place, it is on the man. The admonition was against men, not women. Jewish men were getting married, getting bored, and coming home one day to their wife with a certificate of divorce, handing it to her and sending her on her way. It was not women initiating these divorces, it was the men.

So the admonition was on men, the sin of adultery was on men, not women. As for a man who married a divorced woman, that is between him and God. God forgives our sin, even adultery. We are under a new covenant, and if a man does something, and does not understand he has done a wrong, then He will be forgiven. If he does it with full knowledge, then he needs to take it to God and the elders of the church and they will have him to understand marriage and its meaning - repentance is about not doing something again. Not repeating behavior. In Jesus Christ anyone can repent of sin and be forgiven.

This was so important to me though, that I had a covenant marriage and not a legal state marriage.
edit on 7-2-2016 by Kitana because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim
One can't have a changed wording of Lord Jesus for so many centuries, and still pretend to follow the Master. What was NOT CHANGED, and what portion of the non changed sayings was FULFILLED in those centuries?
edit on 7-2-2016 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 2012newstart

You wrote: QUOTE "One can't have a changed wording of Lord Jesus for so many centuries, and still pretend to follow the Master. What was NOT CHANGED, and what portion of the non changed sayings was FULFILLED in those centuries?" UNQUOTE

Not sure of your question. The fact is we don't know what the ipsissima verba (the very words themselves) of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef ("Jesus")were since there are quite a bit of textual variants between the gospels in terms of actual wording especially on certain subjects, such as Divorce, where 'Mark' and 'Luke' both categorically state that Divorce and remarriage is Adultery (therefore forbidden) in all cases, whereas the Greek Gospel of 'Matthew' states that the Rabbi allowed for Divorce on the grounds of 'porneia' (unchasstity) which might be nothing more than the inability to shed blood on the wedding night ('tokens of Virginity' = Heb. 'bethulim')

Talk about your changed wordings !





edit on 8-2-2016 by Sigismundus because: stutteringg commmmpppputer keyyboarddd



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

indeed when I read a second time what I wrote in that phrase, it is not so clear when taken out of the rest. But I posted more than one post where it is clarified more than enough.

We have gospels recorded 2-3rd century. They were not written down by Jesus nor by the apostles themselves. At best they are copies of copies, not gathered in one place as we have them today, but on separate papirii.

Let alone the other gospels, be they apocrypha existing at the time of Nicaea and banned as heretic (why), or be they newly discovered ancient gospels that never passed thru the "Nicaea process" of selection.

Therefore we are not certain what Jesus the Lord have said when walking the earth.

Even the so recorded words of the canonical gospels were never fulfilled in history of 1980 years by emperors and kings. It is easy to ask the common men not to divorce. I don't find it the biggest stumbling block. Where is the social teaching, the kingdom of God, the food for the poor, and so on? Never ever in Christendom it were implemented in practice. One may say, the so recorded canonical gospels failed to materialize grossly some 2000 years after the Master Jesus.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You wrote QUOTE "Nice troll thread...." UNQUOTE

What's so trollish about this thread? It poses a serious question to those that think beneath the surface of things....



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus

Christians do not want their illusions to be challenged. They believe in a society that singles out a person, blames everything from original sin to parking tickets— on this person, crucify the poor bastard, and make really sure he is properly dead, then stuff him in a tomb for a couple of days, and *shasam* the guy strolls out of the cave all forgiving and understanding, and everything is alright and all Christians are sin free and can have their overdrawn karma credit reset. Every day they remind themselves of this event, and instead of seeing a suffering human being tortured as repulsive, they smile with wide eyes and act as if they need a room. Christianity, well, all religion in fact— is evil at the root. It teaches people injustice and inspires genocide and war.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sigismundus




What's so trollish about this thread? It poses a serious question to those that think beneath the surface of things....


I think it's at best the worst I've ever seen from you in a
recent series. And knowing the conversation between you
and another member that begat this spin off. That's my view.
Not to mention that it's pure nonsense to suggest that a
real Christian would disagree with Jesus. The premise is skewed.
I respect you even so Sig.
edit on Ram21116v11201600000031 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus forces Himself on no man. It's your choice to believe as you will or not. You are free, Jesus made an offer to all, for those who choose yes, it is their individual choice. No one is forcing you, life your life free. Do as you will. It is not to us to convince you or judge you.

In other words, have a wonderful life and do as you please, whatever you please. It is between you and God. Have fun!



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kitana
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Jesus forces Himself on no man. It's your choice to believe as you will or not. You are free, Jesus made an offer to all, for those who choose yes, it is their individual choice. No one is forcing you, life your life free. Do as you will. It is not to us to convince you or judge you.

In other words, have a wonderful life and do as you please, whatever you please. It is between you and God. Have fun!


It's the whole bargain thing that is skewed, see? There was never any bet or wager among the gods demanding some sort of innocent blood to be sacrificed, so all humans could live eternal lives in bliss. Nowhere other than in satanic circles and their favorite literature will you meet similar mindset as the Saulian doctrines claim, that Jesus was some sort of perfect sacrifice that cancelled out original sin. That is satanism, it's not right. Like I said, evil at the root.

Saul who called himself Paulus was the devil, hardly disguised even. What Christians don't understand is that Saul («st. Paul») was persecuting Christians from we first hear of him until he disappears in a puff of smoke while all the others are killed in the circus or burnt to ashes along the roads leading up to Rome. His aim was to destroy Christianity by leading all the lambs to the slaughter house, Rome, and transform the sort of Torah-only Judaism Jesus and the early Christians were observing— into a systematic antithesis to said law.

Through doctrine and liturgy, nearly all 613 laws of the Torah are systematically broken in the Catholic Missal, which in itself is sacrilege. I can't understand how people can observe that and still keep up their faith. They are funding the Enemy. Satan. The whole BS is based on lies and deceit, and the history of said church is so bloody I can hardly believe it.
edit on 11-2-2016 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Nice.
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

You wrote QUOTE "I think it's at best the worst I've ever seen from you in a recent series. And knowing the conversation between you and another member that begat this spin off. That's my view. Not to mention that it's pure nonsense to suggest that a real Christian would disagree with Jesus. The premise is skewed. I respect you even so Sig. " UNQUOTE

So, according to your line of thinking, to be a 'Christian' you have to give all your money and worldly possessions to the poor, lend money without asking for interest or even the principle back, hate your parents, love your enemies, never have a lewd/sexual thought outside of marriage and never get divorced/re-married.

Is this what you think?







 
16
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join