Catholics are not Christian?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Except HE managed to do so while breaking and changing quite a few of said "laws"

makes you wonder eh?

The only things He broke were their rabbinical teachings and traditions they were teaching the people. They were just that, rabbinical teachings and traditions, not the Torah. See Mark chapter 7.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Except HE managed to do so while breaking and changing quite a few of said "laws"

makes you wonder eh?

The only things He broke were their rabbinical teachings and traditions they were teaching the people. They were just that, rabbinical teachings and traditions, not the Torah. See Mark chapter 7.

Actually, to be 100% correct you are wrong.

Jesus broke with Torah by healing on the Sabbath AND by asserting that he had the power to forgive sins, as only God can do that and Jesus was just a man (later elevated to godhood by the Romans whose religious needs required a dying and ressurecting godman like Mithras or Tammuz).

It may seem minor today but if you want to be technical you got the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath in Mosaic times and in Jesus day. the only reason he wasn't put to death for healing on the Sabbath is because even the Sadducees and Pharisees weren't evil enough (or stupid) to think that God wanted people to die over ancient superstition.

But the fact of the matter is the Gospels are pure fiction, not historical fiction, too many miracles for it to be true a la walking on water and feeding 3 or 5000 people with a few fish (depending on what book).

So why does it even matter if he broke a law, they killed him anyway (in the story)? It isn't like you defending the actions of harry potter will get you to heaven so why are you always bickering about Jesus?

He is not real dude. Nobody thought he was God and the Bible doesn't ever say that Jesus is God, just his ADOPTED son. That's what his first followers believed even according to Church historians and propagandist heresiologists from pre Nicea.

Women don't get pregnant without sperm, that is a proven fact. People don't die for three days and then reappear alive to their friends, no common sense thinking person truly believes in the virgin birth or ressurection in 2016.

They are just symbolic stories to teach morality and there is no point in arguing if Jesus did this or that, if it isn't possible, it didn't happen.

Nobody saw him ressurect even in the story which is highly suspicious and no original Aramaic language New Testaments exist.

The story is based off of a dead Jewish guy who had a cult following. When he died and it became apparent that he wasn't the Messiah his followers waited for his return.

They are still waiting.

a reply to: Taxiarch
Prove he isn't real.

The fact that you and others speak of him is proof enough wouldn't you say?

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: ChesterJohn

You should know this of me by now my friend...

4 books... thats all you need

And not everything in those books are legit in my opinion

Virtually everything in those 4 books is old covenant teachings to Jews. What am I supposed to do then as a new covenant gentile?

"Make disciples of all nations."

Does that sound like the teachings of the Gospels was meant just for Jews? The Gospels were written for a Greco Roman audience and in Greek.

Was Jesus only for Jews? No, Greeks and Samaritans and Romans were all a part of the early cult, whoever taught you that the Gospels were for Judaic teachings is not too bright. I take it you're not big on the OT? Good thing, because it actually proves that whoever wrote Matthew was not a Jew from Palestine as he used the Septuagint and the mistranslated virgin as Messianic proofs for the virgin birth ERRONEOUSLY.

So no matter what the New Testament is garbage, with the exception of Jesus words that were just common Rabbinical teachings that are universal (see: Hillel).

There is no such thing as a "New Covenant Gentile."

The word translated as Gentile only means "nations" or "people" and the term Gentile is either anti Semitic or anti Gentile as each views the other as being deceived.

There is literally no such thing as a Gentile, truly. I don't mean that the word is not a word, just that it's a term intended on dividing the world into two people, Jew and not Jew.

And there is literally nothing of any importance in the so called Pauline epistles. They have brought nothing but contention into the world.

If the guy they made ups (Paul) epistles were removed from the New Testament and the Apocryphal Gospels and Acts were canonized you would have a sensible religion.

The Romans were not sensible, they wanted their own religion and to make it as far from Judaism as possible. What the Pauline epistles brought to the table was anti Torah teachings and the concept of blind faith, pro slavery and anti feminist teachings and an "apostle" who despised the 12 Jewish Apostles and the Nazarenes in general.

Nothing in the Pauline epistles is even theologically sound. It's as if they just ramble on and on about absolutely nothing except Paul's hatred.

What is it you think is so great about Paul that you didn't learn from Jesus?

Don't you think Jesus would have ALSO appeared post mortem to the real 12 and said that he just initiated Paul, accept him as an Apostle?

He definitely would have (if he could, he was dead) informed them, but didn't. Paul is as fraudulent as they come.

Try the Gnostics, at least they were honest people who only taught allegory as allegory and didn't force people to believe in myths under penalty of death.

In fact Clement of Alexandria said it best:

"The Gnostic is so addicted to truth as not to need oaths."

Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene fathers vol 2

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Taxiarch
Prove he isn't real.

The fact that you and others speak of him is proof enough wouldn't you say?

No, that's just talking, that doesn't come close to even being evidence.

Nobody can prove he WAS so I don't have to. Prove he was real by performing a miracle and posting it on YouTube.

That's like saying prove Marduk wasn't real or Zeus, they are all myths.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Except HE managed to do so while breaking and changing quite a few of said "laws"

makes you wonder eh?

The only things He broke were their rabbinical teachings and traditions they were teaching the people. They were just that, rabbinical teachings and traditions, not the Torah. See Mark chapter 7.

Well no... He totally broke rules in the Torah

I was going to say more but this guy beat me to it... though he only gave a few examples... one break is all thats needed remember?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

In the Moses story, the covenant was broken, literally thrown down and smashed. After the tribal deity wanted to wipe them all out, "Stand back Moses, get out of my way so I can wipe them out!" Moses was given a new covenant for the people, even in it is written:
"Exodus 34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in plowing time and in harvest thou shalt rest."

In the Jesus story, disciples are harvesting grain and threshing it by hand on the Sabbath. Rather than chastising the disciples, he resorted to talking about David. " Mark 2:26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?"

Notice the wording: "not lawful to eat... gave also to them that were with him". In essence Jesus is comparing the actions of David to the actions of Eve, eating the forbidden and giving to the other to eat.

The enormity of that comparison is truly astounding!

a reply to: Taxiarch

Well, the Saducees didn't give a crap about the Rabbinical laws the Pharisees taught. Secondly, nothing in the Torah says God cannot heal on the Sabbath, that to was Rabbinical law.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Except HE managed to do so while breaking and changing quite a few of said "laws"

makes you wonder eh?

The only things He broke were their rabbinical teachings and traditions they were teaching the people. They were just that, rabbinical teachings and traditions, not the Torah. See Mark chapter 7.

Well no... He totally broke rules in the Torah

I was going to say more but this guy beat me to it... though he only gave a few examples... one break is all thats needed remember?

Tell me what laws of the Torah Jesus broke, the only thing mentioned so far was Him breaking Rabbinical rules. Which was my point, He rejected the doctrine of the Pharisees, they elevated their rabbinical laws and traditions over the Torah.

a reply to: pthena

In the Jesus story, disciples are harvesting grain and threshing it by hand on the Sabbath.

I don't ever remember them harvesting any grain, I.E. doing work. You'll have to provide verses to show me that, I only remember them walking through a field and picking some to consume. That's not working the fields.

a reply to: Taxiarch

Make disciples of all nations."

That was said after the resurrection. The new covenant was enacted during the last supper. Here is what Jesus said before the new covenant:

"He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” - Matt 15:24

Does that sound like the teachings of the Gospels was meant just for Jews? The Gospels were written for a Greco Roman audience and in Greek.

See above. There was teaching before the last supper, under the old covenant, and for the Jews. The new covenant was teaching and salvation offered to Jews and Gentile. It's very important to rightly divide the word of truth, to know what exactly who was being spoken to and under which covenant. That's how you remain free from errors.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You'll have to provide verses to show me that, I only remember them walking through a field and picking some to consume. That's not working the fields.

Luke 6:1 Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through the grainfields; and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Plucking ears = harvesting
rubbing in hands = threshing

Consider the mythic precedent of Exodus 16 with the manna. It just wasn't there to be picked up on the Sabbath. If picking up and eating without cooking was okay, then prohibition of cooking would have been sufficient and the manna could have been there for raw consumption.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: NOTurTypical


Except HE managed to do so while breaking and changing quite a few of said "laws"

makes you wonder eh?

The only things He broke were their rabbinical teachings and traditions they were teaching the people. They were just that, rabbinical teachings and traditions, not the Torah. See Mark chapter 7.

Well no... He totally broke rules in the Torah

I was going to say more but this guy beat me to it... though he only gave a few examples... one break is all thats needed remember?

Tell me what laws of the Torah Jesus broke, the only thing mentioned so far was Him breaking Rabbinical rules. Which was my point, He rejected the doctrine of the Pharisees, they elevated their rabbinical laws and traditions over the Torah.

Well lets see... He didn't stone the lady at the well

He didn't abide by dietary laws, or at the very least told people they were not necessary

HE had no issue with work on the sabbath as long as it was "good work" which is not what the OT says

Healed on the sabbath but of course Christians have a loop hole believing he was God, when he was not... (not going to argue this point for the millionth time)

He Changed the commandments from 10 to 2... Though the ten are subject to the two... probably would have just been easier IF it was two in the first place

He changed "an eye for an eye" to turn the other cheek... Now Changing is not breaking law, but God doesn't change according to the OT... so its pretty much the same thing

He hung out with sinners, which the OT forbids... even calling them "dead persons"

He drank wine... which is "strong drink"

Thats all i can think of right now... but im pretty sure theres a few more at least

a reply to: Akragon

Here’s another one Akragon…

Mark 7:5-9
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”
6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Jesus didn’t follow the washing of the hands rule/Law and neither did the disciples. Jesus said and I’m paraphrasing from above “Your Laws are but traditions taught by men”…Although in this verse Jesus is hinting that these so called Laws are not part of Gods commandments…

I wonder how many other so called Laws are not Gods commandments either…

And as you know, not everything written about Jesus made it into the texts…so I wonder just how many other Laws Jesus condemned…probably quite a few I would imagine…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

I actually excluded that one because im unsure if that was torah law...

I don't seem to recall, but i haven't read the OT books in quite a while

That might be one of the things NuT was talking about.... traditions as opposed to laws

a reply to: Joecroft

I mentioned Mark 7 already, the washing hands "law" is from the Midrash and not the Torah. This is what the Rabbi/Pharisee sect were teaching the people. They had elevated their rabbinical commentaries of the Torah above the Torah.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Joecroft

I actually excluded that one because im unsure if that was torah law...

I don't seem to recall, but i haven't read the OT books in quite a while

That might be one of the things NuT was talking about.... traditions as opposed to laws

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. The Pharisees were teaching their traditions, Talmud and Midrash as laws, supplanting the Torah. See below, this Jewish man explains both Pharisees and Sadduces:

a reply to: Akragon

One can't call 1.2 bln Catholics non -Christians, if the total number of christians are 2.5 bln (that is roughly half of all). Moreover, the differences between the rest non-catholic christians are quite big, sometimes bigger than the differences with the catholics.

The doctrine is what becomes increasingly a problem in a world that does not want to discuss anymore medieval doctrines but want to see RESULTS after nearly 2000 years christianity in all of its forms. A good way is to g back to the roots of the time of Jesus, not denying them anymore as "valid only for that time" What Jesus did that we are not doing it today properly? Quite many things...

Christianity as well as world society is in its worst existential crisis from time immemorial. No it is not equivalent to the invasion of Attila the Hun (as pope Francis compared the migration waves in Europe), it is much worse today. Because back then the people didn't have the spiritual problems we have today, along with all kind of material problems, contrary to the higher level of development we enjoy today. Today we either make it or break it, with all consequences for the next generations. If 10% of us make it thru, those 1% (or 30%) will be the ones to continue.

The bigger question should be therefore, what kind of christians the world will have in the next 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, in the apparent absence of second coming of Jesus. Perhaps the christians after 300 years will differ significantly from today's model, as we differ quite much from the time of Galileo.



I may sound controversial, first doctrine is a problem, and then the practice. But the things themselves are controversial, and they are not made by me or anyone else here the way they are. There are many efforts done, especially by the Catholic church leaders who show they want some kind of change. But that change just doesn't come. Perhaps, something in the basics is wrong therefore. As Christians we should not be ashamed to say it, because it is our duty. We read in the book of Revelation final chapters that the "bride of Christ" as assumed for the church, is given clean linen only then. Therefore, now the bride is not worthy for her bridegroom (as pope Paul VI said). If the church denies that it denies facts.

I don't know what event will catalyze the change, seems it won't come from the top. Such change will happen imminently, as prophesied in hundreds of contemporary prophecies. Whether we call it Chastisement followed by Era of Peace, or we prefer the wordings of early christians of a millenial kingdom to come, or something else? Can we have Messianic era after arrival of Jewish Messiah, not to be messed with the expected second coming of Jesus?

Having the Revelation as the only fully prophetic book of the New Testament, we can easily see there are images never appeared until now: 144,000 and the manchild. They should come first on the world stage, before we are talking of the beast final rule, armageddon and the second coming of Jesus. We either accept the text as true (and canonical) or we don't. If the second option is true, then let we revise EVERYTHING ELSE AS WELL, and not to buy into selective doctrines that served the establishment for centuries. In the information age when every post matters to add to the information awareness of humanity, the medieval techniques simply don't work, even if there are some people who would be willing to employ them again.

I asked that question months ago in other threads, and will ask it again: what comes after pope Francis ultimately retires in not so distant years or even months? The list of Malachi is gone. No second coming of Jesus either. How about the manchild of revelation accompanied by 144,000 (or better say, they come first and then he is ...anointed whatever, a long discussion that I do not have the ability to develop in posts of forum). What happens after the church explores all of its resources and the promised land doesn't come? Shall we stop believing in Jesus'words AS RECORDED by gospels later? Shall we start preparing for that moment to make the landing soft?

Or a shocking event will come first, that the church leaders are well aware of it, and have decided not to tell the billions, therefore keep the convenient status quo to the end and prepare for mass sacrifice? Only no one asked us are we willing to participate. Humanity will be asked, and will answer according to conscience not according to failed doctrines.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You'll have to provide verses to show me that, I only remember them walking through a field and picking some to consume. That's not working the fields.

Luke 6:1 Now it came to pass on a sabbath, that he was going through the grainfields; and his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Plucking ears = harvesting
rubbing in hands = threshing

Consider the mythic precedent of Exodus 16 with the manna. It just wasn't there to be picked up on the Sabbath. If picking up and eating without cooking was okay, then prohibition of cooking would have been sufficient and the manna could have been there for raw consumption.

Yeah, that's not harvesting a field. Harvesting a field is gathering it all, working the land at harvest time. The disciples grabbed some food to eat, that's not the same thing. They were not laboring for a wage.

Here is an example, let's say I was a Jewish chef. Working on the Sabbath would be going to my restaurant and opening the doors, firing up the kitchen ovens, making and selling food for a wage as I would do the other 6 days of the week. It wouldn't be "work" to wake up that Sabbath morning and make myself a bowl of cereal to eat. One is work, the other isnt. The Pharisees were teaching both are "work".

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Pulling an animal out of a pit isn't work that earns a wage either...

Its still exerting ones self... that is the idea behind "no work on the sabbath"

its a day of resting... Just as the OT god rested on the 7th day