Questions For Christians!!

reply to post by queenannie38


I should've said,also,as love is one of the purist forms of emotion.and its a goal many many people seek!

Originally posted by jakyll
I like what you said about Adam being scared,i've sometimes thought that.after all,no one wants to be alone!

But what if stand by your man is,"ladies,stand by your woman!"

It is.
But men are scared in many ways that women are not. This is because of the maternal instinct. And vice versa.

Look at elephants: the females rule. This is clearly for the best of ALL elephants. We know this because we still have elephants. EVEN after the ivory glut whenever-it-was...we have not made extinct the elephant. Perhaps we can not?

Apart from those sick perverts who are into children and animals,can love between two consenting adults be wrong,no matter what their sex!?!?

LOVE can NEVER go wrong. Never.
Always three L's then a right.
Right? Right.

We must empathize even 'those sick perverts'...ESPECIALLY those. Many are suffering in this world by man's present habit of:

Three R's then a left.
WRONG.
NO ONE left behind.

That is why must love one another as we love ourselves. That means: apply your own degree of selfishness as selflessness to others.

reply to post by queenannie38


D'you find that too many people put rules and conditions on love?

I know i do.i have to say to these people,love is love.it comes in many forms,but all are pure,and all are unconditional1

I'm sure Jesus loved Mary in a different way than he did his disciples,just as he would loved his family in a different way.Its a sad state of affairs when religion damns the love between Jesus and Mary just because they are scared that they may have been married with kids.Also,if you read the gnostic texts,you find that Mary was also a disciple and it was she who was chosen to carry on the work of Jesus.another reason to damn her!!

Originally posted by jakyll
D'you find that too many people put rules and conditions on love?

I do. In DEED. Separatism and judgment of others prohibits spiritual understanding. This is what Jesus meant when he said:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that love me not keeps not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
~ John 14:23-24

I know i do.i have to say to these people,love is love.it comes in many forms,but all are pure,and all are unconditional

That's right. And God IS love. So those that place conditions on love do not know God as they believe they do. He knows them and loves them just the same, but they aren't following the 'commandments.'

I'm sure Jesus loved Mary in a different way than he did his disciples,just as he would loved his family in a different way.Its a sad state of affairs when religion damns the love between Jesus and Mary just because they are scared that they may have been married with kids.Also,if you read the gnostic texts,you find that Mary was also a disciple and it was she who was chosen to carry on the work of Jesus.another reason to damn her!!

Yes, it was. And she carried his cross until they reunited. Mary manifested the spirit of Wisdom. And she will again. That is why the world damns her - just as they damn Eve. But God doesn't. He blessed them. (yet really they are ONE)

A mother always loves her children if they hate her.

Originally posted by The Cyfre
Jesus Christ did exist, and this is a historical fact

False.

There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

Originally posted by The Cyfre
The greatest historian of Rome, Tacitus, wrote of his existence despite the fact that he was quite hostile towards christianity.

TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.

* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.


Iasion

Originally posted by jakyll
it is well known that before the 1st council of nicea in 325a.d. most believers viewed jesus as being mortal.

Rubbish.
This is a myth you repeated from the fictional novel The Da Vinci Code.

The facts show the complete OPPOSITE -

Paul describes Christ as a divine being,
so does the Gospel of John,
so do many other Christian writings.

A fiction novel is not a good source of information.


Iasion

Originally posted by Essedarius
Pliny the Younger, who wrote letters to the Roman Emperor Trajan in the 2nd century BC...which was probably within...what...60 or so years of Jesus's supposed execution?...he was writing about the problems he was having with Christians who refused to curse Christ.

Pliny mentions Christians who worship a Christ - that is not evidence for Jesus.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Flavius Josephus wrote in pretty much the same time period.

The T.F. is a forgery from 60 years afterwards.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Are you really saying that because these writings came a few decades after the supposed death of the supposed Christ that they are not REAL?

Is Krishna real?
Is Hercules real?
Is Osiris real?

No.
Why do you think YOUR myth is real then?

Originally posted by Essedarius
If that's to be our criteria then I think there's a LOT of historical figures that just became fiction.

Many supposed figures are fiction -
* Noah, Abraham,Moses, Joshua, Solomon - all fiction.

Originally posted by Essedarius
So you are seriously saying that Pliny the Younger was having a problem with the adamant followers of Krishna...in ROME...during this time period?

Pliny wrote about Christians who worshipped a "Christ" - so what?
There were many Christs (and many Jesuses too)

This is not evidence for Jesus at all.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Forgeries in that they were obviously changed to give Jesus a suspiciously GLOWING review...not changed to confirm his existence. The Christian historian Origen (who was around shortly after Josephus) actually noted in the third century that "Josephus did not accept Jesus as Christ."

This shows the passage did NOT exist in the time of Origen - this proves it was added later - i.e. forged or interpolated.

So,
the best "evidence" you have is a FORGERY !

Great evidence you have for this myth.


Iasion

Originally posted by shearder
So he is recorded in Jewish writings too.

Jewish records of Jesus say he :
* was a bastard son of Roman soldier
* was conceived during mesntruation
* learned black magic in Eqypt
* was stoned to death in Lydda
* had 5 disciples

Do you think that is accurate ?
If not, why bring it up?

Originally posted by shearder
There are no Roman records because all records were lost in a fire during the time of Nero.

Bollocks.
You really believe all records before Nero were lost?
Complete and utter nonsense.


Iasion

Originally posted by Quazga
Keep in mind it wasn't until the Council of Nicea that the issue of Jesus being God came up. He had to be formed into this in order to be accepted into the Roman Pantheon.

Rubbish !
You guys actually believe the crap you read in The Da Vinci Code !

But it's wrong!

Read the bloody bible and you will see Jesus STARTED as divine being - Jesus in Paul is wholly divine.



Iasion

reply to post by Iasion


Just because i've read the da vinci code does not make me ignorant of christian history,i've read 100's of books on the subject!!
I suggest you learn more about the council of nicea before branding my comments "rubbish." and while your at it,learn about Arius.one of many who taught that god and Jesus were not one and the same.that Jesus was a mortal man.Emperor Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed.Arius was one of these men.

These quotes from the Gospel of Mary Magdalene might shed some light of who and what she really was to Jesus....

""""Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.....""""



""""Chapter 9

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.""""










[edit on 7-9-2007 by jakyll]

[edit on 7-9-2007 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll

Got a question for you,if you don't mind answering it.(a lil off topic.)when i have asked various ppl if lucifer is just an arch angel,why doesn't god kill him,lock him up for all time or whatever,why doesn't he do so??

First off, Lucifer wasn't an "archangel".

At any rate, the plan is this:

Sure The Creator and the christ and all the powers that be there could just punish the transgressors of the law. However it will in the end be much more effective to alow the "evil" done to distroy itself so that all freewilled creatures of creation can truly see the wadgest of sin is death.

Lets just say a bunch of boys were getting ready to jump off a bridge. There were onlookers too. Sure a figure could stop the first boy from jumping off the bridge. Then the rest of the boys will just think the boy was stopped from jumping off the bridge because it was "bad" or "fun". However, if you let that first group of boys jump off the bridge and bring up their dead bodies in front of the other groups. No other boys will be jumping off the bridge.

It would'nt destroy my faith if he was the son of God and had kids. but it would'nt make sents. Jesus came to save all not to put a holy line of Gods of earth. If Jesus was just a moral man I would'nt of follow him cuz his words of no effect when you say life after death.