Why do Christians always assume they're right?

Walkingfox, I'm not
a dude.

I'm a woman.
Christians are not ALWAYS right, but, when you have God on your side (as a father) He takes the sting out of a lot of mistakes. "O Grave, where is thy victory, O Death, where is thy sting?"

Me + God = the Majority.
or
Anyone+ God = The Majority

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Clearskies]

Great post I agree, I grew up catholic was confirmed whatever else; then I grew up somemore and I grew out of that sort of thing. Religion at it's core beliefs is all well and good but people read to far into things; become arrogant and think they've become higher then the people around them. Well no need to go in any scripture but I'm pretty sure being arrogant and thinking your above people isn't anywhere in there. The more religion seems to gain steam the more I think of fascism. One way of thinking is never, all ways of thinking. Ignorance is bliss.

reply to post by IMAdamnALIEN


I couldn't say it better myself. Consider yourself 'starred'
J.

Originally posted by Incarnated

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Clearskies

 

Jesus became aware of his purpose because he search out the truth.

Now That is an absolutly truthful statement with powerful implications that is overlooked by too many fools.

Jesus is well documented as having to study and think about many things, or at least search out the understandings, thusly if Jesus came back today he wouldn't be able to match up with people's idology of what he is "Suposed to be like".

Well, the basic problem of your post is that Jesus is NOT 'well documented' at all. There is basically little or no historical proof he ever existed... Two negatives do not a positive make...

J.

ALL religions are MAN MADE! NOTHING to do with connecting to God nor spirituality. That's all within you, not in some book you read or get preached on. The book is written by MAN not GOD!

So there is few ways of looking at this... most people are weak/afraid when it comes to self discovery and they live in a denial for rest of their lives, thinking that someone is going to explain to them their own purpose and role in life. If you haven't noticed most people tend to always think they have to belong to a group/cult/religion so that they can fit in society, as if one is better then the other. Always looking OUTSIDE for SELF discovery.

Some men in power back in the day decided to use the power of unknown as a tool to mass mind control society to archive their own personal beliefs. Create fear of right/wrong religions, the judgment days and ALWAYS want your money! There is more death then any natural cause disaster in the name of "religion", how could something that kills so many be positive and righteous path?

The reality of this is that we're socially/culturally/educationally/religiously conditioned since birth to see life in these mens vision and not our own true being. It's why so many plants ('___', Salvia, '___', Mushrooms, etc..) have been considered drug/bad by government because they tend to open our eyes to "reality" and allow us to question the world around ourselves, yet the legalize/promote drinking/smoking and charge arm/leg to get you fixed!

STOP looking OUTSIDE for your SELF consciousness evolution. Be TRULY FREE and discover within.


GOOGLE "ZIETGEST" video! Very informative!

reply to post by jedimiller


...I thought you were being sarcastic!....


Well there you go. The exact reason why this thread was started. I guess in some way we should thank you for completely validating this thread. Your arrogance is staggering Jedi, and your message is diseased with foolishness.

I suggest taking some history lessons.

Just a question....Do you live in the Bible belt by any chance?

Originally posted by jimbo999
Well, the basic problem of your post is that Jesus is NOT 'well documented' at all. There is basically little or no historical proof he ever existed... Two negatives do not a positive make...

J.

I disagree. The Gospels and the formation and spread of the early Christian church are overwhelming evidence he existed. Think about it, the church started within a time that people would remember if he existed. The Jewish historian Josephus, a non biblical source, wrote about him in the year 93 as well.

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 "

reply to post by jedimiller



oh ya, i almost forgot to reply o this one....


have you ever thought....WHAT IF the 'God' in the Bible was wrong?

or has that thought never even occured to you?

you do know that 'God' in the Bible contradicts "himself" heavily right?

God in the bible doesn't contradict himself, its just a she.

1) creates life, men destroy life.

2) all those passages on infidelity? really? you think a guy wrote that?

3) Contradictions? it's called mood swings.


Ah, I love stereotypes....

God in the bible contradicts himself plenty.

One example off the top of my head: God tells the Habarew people to conquer the canaanites and kill them. And they did it (according to the Bible) by the 'hand of God.'

And which commandment does it say "thou shall not kill"? I forget. Let me know when you find it

Actually it says Thou Shalt not Murder.

Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another human being. If god tells you to kill somebody, obviously its not unlawful.

reply to post by WolfofWar


well, i would be interested in what the original text says.. NOT what the greek translated version says...which i have a feeling thats is what you are going by. feel free to correct me if i am wrong. and it does say thou shall not kill in the kings james version.

anyway what would be considered a lawful killing?......youthenasia? oh, wait i know. because the big man in the sky said you could have some land. yes thats it. totally ok to kill for land

shoot... the president said god is on our side...and he is christian, right?. so it is ok to be in iraq and dropping bombs on innocent peoplefor land?..oil?..

reply to post by abelievingskeptic


The only book version that uses kill is the Roman Catholic Church, who replaced Murder with Kill. Everybody else, Whether it be in Hebrew, greek, latin, or english, uses Murder. That was he original word used.

As for what constitutes justified killing? I don't know, I'm not a Christian, let them figure it out. But presumably, it would be based on the laws of the land, and the divine intervention of god.

I never replied to this thread because I figured it would be done in one post. I'm sure this opinion has been put forward plenty in this thread but....

It's not a Christian thing, it's a people thing.

Case closed.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


And here is the accepted scholarly story behind that quote - which is by the way - the only known mention of the guy from a non-christian source that dates from 'around' the period (but probably quite sometime later really...)

The original text of The Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3 § 63-64 reads as follows:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. (AMJ1, 60)

The following are Christian interpolations:

* "if indeed one should call him a man"
o Christians thought that Jesus was more than a man because they thought he was God. No other group believed Jesus was more than a man. Thus, Josephus would not claim that Jesus was more than a man because he was not a Christian.
* "He was the Messiah"
o A Christian profession of faith (cf. Luke 23:35; John 7:26; Acts 9:22).
o The statement seems out of place and disturbs the chain of thought.
o Some think that "Christ" had to be mentioned in this passage because later Josephus says that the Christians were named after him. However, many Greco-Roman writers did not feel the need to make these kinds of connections explicit. "Moreover, a glancing reference to the name of Christ or Christians, without any detailed explanation, is exactly what we would expect from Josephus, who has no desire to highlight messianic figures or expectations among the Jews" (AMJ1, 61).
* "For he appeared . . . things about him"
o A Christian profession of faith.
o Includes the creedal "according to the Scriptures" (cf. 1 Cor 15:5).

After removing these Christian interpolations the text becomes:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out. (AMJ1, 61)

For the following reasons this text is probably what Josephus originally wrote:

* The passage is present in Greek, Latin, Arabic and Syriac manuscripts. However, the earliest manuscript dates to the 11th century and none of the Church fathers before Eusebius mention the passage. "The neutral, or ambiguous, or perhaps somewhat dismissive tone of the Testimonium is probably the reason why early Christian writers (especially the apologists of the 2d century) passed over it in silence, why Origen complained that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ, and why some interpolator(s) in the late 3d century added Christian affirmations" (AMJ1, 68).
* A good argument can be made that Jesus must have been mentioned before the authentic reference to James in 20.9.1 because Josephus does not feel the need to explain who Jesus is in that passage. If Jesus had not been mentioned earlier, Josephus' Gentile audience would be lost.
* The language coheres well with Josephus' language but not with NT language. The opposite is true of the interpolated sections mentioned above. "This comparison of vocabulary between Josephus and the NT does not provide a neat solution to the problem of authenticity, but it does force us to ask which of two possible scenarios is more probable. Did a Christian of some unknown century so immerse himself in the vocabulary and style of Josephus that, without the aid of any modern dictionaries and concordances, he was able to (1) strip himself of the NT vocabulary with which he would naturally speak of Jesus and (2) reproduce perfectly the Greek of Josephus for most of the Testimonium -- no doubt to create painstakingly an air of verisimilitude -- while at the same time destroying that air with a few patently Christian affirmations? Or is it more likely that the core statement, (1) which we first isolated simply by extracting what would strike anyone at first glance as Christian affirmations, and (2) which we then found to be written in typically Josephan vocabulary that diverged from the usage of the NT, was in fact written by Josephus himself? Of the two scenarios, I find the second much more probable" (AMJ1, 63).
* Theological views:
o There is almost no christology developed. This is conceivable in the mouth of a non-hostile Jew but not in the mouth of a Christian. There would be nothing for a Christian to gain by making such an insertion.
o The author is ignorant of material from the four canonical Gospels:
+ In the Gospels, during his public ministry Jesus does not undertake a formal mission to the Gentiles and only a few come to him at all. It would be strange for a Christian interpolater to contradict the Gospels. It is more likely that Josephus retrojected the present-day situation into the past, a practice common in Greco-Roman histories.
+ The Four Gospels give reasons for Jesus' execution while Josephus does not.
+ The amount of Jewish participation in Josephus' account does not jibe with the Gospel accounts. In his account, Pilate alone is said to condemn Jesus to the cross. "Unless we are to think that some patristic or medieval Christian undertook a historical-critical investigation of the Passion Narratives of the Four Gospels and decided a la Paul Winter that behind John's narrative lay the historical truth of a brief hearing by some Jewish official before Jesus was handed over to Pilate, this description of Jesus' condemnation cannot stem from the Four Gospels -- and certainly not from early Christian expansions on them, which were fiercely anti-Jewish" (AMJ1, 65-66).
o Josephus seems surprised that the tribe of Christians have not died out already considering that their leader met a shameful death. A Christian would not make such a statement.
o John the Baptist (18.5.2 § 116-119; a text accepted as authentic by almost all scholars) and Jesus have nothing to do with each other in the mind of Josephus. This directly contradicts the Gospel accounts. Such a treatment is inconceivable as the work of a Christian.


[edit on 13-2-2008 by jimbo999]

reply to post by abelievingskeptic

Actually the truth of the Christian faith is a lot more fantastic than people think. There was good reason to kill them all.

Dig this... In Genesis 6 (also book of Enoch) Fallen Angels mate and impregnate human women. The hybrid offspring are the nephilim, reported to be evil giants. God used the flood to cleanse the corrupted DNA line. Yet it happened again after the flood and there were nephilim occupying the promised land. This is why the Jews were afraid to go in and fight them and God had them wander in the desert for 40 years. Anyway when he commanded Joshua to kill all of the people, man woman and child, it was to literally to cleanse the gene pool of corrupted fallen angel DNA.

Really interesting how todays "Alien" abductions have this reproductive experimentation element... Perhaps it is happening again? I think fallen angels are pretending to be ETs. What better way to cause people question there faith than superior "aliens". Jesus said the end times would be "As in the days of Noah".

Check out my friend Guy Malone's website Alien Resistance

reply to post by jimbo999


Thanks, I've read that web page too. You should credit the source. I agree "He was the messiah" was added by Christian scribes. But the argument was there was no documentation he even existed. So Josephus's account stands as documentation he lived.

Plus the Gospels are plenty documentation in there own right.

[edit on 2/13/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by jimbo999

 

Thanks, I've read that web page too. I agree "He was the messiah" was added by Christian scribes. But the argument was there was no documentation he even existed. So Josephus's account stands as documentation he lived.

Plus the Gospels are plenty documentation in there own right.

Your welcome. But I dissagree with your notion that the Gospels prove anything. They were written many years after the period; and scholars have roundly proven that they have been re-written so much, that to this day, it's difficult to even seperate the original text from the thousands of re-writes.

Regards,
J.

reply to post by jimbo999


Hello, Jimbo. I must say you have me a little confused. Yes, I agree it is very likely the "divine" references in Josephus' Testimonium were later Christian interpolations but on one side you are saying there is no documentation of Jesus' historical existence (and I beg to differ of course but don't want to go off on tangents) then mention two passages from Josephus: The Testimonium without its interpolations and the James-Jesus passage. Explain, please? Everything you just cited about the Testimonum is exactly what most Christians and secular historians believe concerning the original citation.

Reply to Bigwhammy:

Are you forgetting that even tho God said to kill all the "Nephilim" he also told the Israilites that they could take the virgin girls for their own.

So much for cleansing the gene pool huh?