Judas.. Pure Evil or A friend of Jesus..., page 2

reply to post by moocowman

---

The origin of the G-d thing comes from reverence for His name up to the point of superstition where only the high priest could say His name in a whisper when he went into the Holies of Holies on the day of atonement. It's a man made rule though because G-d told us to call Him by name, and after Yeshua; our Father.

Here is a URL to a site that goes towards answering your next question, I'm on my iPhone at the moment and am having difficulty doing it in the normal way; www.bibleandscience.com...

Your last point? Purrrlease? Baiting much? You had the ten commandments, which boiled down to love G-d, love each other, given by G-d, and the law of Moses written and added to by man. A part of Yeshua's mission was to give the true interpretation of the law, which He summed up with love G-d and love each other.

reply to post by defcon5

---

Point is that Rome did not write the Bible, contrary to popular opinion based on films such as the "DaVinci Code", but rather came from the Christian faith dating back to the original Church Fathers such as John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus.

Don't you mean "Rome did not write the New Testament " ?

It would appear that the NT was indeed compiled and edited at Nicea following this all other scripture that did not comply to the canon (the new region) were ordered destroyed.

We have to bear in mind that xtianity today appears to be based on the writings of Paul if such a person actually existed.

Christianity would be the invention of Rome but the church of Jesus "The Jerusalem church" was headed by the brother of jesus, James the bishop of Jerusalem" .

What we have in the new testament is lies and contradictions wrapped up in a cult forced upon the illiterate.

Not to go to far off topic, the New Testament simply cannot be trusted to give an historical account of any occurrences, so perhaps one should look at the judas problem simply from a place of reason.

If jesusyahweh was real a god and had a plan and judas was part of that plan, then Judas simply could not, not do whatever he was alleged to have done or the plan would fail implying that god is not the creator of all that there is.

reply to post by Selahobed

---

The origin of the G-d thing comes from reverence for His name up to the point of superstition where only the high priest could say His name in a whisper when he went into the Holies of Holies on the day of atonement. It's a man made rule though because G-d told us to call Him by name, and after Yeshua; our Father.

You earlier said the name of your deity was YWHA not g-d, are you implying that when you discuss one of the other gods you write god but when you write about your god ywha you write g-d.

When you think about your deity, for example praying do you think ywha, g-d , god ?
I'm not baiting you I'm trying to figure out what goes through the mind of the superstitious.

Your link was broken by the way.

You did not comment on there not being any evidence whatsoever of 2 million Hebrew slaves being held captive in Egypt. Needless to say that there is no evidence for a moses leading these non existent slaves.

What are your thoughts on the possibility of the Hebrews being the descendants of the exile from Tell El Armana, and that jewish Monotheism originated there a product of the cult of the Aten ?

Originally posted by moocowman
Don't you mean "Rome did not write the New Testament " ?

The books of the New Testament were already decided on by others before the Roman Catholic Church even existed. As I stated, Irenaeus of Lyons quoted 21 of the 27 New Testament Books in Adverses Heresies in 180 AD.

Originally posted by moocowman
It would appear that the NT was indeed compiled and edited at Nicea following this all other scripture that did not comply to the canon (the new region) were ordered destroyed.

No such thing happened at the Council of Nicaea, the minutes of the council still exist and are a historical fact. The main topic of contention at the Council was the debate on the Arian controversy, which lead to the writing of the Nicaean Creed. Here is the agenda of the Council:

First Council of Nicaea
1. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in purpose only or also one in being;
2. The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3. The Meletian schism;
4. The validity of baptism by heretics;
5. The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

Originally posted by moocowman
We have to bear in mind that xtianity today appears to be based on the writings of Paul if such a person actually existed.

First off, I realize that you live solely for the purpose of ticking off Christians, but the term is in fact Christian, not xtian. With that said, the Writings of Paul are not the foundation of the Church, they might be for Roman Catholicsism, but Roman Catholicism does not encompass the entirety of Christianity.

Originally posted by moocowman
What we have in the new testament is lies and contradictions wrapped up in a cult forced upon the illiterate.

Men of God have historically been the most studied and learned men of their time for thousands of years. To speak Latin, and be trained in the classics, one would have to be trained in a religious institution.

Originally posted by moocowman
Not to go to far off topic, the New Testament simply cannot be trusted to give an historical account of any occurrences, so perhaps one should look at the judas problem simply from a place of reason.

Irenaeus of Lyons was trained by Polycarp of Smyrna, who was trained by John the Apostle of Jesus himself. I think its safe to say that he was more qualified then you to decide on what belonged in the Bible and what did not. Other men such as Clement of Rome, and Ignatius of Antioch, knew and communicated with the original Apostles and writers of the New Testament book themselves. This was all well before the existence of the Roman Catholic Church, and the existence of Constantine I.

I recommend that you read actual historical texts on the early church fathers, and put less credence in sources such as "DaVinci Code". The DaVinci Code is the ONLY source stating that the Council of Nicaea had ANYTHING to do with the writing of the Bible.

reply to post by defcon5

---

Like everything else revolving around these bizarre often vague, conflicting and confusingly worded scriptures that have resulted in a divided planet and a sea of corpses strewn around it these are things you take entirely upon faith friend.

Other people's word, passed on by the word of other people, passed on by the word of other people with an absolute faith that they are all telling the truth even while Christians argue amongst themselves endlessly what the passages in the book actually are saying and mean?

Rome wrote the Bible for obvious reasons. It's called divide and conquer warfare and enslavement.

It is what it is and that's what it is. Look at the Pope and the Staff he carries, put him in King Arthurs Court and every one would assume he was Merlin the Magician.

reply to post by omarsharif

---

So the bible was written by the roman catholic church? The same catholic church that forbid the common man from even reading a bible up till now?

Looks that way my friend and it would appear that all xtianity is a derivative of said church.

Needless to say anyone professing to be an xtian but not of the doctrines of this church, must be following some other doctrine.

Anything that was not of catholic doctrine was heresy, so those not of catholic doctrine are heretical and must be following some other doctrine.

The only other mention of jesusyahweh god is in relation to the gnostic gospels, nothing else exists.

I can only assume (as an outsider) that christians are either catholic or heretic, we have to bear in mind there is no mention of this jesus christ character outside what the gospels have to say.
So it would appear that the roman catholic church own the copyright of Christianity how is it possible for anyone to claim to be some other type of christian when the RCC invented xtianity ?

If an xtian is to accept something extrabiblical in relation to jesus then surely they should accept "everything" extrabiblical in relation to jesus, zero evidence cannot be cherry picked into packets of genuine hearsay and non genuine hearsay.

hearsay is hearsay

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

---

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Like everything else revolving around these bizarre often vague, conflicting and confusingly worded scriptures that have resulted in a divided planet and a sea of corpses strewn around it these are things you take entirely upon faith friend.

No Christian organization outside the Roman Catholic Church has been involved in such events, which is why many Christians do not consider that to be a Christian organization. To me Rome is the Fourth Beast of Daniel, the First Beast of Revelations, and the Woman Riding the Beast, to be exact. The other wars have been between other Religious groups over the years, especially the Jewish and Muslim faiths.
Name me one Christian faith other then Rome who has declared or fought a war against anyone?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Other people's word, passed on by the word of other people, passed on by the word of other people with an absolute faith that they are all telling the truth even while Christians argue amongst themselves endlessly what the passages in the book actually are saying and mean?

That is why men such as Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus fought to keep the word in line with the actual words of Christ. This is way Irenaeus wrote Adverses Heresies to begin with, to fight off Gnostic faiths that were trying to interject their message into the messages of Christ.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Rome wrote the Bible for obvious reasons. It's called divide and conquer warfare and enslavement.

As shown, Rome did not exist for almost 1000 years after the early church fathers had chosen the books of the bible. If Rome could have altered the words of God, don't you think they would have done so to stop the Protestant Reformation?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It is what it is and that's what it is. Look at the Pope and the Staff he carries, put him in King Arthurs Court and every one would assume he was Merlin the Magician.

Yes, the Pope is the Pontifex Maximus, he is the “Little Horn” of Daniels Prophecies. Rome is Pagan, that is why they base things on BOTH Scripture and Tradition. The RCC is what is left of the Roman Empire intermingled with the Christian Faith, and not considered a Christian religion by many Christians. The woman with a cup who rides the Beast of seven hills, the Roman Sibyl, the symbol of the Vatican...

reply to post by defcon5

---

It's called divide and conquer warfare friend. It's what Rome specializes in!

The Good Book is all about circular logic that locks you into accepting a one world government instituted by Rome.

Nothing in the Old or New Testament is historically accurate and it's all just rewritten ritual and belief from previous religions.

You believe in it and lock yourself into it at your own risk. The risk of allowing a one world government instituted by Rome and run by Rome.

It's all about divide and conquer warfare, that's why the protestant movement was allowed to flourish.

The answers are in your own ability to percieve and rationalize things not in a book that demands how you are supposed to.

reply to post by defcon5

---

Name me one Christian faith other then Rome who has declared or fought a war against anyone?

The protestants of Northern Ireland

reply to post by defcon5

---

. The DaVinci Code is the ONLY source stating that the Council of Nicaea had ANYTHING to do with the writing of the Bible.

Get real dude -


"The great and holy council of Nicaea having been convened by the grace of God, and by the most religious emperor, Constantine, who summoned us from different provinces and cities, we judge it requisite that a letter be sent from the whole Holy Synod to inform you also what questions have been mooted and debated, and what has been decreed and established.

"In the first place, the impious doctrines of Arius were investigated before our most religious emperor Constantine; and his impiety was unanimously anathematized, as well as the blasphemous language and views which he had propounded, alleging that the Son of God was out of what was not, that before He was begotten He was not, that there was a period in which He was not, and that He can, according to His own freewill, be capable either of virtue or of vice. The holy council anathematized all these assertions, and even refused so much as to listen to such impious and foolish opinions, and such blasphemous expressions.

reply to post by gerg357

---

But i feel he was forced into this.

The way I see it is that just because an omniscient being knows what happens in advance does not mean it forces a human to perform a certain action. Therefore, I believe God knew what Judas was going to do (hence the messianic prophecies about the Messiah being betrayed by a friend). But that does not mean God forced Judas to do what he did.

With that said, I like to think Judas was forgiven. He did not die with an unapologetic heart. In fact, he was extremely remorseful and tried to undo the damage he had done, to no avail. Of course we don't know for sure but I do like to think he was forgiven.

reply to post by gerg357

---

What youre not getting is judas had to betray jesus because this was meant to happen. Jesus had to die on the cross and judas had to be the one to do this. If god seen this happen before it happens then its got to happen. So judas really didnt have a choice but to do as he was programmed.

No, I understand what you're getting at. But, simply because God knew that Judas was going to do something doesn't mean that Judas was preprogrammed to do it. He still had a choice to make, and made the decision to betray Jesus. He wasn't a robot

My theory is based on freewill. The fact that judas couldnt be in hell or be punished since he had no free will to stop himself.

But he did have free-will. Whether or not God knew something was going to happen didn't mean that Judas didn't have free will. All the prophecies said was that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave. (Until Jesus predicted that Judas was going to betray him; then it was a done deal.) Judas could've resisted the temptation to betray Jesus and the unfortunate role could've passed to someone else. Know what I mean? (Just for fun, I think that if Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, Peter would have, but that's neither here nor there.)

reply to post by defcon5

---

What you might fail to recognize is that Germania at that point in time was the Seat of the Holy Roman Empire.

What you might not fully recognize is the protest, was not a protest to the entirety or a rejection of it all out of hand but to redefine some aspects and loosen some restrictions in regards to the doctrine to make it over all more appealing to those attempting to follow the doctrine.

This did not end the cult of Christianity or fundementally change the cult of Christianity it just made it more platable for people to practice the cult of Christianity.

In other words it's still Rome's game, still Rome's book, just silightly different rules and an interpetation of the rules that ended up making it more not less appealing to people.

From Rome's standpoint of using it as an overall system of control this was not a failure or a defeat but rather a victory as the basic premise became even more deeply ingrained and universally accepted.

The fact that this occur in the seat of the Holy Roman Empire where it was easier to to influence the subtle changes in how the cult could be participated in is all the more telling.

The dark ages were primarily used to force the religion upon all the pagan peoples of Europe. The Renaisssance ushered in by the protestant movement simply allowed for the technologies and freedoms to start further exporting the religion accross the world in a more palatable form of the laities own volition.

That certainly did not harm Rome in anyway as the Roman Catholic Faithful and the Church followed along where ever the Protestants expanded to becoming the largest single land owner in the world in the process.

Guess that showed Rome! Not!

Most of Christianity is based on Sassanind Gnosticism, Astrollogy, Sun Worship and some Egyptian, Greece and Roman religious principals. When you say Amen you are in fact dedicating your prayers to Amen-Ra.

The original Christ Sect came from the English aisles not Jerusalem or Nazareth.

It was developed in Rome as a religion for slaves, and that ought to tell you something right there!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

---

In other words it's still Rome's game, still Rome's book, just silightly different rules and an interpetation of the rules that ended up making it more not less appealing to people.

Tell a Protestant, especially those that are more Calvinistic, that their interpretation is just slightly different than the Roman Church's. Study Roman Catholic beliefs compared to most Protestant beliefs and come back and tell me that they're just "slightly" different. On many points, it's like night and day.

When you say Amen you are in fact dedicating your prayers to Amen-Ra.

No, when I say, "amen", I'm saying, "let it be so" or alluding to I'm in agreement with what's said.

These word games that people try to play are funny.

reply to post by octotom

---

That won't stop Amen's ears from perking up and saying thanks I appreciate that!

You prove my point Rome practices divide and conquer warfare exceedingly well.

Divisions within divisions all beholden too and arguing over the same thing of Rome's creation. You can't get more enslaving than that!

reply to post by moocowman

---

The only other mention of jesusyahweh god is in relation to the gnostic gospels, nothing else exists.

I think you forgot about the Talmud, Josephus, and some others.

I can only assume (as an outsider) that christians are either catholic or heretic, we have to bear in mind there is no mention of this jesus christ character outside what the gospels have to say.

Yes, if you're assuming that Catholicism is correct. You still are forgetting the Talmud, Josephus, and some other extra-biblical sources for Jesus' existance.

So it would appear that the roman catholic church own the copyright of Christianity how is it possible for anyone to claim to be some other type of christian when the RCC invented xtianity ?

Rome didn't invent Christianity. It exisited long before the Roman Church. Here is a verse in Acts, which is dated the the AD 60s, stating how people were being called Christians for their beliefs and practices. Acts 11.26:

and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

Not to mention that there were people that wrote of Christianity in the early church. So, people can claim to be Christian outside the Roman church, as there were Christians before it existed.

[edit on 11/2/2009 by octotom]

"God is an Imaginary Friend" Athiest Billboards in Denver-
  Posted 18 days ago with 31 member flags

Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 5 days ago with 14 member flags

What if all the major religions started out with the same story and it slowly diverged from there
  Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags

I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 4 days ago with 11 member flags

What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags

The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 11 days ago with 7 member flags

Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags

The real Jewish people. Torah Jews Against ZIONISM
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: