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.

 

Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

page: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Then I suggest you read what the bible teaches in Matthew chapters 24 & 25. This is Jesus telling us what was going to happen. If your cognitive dissonance you have developed is too strong you won't understand it's meaning.
I don't have cognitive dissonance.
I now believe something different than I did a couple years ago.
The weird cult interpretation that I previously believed in, I don't believe any more.
So there is no conflict in my mind concerning what I believe.
Matthew chapters 24 & 25 describes things that were to happen within the lifetimes of some of who were listening to Jesus. They were fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem and eventually entered in with the result of the destruction of the temple.
I believe that I do understand correctly the meaning of Jesus' predictions.
edit on 3-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


And you would be correct that what Jesus was describing there was leading up to 70 AD and the events that took place then, it was advising Christians living in the first century, but it has a duel application, a minor/major fulfillment. How do we know that, because it parallels the ride of the four Horseman of the Apocalypse in Revelation written after 70 AD. Also Scriptures like Matthew 24:14 could have the good news proclaimed in the known world at the time, but there were limitations on how far people could travel, the bible never existed in it's complete form even. Most Christians acknowledge that what Jesus commanded Christians to do in his parting words to them at the end of Matthew chapter 28, could not be fully accomplished on a worldwide scale without a completed bible in multiple languages.

So it must point to a time after 70 AD, consider just one simple aspect of the prophesy. The knowledge amongst humanity of the prevalence of earthquakes. It was impossible for a Christian living in Europe or Asia to know about earthquakes happening in distant parts of the earth. Today we know exactly what is going on all over the world with earthquakes, just as Jesus prophesied.

USGS

edit on 3-5-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by windword
 

What about the "ritual bathers" of Qumran?

I found out that you can say, Essenes, if you want to.
Even if it may not be completely accurate, it seems that because so many people call them that, that it is now a sort of accepted convention.


GREAT! No more exploded brain matter on my keyboard! lol


As for a name that people were being baptized in by John, it was being baptized into repentance.


Still, if they were Jews, they would've repented to Yahweh, no?


edit on 3-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


is it a legitimate baptism to be done in the name of Bob?


No, Bob did not die for us.

I have to wonder... How does someone claim to be Christian while having so much dislike for Christian baptism and Jesus Christ.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


If god wanted his message to spread across the world, he would have done it. No bible needed. If he could send Jesus to a tiny part of the middle east then he could have sent him anywhere and everywhere to preach his gospel, but he didn't. That leads me to believe that Jesus was no different than you or I, meaning he was limited in what he could do physically.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


is it a legitimate baptism to be done in the name of Bob?


No, Bob did not die for us.

I have to wonder... How does someone claim to be Christian while having so much dislike for Christian baptism and Jesus Christ.


That's a straw man, Adj didn't say anything like that. It's quite obvious he is presenting reductio ad absurdum arguments to you.
edit on 3-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by windword


Still, if they were Jews, they would've repented to Yahweh, no?


No, they would have repented to EhYeh.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


is it a legitimate baptism to be done in the name of Bob?


No, Bob did not die for us.

I have to wonder... How does someone claim to be Christian while having so much dislike for Christian baptism and Jesus Christ.


That's a straw man, Adj didn't say anything like that. It's quite obvious he is presenting reductio ad absurdum arguments to you.
edit on 3-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



No, it is the truth. Bob did not die for us, therefore baptism into Bob would do nothing.

The only name given by which we must be saved is Jesus Christ. A Christian would not fight against this.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Jesus accomplished exactly what he was sent to this earth to do by his Father.
He had a relatively short ministry, his message would be spread far and wide by his followers as he commanded.
And when you think about it, never before has Jesus message and the bible been as accessible as it is in 2013 for those searching for truth.

How many billions of people can now access sites like this.

The Bible



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


And how many billions of people have been duped into believing the lies contained within the bible? Exactly. I think an all-powerful god could do one better than writing words on paper.
edit on 3-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


is it a legitimate baptism to be done in the name of Bob?


No, Bob did not die for us.

That doesn't address what I asked you. I posed the scenario of a person who believes that Jesus' name is really spelled "Bob" and pronounced "Bob", for whatever reason, and whether they could be baptized in the name of "Bob" (who is really Jesus) or if that's an invalid baptism, because it's another name that's not even remotely like "gee-zus".

That's a very simple question, not sure why you can't answer it with a simple yes or no, apart from the realization, perhaps, that your argument loses either way.


I have to wonder... How does someone claim to be Christian while having so much dislike for Christian baptism and Jesus Christ.

Again with the lying. I have no "dislike for Christian baptism and Jesus Christ", have never stated any or shown evidence of it. What "fruit of the spirit" are you displaying by lying about my character?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


And how many billions of people have been duped into believing the lies contained within the bible?

What demonstrable lies are contained in the Bible? (Before you answer, consider carefully what the text is claimed to be, and what "demonstrable" means
)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Not lies, perhaps how it is interpreted are lies.
For example the Catholic Clergy for centuries trying to scare people into submission by advocating "Hellfire" for those that are bad. Now that is a lie.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's a very simple question, not sure why you can't answer it with a simple yes or no, apart from the realization, perhaps, that your argument loses either way.


Bob did not die for us.

And I did not lie. You are fighting against Christian baptism and the name of Jesus Christ.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen
 


That's a very simple question, not sure why you can't answer it with a simple yes or no, apart from the realization, perhaps, that your argument loses either way.


Bob did not die for us.

Stop pretending to be stupid -- I stated very clearly that "Bob" is Jesus. Are you denying that Jesus died for us?


And I did not lie. You are fighting against Christian baptism and the name of Jesus Christ.

No, I'm arguing against your illogical theology, which is not in support of either Christian baptism or the name of Jesus Christ.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The laws of physics are demonstrable and they state that walking on water is impossible. The laws of life and death demonstrate that rising from the dead is impossible. The law of gravity demonstrate that rising into the air is impossible.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


The laws of physics are demonstrable and they state that walking on water is impossible. The laws of life and death demonstrate that rising from the dead is impossible. The law of gravity demonstrate that rising into the air is impossible.

Ah, but the character in question is presented as being supernatural, so the laws of physics have no bearing.

Again, demonstrable, given what the text is claimed to be.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Okay, in that case I guess Zeus came down and impregnated Semele with Dionysus. That story was considered true at one point too. Speaking of that, have you ever looked into the similarities between Dionysus/Bacchus and Jesus? Pretty damning stuff if you ask me. Jesus wasn't the first person to supposedly rise from the dead you know.
edit on 3-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


Speaking of that, have you ever looked into the similarities between Dionysus/Bacchus and Jesus?

Oh? Do you think that Bacchus was a woman, too?



Pretty damning stuff if you ask me.

Not really. There are aspects of any story that can be found in common with others, but the Christian story is unique at its core -- something ignored by claimants of parallelism pretty much universally. Bacchus is the god of the grape harvest, so a life/death/life cycle is pretty much inherent in his story.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I don't think Jesus was a woman. Unlike yours, my views change with new information.


There are more than just a few, and Bacchus was a Roman god. Romans are the ones who nailed Jesus to the cross then had control of his story afterwards. You can choose to ignore the similarities, but that doesn't make them disappear.

You agree that Bacchus' resurrection is made up but refuse to even consider that Jesus' was as well. Funny how Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine. Bacchus was the god of wine.
edit on 3-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


I don't think Jesus was a woman. Unlike yours, my views change with new information.

New information? There is "breaking news" about Jesus? No, the fact of the matter is that you made a mistake in ever thinking that Jesus was a woman, because everything that you needed to know was there, you just ignored it.


There are more than just a few, and Bacchus was a Roman god.

Actually, Bacchus is just a relabeled Dionysus, who was a Greek god. The stories about him came from the Greeks, not the Romans.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join