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.

 

Who started attacking christianity?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr

Originally posted by NextLevel
Who first persecuted the Christians?

Why -- the Jews -- of course.

bible-history.com...

Mark 15:11 [NIV] But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

So -- thanks Jews -- you purposely angered the crowd and incited them to crucify Jesus instead of the thief. This can defintely be understood to be the 'first persecution' of Christianity (being that Christ was -- well, uh -- the head of the Christian Church [trinity]).

Nice.







But God predetermined the event! (Acts 4:27-28)

[edit on 14-11-2004 by dr]



Hrm....

Acts 4:27 That is what has happened here in this city! For Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate the governor, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all united against Jesus, your holy servant, whom you anointed.

Acts 4:28 In fact, everything they did occurred according to your eternal will and plan.

I assume you mean that God's will was unbroken, and thus the events as they happened - happened. Predetermination is not scripturally correct in the context of the Bible, specifically because there is free will of man to do as he pleases.

The correct exogesis would follow the lines of:

-> Men have free will
-> God's will is that their free will shall not be interrupted (generally)
-> Thus, a mans will will be unchanged - and that shall also be God's will

Unless, of course, he wills otherwise.

Bottom line: Jews killed Jesus. First persecution event against Christianity.



dr

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by apw100

Originally posted by dr
Matt 5:9

He preached a sermon on it. The "blessed are...." verses are titles of the sermons.

The term "peacemaker" is a Greek and Latin word that meant peace through strength as in the Pax Romana There were no hippies then.


Or it could be translated in its literal sense as "peace makers", which would fit far more easily into Jesus's philosophies. Jesus's whole message and purpose was one of forgiveness. I would seriously doubt that Jesus would support a pre-emptive attack on a country that had never attacked us, and the killing of tens of thousand of innocent civilians in the process. Just a thought...



No. It is one word not two. We know from coins and other evidence that this term meant peace through strength.

Here is such a coin:

www.virginia.edu...

Scroll to the fith coin down.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr


Matt 5:9

He preached a sermon on it. The "blessed are...." verses are titles of the sermons.

The term "peacemaker" is a Greek and Latin word that meant peace through strength as in the Pax Romana There were no hippies then.


I think your going alittle far by implying Jesus meant peace through war when he said blessed are the peacemakers. Peacemakers a word used only once in the New Testament.

The Greek word for peacemaker is eirenopoios. The first part of the word means peace. Like the Hebrew concept of shalom,The second part of the word means to "make", "shape", or "craft".

If dont see where you could get he was advocating war in any way. Putting it in context with the rest of his teaching it does not fit at all.

www.fbchsv.org...

[edit on 14-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]


dr

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel

Originally posted by dr

Originally posted by NextLevel
Who first persecuted the Christians?

Why -- the Jews -- of course.

bible-history.com...

Mark 15:11 [NIV] But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

So -- thanks Jews -- you purposely angered the crowd and incited them to crucify Jesus instead of the thief. This can defintely be understood to be the 'first persecution' of Christianity (being that Christ was -- well, uh -- the head of the Christian Church [trinity]).

Nice.







But God predetermined the event! (Acts 4:27-28)

[edit on 14-11-2004 by dr]



Hrm....

Acts 4:27 That is what has happened here in this city! For Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate the governor, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were all united against Jesus, your holy servant, whom you anointed.

Acts 4:28 In fact, everything they did occurred according to your eternal will and plan.

I assume you mean that God's will was unbroken, and thus the events as they happened - happened. Predetermination is not scripturally correct in the context of the Bible, specifically because there is free will of man to do as he pleases.

The correct exogesis would follow the lines of:

-> Men have free will
-> God's will is that their free will shall not be interrupted (generally)
-> Thus, a mans will will be unchanged - and that shall also be God's will

Unless, of course, he wills otherwise.

Bottom line: Jews killed Jesus. First persecution event against Christianity.




Doesn't predestined mean predestined?

The reason we know that God predetermined the event is BECAUSE IT SAYS SO!


dr

posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by dr

Originally posted by TheRepublic
do you have a verse for that?
where did jesus say that?

just curious


Matt 5:9

He preached a sermon on it. The "blessed are...." verses are titles of the sermons.

The term "peacemaker" is a Greek and Latin word that meant peace through strength as in the Pax Romana There were no hippies then.


I think your going alittle far by implying Jesus meant peace through war when he said blessed are the peacemakers. Peacemakers a word used only once in the New Testament.

The Greek word for peacemaker is eirenopoios. The first part of the word means peace. Like the Hebrew concept of shalom,The second part of the word means to "make", "shape", or "craft".

If dont see where you could get he was advocating war in any way. Putting it in context with the rest of his teaching it does not fit at all.

www.fbchsv.org...





Right. The word occurs only once. That is an argument for my side not yours.

It is one word. It is not two parts. It is one word on purpose. The term in Jesus day meant peace through strenth. That is the same word Jesus used.

I will write this pastor David W. Hull a letter. He does not know what he is talking about. THe word Jesus used is Greek not Hebrew.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by dr]



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel
Who first persecuted the Christians?

Why -- the Jews -- of course.

bible-history.com...

Mark 15:11 [NIV] But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

So -- thanks Jews -- you purposely angered the crowd and incited them to crucify Jesus instead of the thief. This can defintely be understood to be the 'first persecution' of Christianity (being that Christ was -- well, uh -- the head of the Christian Church [trinity]).

Nice.







Mmmm. But Jesus was Jewish himself. And Christ wouldn't be Christ without the Crucifixion deal. Jesus wanted to be killed. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone back.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
dr do you think that part fits into the whole of the teaching of Jesus. We also have to understand these words where written long after Jesus died so they are most likely not the exact words of his teachings.

There are many examples of advocating war in the Old Testament, I just think this is grasping at straws trying to make Jesus look like he advocated war in anyway.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr[/i

No. It is one word not two. We know from coins and other evidence that this term meant peace through strength.



"PEACEMAKER
pes'-mak-er: Occurs only in the plural (Mt 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers (eirenopoioi): for they shall be called sons of God" (who is "the God of peace")). We have also what seems to be a reflection of this saying in Jas 3:18, "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for (the Revised Version margin "by") them that make peace" (tois poiousin eirenen). In classical Greek a "peacemaker" was an ambassador sent to treat of peace. The word in Mt 5:9 would, perhaps, be better rendered "peace-workers," implying not merely making peace between those who are at variance, but working peace as that which is the will of the God of peace for men."

www.reference-guides.com...



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Wouldn't Jesus be using a Aramaic word not a Greek or Latin word? That was the tongue he spoke.

Then we have the fact that this was written down alteast 30 yrs after he died. That would be almost a generation after the fact how could anyone remember the exact word he used?


dr

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
dr do you think that part fits into the whole of the teaching of Jesus. We also have to understand these words where written long after Jesus died so they are most likely not the exact words of his teachings.

There are many examples of advocating war in the Old Testament, I just think this is grasping at straws trying to make Jesus look like he advocated war in anyway.


Yes it fits. Did not Jesus whip the heathen out of His church? Did not Jesus kill the whole planet? Isnt Jesus coming back on a white horse with blood up to the stirrups? Remember the term is not an advocate of war. The Romans wanted peace in the Roman held territory.

Jesus is God not Gandhi.

The term is the same term used to mean peace through strenth. The term was used in Jesus day to mean peace through strenth. It is a different term that is used in other places in the NT for peace.


dr

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Wouldn't Jesus be using a Aramaic word not a Greek or Latin word? That was the tongue he spoke.

Then we have the fact that this was written down alteast 30 yrs after he died. That would be almost a generation after the fact how could anyone remember the exact word he used?


Latin was the main language. It was not the exact words Jesus used. It was the subject of a sermon Jesus preached on.


dr

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by apw100

Originally posted by dr[/i

No. It is one word not two. We know from coins and other evidence that this term meant peace through strength.



"PEACEMAKER
pes'-mak-er: Occurs only in the plural (Mt 5:9, "Blessed are the peacemakers (eirenopoioi): for they shall be called sons of God" (who is "the God of peace")). We have also what seems to be a reflection of this saying in Jas 3:18, "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for (the Revised Version margin "by") them that make peace" (tois poiousin eirenen). In classical Greek a "peacemaker" was an ambassador sent to treat of peace. The word in Mt 5:9 would, perhaps, be better rendered "peace-workers," implying not merely making peace between those who are at variance, but working peace as that which is the will of the God of peace for men."

www.reference-guides.com...



You need to go and get the older version of the ISBE. The liberals have revised it.

What did the Greek ambassador do if peace could not be negotiated? The ISBE left that part out didnt they?

The coin I gave you showed the Greek idea of "peacemaking". The olive branch goes with the club! Thus Jesus knew that war if needed for the purpose of peace was justified and necessary sometimes. Jesus could have easily condemned war. He did not.


The term in James, as the ISBE points out, is a completeley diferent term. Also note that the ISBE knows the term was Greek and that it was a reference to that term.

You are making my argument for me.




[edit on 15-11-2004 by dr]

[edit on 15-11-2004 by dr]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by apw100
The reason Christians are criticized so much is because of their percieved hypocracy. Their religion teaches pacifism and understanding, yet people still manage to kill others in the name of Christ(Crusades, Inquisition, witch trials, etc).
Islam and Judaism, dont have that pacifist("turn the other cheek") foundation, so they arent considered hypocrites when they take revenge or are more aggressive.


Again, Crusades being used in askewed history as evidence although Catholicism and Christianity are not quite the same, Inquisition, uh, Catholicism, the With Trials were fair aas they had representation....uh...ok - I'll personally take credit for the etc. charge. Is that ok; can I take that as my own personal cross? Sigh, the typical old crap that is not only stale, but has been warped to suit needs.

I see no vengance or aggression, only the demand to protect and defend the country. Good thing their are Christians to do that, if it is only us who demand that. Fortunately, if we are that strong as to make the "majority" (It is always made it sound as if we are the loony minority and the rest of the "You all" are the majority) do as we demand, it is good that we are also in control, to allow the country to always be generous in its aide to the once enemies who wanted us destroyed. Sure, we are rarely appreciated, and those we help usually come back to hate us more, but that is not our spiritual problem.

No, their is no hypocrisy there (although, yes, we are all sinners and hypocrites. Thank God we are saved, though), just an attempt to hate the Christian part of America, and in some warped way, blame the attacks on America on the Christians through blaming us for the necessary response.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr
The term in Jesus day meant peace through strenth. That is the same word Jesus used.

This easily qualifies as one the dumbest things I've read on ATS. And while it doesn't answer who started attacking chirstianity, which is the topic of this thread; it certainly helps to clarify why it's being attacked.

Here's a quote from your link to the roman coins:


Rev. HERC PACIFERO
(Hercules Pacifero)
Hercules standing L; club in hand; displayed in heroic nudity; with olive branch and lion skin.
This coin with Hercules the Peacemaker on the back exemplifies the Roman idea of peacemaking: peace with a club in hand.

The part I put in bold is important here. Jesus was an advocate of the Roman idea of peacemaking, was he? Gimme a break.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I believe jesus believed you can only win a war with words.


dr

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by dr
The term in Jesus day meant peace through strenth. That is the same word Jesus used.

This easily qualifies as one the dumbest things I've read on ATS. And while it doesn't answer who started attacking chirstianity, which is the topic of this thread; it certainly helps to clarify why it's being attacked.

Here's a quote from your link to the roman coins:


Rev. HERC PACIFERO
(Hercules Pacifero)
Hercules standing L; club in hand; displayed in heroic nudity; with olive branch and lion skin.
This coin with Hercules the Peacemaker on the back exemplifies the Roman idea of peacemaking: peace with a club in hand.

The part I put in bold is important here. Jesus was an advocate of the Roman idea of peacemaking, was he? Gimme a break.



Obviously He was since He used the term and said that they were considered sons of God.


dr

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
I believe jesus believed you can only win a war with words.


Is this the same JEsus that whipped the money changers?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr
Yes it fits. Did not Jesus whip the heathen out of His church? Did not Jesus kill the whole planet? Isnt Jesus coming back on a white horse with blood up to the stirrups?

First of all, Jesus never said that he killed the whole planet. He never said that he is coming back on a white horse with blood up to the stirrups. Some crazy man(John) who had never met him said that.



Jesus is God not Gandhi.

No, but they both preached peace, forgiveness and compassion.


The term is the same term used to mean peace through strenth. The term was used in Jesus day to mean peace through strenth. It is a different term that is used in other places in the NT for peace.

No, the work "peacemaker" is only used once in the NT, and that is in Mathew 5:9. Also, the ancient Greek word that is used in the Mathew, "eijrhnopoiov", does not mean "peace through strength", it means just what its translated as "peace maker".

arabic.biblestudytools.net...


[edit on 15-11-2004 by apw100]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Jesus never liiked the money changers.
Which are the big banks of today.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Using the one time Jesus loss his temper and all he did was whip them. If he was part of God he could have turned them all into dust with a thought.

I dont know how you can compare turning over tables and whipping someone to advocating war. Did Jesus not heal a Roman guard that came to arrest him after one of his followers cut off his ear.

You are just taking one mistranslated word and trying to turn around everything Jesus taught

[edit on 15-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 15-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join