The majority thinks Christians are judgemental and stupid

it appears the majority also elected a mixed race, homosexual, communist/moslem-sympathizing, anti-American as POTUS. We're on the brink of social and economic collapse and many major foreign nations have legitimate reasons to hate us--- but as long as football and beer are available, the majority will go along with whatever TPTB promote on their MSM. That means the end of the US constitution.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


He said that because the people to which he was speaking were confused. They thought they were still under the covenant of the old law.

The "religious" folk at that time were doing all sorts of crazy things to maintain the law...but Jesus was telling them "Look, all you have to do to keep the law is love your neighbor like yourself and love God!"

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


You just reinforced my point, thank you. He was talking to his disciples when he said this by the way.

Matthew 5
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The religious people today are no different from the ones back then, blinded by traditions of men, traditions created by Paul and his church, traditions inserted and interpolated into the bible to blind people to the truth.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Early followers of Jesus were called many things by many people....but they rarely called themselves anything in particular...Often times they used "brethren" "disciples" "apostles" "servants" "believers" "followers" "the faithful""the elect" "the called" or "saints."

Early followers of Jesus had a religion that they identified with and named that religion Nazarene, Followers of the Way and called themselves "Sheep".

In Acts we see the first appearance of the term "christian", which wasn't the 4th century as you seem to believe....The pagans at Antioch called them "christians" Acts 11:26; 26:28

Jerome (347 AD) said:

All Christians were called Nazarenes once…They were so-called followers of the apostles…they dedicate themselves to the law…However, everyone called the Christians Nazarenes as I said before. This appears from the accusation against Paul…[Acts 24:5]…

For they use not only the New Testament but also the Old…For they also accept the resurrection of the dead and that everything has origin in God…Only in this respect they differ from the Jews and Christians: with the Jews they do not agree because of their belief in Christ, with the Christians because they are trained in the Law, in circumcision, the Sabbath and the other things…

This heresy of the Nazarenes exists in Beroea in the neighborhood of Coele Syria and the Decapolis in the region of Pella and in Basanitis in the so-called Kokabe, Chochabe in Hebrew. For from there it took its beginning after the exodus from Jerusalem and to go away since it would undergo a siege. Because of this advice they lived in Perea after having moved to that place as I said. There the Nazarene heresy had its beginning. www.hope-of-israel.org...

The Nazarene were the early followers of Jesus that the Catholic church couldn't convert, so they called them heretics, killed as many of them as they could and changed the religion's name to Christians and adopted the pagan term "Christ".

So when the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus at the river Jordan at the time of his baptism...that's not an anointing?

Wouldn't that be called"Baptism"?

To anoint is to pour or smear with perfumed oil, milk, water, melted butter or other substances, a process employed ritually by many religions. People and things are anointed to symbolize the introduction of a sacramental or divine influence, a holy emanation, spirit, power or God. en.wikipedia.org...

Jesus was never anointed.

Christ never denied that he was King of the Jews, yet he never directly confirmed it either. So here's the pickle...Try Matthew 2 "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?"....Or Matthew 27...[37] "And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."

Most astonishing that Pilate puts the words of Jesus as "I AM KING OF THE JEWS"...but you don't think Jesus ever claimed such....

Nope.

And set up over his head his accusation written, This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews.

Jesus was falsely accused of claiming to be King of the Jews. This sign was done to mock the Jews, "Here's the man you claim to be your King!" The Jews rejected Jesus because he wasn't a military messiah, which is what made a King/messiah in the Old Testament. Jesus never called himself "King" or asked anyone else to call him "King". His kingdom was NOT of this world, remember?

I don't know if you realize this or not, but when we say Jesus Christ, we mean Jesus THE Christ, as a title not a name.......It's an important distinction to make....and Jesus clearly accepted all sorts of titles. Early disciples called him Lord. He was given the title "Son of God" which definitely points to some "anointing" of some sort...which is exactly what the title CHRIST does...It is simply a title that identifies Jesus as THE CHRIST...THE SON OF GOD....THE ANOINTED ONE...nothing less, nothing more...

Whether you realize it or not, "Christ" is a pagan concept and people were called Christians and Christs long before Jesus was even born and continued to be called Christians even after Jesus had long passed.

Why would Jesus or his early followers take a pagan title. Jesus and his followers were Jews! Why would they name their religion after a pagan cult following? They wouldn't!

Jesus Christ or Jesus the Christ never existed!

When I first rest this posting, I was not going to answer, trying to come up with a response that is worthy of such a posting. It took a bit of thinking, and here is what was come up with:

There are 2 quotes that best describe why the majority think the way that they do, the first is: A few bad apples spoil the bunch. The second comes from Gandhi: I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Being a student of history and reading much, studying much, and like the OP, looking at the different beliefs and religions out there, if there is ever a religion that has had a colorful history that is well documented, both the good and the bad, it is that of Christianity. The problem is that from most of recorded history, those who are Christians have used their belief and the bible as an excuse to behave badly. Anything that they felt that they had a right to, they would find one passage or another to justify, and ultimately saw no wrong in it. Even in the USA, where it is to be a beacon of freedoms, sometimes those are challenged to where they are denied to others. And all of those who would deny freedoms to others, would be all based around the belief in Christianity and the Bible.

But today, the trend is not to deny rights, but to persecute and use religion as a weapon. Time and time again, it is shown and demonstrated, where it can be used to heal and bring people together, it is being used as a weapon to divide and persecute. And all cause of one or 2 passages in a book. And people instead of looking or even living the message, follow along without questioning those that would tell them that they are the expert. The sad part, is that if you look at the bible, that is a book. And yes it is a book, but a good book, to follow in the footsteps of the man who Christians worship, and to follow the message he gave out, the world would be a better place. But they do not, rather what many who lead the Christian community tends to do, is use the bible as a tool of hatred and intolerance, picking and choosing the very laws in the book that they hold so dear. They do not think that just maybe they might be wrong, nor did they think that they are doing any damage or harm in their actions. After all what does a minster really need with a million dollar home, fancy watches or even living in a life that most cannot afford.
For better or for worse, those ministers that live like that, set an example, that gives Christianity a bad name. And for every scandal that comes out, it takes away from the whole and forces people to think, that maybe that is not the ideal religion to be a part of. Perhaps if anything that we should look at and see as an example, for all Christians, as much as they would not like it, would be the current pope. He is not just preaching, but living what he is stating and starting to redefine the Catholic church to be more in line with what Jesus would have wanted.

reply to post by windword


NOPE.

WRONG.

IIRC . . . 98.X to 99.X of the NT text was available within the lifetimes of the first hand OBSERVERS & the scribes of the NT originals. We have documented enough fragments to prove that.

Maybe I can look up my marked texts on such issues in the next week.

For now . . .

From Josh McDowell's THE NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT: pp410 &411

Some paragraphing & emphases added by BoX

Priority must always be given to tangible, objective data, and to external evidence, over subjective theory or speculative opinions. Facts must control theory, not vice versa. --KENNETH KITCHEN

. . .

p 411

CONCLUSION

. . .

Through the impact of the Ancient Orient upon the Old Testament and upon Old Testament studies a new tension is being set up while an older one is being reduced. For the comparative material from the Ancient Near East is tending to agree with the extant structure of the Old Testament documents as actually transmitted to us, rather than with the reconstructions of nineteenth-century Old Testament scholarship--or with its twentieth-century prolongation and developments to the present day.

Some examples may illustrate this point. The valid and close parallels to the social customs of the Patriarchs come from documents of the nineteenth to fifteenth centuries B.C. (agreeing with an early-second-millennium origin for this material in Genesis), and not from Assyro-Babylonian data of the tenth to sixth centuries B.C. (possible period of the supposed "J," "E" sources).

Likewise for Genesis 23, the closest parallel comes from the HIttite laws which passed into oblivion with the fall of the Hittite Empire about 1200 B.C. The covenant-forms which appear in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua follow the mdoel of those current in the thirteenth century B.C.--the period of Moses and Joshua--and not those of the first millennium B.C. (Kitchen AOOT, 25)

Orlinsky remarks . . . "More and more the older view that the Biblical data were suspect and even likely to be false, unless corroborated by extra-biblical facts, is giving way to one which holds that, by and large, the Biblical accounts are more likely to be true than false, unless clear-cut evidence from sources outside the Bible demonstrates the reverse." (Orlinsky, AI, 81)

pp8,9

John Lea, in The Greatest Book in the World, compares the Bible with Shakespeare's writings;

[quote within the above ref'd quote:]

In an article in the North American Review, a writer made some interesting comparisons between the writings of Shakespeare and the Scriptures, which show that much greater care must have been bestowed upon the biblical manuscripts than upon other writings, even when there was so much more opportunity of preserving the correct text by means of printed copies than when all the copies had to be made by hand. He said:

"It seems strange that the text of Shakespeare, which has been in existence less than two hundred and eight years, should be far more uncertain and corrupt than that of the New Testament, over eighteen centuries old, during nearly fifteen of which it existed only in manuscript . . .

With perhaps a dozen or twenty exceptions, the text of every verse in the New Testament may be said to be so far settled by general consent of scholars, that any dispute as to its readings must relate rather to the interpretation of the words than to any doubts respecting the words themselves. But in every one of Shakespeare's thirty seven plays there are probably a hundred readings still in dispute, a large portion of which materially affects the meaning of the passages in which they occur." (Lea, GBW, 15)

.

reply to post by BO XIAN

IIRC . . . 98.X to 99.X of the NT text was available within the lifetimes of the first hand OBSERVERS & the scribes of the NT originals. We have documented enough fragments to prove that.

This is NOT true! The book of Mathew was only a list of sayings. The last fews verses in chapter 16 of the book of Mark was added later. The story of the adulteress wasn't added until 1000 years later.

All religions are various frequency "gatekeepers" designed in mind to trap the soul into limiting itself to that ones teachings, in that particular lifetime.

And frankly it is high time those behind them realize that they are gatekeeping for things they know nothing about.

To find out the real reasons anyone can take any of these religions incredible tales about why you need saving from something is too much for most, and those that have advanced beyond Christianity, find other traps like the Yogic schools, which ALSO teach that all of this has a good meaning, a reason that is god-born, and that ascension is the ultimate goal.

Perhaps soon some amazing things will happen to give people a small sliver of vision into just how far things can reach, find out who created them, and for what,

Christians actually believe that fallen angels are all one race, and that they have some singular goal of attacking heaven because they hate them for there freedoms, how foolhardy in the end it is too follow anything , since none of it has an ending anyone can see , including so-called avatars.

reply to post by windword


Wrong again . . . The solid evidence is quite otherwise to your assertions.


the contrarian "scholars" are not well regarded by the vast majority of quality scholars on such topics.

And, the lot of the contrarians are now, interestingly, in a very definite minority of the group of trained scholars as a whole. And, it can be documented that those scholars tend to rely wholesale on their biases to interpret data rather than the data to influence their biases. They, to a person, have a decided TRASHING the text agenda.

reply to post by BO XIAN

And, it can be documented that those scholars tend to rely wholesale on their biases to interpret data rather than the data to influence their biases. They, to a person, have a decided TRASHING the text agenda.

Sounds a lot like most Christians to me. They are biased toward the bible and its teachings, believing they are the word of god, and they do not rely on outside evidence or information to refine their understanding. You can't deny that can you? Christians are as biased as they come when it comes to the bible.

Instead of addressing the information, you address the character of the person presenting the information. That's what happens when someone has no argument against the information being presented.

reply to post by BO XIAN

the contrarian "scholars" are not well regarded by the vast majority of quality scholars on such topics.

BALONEY!

Bart D. Ehrman IS a well regarded scholar

Bart D. Ehrman (born 5 October 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring four New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the Historical Jesus, and early Christianity.

We don't have any original copies or fragments of any of the gospels. The first copies were written at least 150 years (3rd century) after the fact. FACT!

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

You're twisting the meaning of the verses.

John says that when you are born of God, you cannot go on sinning, you cannot continue to sin, meaning once you are "born again", you no longer sin because you do not have it in you to sin. It says nothing about sinning and then repenting of it, it says everything about being unable to continue sinning from the moment you are born of God onward.

It most definitely does go against common Christian theology and doctrine, you just can't or refuse to see it.

But this is because its a gnostic passage, and being born again, means one doesnt sin, but its akin to the word ascension or Christed, or the Christ "formed" within you (as opposed to Christ simply indwelling). Its a process and in no way shape or form am I saying I'm without sin, still striving and trying to run the race.

This is about inner working, gaining Higher Mind, overcoming through prayer, meditation and calmn inner seeking, peace and love over the tendencies of the flesh and body and anger. Its parting the red sea.

There is a part of the process when one goes to Egypt and deals with the ego, when one is being readied.

When you are growing up, you no longer think like a child, and the same is true when you are striving for and reaching levels of higher mind, you no longer think with lower primitive mind or body suit.

reply to post by windword


NOPE.

On the whole . . . very inaccurate assertions, actually.

I hope to get around to documenting that in the coming week. Ehrman is essentially, a disingenuous farce.

Gordon Fee says of Ehrman:

'Unfortunately, Ehrman too often turns a mere possibility into probability and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for [textual] corruption exist.'

Gordon D. Fee, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture in Critical Review of Books in Religion 8 (1995), 204. Bart D. Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus is a popularized version of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

"You can't interpret the text without certain biases, but we should challenge our biases as much as possible," Wallace replied, . . .

"one way to do that is to look for viewpoints that are shared by more than one group of people. The fact is that scholars across the theological spectrum say that in all essentials--not in every particular, but in all essentials--our New Testament manuscripts go back to the originals. Ehrman is a part of a very small minority of textual critics in what he's saying. Frankly, I don't think he has challenged his biases; instead, I think he has fed them."

from THE CASE FOR THE REAL JESUS by Lee Strobel pp71, 72

It gets worse for Ehrman et al.

Stay tuned . . . by and by.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


So very, very well said. There will honestly never be enough blood to
quench the thirst of religions, they could kill every other person on
the planet, be left with only Christians and then they would begin to
kill each other because they don't agree and since god obviously cant
be telling them the wrong thing, they will think it must be the other
fellow. His is wrong and needs to stop persecuting them...... its a never
ending cycle of violent destruction and i honestly doubt we will
see an end to it in our lifetime....

ParasuvO
All religions are various frequency "gatekeepers" designed in mind to trap the soul into limiting itself to that ones teachings, in that particular lifetime.

And frankly it is high time those behind them realize that they are gatekeeping for things they know nothing about.

To find out the real reasons anyone can take any of these religions incredible tales about why you need saving from something is too much for most, and those that have advanced beyond Christianity, find other traps like the Yogic schools, which ALSO teach that all of this has a good meaning, a reason that is god-born, and that ascension is the ultimate goal.

Perhaps soon some amazing things will happen to give people a small sliver of vision into just how far things can reach, find out who created them, and for what,

Christians actually believe that fallen angels are all one race, and that they have some singular goal of attacking heaven because they hate them for there freedoms, how foolhardy in the end it is too follow anything , since none of it has an ending anyone can see , including so-called avatars.

So you are a gnostic? Is that with or without reptilians and anunnaki?


KPB

reply to post by BO XIAN


The facts are facts and although you can have an opinion, you can't have your own facts. We don't have any copies of the gospels that predate the fragments that we have that were written 150 years, at the earliest, after the fact.

Fact: There were cults of people calling themselves and others Christs and Christians before Jesus was even born. Christ is a pagan construct that a Jewish Jesus the Nazarene wouldn't have accepted.

Fact: Early Christians were called Nazarenes.

windword
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

The facts are facts and although you can have an opinion, you can't have your own facts. We don't have any copies of the gospels that predate the fragments that we have that were written 150 years, at the earliest, after the fact.

Fact: There were cults of people calling themselves and others Christs and Christians before Jesus was even born. Christ is a pagan construct that a Jewish Jesus the Nazarene wouldn't have accepted.

Fact: Early Christians were called Nazarenes.

edit on 28-10-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

If I dump salad dressing on your head, (of the oil and vinegar type),
you could start a religion!

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


LOL! I bet that would make my hair so shiny!

When I was a kid our pastor was fond of pouring oil over my head and speaking in tongues. Been there. Done that.

reply to post by windword


This is just to the general pop not to anyone specific... look up essene culture.. which started 2 centuries before Jesus was born.. Jesus was not a saducee or a pharisee he was an essene jew
who lived and preached in the essene way.. very esoteric even in the new testament you can see his words are very esoteric ... the way to the truth is the seed of knowledge planted with all of us... you just need to find it. It has no name... Christian Jew Catholic.. Etc the way of God is there for all to find.

reply to post by LoneGunMan


I believe that anyone who 'wakes up' would end up not following religion at all. Just my opinion. Christianity (and religion in general) has caused more death and destruction than anything in human history save for natural death.

Far and away, religion overall is the most evil force I've ever seen. There is good within it, but the evil it has produced has far outweighed any good. Just take a look at this barbaric world for proof. If humans were to one day grow out of religion, our society would be mature and tolerant, logical and knowing, with more compassion and empathy.

This is coming from a non-atheist, by the way.