It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
@nenothtu... if your government executes a criminal, and then a few hours later, the criminal comes back to life and walks away, can you honestly say ''we killed this criminal?''. The same thing applies to Jesus. A ''crucifixion'' is an execution procedure that ends in death. The Jews may have had him 'crucified', but since he came back to life and went away (to return again), they did not exactly succeed in killing him, but boast that they did. So the ''crucifixion'' was nullified.
Exactly what parts are they not taking "literally"?
nenothtu......and that is exactly what I said. God returned Jesus' soul and made him come back to life. Seeing that he is alive, why Jews are in error when they say they ''killed'' Jesus.
soul has to be added, or "returned" in the case of a ressurrection.
If, after death, some part of the self goes on, then what difference does it make if it goes back into the same body, or goes on a vacation waiting for The last Day and the Judgement? How does that nullify the initial death itself? In other words, if part of the self goes on, so that we are available to be judged, does that not nullify ALL deaths in your mind? Does that not nullify to you ANY death, so that we can never say that anyone was ever killed?
What is your point?
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
I don't think any adult reader of the bible would make the mistake of thinking Jesus was literally a lamb.
Then why (oh, why?), would they believe in a man made from dirt,
a woman from his rib,
a talking snake,
hell as a fiery brimstone perpetual place of torture (as described according to Dante, Milton, and multiple MORE ANCIENT mythologies), and so on and so forth?? It's just as absurd.
What exactly DO you believe, sk0rp? Just that you need to kill Christianity and prove Islam correct?
I had accepted the Bible cover to cover, though I felt that there were some inconsistencies here and there, especially towards the end in Pauls books, where the line between man and God starts to blur. When I read the Koran,and figured it is not only consistent with the basic premise of the Bible, but also corrects the mistakes of the Bible. So what of it?
If a person claimed to be a Muslim, but rejected the whole "There is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet" bit and said "no, there are sixteen gods, and Mohammed was not a prophet", would you say that they are a Muslim? If not, you're on track to understanding why Mormons are not Christians. If you think that they are a Muslim, in spite of disagreeing with a foundational creed, then what is the point of saying that anyone is a Muslim? You might as well say that Christians, atheists and Hindus are all Muslims.
Congratulations, you've completely missed the point. This is not a matter of dogmatic differences that are of no consequence, this is a matter of someone practicing a completely different religion.
reply to post by nenothtu
How am I excluding anyone by stating that a person who does not agree with a fundamental Christian creed is not a Christian? Show me where I've said that there is anything wrong with not being a Christian, or where I've said that non-Christians are "hell-bound."
All I've said is that the label "Christian" should not be applied to someone who practices a different religion, something that we apparently agree on, so I don't know what's with the criticism.
reply to post by nenothtu
Yeah, personally, resurrection kinda undermines the value of that sacrifice. If you just come back, what did you really give up? It's not like you lost something in the process.
If anything, we're the ones who got jipped because while havoc and discord are raging here on Earth, Jesus is sipping martinis
in his shiny white robes on the ninth cloud.
I don't really respect his sacrifice because he had the bank in his pocket the whole time. He had every ace you could ever hope for. It was just a really, really obscene protest demonstration. That's all it amounts to.
the exclusion is right there in black and white - where you say "they are not Christians" if they do not follow your creed. There ARE other sorts of Christians beyond the "Nicene Christians", you know... or maybe you don't.
You're right however, in saying that you've not consigned anyone to hell. it is entirely possible that you believe people can get to heave apart from the intercession of Christ. I'm not sure, however, what sort of Christian that would make you.
No, I would not say they were not a Muslim....
What I WOULD say, is that Islam does not teach whatever they are trying to promote, if they just so happen to be trying to be promoting a teaching contrary to the teachings of Islam.
Where we differ is that I believe that words do have meaning, and the intentional perversion of them through distortion, redefinition, political correctness and universalism is one of the hallmarks of our failing society.
all I am saying is that, for the past 1700 years, to be a Christian meant one who attested to the creeds, and just because there are now groups that reject the creeds and want to hijack the name "Christian" to seem more mainstream, we don't just redefine the word for their favour.
Acts 11:26 says "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch", and I would think that would be the original defining point, and a definition of a different people from 300 years later is a "redefinition".
reply to post by nenothtu
I do not believe
that there is anything in the Nicene Creed that can conclusively be demonstrated not to have been practiced by the earliest Christians, and nothing that is contrary to scripture, though that is a discussion for another thread.
The creed is a declaration of the beliefs of the Christian, and while it is certainly a clarification of them, it is not a redefinition. While the creed took time to develop, the church itself goes back to Christ and the Apostles directly, so Christians were the same, before and after the creed was written -- it is the church that made the creed, the creed did not make the church.