The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Jesus was married? So what? > Comments

Jesus was married? So what? : Comments

By David Castles, published 14/6/2006

Dan Brown’s literary meanderings are causing pain to the theological cognoscenti.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Quote) The Jehovah’s Witness, at my door recently, seemed convinced the Gospel writers are well known and were all disciples of Jesus. When asked to demonstrate this, using biblical reference, he quickly changed the subject to assure me that a full one third of Uniting Church ministers were homosexual (Quote

Jehovah's Witnesses are trained to bait & switch and flip flop.

The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming (invisibly) in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.

Jehovah's Witnesses door to door recruitment is by their own admission an ineffective tactic. They have lost membership in all countries with major internet access because their false doctrines and harmful practices are exposed on the modern information superhighway.

There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the imminen apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.
---
Respectfully,Danny Haszard http://www.dannyhaszard.com
Posted by DanielHaszard, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 8:58:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the great privileges that curiosity and doubt bestow upon people is the ability to strengthen their beliefs.

Those who never doubt or consider the true meaning of their faith (be it in religion, science, democracy, or any one of a number of deeply held beliefs) surely miss an opportunity to re-invigorate their faith. The Bible and Christian history are full of stories of the repentant martyr, whose faith burns stronger for their past doubt. For those less religiously inclined, I offer you the "reformed smoker" who can't stand the smell of the smoke and happily offers all his smoking friends a lecture on the evils of tobacco.

As a believer in Jesus as a historical figure, I can't help but ponder the questions as to Jesus' social setting. It doesn't seem unreasonable (or a challenge to the central doctrines of the Bible) that he would have been, as other men of his station, a married man, potentially with children.

Anyone who has studied Renaissance Italian politics knows that the various Popes of that era were admitted fathers of illegitimate children. This, Church history would argue, made those Popes a product of their time. Why then, is it inconceivable that Jesus was also a man of his (Jewish) religion and his time?

To me, Jesus' marriage (or not), fathering of children (or not) does not have a real impact on his historical legacy. But then I prefer my Biblical characters with a healthy dash of doubt: give me the Garden of Gethsemane any day...this to me is what makes the stories more real.
Posted by seether, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 10:51:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Brown … probably had no inkling that his “reworked” ideas would spark such indignation and fear.<<

Indignation – Yes; Fear – No. I think he knew exactly what he was writing and its effect on real truth. You don’t put your paw in God’s waters without causing ripples.

Christianity has nothing to hide – if that’s what is implied by the quote: >>Brown has managed to blunder into controversy that has led to embarrassing enquiry into generally accepted and previously unquestioned religious “facts”.<<

Deliberate attempts to change history is not a novelty. Secularism and postmodernism are good at de-constructing and demolishing “truths” to their own detriment.

To question facts is healthy; doubt is the companion of faith.

But to distort historical events simply because they don’t gel well with the rest of the other de-constructed hypotheses; or in the case of Dan Brown "sells well", is ludicrous.

At least DB the "midget theologian" has never refuted Christ' life, death, burial, and resurrection. So in this respect he has done a better job than many theological sceptic “giants”.

What he conveniently disregarded – as other successful works like for example Mel Gibson’s “the passion of the Christ” – is they both don't clearly mention the significance of the Jesus “event” : God becoming human flesh to save His created humans.

Any invented superfluous “facts” is guess work and good for fiction novels – it should not be introduced as evidence into the Jesus’ trial. The verdict has already been pronounced 2000 years ago on Calvary
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 11:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan Brown wrote a piece of fiction that anyone with a remaining brain cell couldn't be bothered to read.

Maybe this article should be placed under "movie reviews"
Posted by Steve Madden, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 1:44:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comments on faith and doubt remind me of a verse of Tennyson that we found our grandfather, whom we all loved, had marked in his copy of "In Memoriam."

You tell me, doubt is Devil-born.

I know not: one indeed I knew
In many a subtle question versed,
Who touched a jarring lyre at first,
But ever strove to make it true:

Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds,
At last he beat his music out.
There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.
Posted by ledingham, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 7:03:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very interesting article. Only I now feel cheated, knowing that The Da Vinci Code is such an unoriginal concept. Sure, there have always been whisperings and conspiracy theories, but I thought such a far-fetched story could only make it to publication once?!!
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 14 June 2006 11:05:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the Seventh Day Adventists, Stop! Could people please restrain themselves from NAZI like persecution, knowing that some people of these religious people have a history of persecution, and holocaust. It is a shame, however, that they cannot consider an older, more credible group of scrolls, than the corrupted Roman ones they assume as the words of God.

As for Jesus, well, the theory of Mary Magdeline was well and truely in discussion a decade before the Da Vinci Code was ever released. There are various versions of one story. It sounds better reading this version of the last supper announcing his pregnant wife as the bloodline of Christ, to the desciples, over dinner. The church wants something that looks like a perverse cult of canibalism, where people drink blood from a cup, flesh like bread, canibalising a great man.

Trust the Roman Constinine to make up such a corker, the bloodline male to male by ingeniously consuming the blood via canibalism. They accepted this rather than the more logical explanation that the Royal bloodline by birth, via the pregnant Mary. They didn't want a Royal aire, nor did they want to give women any significance.

Well it is no suprise to me that history finally caught up with a really offensive and sick lie from Constantine and Rome. The real Jesus momement has hope yet, and is yet to return. The qestion is, what scroll has credibility now? The one the Pope accepts is utterly offensive rubbish from Constantine. How the Romans walked away smelling like roses must surely raise suspicions.

The real Bible was only published in part, translated badly, and fake sections were inserted by Rome. The original text no doubt has wisdom for us all. The Da Vinci Code gave us the point that it was all just faith. But when people oppress others using false texts, this is not faith, this is the blasphemy.
Posted by saintfletcher, Thursday, 15 June 2006 12:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus was married. So what?

Exactly! So what?

Whether he was married or not is totally irrelevant. Whether he even existed or not is totally irrelevant. Objectivally it does not alter a thing. Subjectivally it matters to many people because of their dependence on religious behaviour in order to avoid the realities of human existence. Drug abuse, binge drinking and compulsive gambling all matter to many people too. That does not make them mature behaviour.

Theology is nothing more than a very convoluted rationalisation of a very neurotic set of behaviours. Scholarship should be ashamed to have anything to do with it.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 15 June 2006 11:51:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“So what?” -?

Under which law and ceremonies, at least to say?
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 15 June 2006 5:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The practises on marriage and children of the Essene community should be recognised in this debate. Jesus though himself not Essene their practises seem to have a marked impression on him and his disciples, as he uses language familiar to the community with lusting after a woman etc and taught them a prayer well known to John's followers. We today recognise it as the 'Lord's Prayer'.

It would appear from their writings that sex and marriage did not feature as imperative [see Geza Vermes "The complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English"]. Josephus speaks of celibate and married Essenes. The only updated ruling on marriage made by the Qumran community was between an uncle and a neice; it had the same forbidden status as Leviticus 18: 13 between a nephew and his aunt - otherwise they state the Levitical law.

Though we recognise several of the disciples were married; Peter for instance had a wife, as his wife's mother was sick [Not a mother in law joke] Matthew 8: 14 - 15. Jesus seemed to teach a celibate life because the tribulation impending upon Israel would cause deep distress to mothers with children Matthew 24: 19.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 15 June 2006 8:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Food for thought: It's interesting how faith blinds intelligence.

Thanks
Konneh.
Posted by Konneh, Thursday, 15 June 2006 9:02:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
Priscillian here. Funny you should mention the Lord's prayer and I have to agree that this was a very important feature of Jesus' teaching.
Why is it that Paul seemed to have never heard of it?
I think that Jesus' marital state remains ambiguous because (as I have often stated) the gospels were influenced heavily by Paul. It is obvious that Paul was not a fan of women or marriage so the gospel writers may have reflected this attitude in the things they wrote about Jesus.
I think Matthew 24:19 is just simply saying that during "those Days" it will be hard on pregnant and nursing women. Does he relate this to marriage? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also I left this message for you on the wrong article.

1. I am a male. Priscillian is a Roman male name.
I have named myself after him because his would surely have been my fate if I had lived in the 4th century:-
From Wikipedia:-
Priscillian of Ávila (died 385) was a Spanish theologian and the founder of a party which advocated strong asceticism. He is still a mysterious figure, this first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy (though the civil charges were for the practice of magic). His party, in spite of severe persecution for heresy, continued to subsist in Spain and in Gaul until after the middle of the 6th century. The first writings attributed to him, which had seemed securely lost, were recovered in 1885.

2. You are quite right. I do not write enough about what I believe and I do write a lot about what I don't believe. This is one of my sins (I prefer the word faults) and I do ask your forgiveness. I will try harder.

Also if you go back to this article page and look at the ugly guy in the photo then I loook exactly like that.
Posted by Priscillian, Thursday, 15 June 2006 11:01:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Priscillian,
You seem to want it both ways, you claim the gospels were doctored to reflect Paul's teaching while making the following statement: "Funny you should mention the Lord's prayer and I have to agree that this was a very important feature of Jesus' teaching. Why is it that Paul seemed to have never heard of it? I think that Jesus' marital state remains ambiguous because (as I have often stated) the gospels were influenced heavily by Paul. It is obvious that Paul was not a fan of women or marriage so the gospel writers may have reflected this attitude in the things they wrote about Jesus."

Your conclusion about Paul's attitude to women seem to reflect a homosexual conclusion on the NT attitude to marriage. Paul uses marriage as the highest human relationship as an example of Christ and the Church Ephesians 5. There is an argument that Paul was married as he was previously a member of the Sanheidran and to be a member he must be married. It is nonsense to suggest that the NT degrades women as in the context it upholds a higher position for women than was culturally practised. Compare Galatians 3: 28 where Paul states woman have equality in standing before God and claiming difference is a non-issue. I suggest you read the NT more with a balanced mind rather than reading critical commentaries.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 16 June 2006 9:43:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
I can't see that what I said means I want it both ways. All I asked you is why Paul seems not to know about the Lord's prayer. Do you have any theories as to why this is? I can't understand it. If the Lord's prayer was a basic teaching by Jesus (which indeed it is...even I know it off by heart!) why doesn't Paul remind his followers to pray it as Jesus commanded? any conclusions you may come to about this are your own, not mine...I dont know the answer.

I do not reflect any conclusion about homosexuality in regards to the NT. I have no idea if anybody mentioned in the NT was homosexual. I never suggested that! I am not John Shelby Spong. I don't care about who is homosexual then or now, I don't even like Rugby or Aussie rules.

I did not say the NT degrades women. I am not reflecting critical commentaries I have read I am only reflecting what I have read in the NT. You must be thinking about some other commentator as you seem very sensitive about this point (Spong maybe?). All I said was that Paul was not a fan of sex with women or marriage. I said this because he says this himself. He says not to seek marriage if you a not married etc.

I suggest that YOU read the NT with a balanced mind and not accept without question the doctrine and dogma that some cleric has obviously stuffed into your head in the past.
Sheesh!

P.S I agree that Paul was most probably married for exactly the same reason that I suspect Jesus was. (I cannot prove this of course, just an unsubstantiable theory)
Posted by Priscillian, Friday, 16 June 2006 10:19:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
philo and Priscillian - your discussion about marriage and Paul got me wondering. 1 Corinthians 9:5 does not say if Paul was married but it certainly suggests (in the english translation) that the other apostles, Jesus brothers and Cephas were married. If Jesus did not have kids of his own he at least probably had nephews and nieces.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 16 June 2006 11:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Philo,

I have responded/extended our discourse at the earlier site extending from this topic.

Regards.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 19 June 2006 6:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand?! Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, f*k off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we f*k off, O Lord?
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 19 June 2006 9:32:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
saintfletcher,

The NT is a selected work from different histories and somewhat different theologies, e.g., the nature of Christ. There is a lot to it, roughly historically, as I understand:

1. The Crucifixion.
2. The creation of various Jesus house-sects
3. The Fall of the Second Jewish Temple
4. Various Gospels being written seemly a generation or two after
Jesus' death

Pause: We seem to have an historical event with multiple interpretations, starting with small J-groups midst the Roman occupation. Jewish zealots are seeking liberation. The Romans tolerate the Jews, as anitisocial, but respect a "traditional" religion.

5. Many Jews move out of Jerusalem in the aftermouth of the Jewish-Roman Wars. But as a Jewish sect, Christian-Jews still have to go back to the "Holy City" three times each year. So, many move to nearby Pella.

6. The Roman Emperor, Hadrian, (c.120) makes a decree banning Jews from the Holy City, creating the Colony of Aelia Capitolina.

Pause: How were the Jews to get back in?

7. Some (Nazarenes) in Pella, elect a (Gentile) Latin Bishop (Marcus) and formally renounce Mosaic Law to achieve entry into Hadrian's new colony. This is early second century (way before Nicea).

8. Some of those left in Pella went on their merry-way, to become the Ebionites and Gnostics (fifty sects!).

Pause: Another Roman-Jewish War. Various other gospels were being written, presumably from "feeder documents" (Philo's words, maybe not his context)from earlier periods, with many different ideas.

9. c.190-325. There were debates and half-councils.

10. In 325, there was the Council of Nicea.

Hence, overall, there were periods of fragmentation, various ideas, integration (with other religious traditions), assimilation and forced reconcilation.

11. We then move to major schicisms and the Reformation. Much later.

12. Motives? Political, not forensic.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 20 June 2006 7:30:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the context of this debate the title assumes Jesus was married: does it make a difference?

What Dan Brown states as fact in his opening page is actually fiction; but he wishes for the reader to accept as fact some stated fiction to understand his claims made in the book. The book, as the movie is a total work of fiction. To uneducated Christians it might seem plausable, but it's time for genuine research not fiction to direct our thoughts.

Since the success of Gibson's Catholic Movie "The passion of the Christ" to Muslim audiences, who deny the death of Christ, it's no wonder the finance for the movie came from Muslim investors to undermine influence made by the Catholic Church. I have no time for the dubious history of the Catholic Church to represent the truth of Christ, but I recognise another power is seeking allegiance here.

The whole theory that there was a sexual relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is based on a single decayed fragment of parchment put together by modern scholars on the Gospel of Philip that indicates Mary was a companion of Jesus. However the word used for companion [koinonos] is Greek not Aramaic as Dan Brown claims, and means friend and not spouse. The fragment does not even contain all the words of the original text.

That Philip could write an intelligent theological account of Jesus life and words is questionable when we note Jesus challenge to him only days before his death [John 14: 1 - 11]. Certainly not all the followers of Jesus understood his words but interpreted them from their own understanding - Philip was one.

If in fact Jesus was husband of Mary at least there would have been an allusion made in other writings as we have his contact with the disciples mentioned frequently. The theory is presented to challenge the celibate life of Jesus, that has been upheld by the Catholic Church. As you know I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think I can recognise a theory with an agenda when I read one.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 8:35:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously Philo, the marriage status of Jesus does make a difference to you. You seem to hold to the view that Jesus was not married but you present little evidence for this. Remember the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument? You also seem to hold to the view that you know the identity of the gospel authors. Why do you do this when all the scholars seem to be mystified by their identity? (except perhaps for Luke but whether this was the Paul follower Luke (the doctor) is debatable).
So the answer to the proposal Jesus was married? So What? for you is a major problem. Regardless of who he may have been married to you obviously require your god to be celebate and unmarried.... why? I don't know but I suspect a connection between sex and sin has something to do with it...... thank you very much Saul of Tarsus, your sexual abberations have filtered down the ages.
Posted by Priscillian, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 10:25:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pricillian,
Your very assumption that he may have been married is also argued from silence. There is no factual evidence to suggest he was married. That it has become an issue is rather dubious; history has accepted he followed an Essene celibate way of living.

Jesus primary concern on the cross as he asks John to care for Mary his mother indicates his relationship with those women that witnessed his death. [John. 19:25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 19:27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.."

For a mature married man dying to make such a request and not see his primary relationship was that his wife be cared for is rather curious. Next we will have the homosexual lobbists suggesting Jesus was gay because John sees himself loved by Jesus.

As stated before he warns of the impending persecution to befall Jerusalem that would cause deep distress to mothers with children. It would seem improper if he had children to give such warnings, and not make proper provision for them, as his own mother and Joseph had done for him [Matthew 24: 15 - 25].
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 10:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
I have never indicated that I assume that Jesus was married. I suspect he may have been but have only the flimsiest evidence to back up that suspicion so I will say that what I am sure of is that I really don't know. Neither do you.
It is no good quoting the Paul inspired gospels to prove anything about Jesus and womem. We have been through this before. You think the gospels are god inspired truth..I think they are Paul inspired propoganda that completely obscure an historical Jesus to the point that we have no real knowledge of him. Better to take note of what Paul says about the historical Jesus... which is nothing.
As for Jesus/Paul being gay.... I have no idea nor do I really care. Questions of sexual orientation have never occupied my thought processes for long. I do worry about rugby and football players a bit.
It does intrigue me how Christians tend to baulk at the idea of Jesus having sex. It seems OK that he inhabits a human body and we can assume he eats, drinks, goes to the toilet, sleeps, gets born, dies, but is not allowed to indulge in anything involving sex.
Why is this Philo? Is sex sinful?
Posted by Priscillian, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 11:05:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Priscillian,
What are your research qualifcations and textual evidence to make the following statements:

1: "It is no good quoting the Paul inspired gospels to prove anything about Jesus and womem."
[a] Please give evidence the gospels were inspired by Paul.
[b] Please give evidence of Paul's attitude to Jesus and women that is contary to the teachings of Jesus.

2: "I think they are Paul inspired propoganda that completely obscure an historical Jesus to the point that we have no real knowledge of him."
[c] Please give evidence the gospels are Pauline inspired propoganda.
[d] From what sourse did Paul write the Gospels?
[e] Why did he give his life for the things he believed?
[f] Why did Paul change religion from Pharisee heirarchy to persecuted follower of Christ?

3: "Better to take note of what Paul says about the historical Jesus... which is nothing.
[g] Did Paul believe in a historical Jesus?

In answer to this question. "Is sex sinful?" God created all things for his purpose. It is his purpose that all species procreate itself. It is his purpose that sex in humans be fulfilled in honourable devoted relationships so that any children have the security of careing parents. Sex only becomes sin outside these principles.

However in the Essene community celibacy was a form of self denial. However note Jesus blessed a wedding in Cana, and told stories of marriage and family. The political / social situation he lived in was far from normal which gave rise to exclusive Jewish communities who opposed strongly the oppression of Rome and the occupation of their sacred land
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 29 June 2006 4:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo
I wrote for ages answering your questions but it came to 650 words.
I then tried to cut it down but did not give due respect to your most pertinent and revelent queries (in 350 words or less).
I am therefore stuffed by the system (which basically is the story of my life.)
I will therefore write an article soon that may give my reasons for the outrageous things I often say.
You can then tear me to pieces and throw me to the lions.
Posted by Priscillian, Thursday, 29 June 2006 5:59:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jesus who? Oh Christ if I know!
Are we talking about same sex marriages here?
The Da Vinci Code is a fictional book and now a movie. It is interesting enough. What is even more interesting is the reaction by the Catholic Church! I wonder what is behind that? Coul it be that the book got too close to some truths?
Posted by Marsketa, Thursday, 6 July 2006 11:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pricillain,
How about you save two posts just to answer this subject 2 x 350 will allow you 700 words - fits easily.

That gnostic gospels have now surfaced in the domain of the unchurched people is their reason for fascination. These were well known by the early Church and denounced as alien to the truth of monotheism long before Nicea and are well read and debated in serious study by the Christian Church today. The problem is this facination causes the new readers to believe there is more to the Jesus story than what we have been told.

The Holy Grail is a medieval legend about the cup used in the last supper. The first appearance of the term is in a romantic writing about the legend of King Arthur. Dan Brown believes it is Mary of Magdala who carried the bloodline of the child of Christ.

Since you believe it is possible Jesus was married and Paul influenced the Gospels why did he not include Jesus in his authority to have a wife accompany him in his journeys as he states of the Lord's brothers and Peter in 1 Corinthians 9: 5? Surley Jesus if married would have given more authority to his argument. All early writings refer to Jesus brothers, sisters or mother but never a wife.

Aristotle gave us three criterion upon which to evaluate documented claims. 1. Was it an eyewitness account? 2. How many copies of the record exist? 3. Does other sources corrobate the evidence? Not all the followers of Jesus even understood his teachings even Thomas and Philip were confused about his relationship to God.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 8 July 2006 12:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What are your research qualifications?

Absolutely no qualifications in theology I am proud to say. No university degrees. No formal research experience at all. However, I have an interest in theology that is not bounded by a literalist belief system unlike you who see the scriptures as god inspired and a "revealed truth". Formal qualifications in theology almost guarantee a non objective approach. Research into Christianity is easy because there is only one recognised source of "truth".
and textual evidence to make the following statements:

1: "It is no good quoting the Paul inspired gospels to prove anything about Jesus and womem."

Did I say womem? I meant women. Paul does not encourage relationships with women (I'm NOT saying he is homosexual, maybe asexual), Jesus relationship with women (in a sexual way) is left undefined although he is a bit rough on his mum sometimes. See next answer for reason

[a] Please give evidence the gospels were inspired by Paul.

Nowhere in the gospels does it say. "This gospel has been inspired by Paul"
We do however have to consider the following:-
1. All known gospels were written after Paul wrote.
2. Some gospels agreed with Paul's writing
3. Many gospels disagreed. (as evidenced by the snippets we have)
4. 4th C Irenaeus condemns all the gospel's that disagree with Paul as heretical and almost all are destroyed
5. The remaining 4 gospels are held up as the only "truth" this "truth" corresponds to Paul's teachings
I therefore conclude that the 4 gospels we know and love today are Paul inspired or at least do not present a view in variance with Paul's beliefs. They do however introduce concepts that Paul did not mention. Small things……. like a walking talking Jesus.
My only textual evidence is the gospels, the remnants of the other gospels, the dating of Paul's writings and the dating of the 4 canonical gospels. I have assumed that the dates derived by a number of scholars are more or less correct. All agree that the 4 canonical gospels came AFTER Paul.
(to be continued)
Posted by Priscillian, Saturday, 8 July 2006 2:38:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Answer to Philo part 2

[b] Please give evidence of Paul's attitude to Jesus and women that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

I have no evidence for this. If I suggested this then I am really stupid.

2: "I think they are Paul inspired propaganda that completely obscure an historical Jesus to the point that we have no real knowledge of him."
[c] Please give evidence the gospels are Pauline inspired propoganda.

See above

[d] From what sourse did Paul write the Gospels?

Did I say Paul wrote the Gospels? If I did this then I am really worried.
Paul did not write the Gospels. Paul did not meet an historical Jesus therefore had could not write a first hand account with any authority. Similarly, the authority of the other authors of the 4 canonical gospels must be questioned.

[e] Why did he give his life for the things he believed?

Why does anybody?. Why do you? Because he really believed what he preached. I do not think Paul was a liar or charlatan but probably the greatest theological genius in history. Paul was the Mozart, the Einstein, the Leonado Da Vinci of religion.

[f] Why did Paul change religion from Pharisee heirarchy to persecuted follower of Christ?

Initially, I guess, because of his experience on the road to Damascus. Paul was obviously a man of principles and came from a background of strong religious tradition from a number of sources both Jewish and Pagan. Paul was a new religion waiting to happen.

3: "Better to take note of what Paul says about the historical Jesus... which is nothing.
[g] Did Paul believe in a historical Jesus?

I don't think so because he never mentions one. I concede however that I may be falling for the old "..evidence of absence..." trap. If Paul was aware of an historical Jesus then he did not think enough of his life and teaching to mention it. Do you think he thought Jesus was a real person? If so, why?

I have really enjoyed answering your questions Philo ....any more?
Posted by Priscillian, Saturday, 8 July 2006 2:46:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I love seeing the thoughts in this specific thread. Firstly, i have no education of theology at all. I have been active in church few years back, but having doubts in my thoughts all along. Atm, i am agreeing mostly to priscillian about his post and everything else.

Philo, some questions that you have mentioned before, can simply be replied as "freedom of speech", and "freedom to believe". I did not deny the gospel, but i do question them (agree to some that priscillian said). that's what you do when you started to believe in something. all that da vinci code book did make sense, whether it is true or false, and i think it was overreaction from vatican for banning the movie.

What i would like to ask is some of my "original" thoughts before i start quitting church. so i do hope the reply i get is objective, not subjective.
1. Why is jesus birth date was on 25th of Dec, when scientist claims that it is not even close to it and not in bible too?
2. jesus, father and holy spirit is one and the same. so which one do we pray to? or it doesn't matter?
3. the bible did say something about hell right? then if our Father is forgiving, why is there a hell for? i don't think it has any use then, would it? if you're going to say that only a believer would be accepted to heaven, then won't it be a forceful action?
4. this one is dodgy, but it's a question nevertheless. What is our purpose in life? i thought i read in the old testimony that god created us so that we can be equal with him, and i believe that no one in this world would be as equal as god.
5. what happened to jesus in between teen-age to his 30s, when he start preaching about christianity?
6. In dan brown book, he wrote that companion in *whatever* language means spouse. dunno about truth, but word does evolve through time
Posted by Ghouss, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 1:06:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ghouss,
1. Jesus birth date is not disputed. Nearly everybody agrees that Jesus' birth date is unknown. The 25th of December was a important date for pagan religions so it was used to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which in my book is fair enough.

2.The Trinity, in my humble opinion, is one of the sillier pieces of Christian doctrine. I have never understood it but it may be useful to you to google the Council of Nicaea which was presided over by Emporer Constantine (a pagan) who encouraged trinity doctrine to overcome a potential division in the early church. Wikipedia has a good article on the Council of Nicaea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

3.Hell. I'm sure it exists because I was forced to attend a single sex private religious school, I also was forced to attend a football match once. Both these experiences gave me an insight into hell.

4.The purpose of life? Now I suspect that everybody has a different answer to this question but I always refer to a famous quote in Conan the Barbarian. When he is asked "What is the best thing in life" he answers:
"To crush your enemy, Watch them flee before you and listen to the lamentation of their women".
My answer would be that the purpose of life is to attempt to discover the purpose of life.

5. Early life of Jesus. Absolutely no evidence about Jesus' early life. There is some speculation that he was a carpenter in Nazareth others have said he spent his early life in Egypt. Basically no-one knows anything about Jesus before his baptism by John. The nativity stories are purely political, designed to established Jesus' authority and a fulfiller of Jewish scripture.

6. I don't know if Jesus was married or, if he was, who he was married to. Dan brown wrote a boring novel based on the speculations of others. I think the Catholics were mostly upset about the "monk" Silus who was an assassin and member of Opus Dei. I'm not surprised they got upset about this. I don't think the book was ever banned.
Posted by Priscillian, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 1:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ghouss,

Having “doubts” is healthy. It is the beginning of inquiry for some. It is when you start agreeing and believing the doubtful that you head in the opposite direction.

1. Why is jesus birth date was on 25th of Dec, when-scientist-claims-that-it-is-not-even-close-to-it-and-not-in-bible-too?

The exact date doesn’t change the fact he was born. Some celebrate Christmas in January.

2. jesus, father and holy spirit is one and the same. so which one do we pray to? or it doesn't matter?

A person can be a parent, a child, a brother / sister, a grandchild, a friend, and a carpenter all at once.
So we pray to God who is our father, and his holy spirit lives in us, and who became man for us. One person – one God.

3. the-bible-did-say-something-about-hell-right? Then-if-our-Father-is-forgiving, why-is-there-a-hell-for? I-don't-think-it-has-any-use-then, would-it? If-you're-going-to-say-that-only-a-believer-would-be-accepted-to-heaven, then-won't-it-be-a-forceful-action?

God by His grace and mercy fulfilled His promise to send the Saviour – the lamb of God – the ultimate sacrifice for our redemption: Jesus.

By accepting this sacrifice as the only way to heaven, the believer is saved from hell.

It is not a forceful act because anyone can refuse God’s help and believe otherwise and perish. One way but Free choice.

4. What is our purpose in life? I-thought-i-read-in-the-old-testimony-that-god-created-us-so-that-we-can-be-equal-with-him, and-i-believe-that-no-one-in-this –orld-would-be-as-equal-as-god.

No one can be equal with God (except the trinity).
Our purpose in life is to obey and worship God.

5. what happened to jesus in between teen-age to his 30s, when he start preaching about christianity?

Not recorded. So a normal carpenter’s life I guess.
Jesus did not preach “about Christianity”. He preached about God’s Kingdom and how people can be part of it by believing in him)

6. In-dan-brown-book, he-wrote-that-companion-in *whatever* language-means-spouse- dunno-about-truth, but-word-does-evolve-through-time

There is no mention of Jesus being married in all the accounts that we have.
Dan Brown in his convincing but fictitious plot, sold a lot of books and raised a lot of questions too. The catholic overreacted (if it’s true that they banned the movie).
But a weak believer could easily be affected by that junk.
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 2:16:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm waiting for Philo's response to Priscillian with bated breath.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 2:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't wait for Philo to start beating up on me as well.
Until then Mr Ghouss, note that Mr Coach accepts without question the things he is told in the Gospels. Also note his explanation of the Trinity which is entirely non-gospel and a concept that developed well after Jesus time. Mr Coach has learnt his lessons well, probably within some institution like a church or school or other power base and it is sad to see that a healthy spirit of doubt and enquiry has been effectively removed from his lexicon. The dying lamb-resurrecting-redeeming god was a common belief in 1st century Asia minor. Many pagan religions had these aspects. Although this is embassingly obvious the believing Christian conveniently skips over the facts of history and denies bleeding obvious that Christianity is a development of contemporary concepts. I argue that these concepts were brought together by Paul and that Jesus is presented in a way that is in keeping with Paul's beliefs.

Mr Coach tells us that our purpose in life is to "obey and worship God". I have no problem with "worship" as I don't know what this means but "obey" brings up all sorts of problems. Obey what? The Old Testament? Leviticus? Paul? John of Revelation? how does one "obey" contradictory and archaic ideas? Do you interprete yourself or does your religious leader do it for you? Are you allowed to think?

Mr Coach thinks Jesus was a carpenter , I don't know why he thinks this. Jesus and his followers never claim he was a carpenter. I thought Jesus was a Rabbi (teacher), he is certainly referred to as such.

What is "the kingdom of God"? I have never been sure what Jesus meant by this and books have been written on the subject by many a learned mind. The "kingom of God" can be virtually anything you want it to be.

What he says about Dan Brown I have no argument with.
Posted by Priscillian, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 5:18:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Finally some interesting comments (and questions - thanks Ghouss... though I'm seeing some self-depreciating moniker there, yes?).

Only 2 points I would like to make at this point:

1. Hell and all-forgiving are definitely at odds. 'Please explain' as that most interesting of politicians once said.

2. The book (DVC) was most boring and I'm still trying to understand the appeal it had - to either the religiously susceptible or any reader of fiction. Really, you could do better for entertainment... some of the commentators on here offer a good form of comedy!

Thanks for some thought provoking comments Priscillian.

Now, over to Philo for some verbal gymnastics (banana peel anyone?)
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 6:46:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ghouss,
In answer to your questions:
1. Why is jesus birth date was on 25th of Dec, when scientist claims that it is not even close to it and not in bible too?

The dates found in our calander were placed there much later by Bishop Ussher; he counted backward to events. However the birth of Jesus was actually four years earlier than the calander,i.e. 2010 years ago; aligning Roman history with the accounts recorded in Matthew 2: 1 and Luke 2: 1 - 7. Because the exact day of Jesus birth was unknown, since the Romans already celebrated the birth of the sun on the 25th Dec when they abandoned the worship of the sun to follow Jesus as the Lord they changed the birth they celebrated.

2. jesus, father and holy spirit is one and the same. so which one do we pray to? or it doesn't matter?

God is not defined by spatial images as we understand persons, He is one revealed in character, attitudes, actions and wisdom. The title Father, Son, Holy Spirit in Matthew 28: 19 is a singular name [in the name of, not names of]. God is revealed in paternal sovereignty, in humanity bearing his character, and events of the supernatural. As the Bible says God is over all and in all things. When we pray we are not focused on a spatial being but upon character of holiness, purity and wisdom.

3. the bible did say something about hell right? then if our Father is forgiving, why is there a hell?

Hell is the absence of righteousness and divine wisdom that saves the soul, and those that reject this are already condemned by their choice. The acceptance Of Jesus in not just about accepting his historical existence, it's rather the acceptance that his character, attitudes and wisdom are the very nature of God and the choice to accept them as the saving feature of your life for eternity. Means your past failures are forgiven and upon acceptance of Jesus as the Lord in whose image you will now live your life.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 13 July 2006 12:20:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont:
4. What is our purpose in life? i thought i read in the old testimony that god created us so that we can be equal with him, and i believe that no one in this world would be as equal as god.

The Bible says we were created to do good works Ephesians 2: 10. The pinnacle of doing good works is applying the nature of Christ to everything we do. However we fail and need forgivness and reconciliation. In the frailty of our humanity we are called to bear the image of God: that image was manifest in Christ Jesus. That means being a new person of pure motives, creating a better society and living in a way that enhances others lifes. Loving God with all our mind and being means admiring and adopting the nature of God - as expressed in Jesus the Christ. Christians ought to be at the forefront of all admirable human endeavours and advances.

5. what happened to jesus in between teen-age to his 30s, when he start preaching about christianity?

Actually Jesus did not teach about Christianity, he lived the nature and character of God that is what being Christian means. It is not just believing doctrine it is how we live our life. It is our life for which we are accountable.

We have no record of events of his youth as he had not begun to call followers to him. It was his followers that recorded the events of the three years he spent with them. Some like Matthew and John focus on the last weeks of his life and teaching. What we can say about him during those years is that he spent time educating himself about the things he later spoke.

6. In dan brown book, he wrote that companion in *whatever* language means spouse. dunno about truth, but word does evolve through tim.

The Greek word companion used in the gospel of Philip is "koinonos" and was first used by Aristotle and meant friend never spouse. The Greek word for spouse is "gune", Brown's claim is spurious.
Posted by Philo, Thursday, 13 July 2006 1:20:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn’t thought this would be a long post. Reason, DVC is a good book since it introduce controversy. Ppl said that the idea has been out before, well I never knew that and I’m 24. so whoever introduce the idea first, that must’ve been way out of my time. Of course I just started reading some books in 2003, and I can’t recall any blitz of that in ‘90s, definitely had no memory of 80’s. to me, this is a new idea, since the last one should skip 1 generation before making hits like this. Although, you have to admit that some of the theory that he put out was quite suspiciously able to clear out some question (in my part anyway). Although, I do agree that this won’t have any effect on Christianity, it does make ppl exercise their thoughts and questioning a lot of stuff.

Hell = absence of righteousness. so if someone is doing good without converting to christianity, he won't be going to hell right? say the specific example, a person doing good, worship one divine being, without converting to christianity although someone had preached about christianity to him. would he still be condemned to go to hell or perish? you can't really say this is free choice, can you? i'm thinking this is like if i put a gun to your head over an argument that we both agree on the outcome but different method to achieve it and then i say: 'believe in me or perish'. one way but free choice. i know i'd say, 'yes i believe in you', since i'd perish otherwise.

"As the Bible says God is over all and in all things. When we pray we are not focused on a spatial being but upon character of holiness, purity and wisdom."
so we are actually worshipping a divine being that is pure right? then all religion would be the same, isn't it? since they all worship the "divine" being.
Posted by Ghouss, Thursday, 13 July 2006 2:58:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
then why would there be holy war? from what i know, holy war is to take over jerusalem back from muslem hand by christian troops with the help of england, right? while the one of the 10 main rule from jesus is to love your friends and foes, why would you wage a war? even if you're going to say that the muslem rejected new testament, and insulting christianity, that's not a reason to wage a war that could kill that many souls, is there??

i'll find out about the purpose of life, since what i've been taught from kid time, that god created us to be his equal. not to obey and worship him, which i think i got that taught in church. so i'll find out more proof of this in the bible, since i don't like the idea of god creating us to obey and worship him and then one of His angel turn coat into a devil and tempt us in every possible way. to me it's like making a game, where the character had to had initiate themselves to obey and worship me, do as i said, and i indirectly create a devil to toy with them.

Did bible said jesus was carpenter? I thought his father was, and I also had an impression that he’d be a teacher, due to his talent when he’s 11. I’ll go bold here and preparing to get killed by the reply. When jesus is in the cross, waiting to die, didn’t he question god of why he has to suffer like this? If he is the divine being, why does he need to question that? It is the divine being in the form of human, he is still a divine being, at least in the soul. Why would he had a doubt over himself? And you said that jesus spent the time educating himself about things he later spoke, wouldn’t our creator that took a form as human know everything about this world and all that humans do, as god watch over us
Posted by Ghouss, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:00:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continuin the one before. :)

Kingdom of god, i really wouldn’t have a clue of which is right explanation. Got a few here. So wouldn’t bother mentioning.

QUOTE: “6. In-dan-brown-book, he-wrote-that-companion-in *whatever* language-means-spouse- dunno-about-truth, but-word-does-evolve-through-time

There is no mention of Jesus being married in all the accounts that we have.
Dan Brown in his convincing but fictitious plot, sold a lot of books and raised a lot of questions too. The catholic overreacted (if it’s true that they banned the movie).
But a weak believer could easily be affected by that junk.”

There is no mention of Jesus not being married too. :) and I don’t think that a religion that has that much faith on god should worry about “the junk” affecting their believer. If that is the truth, then the truth shall prevail, isn’t it? Once the weak believer got affected, question their faith, and found the answers, what you get is a new, stronger believer, wouldn’t it? So why the ban? That makes the logic seems suspicious, wouldn’t you agree? Like, why would someone be afraid if they are right? Unless if they’re not sure themselves, or they’re hiding something…

about philo reply of that spouse word, i'd have no comment since i don't know anything about the word meaning and evolveness. i'm just suggesting that the word could evolve. it might also be dan brown's way of proving that his tale was fiction...
Posted by Ghousss, Thursday, 13 July 2006 3:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ghouss or-is-it-Ghousss,

You ask a lot of good questions – I’ll try to reply to a few here.

>>If-someone-is-doing-good-without-converting-to-christianity,-he-won't-be-going-to-hell-right?<<

Wrong – Jesus said: “ I am the way, no one comes to the father but by through me”

Say-the-specific-example,-a-person-doing-good,-worship-one-ivine-being,-without-converting-to-christianity-although-someone-had-preached-about-christianity-to-him.-would-he-still-be-condemned-to-go-to-hell-or-perish?

Yes, he will go to hell and perish-why? because no one can be good enough to be in the presence of God in heaven. We are all sinners. Even the most pious person you can think of is not worthy to enter heaven.

The bible says that it is not by our works that we have been saved but by God’s grace and mercy. By accepting God (Jesus’) sacrifice on the cross and making Him the lord of our life, we have passed from eternal death (hell) to eternal life.

Other religions are mostly stuck in sets of rules and laws. Not Christianity. Jesus is the only way for salvation.

>> we-are-actually-worshipping-a-divine-being-that-is-pure-right? Then-all-religion-would-be-the-same, isn't-it? Since-they-all-worship-the-"divine"-being.<<

Wrong again – worshipping a divine being could mean anything. Muslims worship one god Allah. But their religion is completely different from Christianity… there is only one God who is worthy of worship.

>> god-created-us-to-be-his-equal.-not-to-obey-and-worship-him,-which-i-think-i-got-that-taught-in-church.-so-i'll-find-out-more-proof-of-this-in-the-bible,<<

Please find out and let us know.
Maybe you mean “God created man in His image” which is not the same thing as being His equal.

>> When-jesus-is-in-the-cross,-waiting-to-die,-didn’t-he-question-god-of-why-he-has-to-suffer-like-this?-If-he-is-the-divine-being,-why-does-he-need-to-question-that?

On the cross God-Jesus endured all the sins of the entire world, past and future, yours and mine, so we can have access to God again.

Can you begin to imagine what that must have felt like. No one can.
What he said was: “father why have you abandoned me?” which has nothing to do with the suffering itself – make no mistake – it is not he suffering of Jesus that makes us God’s children again; it is the act of taking our sins away.

Since God is pure, He could not bare looking at the sins of the world and “looked away” For the first time God-the-Father and God-the-Son were separated for a few seconds. That was so agonizing for Jesus to be separated (hell) from God that he screamed out.
Posted by coach, Thursday, 13 July 2006 5:23:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ghouss,
To understand what's meant by the NT language we must understand that doing good works does not of itself give us any automatic entry into the presence of God. It's important to understand the supremacy of the right and pure attitudes and behaviour that was displayed in Christ Jesus as Lord, this is the nature of the person that God accepts as His son.

Where we've violated this in attitudes and behaviour we ask forgivness and recognise Jesus character is Lord. The term "In the name of God" means more than just a tag it means in the character and behavioural attitudes of God. It means recognising the true character of God in humanity [Jesus], and in divine actions that empower and bless others [Holy Spirit]. One's a follower of Christ on the basis of that commitment, it's not based in joining a Church.

Though if one accepts the very revelation of God is to be found in Jesus he / she will wish to make the impact of that known. Our worship is not focused in the spatial human body of Jesus but in the character, attitudes and actions he lived - this was the nature of his eternal life. His body was not eternal it was very mortal in that it experienced birth and death. That his mortal body was discarded 40 days after his wounding and his spirit returned to God indicated the importance of the nature of who he was. We worship the pure spirit of who he was and is as the exalted and supreme character. To reject the character and actions as demonstrated by Jesus in itself condemns such a person to the absence of true righteousness - the absence of presence of God.

Quote, "Hell = absence of righteousness. so if someone is doing good without converting to christianity, he won't be going to hell right? say the specific example, a person doing good, worship one divine being, without converting to christianity although someone had preached about christianity to him. would he still be condemned to go to hell or perish?"
Posted by Philo, Friday, 14 July 2006 8:38:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He is the god, the only god and by god you'll know it if you if you're not a converted christian.

This OLO site is the work of the devil.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 14 July 2006 8:48:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo – you say:

"His body was not eternal it was very mortal in that it experienced birth and death. That his mortal body was discarded 40 days after his wounding and his spirit returned to God indicated the importance of the nature of who he was."

Were does it say that His body was discarded 40 days after his wounding and his spirit returned to God...?

I thought the bible is clear that His new resurrected body - a perfect physical body - ascended to heaven in front of witnesses.

Where did you dig that notion of separation of this NEW body and his spirit spirit?

Isn't Jesus sitting at the right side of the father? Isn't He coming back In body form again?

Please give references to your above statement if you maintain its correctness.

The resurrected body thing is a contemptuous issue with some sects and most world religions. So clarity in this matter is imperative to a seeker of the truth.

And while you are there can you re-explain to us your understanding of Lordship – as “Jesus to a believer is Lord and Saviour”.

Appreciate your input on OLO mate and no disrespect intended.
Posted by coach, Friday, 14 July 2006 9:55:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ghouss and Ghousss is the same person. I had to make another account to post that much yesterday, and I think today I would need to make third account. 2 post in a day is just simply too little, specially when you’re not online on exact same time.

Coach, as I said before, I quit church to find out these facts by my way. It might not be the best or ideal solution, but I found that this was one step that I had to take. Choices are never easy.

You seems to be very sure of Christianity, are you willing to say all other religions are wrong? And is that why you would wage the holy war?

You were saying that muslem was completely different to Christianity. How different was it?

Would you agree with my analogy of “I’m giving you option to perish or follow my way?”

Quote: ‘Maybe you mean “God created man in His image” which is not the same thing as being His equal.’
I, myself, find this annoyingly suspicious, and leads back to the original question that I raised. The more I think of this, the more confused I get (about 5 years now). What was the reason for god to create earth, us, or anything. He doesn’t have to do it, since He’s the creator. So to create humans and tell them that the only way of salvation is by believing in him, what is the purpose of that? The answer of no one knows is not good enough for me. I believe even the pope doesn’t have the answer for this. I have had negative days where I think the reason for this was to amuse himself by toying with us. But as human being who believes in a God, I couldn’t bear myself to think of this, since I would have no purpose in life other than a toy
Posted by Ghousss, Friday, 14 July 2006 11:31:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get your answers of the other question. 1 more thing, God was powerful, creator, etc. why can’t he obliterate evil or devil or lucifer, etc and make us only have one and only way of believing in him. Specially when he care for each and every one of us, and don’t want us to perish.

Philo, to accept the character and actions of Jesus would then means the existence of presence of god, right? So for someone who completely believe and accept Jesus and action, would he be a Christian then? And as coach had said, isn’t the body of Jesus ascended to heaven and sits to the right side of our Father? Discarded sounds like jesus was a prophet, not saviour imo (=in my opinion). Which leads back to my original question about father, son and holy spirit. Why would God, split himself into two? If not, what is the purpose of jesus as the son be ascended to heaven, sit besides God, unless it was only his body without spirit. But then why does the bible wrote that Jesus would rule “something” (after life or something similar if I’m not mistaken). Certainly God won’t need a helper, would he?

Rainier, by god you’ll know it? How? Is it by believing without seeing methodical? I don’t really understand what you wrote with the typo error as well. Why would you say this OLO site is work of the devil and what is OLO actually?

i probably reply the reply on Monday. Almost had no time for net on weekend
Posted by Ghoussss, Friday, 14 July 2006 11:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach,
Flesh and blood are not the nature of the spiritual or God. Christ does not make our mortal bodies immortal he transports us into a spiritual state. Jesus body was not changed till he ascended as he said himself when he appeared before the disciples post-resurrection that he was not a spirit. His body HAD NOT CHANGED as he bore the very scars of his wounding [John 20: 20]. God is spirit [not spatial creation]. Christ is fully recognised now as the very spirit of God revealed in flesh [incarnation in the body of Jesus] and those that accept him as God [incarnate him in their life] upon this they now bow to him as Lord. [Lord is a Roman term for having sovereignty or rule over]. In that sense we are submitting our self determined character, attitudes and actions to follow his pure character, attitudes and actions. Actions he said we will achieve greater than him. Christ is not in a spatial flesh and blood presence of God as a created form [NOTE: 1 Corinthians 15: 42 - 51].

Do you believe Jesus is now flesh and blood? Jesus claimed after his resurrection he was still flesh and bones [Luke 24: 37]. He is not now flesh and bones but the Spirit that indwells his followers. Christ sitting on the throne is the image of Christ seated in the true place of devotion in the heart of man [Romans 8: 9 - 11], not in some remote spatial heaven.

The spatial terms used of describing the spiritual is synomous with familiar ideas we recognise within the spatial. Christ as Lord on the right hand of God has reference to his authority not to some spatial concept where we see two persons. No one can claim to own Jesus as their Lord and live a selfish, self seeking and violent life
Posted by Philo, Friday, 14 July 2006 12:33:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
You have expressed Paul's ideas of Jesus admirably. You have learnt your lessons well. You have also quoted only Paul to back up your arguments (and John to back up the fact of Jesus' earthly substance). Your duallist view is Gnostic as was Paul's and deviates in so many ways from Jewish belief I wouldn't quite know where to start.
Now, given this theology of Paul, can you now see how the Gospel writers would have treated a real life story about a walking talking Jesus? No need for a wife or sex, for this person is a walking talking God. The Hellenistic world was very familiar with walking talking Gods and many Roman Emperors promoted this idea about themselves.
What actually is different about Jesus?
Resurrection? Other gods claimed this
Lamb of god type sacrifice? Others claimed this
Son of god? many claimed this but I'm not so sure about Jesus claiming it.
Jesus teachings? I can't think of anything Jesus said that was unique.
Why have you rejected all other claims and believe Paul
Posted by Priscillian, Friday, 14 July 2006 1:09:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Priscillian, now that you mention those part, i just realise that it was true. what i know from christianity is that they offer salvation through jesus christ, the son of god that has sent to earth as human saviour, and the saying that coach wrote before about one but free choice, which is to believe and accept Jesus as saviour.

philo, jesus ascend to right hand of god is an analogy of his authority. right hand = less authority than god? and what is his authority? didn't he say that we would also ascend to the right hand of god in the end of age (i have a bit vague memory of this, trying to confirm something here)?

in the end of age, didn't the bible say something about the believer will ascend to somewhere and face the judgement of jesus (was it?) ? and i also got taught from my church that in the end of age we will rule heaven together with Jesus and that angel would be our servant. any lights on this? this paragraph came from vague memory, so i'd like confirmation first
Posted by Ghoussss, Friday, 14 July 2006 1:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ghoussssssssss
My problem with the salvation thing is that Christians (and other religions) say you can ONLY be saved by believing what they believe.
This is an insult to an inquiring mind and a negation of what makes us human. Many first century gods weee considered "saviours". Jesus as a "saviour" is more complex because it is entwined with the Jewish "Messiah" who was to be a literal "saviour", a leader, a king -if you like. Paul changed this brilliantly to the idea of a saviour of your soul (another Hellenistic concept).
It appears strange to me that if you live an exemplary life doing good things to all you are still condemned to nothingness (or worse) because you didn't agree with Paul, free choice or not.
Don't take this as me not recognising and appreciating the wonderful moral roadmap that Jesus of the Gospels preached. This is why I read my bible.
Posted by Priscillian, Friday, 14 July 2006 2:03:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pricillian,
You do not believe the gospels give a true picture of Jesus as they were edited by Paul. So do not quote something you do not hold as authority with credibility.

So I am gnostic according to you! Absolute nonsence! I recognise the very humanity of Jesus if you had bothered to read posts on other subjects.
* Conceived at the instigation of Zecharias; father of John, to be a deliverer for Israel. Zecharias was murdered at the altar for refusing to disclose the whereabouts of John and Jesus. A very natural conception from the seed of David implanted by artificial imsemination.
* Jesus was resurrection in the very same body that bore the wounds of crucufixion - no organic change.

Gnostics believed in a lesser being and son of the Supreme God who was the god who created and adminstered the earth; known in Job 1 - 2 as the satan [and in the text as El] the enemy of man and administrator of the mortal curse. I suppose you believe in such a being? However I like the honourable Job am a strict monotheist.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 15 July 2006 9:56:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo
I do not claim Paul "edited" the gospels
I do not claim Paul "wrote" the gospels
I do not think Paul knew anything about any gospels.
I do not think Paul would have cared less about the gospels concerning Jesus' life because an historical Jesus was not his primary concern.
I do claim that the gospels we have were chosen because they did not conflict with what Irenaeus thought was Paul's theology. i.e they were kosher, the others were heretical.

I do not understand anything you have written about Gnosticism. You must be talking about a different Gnosticism to that which I had in mind.
Posted by Priscillian, Saturday, 15 July 2006 10:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are several threads to Gnosticism.
1. Persian Zoroastrianism with roots in ancient Babylonian religion; taught there were two seperate opposing gods one for good and one for evil.
2. Zoroastrianism influence on the Qumran communities
2. Greek philosophy of 'gnosis' had influence on the Christian Church in the 2nd century.
3. 3rd century Christian congreations adopted ideas from the Greek philosophies
4. The 4 th century mistic writers and Coptic books

The Jewish Alexandrian historian Philo Judaeus in the 1st century tried to interpret the Hebrew scriptures in the light of Platonic thought and held the logos as the firstborn of God and chief of angels. He taught the pre-existence of the soul of man and that man must break the controll of the flesh to rise to a vision of God. John in his gospel uses the language of Gnostics but not the theology of to present his case for Jesus.

The diversity of Gnosticism is a diverse as any world view today.

Though when most talk of gnosticism today they refer to the 3rd century influence of Hellenistic gnosticism on the Church. When I speak of Gnosticism I refer to the influence of Zoroastrianism, as this was contemporary with the NT writers. People like Thomas and Philip has sympathies for the gnostics; these two Jesus had to correct [see John 14] to demonstrate God was incarnate [revealed in man].
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 15 July 2006 11:56:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now this I understand.

I am about to get hold of Elaine Pagel's books the "Gnostic Gospels" and "The Gnostic Paul" and she what she has to say.
Whether I am right or wrong about a gnostic Paul the church faithful never get to hear anything of what you have just said. No wonder an ignorant dill like Dan Browh gets an undeserved airing in the community most of the faithful have no idea where or from whom their belief systems originated.
Posted by Priscillian, Sunday, 16 July 2006 12:17:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am I Gnostic?
I personally do not view matter as evil it has no conscience, it is a good creation of God. The human body is not evil or created by an evil or lesser god.

There is only one God and the universe bears the evidence it is the mind of only one unified mind not two opposing minds as Zoroaster believed or Budda in yin and yan. The only conflicting mind in it is the mind of man and his behaviour who acts against the good principles of behaviour, design and function.

I do not believe in a spiritual being called Satan, in every case in the NT where satan is used there is a human involved who opposed Jesus Christ or the followers. One particular hostile opponent of the Church who lived in Pergamon [Revelation 2: 13] put to death followers of Christ Jesus.

I agree with Paul in his Colossian letter 2: 16 - 23, who unlike the Gnostics, believes Christ equal the supreme Creator and reconciles all things by being human as evidenced by his death.

Gnostics believed the natural creation was created by a lesser being and Christ was a mystical super human not actually flesh and bones. The apostle John denounces this in his epistle 1 John 4: 1 6
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 16 July 2006 11:12:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
1.Gnostic groups after Paul claimed him as their great sage.
(e.g.followers of gnostic Marcion had a gospel attributed to Paul)
2.It is only in the Pastorals that Paul seems anti-gnostic. These are all forgeries according to most scholars.
3.Paul uses Gnostic terms like "pneuma,gnosis,doxa,sophia,teleioi".
4.Paul quotes Aratus and other pagan sages like Socrates.
5.Paul claims to have ascended to "the third heaven". What, Philo,do you think he meant by that?
6.Paul mentions a "gnosis" that can only be taught to the "fully inititiated".....more gnostic thought.
7."By revelation the mystery was known to me" said Paul....Gnostic

Your beliefs are interesting Philo but they are also the beliefs of Paul. Paul was a gnostic so.........
Posted by Priscillian, Monday, 17 July 2006 11:07:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Priscillian / Philo,

Cool it guys – remember Ghouss??

Who cares which one of you is right? What's important here is what's right.

Philo – thanks for explaining your views on the resurrected body of Christ – I can’t put my finger on your interpretations and don’t really wish to go much deeper (like Priscillian). I had some reservations in the past also regarding your interpretation of the trinity.

Priscillian - Your fixation with Paul’s teaching is clouding your reasoning and true understanding of the scriptural message of Salvation.

What I know is:

Jesus is the Son of God – The perfect and only lamb of God. He was fully human and fully God when He was on earth.

THERE IS NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH HIM.

He said it Himself. It was even prophesised centuries before His coming.

The Messiah image of a Conqueror was the expectation of the Jewish people who (like you P.) didn’t recognise him as their Saviour.

Does your bible mention the entry of sin into the world through the fall of one perfect man: Adam?

In the same way Jesus is the only perfect sacrifice acceptable by God for taking sin out of this world..

If you dismiss God’s perfect plan, what is your substitute?

Being a good person and doing good deeds? you are dangerously treading in “religious” territory.

All known religions – including Old Testament Judaism – have rules and laws for pleasing God (or god).

ONLY New Testament Christianity has a SAVIOUR.

For me complete Salvation has been DONE on the cross.

There is no need for trying to outdo what God has already done for us humans.

It does not have to make "human" sense to you. Give God some credit.

Jesus is not just a moral teacher or a great guy. (You are right : The world is full of such wise people.)

Jesus is God incarnate. He said it himself. He proved it by His life, death and self-resurrection.

He surely did not wait for the Gospel writers and Paul to explain Him
Posted by coach, Monday, 17 July 2006 2:59:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach
No need to cool it I don't think Philo is angry with me and I am certainly not with him. I enjoy his posts. He seems well informed even though we disagree sometimes.
I am not aguing here about the correctness (or not) of your personal beliefs. I never argue about the existence (or not) of a god. I never discuss the OT at all because this scripture is specific to the history of a certain small group of people and spread out over such a long timeframe that trying to set it in history would be impossible for one so ignorant as I. I have read the OT over a long time but do not consider myself any kind of authority on it.

All I am putting forward is that the NT can have an interpretation that is different from the normal literalist one when it is considered in it's historical framework.

If you feel to be in need of a "saviour" then it is fine by me that you consider Jesus to be yours.
If you think Jesus is God incarnate then that's also fine by me.
If you believe in supernatural occurances like resurrections then that too is OK by me. I will not try to convince you otherwise.

I will, however, argue strongly that to rely on NT scripture (as commonly interpreted by most Christians) as a basis for these beliefs is fallacy. I am arguing about the evidence for your belief system, not the belief system itself which is not conducive to rational argument.

Let me give an example:- Someone comes to me and says there is proof of a Loch Ness monster. The evidence is a piece of grainy film footage taken decades ago. I would apply the same reasoning to this person by studying and aguing the validity of the film evidence. This does not mean I know there is indeed no Nessy even though I may suspect strongly that this is indeed the case.
Posted by Priscillian, Monday, 17 July 2006 4:28:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pricillian,
What scholars claim the writings of Paul as forgeries?

The Roman Church in the 4th Century was totally Gnostic and deeply influenced by Zoroastrian dualism and religious mysticism. However they protected the writings of Paul though they did not understand them. When you read the late antenicene and postnicene fathers they are gnostic and so pagan in much of their thought. The writings the NT attributed to Paul indicates it was written by a trained Jewish mind. If they were forgeries they would have to be written by a Jew, and very few Jews existed in the Church in the 3rd - 4th century.

That Paul uses the Greek language and writers is no conclusion he was Gnostic. Paul was not Gnostic such a claim is presented by non Christians, probably Jewish, to discredit him. We owe it to Paul to fully understand the grace of God and freedom from ceremonial religious laws. The book of Romans is his personal defence for his stand against Jews who accused him before Caesar [Acts 28: 17 - 31]. They have never let up in seeking to discredit him.

Paul was in a deep sub-conscious state [a coma] after his stoning when he received his deep personal thoughts. I've been there myself after an accident and from that have received understanding on the text of Job; of which I have written a commentary.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 12:14:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sorry for late posts. much to do on monday. anyhow, philo and priscillian has much deeper discussion and detailed. i have no idea at all of what they're writing, since i don't know gnostic and those stuff and too lazy to surf the net for it. :) 1 note though, i agree with priscillian about christianity is the only one to offer salvation.

Coach, they certainly did prophesised about Messiah, and like you said, jews and muslem didn’t believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah. That’s what I know is the basic differences between muslem and Christianity, as they have the exact same bible of old testaments. The other muslem book that they used together with the old testament is the analogy of new testament for Christianity. This is 1 thing, apart from that, with all your beliefs, comments and everything, would you accuse of all religion in this earth is wrong except Christianity?

And don’t you find it weird that only Christianity offers salvation or “the only way to survive without perish” through the saviour? People don’t have to pay for their sin since jesus has pay for them through the cross. So when I died later, if I don’t want to perish, I HAVE to accept jesus as my saviour or perish. That’s why I wrote the analogy of someone pointing gun at you and say, if you want to live, you have to believe in Jesus. Basically, if you equate this world as religion, let’s say 50% is Christian, and the rest divided equally into different religion and others, 50% of this world would be perish and it’s their fault for not choosing “the one and only way but free choice?”

It doesn’t have to make “human” sense out of you and give god some credit? He got all the credit I can think of, but I don’t believe that you would follow something that doesn’t make sense to you
Posted by Ghoussss, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 10:24:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Does your bible mention the entry of sin into the world through the fall of one perfect man: Adam?
In the same way Jesus is the only perfect sacrifice acceptable by God for taking sin out of this world.’
So people that know OT, and believe in them, perish before the arrival of Jesus Christ in this world as saviour? Since before him, there is no salvation, is there? Even in 30 years of Jesus life, people still perished, since he hasn’t introduced Christianity to the world then?

‘If you dismiss God’s perfect plan, what is your substitute?’
I don’t have substitute. Why do you need substitute? Because Christianity taught you that you’d perish once you died if you’re not Christian? If you take out Christianity completely, then there is no knowledge of after life. You might go to heaven or reincarnate or you might perish. No one knows. It is a crap prospect, maybe.

‘He surely did not wait for the Gospel writers and Paul to explain Him’
He kinda did. His words to his follower/s to spread the gospel, which is about Christianity, God, and salvation, THROUGH HIM. :)

‘All known religions – including Old Testament Judaism – have rules and laws for pleasing God (or god).’
Do you worship God? Does praise and worship didn’t please our Father? Didn’t Christianity have rule and laws for pleasing God (not breaking the 10 commandment)? Not only OT of Judaism, but your own OT did have rule to please god. I’m referring to the blood sacrifice practised in OT
Posted by Ghoussss, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 10:50:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Philo I assumed everybody knows that only 7 letters of Paul are attributed to him.
I will cite a few of the main sources:-

B.M.Metzger [1987] 90ff
Maintains that seven letters are so similar that they were probably have a common origin
They all have a common prologue and maintain Paul to be a true apostle and are anti-Jewish
Eusebius himself doubts the authenticity of Jude and James epistles.
Discusses 2nd Century opposition to Paul
Marcion was the true successor to Paul
"Clumsy" non-Paul works wree added in the 4th and 5th centuries
.
W. Barnstone [1984],652
Writes about "the third heaven" and the Ascent of Paul

G. Ludemann [1995] 198-9
Calls the fake letters "foolhardy".
Says that of the thirteen letters only 7 are genuine.
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians,Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians & Philemon
Says the rest have been composed by others in the apostles name

G.A. Wells [1975], 17
Claims opponents of (a Gnostic) Paul tampered with his letters, e.g. Irenaeus and Tellurian

I. Wilson [1984] 154
Argues that whoever wrote Timothy and Titus it wasn't Paul. Quotes results of computer tests.

E.Pagels [1975] ,5
Valentian Gnostics cite only a subset of work attributed to Paul.

I could go on but I suggest you do a search for yourself and find a reputable scholar who claims the Pastorals are genuine.

I never claimed that Paul's writing in Greek attested to his gnosticism.
Many Christians would agree about the gnostic nature of Paul. I have met some.
You quote Acts. Nobody claims Paul wrote Acts therefore anything Acts claims about Paul's theology is in doubt and heresay evidence.

Sorry you had an accident. Great to hear about your understanding of Job. I have no understanding of Job. Enlighten us.
Posted by Priscillian, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 11:17:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pricillian,
My principle of understanding isn't based in who wrote the ancient text, but what's its message and what difference will it make to my life and to society?

The book of Job is one such, many authors have made contributions to its text over many years. i.e ch 28 in the text we have was written after the Jews included vowels into their language as the name for God mentioned is Adonay. Though much of the text reflects paleo Hebrew returnees from post exile period, and over 300 words are from the Edomite language. It's staged drama expressing the conflict between polytheism and monotheism. The basis of the idea came from Babylonian sourses. The greatest contrast exists between Elihu's praise of El in Chapters 32 - 37 compared to the of praise of YHWH who gave the wild beasts their character and nurtures them whom the gnostics attributed to the god El of the Earth.

It is a debate between Gnostic counsellors and Job a monotheist. Unfortunately the conflict of the text is lost if one reads the Septuagint because all the names for God are translated assuming one Greek word for God "Theo".

Job converted from the worship of Elohim[plural] to worship of one[Aloah] God of Edom. When he suffered the curses as described in the Hamurrabi law his counsellors accuse him of abandoning El, the god of the Earth. Someone has added the term the satan in the 2opening chapters, and refers to El the administrator of the Earth. However Job denies El as the cause of his suffering and attributes it totally to YHWH [one God in Israel]. The opening is polytheistic and characterises Jobs original faith. His Grandfather Abraham and his cousin Timon upheld the universe was governed by one God, and Job had converted to recognise YHWH gave and took life and the cellestrial God would prove he was also terrestrial by appearing in the Earth.

Catholics and Muslims are basically gnostic because of their belief in the Devil and their view of the mystical conception that the body of Jesus was not natural.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 July 2006 8:01:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ghoussss,

1. “jews-and-muslem-didn’t-believe-in-Jesus-Christ-as-Messiah.-That’s-what-I-know-is-the-basic-differences-between-muslem-and-Christianity,-as-they-have-the-exact-same-bible-of-old-testaments.-The-other-muslem-book-that-they-used-together-with-the-old-testament-is-the-analogy-of-new-testament-for-Christianity. “

Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah – they-are-still-waiting. Muslims call Jesus the Messiah but to them they have a completely different concept of “WHO” Jesus really is. To them He is just another prophet (and not God)– one of many thousands of prophets that came before their own prophet Mohammad.

The Qur’an tells many stories also found in the bible – BUT their stories are distorted; historically and theologically incorrect. There-is-no-comparison-possible-between-thei- book-the-Qur’an-or-their-other-book-(I-think-you-meant-the-Hadith) and-the-Old-and-New-Testaments-of-the-bible. Different-religion-all-together.

2. “This-is-1-thing,-apart-from-that,-with-all-your-beliefs,-comments-and-everything,-would-you-accuse-of-all-religion-in-this-earth-is-wrong-except-Christianity?
To answer this and for you to accept the answer – you need to know “WHO” God is and “WHAT” was His intentions and plans for us humans.
All religions are man-made. They have laws and rules for everything. Religious people believe that if they practice the rules and follow these laws God will accept them one day when they die.

Christianity-is-not-a-Religion-because-it-has-no-rules-and-laws-to-follow-toplease-God. God-Himself-became-a-human-sacrifice-for-us – to-save-us.-Not-people-ffering-sacrifices-to-Him-to-be-accepted-by-Him.

3. “…50%-of-this-world-would-be-perish-and-it’s-their-fault-for-not-choosing-“the-one-and-only-way-but-free-choice?”
It-doesn’t-have-to-make-“human”-sense…”
NO it-doesn’t-make-human-sense – God in His love has provided the way out for us. No human intelligence can comprehend His love for us.

And I think it is much more than 50% of people who are perishing daily. This is because of Satan twisting people’s minds with “religion” – telling them that “it doesn’t make sense” – (In-other-words-they think-Jesus-died-for-nothing).

4. “So-people-that-know-OT,-and-believe-in them,-perish-before-the-arrival-of-Jesus-Christ-in-this-world-as-saviour?-Since-before-him,-there-is-no-salvation,-is-there?”

The way to salvation is belief in the real God and believe Hid promises. In the Old Testament time people were saved by believing in God’s plan for them, and that the Messiah is coming to save them. They had “faith” in God for their salvation.
When we look at God now we see the cross of Jesus and we know that He has fulfilled His promises. Same “faith” different historical times.

5. If-you-take-out-Christianity-completely,-then-there-is-no-knowledge-of-after-life.-You-might-go-to-heaven-or-reincarnate-or-you-might-perish.-No-one-knows.-It-is-a-crap-prospect,-maybe.

It is not just Christianity that believes in the after life. However it is ONLY through what Christianity offers that there is a much better life after this life on earth. No other religion or belief system offers the same prospect. Christians call it “the good news” or “gospel” for this reason – it is the best news that any human being can hear.
Posted by coach, Thursday, 20 July 2006 10:06:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy