Originally posted by buckky It might not of been the plan, but it happened anyway, and that is when the story takes a turn for the creepy. Gods creation "man" sins in the Garden and it angered God so heavily that all of mankind after that would Burn in Hell for all of eternity in constant torment. The beauty of this story escapes me. It paints a picture of a touchy God that will punish like a monster unleased. Scary religion for sure.
In the old testament days, Moses believed we should be taught to
fear God, so we would obey him. But then, His Son came along and
told us, we should obey God because we love Him.
Originally posted by buckky Was Judas a hero ? It had to be done so I guess Judas helped complete the mission.
At best Judas is a sad case. Heroes are more like Moses, Elijah, Zerubbabel and Ezra. As for as Jesus death goes? This is the day which the lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
Originally posted by buckky What I'm keeping mind is the fact according the Christians, that God had to have Blood shed before forgivness was available. That part seems wacky and primitive to the max.
Well, people were not the only ones that sinned. We however can be saved by
the shed blood of Jesus Christ, Satan and those that followed him do not have
a means to be redeemed. They are going to be judged without hope of any
type of redemption. You may call it primitive if you like, you can reject it if you
want to, it is on you.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay Well, people were not the only ones that sinned. We however can be saved by
the shed blood of Jesus Christ, Satan and those that followed him do not have
a means to be redeemed. They are going to be judged without hope of any
type of redemption. You may call it primitive if you like, you can reject it if you
want to, it is on you.
Kelly
Were the animals sinners too ? I've never known anyone that followed Satan. Have you ?
Originally posted by KellyJay Well, people were not the only ones that sinned. We however can be saved by
the shed blood of Jesus Christ, Satan and those that followed him do not have
a means to be redeemed. They are going to be judged without hope of any
type of redemption. You may call it primitive if you like, you can reject it if you
want to, it is on you.
Kelly
How do we know that there is no redemption for fallen angels? Is that in the Bible? Maybe they have an alternative arrangement we don't know about.
The Catholic Church has a commission to determine whether aliens from another world are fallen, and whether they qualify for Christ's redemption. I haven't heard any findings.
Originally posted by buckky Were the animals sinners too ? I've never known anyone that followed Satan. Have you ?
i have, i met here when i was doing house to house work, she showed me her tattoo, a satanic serpent on her arm, claimed she was a Satanist, i had no reason to disbelieve her, she was very polite and would have talked more except it was freezing.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Are there Christians here who blame "the Jews" for the death of Jesus?
What I get from the Gospels says to me that the Jewish religious powers had Jesus put to death. The notion that somehow that is anti-Semitic is nonsense; if the Jewish religious authorities put a Jewish rabbi to death, I don't see how that is anti-Semitic. It's just them executing one of their own.
Originally posted by Badwater What I get from the Gospels says to me that the Jewish religious powers had Jesus put to death. The notion that somehow that is anti-Semitic is nonsense; if the Jewish religious authorities put a Jewish rabbi to death, I don't see how that is anti-Semitic. It's just them executing one of their own.
Many Jews believe it anti-Semitic because they believe it to be inaccurate. From their perspective the philosophies attributed to the Pharisees and Sadducees as described in the Gospels are not accurate according to their own traditions, and historical account outside of the Bible. The Pharisees are perceived to have saved Judaism by establishing traditions which could survive the destruction of the Temple. So the Gospel accounts are viewed in Judaism much like we would view attacks on the intentions of the Founding Fathers. The fact of the matter is that Pharisaic theology was not as rigid and dogmatic as depicted.
Moreover, the Gospel of John does not even bother to specify the authorities. The evil protagonists are referred to simply as "the Jews." Some Jews take great offense to this.
And the fact of the matter is that Christians historically have not made your distinction. It is no accident that some of the worst pogroms have taken place near Easter, particularly in Eastern Europe circa 18th and 19th century. Jews have often been referred to as "Christ Killers." So naturally, one can understand why they might be sensitive about inaccurate descriptions of revered people.
Since Mark is the oldest of the Gospels, it seems to come closest to Jesus of Nazareth, the person, than do the others. By the time we get to John we have so many elaborations that it is meaningless to the events I'm talking about.
Here is where I get my perspective: Jesus arrives in Jerusalem to great fanfare. He then visits the temple, then retires to the Mount of Olives for the night. When her gets up, he is of ill temper (cursing fig trees and all) and marches straight for the temple. There he turns over the tables of the money changers and dove merchants, and storms off after trashing the place. Well, I doubt the religious authorities would meet those actions with anything less than swift and severe retribution, and they do so - by killing him.
Jesus had never been to the temple in Jerusalem, and it is clear from all the Gospels that he puts worship of his Father first and foremost in his spirituality and praxis. I think that he was expecting to see evidence of this is the most holy of temples in all Judaism, and was overcome with anger and rage when he witnessed, first hand, that men were all to eager to put the affairs of men before the affairs of God - in the freakin' TEMPLE, no less!! Jesus stewed about it all night and could not put his anger aside, and paid the ultimate price for it.
All to often Christians are far too quick to get into grandiose notions of spiritual blah blah and reading between lines real and contrived, instead of removing the fantastical perspectives and seeing the temporal story for what it is, or may be.
Originally posted by Badwater Since Mark is the oldest of the Gospels, it seems to come closest to Jesus of Nazareth, the person, than do the others. By the time we get to John we have so many elaborations that it is meaningless to the events I'm talking about.
Here is where I get my perspective: Jesus arrives in Jerusalem to great fanfare. He then visits the temple, then retires to ...[text shortened]... removing the fantastical perspectives and seeing the temporal story for what it is, or may be.
Ah, you still have the stuff!! Although it may be irrelevant given your analysis of John, there are exegetes who think that the Johannine reference to “the Jews” refers (at least sometimes) to no more than the residents of Judea—the old Southern Kingdom; whereas Galilee, had been part of the old Northern Kingdom. In such a case, it would have been neither an ethnic nor a religious epithet—but, perhaps, a social/political/historical one.
Originally posted by Badwater Since Mark is the oldest of the Gospels, it seems to come closest to Jesus of Nazareth, the person, than do the others. By the time we get to John we have so many elaborations that it is meaningless to the events I'm talking about.
Here is where I get my perspective: Jesus arrives in Jerusalem to great fanfare. He then visits the temple, then retires to ...[text shortened]... removing the fantastical perspectives and seeing the temporal story for what it is, or may be.
That's about the dumbest crap I've ever read. Every sentence drips with ignorants.
Did Judaism killl Jesus Christ?
22 Jun '11 16:54
Back to Top