Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 12-15-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

early Christians worshipping a heavenly being , rather than a crucified criminal

Jews, so that they can claim that it was perfectly possible for a Jew to worship Jesus, while still being a monotheist, they gloss over the fact that their Jesus was supposed to be a crucified criminal, not an archangel like Metatron.

It is one thing for a Jew to propose to another Jew that an archangel can share in divine status, but it is a different thing to propose that a crucified criminal should be worshipped.

You or Larry have a lot of this out of context completely.

Jews looked at Joshua as a teacher fighting the injustice and corruption in the temple due to the roman infection.

He was never looked at as a criminal, less the Romans and high priest who worked hand in hand to profit from the common hard working peasant. This class had nothing to do with the spread or popularity of early christianity.

Quote:

Paul, of course, makes no mention of any controversy about worshipping Jesus. The only controversy seemed to be over whether or not the Law should still be kept (circumcision, table-fellowship etc

Because there wasnt a controversy.

Paul writing before the temple fell. Still looked at Joshua as a popular messiah, his own personal messiah. The last thing he would do is demote his own view.

Perspicuo · 12-15-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

those who call themselves Christian but behave scandalously is not relevant (though it excludes at least 99% of people who are today reckoned to be Christians;

Seems like it might be relevant to something. Are these that '99% of people reckoned to be Christians' who spend their lives in bed with, and fucking with the Great Whore of Babylon and her whoring daughters, that will be end up being so much vulture food ? (Rev 17- 19:21)

There are probably many millions of Catholics who are unaware of the history of their organisation, who are innocent, in this respect, at least. But for educated Westerners, to give the RCC any recognition as a church, or even as a part of civilised society, excludes them from the church. There are more than they who are excluded, though. Liberals of the moral kind bring exclusion on themselves, too.

And fanatics exclude anybody who doesn't agree with them...
Giving history one of the two bloodiest religions ever.

Chili · 12-15-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

It might be noted that I did not use 'QUOTE' or quotation marks. I rephrased the statement.

Unawareness is not to be confused with innocence.

The daughters are partakers of the Mother Church's spiritual fornications and whoredoms.
Mother and daughters alike, 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' are composed of all of the adult people within these religious organizations, and are to be held individually responsible for what manner of religious organization it is that they chosen to align themselves with, and join themselves to.

Revelation 19:21; Receiving the mark, and worshiping the image, and aligning themselves with abominations, and murderers,
99% of ALL of 'Christianity' is predestined to become vulture food.

There may well be Catholics who have never been presented with the gospel, whose status is akin to those who lived in, say, South America before Jesus lived. Such people, never made aware of the true origin and nature of the Vatican, may, when final judgment comes, accept Jesus, and not become 'vulture food'. They cannot be said to have received the mark of Revelation. But those who are aware, Catholic or not, and find the RCC acceptable, cannot be innocent, and join these people, who by the Bible, are to be both condemned and destroyed:

'Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute... those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority.' 2 Pe 2:2,10 NIV

A suitable description of the RCC, whose human leadership is defiant rebellion against authority.

It cannot be suitable description of any individual true Protestant, who by definition recognises no human spiritual authority. If a supposed Protestant or any other educated person gives credence to the RCC, they too face condemnation and destruction. But some Protestants totally reject the RCC, and describe it as criminal. They likewise reject every other person who lays claim to be Christian, but brings Christ into disrepute. They cannot be said to have received the mark of Revelation, either.

Huh? The mark of Revelation is the most welcome sign for us or it would not be the key that everyone is looking for.

The problem is that many people, and never a so called Christian, will ever understand the difference between the two marks noted there of which only one is given. It is called the number 666 that makes refence to John 6:66 to identify those who walked away from the bread of life.

The other number, not disclosed, is found in John 6:56 where the body of Christ is real food and his blood is real drink; to validate a triple a (barbara) in that all real food is the body of Christ and not just some food is the body of Christ or it would not be called 'real food.'

Under Lexischemy this rethorical device is called diairesis wherein only sinners can go to heaven but not as sinner, and so Catholics can, but cannot enter heaven as Catholic until the Catholic is crucified and for that they need the protestants who do this all the time (as if it is the only thing they know), while Christians cannot enter because they are supposed to be in heaven as supported by their bible thumping 'aquired' righteousness.

This may be just rethoric, but if the Christian stands on it with all the courage he can muster, his hope eternal will be to no avail as even hope should be part of his past, wherein now presence is the halo that he wears.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.