French Prometheus

Timothy, you make me doubt my proficiency in English... You don't seem to understand some very basic things that I wrote in this thread.

I'm not rejecting the Bible because of what "some" Christians do. I'm rejecting it because I read it and I came to the obvious conclusion that it is FALSE. If God existed he wouldn't have inspired such a load of crap. I also read the Koran and I reached the same conclusion : it's FALSE.

Many people claimed to be a god or even God. And many of them are in mental institutions nowadays.

What the Bible has to say about the divinity of Jesus is of interest if and only if the Bible is true. But it's false.

Now, even if the Old Testament were true then the New Testament would be bullshit anyway. Jesus made false prophecies (like Matt 16:28 though I'm sure you'll explain that away by distorting the clear meaning of this verse). And that's enough to debunk his claim to Messiahship according to Deut 18:20-22. What's more, the OT gives detailed prophecies about the first coming of the true Messiah and none of these things occurred (cf Mac Kinsey' list) :

Jesus also was a false prophet according to Deut 13:1-5.

Matthew 16:27 - For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Revelation 2:23 - And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 20:12 - And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 20:13 - And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

As usual, you pick and choose the verses you like and ignore others which contradict your interpretation.

The problem is that there is no clear list of which law is merely ceremonial or civil and which is "moral". Anyway, God in the OT and Jesus in the NT are clear about the 10 Commandments : they are still binding and they were not changed at all by the only one who has the authority to do so i.e. God/Jesus. You violate the 4th Commandment out of "tradition" and just try to vindicate it by interpreting unclear verses into meaning what they don't say. Gay Christians do the same with other verses. From an outside point of you, your ad-hoc interpretation has no more merit than theirs.
Where does Jesus condemn homosexuals (or sodomites)? Again you rely on Paul's theology which is not God's or Jesus' law but merely his interpretation of it. Gay Christians interpret other verses said by Jesus to nullify Paul's condemnation (go read what they say on their websites, I'm not here to vindicate anyone's ad-hoc phony theology).

I find you, a self-avowed totally depraved man, severely wanting in humility when you want to pass off your non-literal (therefore debatable) interpration of Scriptures as THE correct one that should be made the law of the land.

Says who? You? If it was "undebatably taught in Scripture" then every Bible-believing Christian would believe it. And don't even try suggesting that they're not "true Christians". It's certainly not for you to judge that.

Fine. Then quit doing it and obey the 4th Commandment as your God ordered you.

Many suggest that Lev 18:22 was also meant to separate the practices of God's chosen people from those of the surrounding peoples who practised temple prostitution (both heterosexual and homosexual).
Assuming that all ritual laws were abolished by Jesus' coming (which is false), then the problem of deciding what is ritual law and what is not still remains.


Great. Then if you can take the 10 Commandments figuratively, you can certainly take Lev 18:22 figuratively too.


The Koran says that Christians corrupted Scriptures and the current Bible is different from that originally given by God. The fact that the Bible contradicts the Koran only means that the two are incompatible. That doesn't mean that the Bible is true and the Koran is false. It could be the other way round. I personally think that they're both false.


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! The Koran holds the "original" Bible to be true. The current Bible is held to be completely corrupted. As for contradictions within the Koran, Muslim apologists explain them away by making absurd theological constructions just as their Christian counterparts do with Biblical contradictions. What's more, the Koran was written and "re-arranged" by fewer people and over a much shorter period of time than the Bible. So it contains fewer contradictions and shows more coherence and unity than the Bible. It's still a load of crap though.

Asking for one's enemies to be slain before him(Luke 19:27), bringing war and discord (Mat 10:34) and cursing a fig tree for merely following the laws of nature (established by God in this case) is not exactly what you'd expect from the Messiah sent by an omnibenevolent and omniscient God.
Jesus called Lot a just and righteous man. He was the man who proposed his daughters to be gang-banged by the inhabitants of Sodom. Then he knocked them up while he was drunk.
Jesus also condoned beating your slaves (Luke 12:47-48) when you're not satisfied with them ("severely" if they did it on purpose but "lightly" if they did not). Note that the greek word used here is "doulos" which NEVER means a free servant but only refers to a slave (even in modern Greek).
At least, Muslims don't claim that Mohammed was sinless or perfect.

A few words about Paul since you're so fond of him (excerpts from Mac Kinsey's Biblical Errancy website):
* Paul was a liar :
1 Cor. 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Jesus wasn't crucified by any prince.
Col. 1:23 ...from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
The VAST majority of human beings who ever lived on this planet never heard the Gospel.
* Paul often contradicts what Jesus said according to the Gospels :
the list is huge : part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Who's the Messiah? Jesus or Paul? Whose teaching should you follow?

French Prometheus

According to ancient Jewish law, declaring oneself the son of God was not a capital offense. But being a false prophet and trying to lead Jews away from the Law was worthy of death.

dado

it's not an offense, period. we are ALL sons (and daughters) of G-d. further, every Jew has the right to claim the title of Mashiak. there have been two attempted Messiah-ships in just the past 50 years, this stuff happens like clockwork.

Starboy

This of course makes one wonder what the actual reasons the priests were upset with Jesus. The most obvious explanation was that what Jesus proposed, cleansing sin with a simple water dunking, completely short circuited the temple and the various monies raised in its operation, that was income for both the temple and the state. I could see them getting upset about that, which would also explain why John the Baptist was eliminated as well. I would image that many televangelists would be equally upset if someone today started messing with their gravy train.

Starboy

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

In 2 Cor 4:4, it is written "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The truth is that unbelievers both cannot and do not want to submit to the Spirit, therefore you seek to throw off his fetters, and live as though you yourselves are gods, in complete control and determining both what is truth and your destiny. But as for you, your days are like grass, you flourish like a flower of the field; but the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more." How foolish for that which is mortal to be so high minded.

As for keeping the Sabbath and dietary laws, the Christian justification and salvation comes from the forgiveness of sins and the imputed righteousness of Christ, by grace, through faith alone, which motivates the believer to participate in works consistent with the law which are honoring to God and good both for ourselves and our neighbors. This justification is separate from the legalism you espouse and it does not promote licentiousness.

On homosexuality - it is written "Because of this, God gave them over to SHAMEFUL lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for UNNATURAL ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed INDECENT acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Again, "Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity with a continual lust for more." The biblical standards of chastity and purity are eternal, authoritative, and perspicuous. Those who deny them and seek to establish their own norms of behavior lack wisdom and participate in judgment even as they live.

Starboy

What I always find so fascinating is how narrow minded Christians can be. The passage above could very well apply to them. They have no way of knowing if they are worshipping a false god.

Starboy

dado

but dear reverend, that is exactly what you yourself are doing.

your "justification" is a non sequitor: forgiveness of sins - with and without blood sacrifice - has been part of Judaism since Day 1.

dietary guidelines were/are not a legalism: they are moral law. you can disregard that - you have every right to disregard that - but it is simply dishonest for you to imply the dietary guidelines are not part of the moral law.

now you are not only bringing your beliefs TO the text rather than deriving them FROM the text, you are deliberately avoiding answering the direct questions - which is nothing more than a form of deceitfulness. remind us where it says deceitfulness is ok...?

Magdlyn

Prometheus,

Great post! I learned a lot.

One minor quibble, which may get lost in this spicy debate:

As Paul has a docetic Christ, he can't be referring to earthly "princes." I do not know the original Greek for this term trans "princes," but it must refer to the Archons, the gnostic henchmen of the Demiurge (evil creator God), citizens of the spiritual realm. They were responsible for X's death, as Paul sees it. This understanding is carried down slightly in the belief some have that Satan (who some say is prince of this world, as he is seen offering it to X in the wilderness) was responsible for X's death.

PS, for those offended by the term X or Xtian, I use it as the first Greek letter of Christos, chi.

PPS, I wonder how many here, Xtian, atheist and other, have read the Nag Hammadi library and other gnostic texts? They shed a lot of light, IMO, on the large complicated world of early Xtian theology, which has unfortunately been squeezed down into a canon of only 27 books.

Starboy

If Christianity is anything it is a long tradition of lying for Jesus. To a Christian lying is a-okay.

Starboy

Magdlyn

And now the rev also misreads a gnostic reference:

In 2 Cor 4:4, it is written "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Who is the god of this aeon but the evil Demiurge of whom I have just spoken? Context, please. Don't just take the ball and run with it down some fundie football field.

In Pauls' world, Jesus' Father was the ineffable God, the reluctant dad of the Demiurge, god of this aeon.

Your posts are well thought out but oh-so-boring I can hardly read them without falling asleep. Just like the sermons of my pastor as a child. Sorry you do not see the correct Jewish (as dado points out) and gnostic (yours truly) contexts, but just go merrily on your boring tired way.