On Capitalist Jesus. The Evil of Christianity.

[LATruth]

On a Justification for Armed revolution. On a Theology of Liberation. On the Revolutionary Jesus. An Anarchist perspective taken from the david icke forum

A Christian is allegedly a 'Christ-like' person who looks to the Jesus of history as a mentor and who claims to believe in his teachings as ‘the word of God.’


‘And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand’ (Mt. 7)


Consider that the historical Jesus appears to have been a person who fits the following description.

Tenets of the Historical Jesus.

1: Anti-Monetarism / Anti-Capitalism

He did not believe in any form of monetarism (do not carry money.... do not receive money, only food); he was a homeless (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed ( he called upon those with him to give up their professions), anti-propertyist who propagated not monetarism but proto-Communism (Fr. Communare: to share. Communism: to share all property in common)


‘Carry neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither two robes, neither shoes, nor yet a staff. Mt 10’

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.- Matthew 19:24


And the question needs to raised as to how a person who carries no money could pay taxes; one of the alleged reasons for his arrest.



Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be a king.” (Luke 23:1-4)

Do not worship mammon (Aramaic: Material possessions / clothing / money). Consider Solomon in all his glory?


Lay not up for yourself treasures upon the earth...
- Matthew 6:19


2: No Swearing of Oaths.

..and of course without the swearing of oaths and contracts, Capitalism would cease to exist, and ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag…’ would be a violation of the words and edicts of Jesus, as would American Presidents swearing on stacks of Bibles, and Christians swearing oaths in courts or military oaths to fight the enemies of Capitalism.


But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by
earth.- Matthew 5:34-35

3: He cried out against the rich and the religious hypocrites.

Woe to you brood of vipers… hypocrites…serpents.. in the name of the prophets you would have stoned the prophets, etc., etc.
Today it is the Christian state terrorists who have a long history of torturing and murdering Communists, particularly in the post war history of Latin America with their Palace revolutions and miltary coups.

4: He did not sell salvation for Capitalist coin.

He did not ask for tithes or offerings; he fed the poor and freely cared for the sick.

5: He told the rich to devote their wealth to the poor.


Sell all that you have and give to the poor... Luke 12:33

6: No Priesthood.

He was clearly ‘against' the priesthood of his age, and indeed against any form of priesthood.


‘Be not called Rabbi (teacher)… and call no man your father upon the earth…neither be called masters……and whoever exalts himself shall be abased. (Mt.38)’


7: Anti-Capitalist Martyrdom and Rebellion

This is the true meaning of 'take up your cross;' this was a common punishment for anti-Roman terrorists.

He was tortured and executed for his rebellion against the religious establishment, at their request, and allegedly as a political criminal; he did not support the corrupt government and the Solomonic priesthood (the Sadducees).

8: Non-Idolatry

He was not an idolater, he never referred to himself as the Creator; he may have invoked the Messianic prophecies but he clearly was not so arrogant as to consider himself to be the Creator; indeed he cried out to the Creator at times and referred constantly to the Creator in the Third person. Christians today worship him as an object of idolatry and propagate the Captialist anti-thesis of his teachings.

9: No Public Praying. No Praying in Temples.

He told his followers, 'Do not pray in public in the streets and the Temples.'


And when you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the temples and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when thou pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut the door, pray in secret; and your God which hears in secret shall answer you. And when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Mt. 6)

In other words, a true Christ-like person would never pray in public or in a church, nor would they construct any form of Temple.

10: The revolutionary militant (terrorist) Jesus: Armed Revolution.


"Do not suppose that I come to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword..........I have come to cast fire onto the earth; would that it be already kindled"

Consider that at one point he asks his followers to sell their robes if they have to and buy swords. There are two interpretations of the answer, one being 'we have two swords,' and another being 'we have two swords each.' The Judean siccari (Swordsmen or 'terrorists’ to the Romans) commonly carried two swords, as opposed to the sword and shield of the Romans.

'Cohort' (L. a tenth of a Legion).

It clearly states that a cohort (L. a 10th of a legion) of Romans arrested Jesus. A legion was a minimum of 5000 men plus cavalry. Thus a minimum of 500 armed soldiers (plus the Temple guard, who were also armed) arrested Jesus in Gethsemane where an armed fight broke out; outnumbered his followers fled. This begs the question of why 500 armed soldiers would attempt to arrest a group of unarmed pacifists. It simply does not make sense.

Now compare this man to modern day Christians in general. Are they really Christ-like? Do they really believe in all of the above?

Indeed today it is only the Communists who represent his legacy; the Christian Capitalists represent all that he despised.

Two types of Christians; the hypnotists of the 'Jesus Business' and the hypnotised innocents.

I do not believe that the hypnotists of the Jesus business who claim to be 'experts' on the sayings of Jesus can possibly justify their business by the teachings of Jesus. I consider them to be universally corrupt and pied pipers; those who have vested interests in 'Capital' and earn a living from the Jesus business cannot be expected to agree with the tenets above. If they are offended; so too it must be stated that they ‘give offence’ to the students of the historical Jesus and to all liberation theologians and Christian Anarchists.

Consider also that the two major state terrorist countries in the world have Christian heads of state (Obama and Elizabeth Windsor) and that they are totally committed to militant world Capitalist revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies and the economic enslavement of humanity.

The hypnotised innocents; the proletariat.

Clearly many Christians are simply hypnotised, and it is they who need to be woken up; that simply requires education.

[LibertyEagle]

If someone didn't know better, they would wonder if your goal was to cause as much division in this movement as you possibly could.

[LATruth]

If someone didn't know better, they would wonder if your goal was to cause as much division in this movement as you possibly could.

WOW, seeming as there are more threads about this that I don't start, I would doubt it. I am NOT trying to cause division, just pointing out inconsistencies. Besides, this is from a capitalist perspective, which I don't think has been done. Totally relevant.

I do understand you have a negative bias towards me regarding this subject, it's okay, I wont hold it against you. Although you will against me.

[idiom]

It takes a number of dodgy leaps, contractions of quotes and generally making contradictions.

But hey. Yay Communism!

[LibertyEagle]

WOW, seeming as there are more threads about this that I don't start, I would doubt it. I am NOT trying to cause division, just pointing out inconsistencies. Besides, this is from a capitalist perspective, which I don't think has been done. Totally relevant.

I do understand you have a negative bias towards me regarding this subject, it's okay, I wont hold it against you. Although you will against me.

Actually, one only has to look at what you chose to bold in your first post to see what your goal was. And it had nothing to do with capitalism.

[LATruth]

Actually, one only has to look at what you chose to bold in your first post to see what your goal was. And it had nothing to do with capitalism.

That bold was copied and pasted from another forum, wasn't my choice. I did however add the "taken from David Icke forum"...

[Conza88]

"taken from David Icke forum"...
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii11/FailPics/FAIL-71.jpg

[LATruth]

And it had nothing to do with capitalism.

I don't think you read it... capitalism is mentioned throughout.

[Conza88]

I don't think you read it... capitalism is mentioned throughout.

I don't think you understand... a user whose handle contains the word "truth" posted this... Truth however, isn't presented anywhere in the opening post.

[LATruth]

I don't think you understand... a user whose handle contains the word "truth" posted this... Truth however, isn't presented anywhere the OP post.

You're correct, considering it references the bible so many times...

Its also why I posted it in hot topics, and took no credit for the writing. I just thought I'd share. Continue to be asshats though, I enjoy it.

[revolutionisnow]

As I recently posted elsewhere, The "Mark of the beast" is translated wrong, and should be the money of the beast.

[LATruth]

Someone said it best here:

"You can't talk logic with someone who talks imaginary." ;)

[BeFranklin]

That bold was copied and pasted from another forum, wasn't my choice. I did however add the "taken from David Icke forum"...

You can't copy that way in this editor. I just did it below. (And likewise there is plenty of bold that wasn't copied, it had to be put back in).

"Indeed today it is only the Communists who represent his legacy; the Christian Capitalists represent all that he despised.

Two types of Christians; the hypnotists of the 'Jesus Business' and the hypnotised innocents.

I do not believe that the hypnotists of the Jesus business who claim to be 'experts' on the sayings of Jesus can possibly justify their business by the teachings of Jesus. I consider them to be universally corrupt and pied pipers; those who have vested interests"

[BeFranklin]

I don't think you understand... a user whose handle contains the word "truth" posted this... Truth however, isn't presented anywhere in the opening post.

Bingo.

[LibertyEagle]

Indeed today it is only the Communists who represent his legacy; the Christian Capitalists represent all that he despised.


The hypnotised innocents; the proletariat.


Clearly many Christians are simply hypnotised, and it is they who need to be woken up; that simply requires education.
Yeah, I'll bet. :rolleyes:

YouTube - Soviet National Anthem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PY0NZ0be50&feature=related)


Someone said it best here:

"You can't talk logic with someone who talks imaginary." ;)
lol.

Wait a minute. You just started a thread quoting something that promotes Communism. And you're claiming to be the one arguing logic? Seriously?

[Catatonic]

I have to disagree. Jesus is teaching people to be selfless WITHOUT the government forcing them to do so. Thats as free market as you can get and a far cry from communism or anything anti capitalism.

There's nothing wrong with living as a communist, in fact I very much agree with it. But that doesn't mean the source of that life style should be a mandate from a centralized authority.

[heavenlyboy34]

The author of the OP is an utter failure-beyond words.

[revolutionisnow]

Communists still use money so that argument is invalid also.

[Bossobass]

It's always a chuckle to see the latest intellectual analysis of The Bible from an imbecile who hasn't read it or understood the most basic theme of the Book.

A collection of 66 Books written over thousands of years under inspiration, roughly spanning the reigns of the first 6 world empires, over 4,000 persons, places and things mentioned, hundreds of prophecies, detailed historical accounts... condensed into a single post or 30 minute you tube video by some numb nut who hasn't the faintest clue.

Over the years, I've read them all, but attempting to pin a label of some man-made political ideology on Jesus really is the height of ignorance and shows how astoundingly low the level of education of today's general populace has sunk.

The Bible is the largest selling book in the history of this planet, by billions and billions. It is acknowledged as the greatest book of all times due to its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece and because of its overwhelming importance to all mankind.

The Bible also is distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by legions of enemies.

I highly recommend reading it, especially before telling others what its contents are and what they mean.

Bosso

[nate895]

The Bible is the greatest libertarian manifesto ever written; it is even anarchist in some sections.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Bible is the greatest libertarian manifesto ever written; it is even anarchist in some sections.

Well, I dunno about the greatest, but it's way up there, IMHO. :D

[idiom]

I just like to see LATruth attacking other people for 'talking imaginary'.

Maybe its all the Chemtrails?

[Sandman33]

Someone said it best here:

"You can't talk logic with someone who talks imaginary." ;)

You cant talk logic with someone that believes that logic is not a gift from God.

[LATruth]

I didn't write the OP, just posted to spur discussion. Sometimes is positive, sometimes it isn't. Thanks for the personal attacks though. This forum is showing it's herd mentality more and more on a daily basis.

[Sandman33]

I didn't write the OP, just posted to spur discussion. Sometimes is positive, sometimes it isn't. Thanks for the personal attacks though. This forum is showing it's herd mentality more and more on a daily basis.

I didn't personaly attack you.

Though what do you expect on a board dedicated to the great Ron Paul? Bringing anti-capitalism and atheism here would be like bringing a pentagram to church....probably not going to find a lot of fans.

[heavenlyboy34]

I didn't write the OP, just posted to spur discussion. Sometimes is positive, sometimes it isn't. Thanks for the personal attacks though. This forum is showing it's herd mentality more and more on a daily basis.

~facepalm~ You opened with an attack, and invited them onto yourself. :p You are the douchebag of the day. (though I agree that there's too much herd mentality around here)

[TurtleBurger]

Most of the responses to the OP are ad hominem attacks. I don't think the article misquoted the Bible or took anything majorly out of context; it would appear to be a legitimate scriptural interpretation. Isn't one person's interpretation as good as another's, as long as he's personally guided by God?

[BeFranklin]

I wouldn't doubt that the la warrior for truth wrote it. He couldn't have "pasted" from the bold part unless he had access to the original part.

This was posted, by the way, by someone using the handle lucifer something or other from the other board. Posting it was just meant to be harassing.

Folks, we have too much trouble on the horizen for endless nonsense like this. Get to church, organize with your fellows, and prepare for a bad time ahead.

[BeFranklin]

Most of the responses to the OP are ad hominem attacks. I don't think the article misquoted the Bible or took anything majorly out of context; it would appear to be a legitimate scriptural interpretation. Isn't one person's interpretation as good as another's, as long as he's personally guided by God?

The original person that wrote it was calling himself lucifer something. You aren't serious are you?

[TurtleBurger]

The original person that wrote it was calling himself lucifer something. You aren't serious are you?

Focusing on the poster's screen name rather than on the content of their message counts as an ad hominem attack in my book!

[torchbearer]

Yay Communism!

If you are to follow christ, you are to give up your material wealth.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
Jesus didn't go around erecting large temples to himself, he lived the life of a servant.
To walk his path, is to walk it as a servant to others.

Early christian colonies were completely communal.

[BeFranklin]

Focusing on the poster's screen name rather than on the content of their message counts as an ad hominem attack in my book!

It was posted on a board that from skimming other readers calls itself anti Christian, and the poster calls himself anti Christian.

This is hardly an ad hominem attack when the question is was what was posted suppose to be offensive and anti Christian. Well, the original writer (if there are two different posters) said so :rolleyes:

[BeFranklin]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63676

Posted: luciferhorus Senior Member

From original article (parts cut out here):

By Lucifer
Day of Judgement 2008

....

Shame on Christendom

Though the teachings of Jesus are clearly offensive to the Christian Capitalists, it is quite fair to judge the Christians by the teachings of the person whom they claim to represent. If they do not wish to be so judged, they should not claim to represent Jesus; it would be more honest if they sold their slavation for coin in the name of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand or some other Capitalist .

Jesus was a very offensive person; he ranted and raged at the injustices of his society and cried out 'Woe to you hypocrites,' to the proponents of organised religion and Capital. If he had been diplomatic and had not given offence, it is unlikely that the priesthood would have placed a reward for his arrest. The prophets have always been very extreme and outspoken people

Today in the name of Jesus, all manner of religious hypocrisy is propagated in his name, Capitalist Revolution, the selling of salvation for coin, the construction of elaborate Temples while billions suffer in dire poverty, and 900 million people, mostly women and children are close to starvation.

Shame.

Woe to the Capitalist hypnotists of Christianity, in the name of the prophets they would have persecuted and rejected the prophets.

Great and terrible and dreadful and wrathful shall be the Day of Judgement.

They wheat shall be separated from the chaff (the Capitalists and the hypocrites of religion) and the chaff cast into the fire.

The Final Holocaust shall be worse than any other that has come before.

Lucifer

For Anarchism. For Communism. Lux. For War, Revolution, anything good but strong.

For armed violent apocalyptic revolution in all the world on a day and an hour.

No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.

And in reply to original post, about forum


No I reject Christ and all his works; Christ is merely the god of Capital, of hypocrisy, of state terrorism, of religion and of all that is evil in the world; it is through the Capitalist Christ that the masses in Christendom have been controlled, hypnotised and made submissive to all manner of tyranny with the promise of eternal heaven to those who are submissive to evil and to the hypnotists of religion. Since this is the David Icke forum I should point out that this is very much his position also, though I use different language.

With regards to the historical Jesus, it is Icke's (owner of this board) position that he never existed; that is not my position; I think it quite likely that he did, and if he did not, well there were so many Messianic Israelite revolutionaries like him and he represents an historical archtype of that era.

[heavenlyboy34]

If you are to follow christ, you are to give up your material wealth.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
Jesus didn't go around erecting large temples to himself, he lived the life of a servant.
To walk his path, is to walk it as a servant to others.

Early christian colonies were completely communal.

This is a rather poor interpretation of Yeshua's philosophy. He didn't like materialism at the expense of morality (which your post illustrates), but he never made the case that capitalism or ownership of property is immoral in and of itself (that I know of).

[torchbearer]

This is a rather poor interpretation of Yeshua's philosophy. He didn't like materialism at the expense of morality (which your post illustrates), but he never made the case that capitalism or ownership of property is immoral in and of itself (that I know of).

You must be talking about the Americanized version of jesus.
I challenge anyone here on the topic of Jesus. I've actually studied this stuff for years- over 14 years. At the college level with people who spoke and read hebrew/greek. Dug on the tel's of Israel. And also admit that our "feel-good" capitalist Jesus is our way of justifying our way of life and isn't realistic.
It would be better if you didn't try to draw those correlations. You are being dishonest.
How in the world would GOD care about material wealth? Think about it.

[LibertyEagle]

How in the world would GOD care about material wealth? Think about it.

Well, he doesn't want you coveting it and putting it before Him.

[torchbearer]

Well, he doesn't want you coveting it and putting it before Him.

In what gospel and verse did Jesus spout the ideas of capitalism?

[LibertyEagle]

In what gospel and verse did Jesus spout the ideas of capitalism?

You pretty much said it here, Torch.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2136596&postcount=31

God didn't want us to idolize material things. I think He made that abundantly clear. That's all I'm saying.

[BeFranklin]

Well, he doesn't want you coveting it and putting it before Him.

This is a good point. The bible wouldn't say not to covert something that isn't yours if it isn't pointing out property rights.

Also, our ideas of the free market comes from our "puritan work ethic". This has been preached about for a long time it seems.

[Dr.3D]

This is a good point. The bible wouldn't say not to covert something that isn't yours if it isn't pointing out property rights.

Also, our ideas of the free market comes from our "puritan work ethic". This has been preached about for a long time it seems.

I agree...

Why would God tell the people of Israel to use these things if He didn't want them to trade?


Leviticus 19:36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. KJ

[heavenlyboy34]

In what gospel and verse did Jesus spout the ideas of capitalism?

Below is just the beginning. Your poor scholarship is showing, sir.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html

Jesus on Taxation and Sound Money
Statists who argue that Jesus supported taxation and/or the state ignore the many passages relating to sinful tax collectors and Jesus’ unjust execution by the Roman secular authority and instead point to the "Render unto Caesar" passage in Matthew, chapter 22 as evidence that Jesus was pro-state. In the story, Pharisees and other "spies" attempt to goad Jesus, a middle-class Jewish tradesman surrounded by Roman centurions, into foolishly fomenting a tax revolt.
The story begins with Jesus’ Pharisee inquisitor asking him whether or not the local Jews should pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus responds by asking him to produce a coin that Caesar would accept as a tax. After the Pharisee produces the coin, Jesus asks him whose image is on the coin and the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s." Jesus then recommends: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."
While this story offers many wonderful, nuanced and insightful lessons, the story in no way offers moral support for taxation or the state. Taken in context, the story sheds much more light on Jesus’ views on the role of money and pragmatic, non-violent civil disobedience in response to overwhelming secular power.
To fully understand the story, one must know a little about money and currency in first century Iudaea. The story of the moneychangers at the Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_money_changers) shows that more than one currency was in circulation at the time. History indicates that at least four currencies, Greek, Roman, Jewish and Tyrian, were used as media of exchange. Because only Jewish shekels and Tyrian coins were allowed in Temple ceremonies, the entrepreneurial moneychangers opened shop outside the Temple so that that the faithful could exchange their Roman denarii for Jewish shekels in order to offer their sacrifices and meaningfully participate in Temple ceremonies.
In this context, with at least four separate currencies circulating in Iudaea, Jesus’ response to the Pharisee: "Whose image is on the coin?" says a lot about what was going through his mind. Jesus wants to know what authority issued the coin; that is, who "made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_banking)" it and who, therefore, accepts or demands it as currency?
When the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s," Jesus learns that the money in question is that of the occupying imperial forces, is not allowed in Temple ceremonies and carries the craven image of Caesar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius), declaring him a "God." Given this context, Jesus’ response, "[r]ender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s," in no way sanctions taxation as moral or justified. Nor do Jesus’ statements support capitulation to the occupying Roman army or secular authority. Jesus’ response actually evades the question entirely and instead provides a powerful statement in support of private property, for Jesus clearly recommends that, notwithstanding Caesar’s confiscatory and illegal taxation, Caesar remains entitled to the things that Caesar owns.
Jesus’ sage recommendation expresses contempt for the imperial currency and at the same time subtly and paradoxically suggests that cooperation and rebellion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The implication of the story, in the context of the voluminous anti-state and anti-tax gospel evidence, is that Jesus seems to be saying, "thank you for telling me that the coin is that of empire’s, minted from ore taken from seized mines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Medulas) and debased (http://www.tulane.edu/%7Eaugust/handouts/601cprin.htm) to satisfy the empire’s military ambitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Augustus); I say cooperate and pay the tribute the empire demands, as it is prudent and may save your life, but do not materially support the empire and the occupying forces by giving them anything of real value; things of real value, like shekels, belong to God."
Jesus’ recommendation thus gives rise to the inference that he believed the Jews living under Roman occupation should pay their taxes in overvalued denarii, as the Romans likely demanded, and hold and perhaps shield their wealth in the undervalued shekel and Tyrian money. This position reflects both libertarian political views as well as a recognition of Gresham's Law (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north83.html), according to which government-decreed bad money drives undervalued good money out of circulation.
The Parables and Jesus’ View of Property and Contract
A cursory review of Jesus’ teachings would seem to indicate that he did not think highly of property or property rights. From the Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_mount) to the conversation with the young rich man (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew/matthew19.htm) whom Jesus instructs to sell all his possessions, Jesus repeatedly decries the evils of worshiping things instead of God. For Jesus, it seems a man’s wealth is not only irrelevant to how God views him, the two are inversely related as can be seen his statement:
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel/oCamel) to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven/oKingdom%20of%20Heaven). Matthew 19:24 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Matthew&verse=19:24&src=NIV/ohttp://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Matthew&verse=19:24&src=NIV).
Furthermore, Jesus and his followers lived a kind of communal existence, sharing their food with one person responsible for the group’s money. Based on this evidence alone, one might conclude that Jesus had little understanding of or regard for private property.
But to draw broad conclusions from this limited evidence is to make a hasty generalization (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html), for the core of Jesus’ teaching is found in the parables and the parables are replete with spiritual lessons drawn from material and commercial examples, including examples relating to thrift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Money), entrepreneurship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Treasure), the productive use of capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Talents), negotiation of debts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unjust_Steward), respect for others’ property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Faithful_Servant), responsible stewardship of one’s own private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicked_Husbandmen) and freedom of contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laborers_in_the_Vineyard).
In the universe of the Jesus’ teachings, the anti-property lessons are not so much anti-property as they are a warning to people who, in Jesus’ view, have misplaced priorities, people who mistakenly believe that ownership of private property and accumulation of wealth is an end it itself rather than a means to a higher end. The weight of Jesus’ teaching in fact shows that Jesus highly regarded private property rights and, in order to illustrate the proper relationship between God and man, repeatedly analogized the responsible use and stewardship of private property to the responsible use and stewardship of life received from God.
Jesus, Victimless Crimes and Self-Defense
Jesus was (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/mark/mark2.htm) and is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ) infamous for socializing and dining with prostitutes and other "sinners." While Jesus clearly did not sanction prostitution, his interaction and defense of prostitutes and adulterers illuminates his political worldview. Jesus’ lessons indicate that he believed that prostitution, adultery and other "victimless" crimes, although grievous sins, were matters of conscience that could only be solved through the internal action of the sinner.
In John, chapter 8, the Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulterous woman who, by some accounts, was a prostitute and suggest that she be stoned to death in accordance with Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) law. Jesus stops the stoning and protects the woman by stating: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As the crowd slips away and no accusers are left to "condemn" the woman, Jesus instructs her to go and "sin no more."
Unlike the tax collectors who must atone by paying back what they have taken, Jesus recognizes that the woman’s sins are a matter of internal conscience. Jesus instructs the Pharisees that want to stone the woman to examine their own consciences and correct their own sins before seeking judgment against the woman who has harmed no one but herself. Jesus thus shows that he does not believe that the woman’s crime can legitimately or practically be enforced by anyone other than the woman.
Here it is important to note that libertarianism is not synonymous with libertinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine). While some libertarians find nothing at all morally wrong with prostitution, other libertarians (like Jesus) believe it is morally wrong but understand that because it is a victimless crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime) the state has no legitimate role in enforcing it. Prostitution, like drug use and abuse, directly harms only the voluntary participant. Jesus clearly understood and believed this principle. Jesus sought to eradicate prostitution not through state or collective action, but through individual self-examination and counsel.
With regard to self-defense, Jesus did not use violence against those who aggressed against him and advocated against using violence at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek). Although Jesus laid down his life for a particular purpose (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter2.htm) and although there is some authority (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm) in his teachings for the use of force (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm) in self-defense, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus was a pacifist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism).
The question then is whether Jesus can at the same time be a pacifist and a libertarian. In the big tent of libertarianism, he can. Although libertarians believe that individuals have the right to use violence commensurate with the threat in defense of life, liberty or property, they do not believe that people have an obligation use violence to protect themselves or others. As such, Jesus was a simply libertarian who likely believed that the use of force was never legitimate.

[idiom]

Well, He instructed to give, not to take.

I don't recall Him instructing anyone to take another persons property.

Could you please point me to the bit where Jesus instructs someone to seize the goods of another person?

I can point out a lot of places where Jesus instructs people to raise money or transact with money despite the OP's claims.

[torchbearer]

Jesus is talking about how people should engage each other. You fail.


Below is just the beginning. Your poor scholarship is showing, sir.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html

Jesus on Taxation and Sound Money
Statists who argue that Jesus supported taxation and/or the state ignore the many passages relating to sinful tax collectors and Jesus’ unjust execution by the Roman secular authority and instead point to the "Render unto Caesar" passage in Matthew, chapter 22 as evidence that Jesus was pro-state. In the story, Pharisees and other "spies" attempt to goad Jesus, a middle-class Jewish tradesman surrounded by Roman centurions, into foolishly fomenting a tax revolt.
The story begins with Jesus’ Pharisee inquisitor asking him whether or not the local Jews should pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. Jesus responds by asking him to produce a coin that Caesar would accept as a tax. After the Pharisee produces the coin, Jesus asks him whose image is on the coin and the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s." Jesus then recommends: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."
While this story offers many wonderful, nuanced and insightful lessons, the story in no way offers moral support for taxation or the state. Taken in context, the story sheds much more light on Jesus’ views on the role of money and pragmatic, non-violent civil disobedience in response to overwhelming secular power.
To fully understand the story, one must know a little about money and currency in first century Iudaea. The story of the moneychangers at the Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_money_changers) shows that more than one currency was in circulation at the time. History indicates that at least four currencies, Greek, Roman, Jewish and Tyrian, were used as media of exchange. Because only Jewish shekels and Tyrian coins were allowed in Temple ceremonies, the entrepreneurial moneychangers opened shop outside the Temple so that that the faithful could exchange their Roman denarii for Jewish shekels in order to offer their sacrifices and meaningfully participate in Temple ceremonies.
In this context, with at least four separate currencies circulating in Iudaea, Jesus’ response to the Pharisee: "Whose image is on the coin?" says a lot about what was going through his mind. Jesus wants to know what authority issued the coin; that is, who "made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_banking)" it and who, therefore, accepts or demands it as currency?
When the Pharisee responds "Caesar’s," Jesus learns that the money in question is that of the occupying imperial forces, is not allowed in Temple ceremonies and carries the craven image of Caesar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius), declaring him a "God." Given this context, Jesus’ response, "[r]ender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and render unto God the things that are God’s," in no way sanctions taxation as moral or justified. Nor do Jesus’ statements support capitulation to the occupying Roman army or secular authority. Jesus’ response actually evades the question entirely and instead provides a powerful statement in support of private property, for Jesus clearly recommends that, notwithstanding Caesar’s confiscatory and illegal taxation, Caesar remains entitled to the things that Caesar owns.
Jesus’ sage recommendation expresses contempt for the imperial currency and at the same time subtly and paradoxically suggests that cooperation and rebellion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The implication of the story, in the context of the voluminous anti-state and anti-tax gospel evidence, is that Jesus seems to be saying, "thank you for telling me that the coin is that of empire’s, minted from ore taken from seized mines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Medulas) and debased (http://www.tulane.edu/%7Eaugust/handouts/601cprin.htm) to satisfy the empire’s military ambitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Augustus); I say cooperate and pay the tribute the empire demands, as it is prudent and may save your life, but do not materially support the empire and the occupying forces by giving them anything of real value; things of real value, like shekels, belong to God."
Jesus’ recommendation thus gives rise to the inference that he believed the Jews living under Roman occupation should pay their taxes in overvalued denarii, as the Romans likely demanded, and hold and perhaps shield their wealth in the undervalued shekel and Tyrian money. This position reflects both libertarian political views as well as a recognition of Gresham's Law (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north83.html), according to which government-decreed bad money drives undervalued good money out of circulation.
The Parables and Jesus’ View of Property and Contract
A cursory review of Jesus’ teachings would seem to indicate that he did not think highly of property or property rights. From the Sermon on the Mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_mount) to the conversation with the young rich man (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew/matthew19.htm) whom Jesus instructs to sell all his possessions, Jesus repeatedly decries the evils of worshiping things instead of God. For Jesus, it seems a man’s wealth is not only irrelevant to how God views him, the two are inversely related as can be seen his statement:
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel/oCamel) to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven/oKingdom%20of%20Heaven). Matthew 19:24 (http://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Matthew&verse=19:24&src=NIV/ohttp://php.ug.cs.usyd.edu.au/%7Ejnot4610/bibref.php?book=%20Matthew&verse=19:24&src=NIV).
Furthermore, Jesus and his followers lived a kind of communal existence, sharing their food with one person responsible for the group’s money. Based on this evidence alone, one might conclude that Jesus had little understanding of or regard for private property.
But to draw broad conclusions from this limited evidence is to make a hasty generalization (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html), for the core of Jesus’ teaching is found in the parables and the parables are replete with spiritual lessons drawn from material and commercial examples, including examples relating to thrift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Money), entrepreneurship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Treasure), the productive use of capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Talents), negotiation of debts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unjust_Steward), respect for others’ property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Faithful_Servant), responsible stewardship of one’s own private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wicked_Husbandmen) and freedom of contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laborers_in_the_Vineyard).
In the universe of the Jesus’ teachings, the anti-property lessons are not so much anti-property as they are a warning to people who, in Jesus’ view, have misplaced priorities, people who mistakenly believe that ownership of private property and accumulation of wealth is an end it itself rather than a means to a higher end. The weight of Jesus’ teaching in fact shows that Jesus highly regarded private property rights and, in order to illustrate the proper relationship between God and man, repeatedly analogized the responsible use and stewardship of private property to the responsible use and stewardship of life received from God.
Jesus, Victimless Crimes and Self-Defense
Jesus was (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/mark/mark2.htm) and is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ) infamous for socializing and dining with prostitutes and other "sinners." While Jesus clearly did not sanction prostitution, his interaction and defense of prostitutes and adulterers illuminates his political worldview. Jesus’ lessons indicate that he believed that prostitution, adultery and other "victimless" crimes, although grievous sins, were matters of conscience that could only be solved through the internal action of the sinner.
In John, chapter 8, the Pharisees bring to Jesus an adulterous woman who, by some accounts, was a prostitute and suggest that she be stoned to death in accordance with Old Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament) law. Jesus stops the stoning and protects the woman by stating: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." As the crowd slips away and no accusers are left to "condemn" the woman, Jesus instructs her to go and "sin no more."
Unlike the tax collectors who must atone by paying back what they have taken, Jesus recognizes that the woman’s sins are a matter of internal conscience. Jesus instructs the Pharisees that want to stone the woman to examine their own consciences and correct their own sins before seeking judgment against the woman who has harmed no one but herself. Jesus thus shows that he does not believe that the woman’s crime can legitimately or practically be enforced by anyone other than the woman.
Here it is important to note that libertarianism is not synonymous with libertinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine). While some libertarians find nothing at all morally wrong with prostitution, other libertarians (like Jesus) believe it is morally wrong but understand that because it is a victimless crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime) the state has no legitimate role in enforcing it. Prostitution, like drug use and abuse, directly harms only the voluntary participant. Jesus clearly understood and believed this principle. Jesus sought to eradicate prostitution not through state or collective action, but through individual self-examination and counsel.
With regard to self-defense, Jesus did not use violence against those who aggressed against him and advocated against using violence at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek). Although Jesus laid down his life for a particular purpose (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter2.htm) and although there is some authority (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm) in his teachings for the use of force (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew10.htm) in self-defense, the weight of evidence suggests that Jesus was a pacifist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism).
The question then is whether Jesus can at the same time be a pacifist and a libertarian. In the big tent of libertarianism, he can. Although libertarians believe that individuals have the right to use violence commensurate with the threat in defense of life, liberty or property, they do not believe that people have an obligation use violence to protect themselves or others. As such, Jesus was a simply libertarian who likely believed that the use of force was never legitimate.

[torchbearer]

All his ideas is about the kingdom to come. When asked about the governments and money's of now, it is always of little of importance.
If ceasar wants a tax, give it to him.
If he wants money, give it to him.
What does it matter if your real goal is to be in god's kingdom.
Does it require money to enter heaven?
Does God have a currency?
No.
If it makes you feel good. Fine. If it makes you sleep better at night, fine.
But everything Jesus was focused on was the kingdom to come, not the wealth of now.
Had it been his focus, he would have taught his disciples to be capitalist.

You can take one verse and make it sound like you want. But when you take the book- Jesus did not charge admission to his sermons. He didn't start a temple to collect 10% so he could get a fleet of donkey's for his disciples.

But if it helps you sleep at night. Jesus/God really cares about making money. :rolleyes::rolleyes:



Well, He instructed to give, not to take.

I don't recall Him instructing anyone to take another persons property.

Could you please point me to the bit where Jesus instructs someone to seize the goods of another person?

I can point out a lot of places where Jesus instructs people to raise money or transact with money despite the OP's claims.

[idiom]

Jesus didn't operate wthin the limits of scarcity. He had all the food He wanted whenever He wanted it. He even conjured money when He needed it. Mostly because He had bigger things to be worrying about.

However He instructed the sharing of wealth with the poor, not instructing them to just have faith and create it out of thin air on their own as He did.

He never rejected the existence of property rights. If the rich man hadn't really a right to any of his wealth it wouldn't have been hard for him to give it away. Also He only instructed one particular man in this regard.

Later in Acts we see in the community of Christians a false peer pressure to sell everything you have and it results in the death of two otherwise earnest followers of Christ.

[heavenlyboy34]

Jesus is talking about how people should engage each other. You fail.

False. The article discusses aspects of capitalism, which is what you were talking about in your claim. Note that I also said that the article I posted was only the beginning of the mountains of evidence against your claim. I would be here for a LONG time if I wanted to put forth all the evidence.

[torchbearer]

Jesus didn't deny rights of life and the extension of that life, it is not right to steal.
but the goal of this life isn't to accumulate wealth, but to help/serve your neighbor.
Please don't make me waste my time on a line by line analysis of the gospels.
I really don't have the time, but some of you need an education.
I have to pay $20,000 for the education- I'm not giving it to you for free.

Acts- is not Jesus. Neither are the Gospels, but its a third hand account.
I've already done the verse by verse. I've already had these discussions. I was in your corner. I was trying to defend a capitalist jesus, and it fail. I had to admit it.
God's Kingdom on earth is a pure communal family.
Like the fridge at your parents house- their wasn't private property in that fridge, what your father had, was also yours.




Jesus didn't operate wthin the limits of scarcity. He had all the food He wanted whenever He wanted it. He even conjured money when He needed it. Mostly because He had bigger things to be worrying about.

However He instructed the sharing of wealth with the poor, not instructing them to just have faith and create it out of thin air on their own as He did.

He never rejected the existence of property rights. If the rich man hadn't really a right to any of his wealth it wouldn't have been hard for him to give it away. Also He only instructed one particular man in this regard.

Later in Acts we see in the community of Christians a false peer pressure to sell everything you have and it results in the death of two otherwise earnest followers of Christ.

[heavenlyboy34]

All his ideas is about the kingdom to come. When asked about the governments and money's of now, it is always of little of importance.
If ceasar wants a tax, give it to him.
If he wants money, give it to him.
What does it matter if your real goal is to be in god's kingdom.
Does it require money to enter heaven?
Does God have a currency?
No.
If it makes you feel good. Fine. If it makes you sleep better at night, fine.
But everything Jesus was focused on was the kingdom to come, not the wealth of now.
Had it been his focus, he would have taught his disciples to be capitalist.

You can take one verse and make it sound like you want. But when you take the book- Jesus did not charge admission to his sermons. He didn't start a temple to collect 10% so he could get a fleet of donkey's for his disciples.

But if it helps you sleep at night. Jesus/God really cares about making money. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Caesar and God in Context (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bevis1.html)

[torchbearer]

Caesar and God in Context (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bevis1.html)

Ok, lil' kid.
Start with Mark-
Put out the first 3 chapters, and we will go line by line until we finish mark tonight.
You are about to fail, in a way fail has never been defined.
Grab you bible, I don't care what version- and write out segments- 3 chapters at a time.
I am about to school your ignorant ass.

[heavenlyboy34]

Jesus didn't deny rights of life and the extension of that life, it is not right to steal.
but the goal of this life isn't to accumulate wealth, but to help/serve your neighbor.
Please don't make me waste my time on a line by line analysis of the gospels.
I really don't have the time, but some of you need an education.
I have to pay $20,000 for the education- I'm not giving it to you for free.

Acts- is not Jesus. Neither are the Gospels, but its a third hand account.
I've already done the verse by verse. I've already had these discussions. I was in your corner. I was trying to defend a capitalist jesus, and it fail. I had to admit it.
God's Kingdom on earth is a pure communal family.
Like the fridge at your parents house- their wasn't private property in that fridge, what your father had, was also yours.


Epic Fail-one of the biggest fails I've ever seen on RPFs!! :eek:

[torchbearer]

Epic Fail-one of the biggest fails I've ever seen on RPFs!! :eek:

read the post above- you've been called out.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ok, lil' kid.
Start with Mark-
Put out the first 3 chapters, and we will go line by line until we finish mark tonight.
You are about to fail, in a way fail has never been defined.
Grab you bible, I don't care what version- and write out segments- 3 chapters at a time.
I am about to school your ignorant ass.

Wow! :eek: And I thought I'd met pathetic logicians on here before...you must be TRYING to fail.

[idiom]

Jesus didn't deny rights of life and the extension of that life, it is not right to steal.
but the goal of this life isn't to accumulate wealth, but to help/serve your neighbor.
Please don't make me waste my time on a line by line analysis of the gospels.
I really don't have the time, but some of you need an education.
I have to pay $20,000 for the education- I'm not giving it to you for free.

Acts- is not Jesus. Neither are the Gospels, but its a third hand account.
I've already done the verse by verse. I've already had these discussions. I was in your corner. I was trying to defend a capitalist jesus, and it fail. I had to admit it.
God's Kingdom on earth is a pure communal family.
Like the fridge at your parents house- their wasn't private property in that fridge, what your father had, was also yours.

The goal of capitalism isn't to accumulate wealth. It is goal and value free.

It good to know you have secret information.

The line from Acts whas an example of people dying because of misinterpretations like yours. They tried to live what you are talking about and God killed them.

My Fathers Fridge is not a government fridge, its his fridge. He allows me access to it and pretty much anyone else, out of Love not duty.

Love is not and cannot be a system. Trying to systematize the outcomes of Love doesn't create Love. It creates all of Loves opposites.

[anaconda]

2: No Swearing of Oaths.


Lord's Prayer? Ten Commandments?

[idiom]

Ok, lil' kid.
Start with Mark-
Put out the first 3 chapters, and we will go line by line until we finish mark tonight.
You are about to fail, in a way fail has never been defined.
Grab you bible, I don't care what version- and write out segments- 3 chapters at a time.
I am about to school your ignorant ass.

School us with Love of course.

Is Mark really going to reveal how communism creates Love?

[torchbearer]

Mark.1
[1] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
[2] As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
[3] The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
[4] John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
[5] And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
[6] And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;
[7] And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
[8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
[9] And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
[10] And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
[11] And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[12] And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
[13] And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
[14] Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
[15] And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
[16] Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
[17] And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
[18] And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him.
[19] And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.
[20] And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.
[21] And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
[22] And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
[23] And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
[24] Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
[25] And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
[26] And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
[27] And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
[28] And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
[29] And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
[30] But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
[31] And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
[32] And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
[33] And all the city was gathered together at the door.
[34] And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
[35] And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
[36] And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
[37] And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
[38] And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
[39] And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
[40] And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
[41] And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
[42] And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
[43] And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
[44] And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
[45] But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.
Mark.2
[1] And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
[2] And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
[3] And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
[4] And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
[5] When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
[6] But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
[7] Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
[8] And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
[9] Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
[10] But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
[11] I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
[12] And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.
[13] And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.
[14] And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
[15] And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
[16] And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
[17] When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
[18] And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?
[19] And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
[20] But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.
[21] No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.
[22] And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
[23] And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
[24] And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
[25] And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
[26] How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[27] And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
[28] Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Mark.3
[1] And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
[2] And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
[3] And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
[4] And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
[5] And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
[6] And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
[7] But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea,
[8] And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.
[9] And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.
[10] For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues.
[11] And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
[12] And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.
[13] And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
[14] And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
[15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
[16] And Simon he surnamed Peter;
[17] And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
[18] And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
[19] And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.
[20] And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
[21] And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
[22] And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
[23] And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
[24] And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
[25] And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
[26] And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
[27] No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
[28] Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
[29] But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
[30] Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
[31] There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
[32] And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
[33] And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
[34] And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
[35] For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.



The things to point out in the first three chapters:
Jesus did not charge for his healing, like a doctor would.
And declared each person who did the will of God his family. (communal as families are)

I also bolded the blaspheming of the spirit, because, well, that is what you are doing.

I guess I can post the next three chapters if you don't have anything additional to add.

[torchbearer]

School us with Love of course.

Is Mark really going to reveal how communism creates Love?

I mention mark because it is the first account.

[heavenlyboy34]

The things to point out in the first three chapters:
Jesus did not charge for his healing, like a doctor would.
And declared each person who did the will of God his family. (communal as families are)

I also bolded the blaspheming of the spirit, because, well, that is what you are doing.

I guess I can post the next three chapters if you don't have anything additional to add.


This sounds like voluntarism, not any variety of Statism. You fail.

[torchbearer]

Mark.4
[1] And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.
[2] And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine,
[3] Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow:
[4] And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
[5] And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
[6] But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
[7] And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.
[8] And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred.
[9] And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
[10] And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
[11] And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
[12] That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
[13] And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
[14] The sower soweth the word.
[15] And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
[16] And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
[17] And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended.
[18] And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
[19] And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
[20] And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
[21] And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
[22] For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
[23] If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
[24] And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
[25] For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
[26] And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
[27] And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
[28] For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
[29] But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.
[30] And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it?
[31] It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
[32] But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
[33] And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it.
[34] But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
[35] And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.
[36] And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.
[37] And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.
[38] And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?
[39] And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
[40] And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
[41] And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?
Mark.5
[1] And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes.
[2] And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,
[3] Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains:
[4] Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
[5] And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.
[6] But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,
[7] And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
[8] For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit.
[9] And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
[10] And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.
[11] Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
[12] And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
[13] And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.
[14] And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done.
[15] And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.
[16] And they that saw it told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and also concerning the swine.
[17] And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts.
[18] And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him.
[19] Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee.
[20] And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel.
[21] And when Jesus was passed over again by ship unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea.
[22] And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet,
[23] And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
[24] And Jesus went with him; and much people followed him, and thronged him.
[25] And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
[26] And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
[27] When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
[28] For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
[29] And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.
[30] And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
[31] And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
[32] And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.
[33] But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
[34] And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
[35] While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further?
[36] As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.
[37] And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.
[38] And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly.
[39] And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.
[40] And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying.
[41] And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
[42] And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.
[43] And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.
Mark.6
[1] And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
[2] And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
[4] But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
[5] And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
[6] And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
[7] And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
[9] But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
[10] And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.
[11] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
[12] And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
[13] And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
[14] And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
[15] Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
[16] But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.
[17] For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her.
[18] For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
[19] Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not:
[20] For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
[21] And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee;
[22] And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.
[23] And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.
[24] And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist.
[25] And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist.
[26] And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.
[27] And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
[28] And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother.
[29] And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.
[30] And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught.
[31] And he said unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while: for there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.
[32] And they departed into a desert place by ship privately.
[33] And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all cities, and outwent them, and came together unto him.
[34] And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
[35] And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far passed:
[36] Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.
[37] He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?
[38] He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.
[39] And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass.
[40] And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties.
[41] And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.
[42] And they did all eat, and were filled.
[43] And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes.
[44] And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.
[45] And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people.
[46] And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray.
[47] And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
[48] And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.
[49] But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:
[50] For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
[51] And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.
[52] For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.
[53] And when they had passed over, they came into the land of Gennesaret, and drew to the shore.
[54] And when they were come out of the ship, straightway they knew him,
[55] And ran through that whole region round about, and began to carry about in beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.

Read the stuff bolded, asked your questions if you don't why i bolded it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Read the stuff bolded, asked your questions if you don't why i bolded it.

Which translation is this? Did you also do a study of the original text(Mark was in Hebrew if I remember correctly)? You'll understand it differently if you do.

It looks like you're making the same mistake that many atheists do-taking certain passages out of context-especially easy to do in English translations, IMHO. I hope one of our Christian scholars will stop by and help you.

[torchbearer]

Mark.7
[1] Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
[3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
[4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
[5] Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
[6] He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
[7] Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men.
[8] For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
[9] And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
[10] For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
[11] But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
[12] And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
[13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
[14] And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
[15] There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
[16] If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
[17] And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
[18] And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
[19] Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
[20] And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
[21] For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
[22] Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
[23] All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
[24] And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.
[25] For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:
[26] The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
[27] But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
[28] And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
[29] And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.
[30] And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.
[31] And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.
[32] And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to put his hand upon him.
[33] And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue;
[34] And looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.
[35] And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.
[36] And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;
[37] And were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.
Mark.8
[1] In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples unto him, and saith unto them,
[2] I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat:
[3] And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.
[4] And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness?
[5] And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven.
[6] And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people.
[7] And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them.
[8] So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
[9] And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away.
[10] And straightway he entered into a ship with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.
[11] And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
[13] And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.
[14] Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf.
[15] And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
[16] And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
[17] And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?
[18] Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
[19] When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
[20] And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
[21] And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand? (why don't you understand Heavenly boy?)
[22] And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him.
[23] And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
[24] And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
[25] After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
[26] And he sent him away to his house, saying, Neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.
[27] And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?
[28] And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.
[29] And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
[30] And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
[31] And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
[32] And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
[33] But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
[34] And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[35] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. (not ayn randian principle)
[36] For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
[37] Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[38] Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Mark.9
[1] And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
[2] And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
[3] And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
[4] And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
[5] And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
[6] For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
[7] And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
[8] And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
[9] And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
[10] And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
[11] And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?
[12] And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
[13] But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
[14] And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
[15] And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
[16] And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
[17] And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
[18] And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
[19] He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
[20] And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
[21] And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
[22] And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
[23] Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
[24] And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
[25] When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
[26] And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
[27] But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
[28] And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out?
[29] And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.
[30] And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
[31] For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
[32] But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
[33] And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
[34] But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
[35] And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all.
[36] And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them: and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them,
[37] Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
[38] And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
[39] But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
[40] For he that is not against us is on our part.
[41] For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
[42] And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[49] For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
[50] Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

again, if you don't get the bolded text, question.

[torchbearer]

Which translation is this? Did you also do a study of the original text(Mark was in Hebrew if I remember correctly)? You'll understand it differently if you do.

It looks like you're making the same mistake that many atheists do-taking certain passages out of context-especially easy to do in English translations, IMHO. I hope one of our Christian scholars will stop by and help you.

I studied many versions. This is king james for the protestants on the board.

[torchbearer]

My professor presented us the text in the earliest known forms of greek (and very few in hebrew)

[torchbearer]

If you think another version tells of another tale, post your text version.
i'd post the greek version, but i don't read greek.

[idiom]

Dunno why you didn't bold 4:20, or why you posted nine chapters and called it an argument for state authority?

[torchbearer]

Dunno why you didn't bold 4:20, or why you posted six chapters and called it an argument for state authority?

huh? please repost what parts you are talking about and how that doesn't fit in with everything else bolded.
I am posting chapters as I am scanning them. this is pretty freakin' fast considering i'm doing this while doing my work.
ungrateful bitch. :p

[torchbearer]

communal living isn't about state authority- dumb ass.
it is about living as a family with no property.
all things belong to god. the king. the lord. you are his child. so is your neighbor. that is the text.

[torchbearer]

nevermind, chapter 9 is showing.

[Jeremy]

I studied many versions. This is king james for the protestants on the board.

What do you mean? Most protestants use NIV or NLT.

[torchbearer]

What do you mean? Most protestants use NIV or NLT.

the first protestant bible was king james.
the first english translation.
because the catholics didn't want you to read it. they kept it in Latin.

[idiom]

Communal living is about sharing your property. This requires capitalism. Capitalism /= the pursuit of wealth. Even Ayn Rand says roughly "You cannot serve two masters, you cannot serve money and yourself". Is she anti-capitalist?

Living with no property is called vagrancy.

And whats with all the name calling while proclaiming oneself the seer of Love?

And the first english translation of the Bible appeared 200 years before the KJV.

[heavenlyboy34]

communal living isn't about state authority- dumb ass.
it is about living as a family with no property.
all things belong to god. the king. the lord. you are his child. so is your neighbor. that is the text.

All the Christians I know consider humans to be caretakers of the earthly realm. Whoever told you that is misleading you, IMHO. (though I'll let the resident Christians explain in full)

[torchbearer]

All the Christians I know consider humans to be caretakers of the earthly realm. Whoever told you that is misleading you, IMHO. (though I'll let the resident Christians explain in full)

All the christians you know subscribe to the americanized jesus.
that isn't saying much.

[torchbearer]

Communal living is about sharing your property. This requires capitalism.

Living with no property is called vagrancy.

And whats with all the name calling while proclaiming oneself the seer of Love?

Have you ever studied the mechanism of a monastery or a hippy commune?
that is communism.
the USSR was socialist.

[Jeremy]

Is torch arguing by saying that Jesus didn't charge people to listen to his sermons so he must by anti-capitalist?

[torchbearer]

Communal living is about sharing your property. This requires capitalism.

Living with no property is called vagrancy.

And whats with all the name calling while proclaiming oneself the seer of Love?

The more I studied the bible, the more I realize it was written by men. Each book was a different view of god... and the progression of the ideas of god and indeed of afterlife was a progression of men's understanding of god.
the book itself shows that either god is schizo, or it is just written by men.
But I do know what it says- and I do know people in this country have conveniently changed its context to justify our system of property.
I agree with libertarianism. with property rights and such.
But that isn't the teachings of jesus.

[torchbearer]

Is torch arguing by saying that Jesus didn't charge people to listen to his sermons so he must by anti-capitalist?

no- that was just what i could find in the first 3 chapters of mark. not every chapter has something of political worth.
read- or get a clue.

[Jeremy]

no- that was just what i could find in the first 3 chapters of mark. not every chapter has something of political worth.
read- or get a clue.

I don't even know what your trying to debate in this thread. So go ahead and explain...

The OP is clearly ridiculous, so if your continuing the discussion, explain what you are talking about

[torchbearer]

I don't even know what your trying to debate in this thread. So go ahead and explain...

The OP is clearly ridiculous, so if your continuing the discussion, explain what you are talking about

Someone was trying to show Jesus was basically a Randian Capitalist.
I am proving, by the text of the gospels, that Jesus was no Ayn Rand.
He, in fact, was promoting something beyond the Ceasarian governments of this world... a family like communal (after)world.
Heavenly boy likes to pull one verse out and act like it is the totality of chirst teachings.
I say- let's put out the entire gospels, line by line- and highlight those parts that highlighted christ perspective on people's relationship's to each other and to god.
i can't do the whole thing tonight.
i did the first 9 chapters of mark. please read those- and add real counter arguments with verses to show how jesus wasn't advocating a communal existence among god's family.

[idiom]

Have you ever studied the mechanism of a monastery or a hippy commune?
that is communism.
the USSR was socialist.

I have lived in them. And they require a belief in capitalism or they fail.


1: Anti-Monetarism / Anti-Capitalism

He did not believe in any form of monetarism (do not carry money.... do not receive money, only food); he was a homeless (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed ( he called upon those with him to give up their professions), anti-propertyist who propagated not monetarism but proto-Communism (Fr. Communare: to share. Communism: to share all property in common)

Quote:
‘Carry neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither two robes, neither shoes, nor yet a staff. Mt 10’

And the question needs to raised as to how a person who carries no money could pay taxes; one of the alleged reasons for his arrest.


At several points Jesus instructed people specifically to trade with money rather than Barter. The matthew 10 quote was to persons specifically appointed as missionaries to trust their provision to others.

[idiom]

Someone was trying to show Jesus was basically a Randian Capitalist.
I am proving, by the text of the gospels, that Jesus was no Ayn Rand.
He, in fact, was promoting something beyond the Ceasarian governments of this world... a family like communal (after)world.
Heavenly boy likes to pull one verse out and act like it is the totality of chirst teachings.
I say- let's put out the entire gospels, line by line- and highlight those parts that highlighted christ perspective on people's relationship's to each other and to god.
i can't do the whole thing tonight.
i did the first 9 chapters of mark. please read those- and add real counter arguments with verses to show how jesus wasn't advocating a communal existence among god's family.

Persons who misinterpreted Jesus teachings the way you do ended up getting people killed in the Early Church.

[Jeremy]

Someone was trying to show Jesus was basically a Randian Capitalist.
I am proving, by the text of the gospels, that Jesus was no Ayn Rand.
He, in fact, was promoting something beyond the Ceasarian governments of this world... a family like communal (after)world.
Heavenly boy likes to pull one verse out and act like it is the totality of chirst teachings.
I say- let's put out the entire gospels, line by line- and highlight those parts that highlighted christ perspective on people's relationship's to each other and to god.
i can't do the whole thing tonight.
i did the first 9 chapters of mark. please read those- and add real counter arguments with verses to show how jesus wasn't advocating a communal existence among god's family.

I don't think Jesus was trying to create any sort of economic system :o

[torchbearer]

I have lived in them. And they require a belief in capitalism or they fail.



At several points Jesus instructed people specifically to trade with money rather than Barter. The matthew 10 quote was to persons specifically appointed as missionaries to trust their provision to others.

either start pulling out matthew's gospel, or wait until i get there.
i don't recall jesus asking for a gold standard.

[torchbearer]

I don't think Jesus was trying to create any sort of economic system :o

just like your family doesn't charge each other for stuff they take out the fridge.

[idiom]

either start pulling out matthew's gospel, or wait until i get there.
i don't recall jesus asking for a gold standard.

There already was one.


14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15And unto one he gave 400 pounds of gold, to another 160, and to another 80; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16Then he that had received the 400 pounds of gold went and traded with the same, and made them other 400 pounds of gold.
17And likewise he that had received 160, he also gained other 160.
18But he that had received 80 went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20And so he that had received 400 pounds of gold came and brought other 400 pounds of gold , saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me 400 pounds of gold: behold, I have gained beside them 400 pounds of gold more.
21His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22He also that had received 160 pounds of gold came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me 160 pounds of gold: behold, I have gained 160 other pounds of gold beside them.
23His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24Then he which had received the 80 pounds of gold came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy 80 pounds of gold in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28Take therefore the 80 pounds of gold from him, and give it unto him which hath 800 pounds of gold.
29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


This translation is older than Adam Smith. And its probably a metaphor.

Odd metaphor to use for someone who doesn't believe in capitalism, or gold.

[torchbearer]

Persons who misinterpreted Jesus teachings the way you do ended up getting people killed in the Early Church.

people in the early church were closer to the teaching of jesus than people who are following the translations of the translations of their preacher who is a capitalist.
early christians were persecuted because they didn't support the state or its official religion. sound familiar?

[torchbearer]

There already was one.

and he said, give to ceaser, what is ceasers.
he didn't say, protest his tax, because it is yours.

[idiom]

just like your family doesn't charge each other for stuff they take out the fridge.

You seem to totally misunderstand communal living. Go live in a monastery for a bit.

Its about Love not property. The system is capitalism but the relationships are of Love. Jesus never asked anyone to build a system of institutionalised love. Everyone who has done so has caused wretched misery. Even sections of the Early Church made that misinterpretation.

[torchbearer]

You seem to totally misunderstand communal living. Go live in a monastery for a bit.

Its about Love not property. The system is capitalism but the relationships are of Love. Jesus never asked anyone to build a system of institutionalised love. Everyone who has done so has caused wretched misery. Even sections of the Early Church made that misinterpretation.

monasteries are communal. each person has a job, cleaning, planting, etc.
each according to his ability- and to each according to his needs.
you are not denied a meal if can't pay for it.
you are mistaken.
i'm not just some guy on the internet, i'm a sociologist who specialized in communities. we studied these groups.
you are mistaken. not me.
and not one of you have taken on the text i have bolded, just argued what the definition of "is" is.

[idiom]

monasteries are communal. each person has a job, cleaning, planting, etc.
each according to his ability- and to each according to his needs.
you are not denied a meal if can't pay for it.
you are mistaken.
i'm not just some guy on the internet, i'm a sociologist who specialized in communities. we studied these groups.
you are mistaken. not me.
and not one of you have taken on the text i have bolded, just argued what the definition of "is" is.

Reading books is quite different to living in one. You also seem to misunderstand capitalism. It is not about the pursit of wealth, or about charging the maximum possible in any exchange.

If you went to a monastery and demanded food they would do their level best to feed you, but not because you have a right to their food.

I did mention the text you bolded, and I bolded some of my own to.

[torchbearer]

Reading books is quite different to living in one. You also seem to misunderstand capitalism. It is not about the pursit of wealth, or about charging the maximum possible in any exchange.

we didn't read books, we studied groups.
Dr. Roland Pippin is known for his study of gypsies.
We didn't stay in classrooms, and you are avoiding the text of the gospels. (whatever version you want)
A family isn't structured on capitalism. It is communal.
I don't charge my child- I don't send him a bill at the end of the month for what he eats.
He is my family.
And in Jesus' teachings, he refers to each of us as family.
When you put a band-aid on your childs leg, he doesn't get a medical bill.
In the same sense, Jesus wouldn't charge someone to be healed.
It is a completely different concept, and one that only makes sense if you really believe we all came from the same "father", and that we are only living to make our way to "his" kingdom.

[Bossobass]

If you are to follow christ, you are to give up your material wealth.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.
Jesus didn't go around erecting large temples to himself, he lived the life of a servant.
To walk his path, is to walk it as a servant to others.

Early christian colonies were completely communal.

I'll respectfully disagree.

There's nothing spiritually wrong with material wealth, nor did Jesus ever say that there is.

Why did the Roman soldiers cast lots over Jesus' clothing?


Now when the soldiers had impaled Jesus, they took his outer garments and made four parts, for each soldier a part, and the inner garment. But the inner garment was without a seam, being woven from the top throuout its length.

Therefore they said to one another: "Let us not tear it, but let us determine by lots over it whose it will be."

IOW, Jesus wore the finest clothing money could buy, valuable to the point that the soldiers cast lots to see who would get the inner garment.

When Jesus told the man who asked what he had to do to receive eternal life to sell his possessions and give the money to the poor and follow him, he wasn't saying that possessions will preclude one from attaining everlasting life.


Jesus looked upon him and felt love for him and said to him: "One thing is missing about you: Go, sell what things you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasures in heaven, and come be my follower."

But he grew sad at the saying and went off grieved, for he was holding many possessions.

Jesus could read his heart. He knew the man was unbalanced in his view of material possessions and made the statement to aim directly at the point, in this particular man's specific case.

Jesus outlined many times what is required, but never said that if every requirement wasn't met it would mean your exclusion from eternal life. In fact, he said the opposite:

Mark 3:28:

"Truly I say to you that all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit. However, whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin."

Paul backs this up by saying: "...and I have hope toward God, which hope these men also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous."

Having money and possessions is not an unforgivable sin. It isn't even a sin in and of itself. It's the love of money that is the root of all sorts of sinful things.

So, possessions are for one to look into his or her own heart to determine if they are in context in their own life. The only unforgivable sin is one against the holy spirit, which was in evidence in Jesus' acts during his ministry. Every other sin will be forgiven. Jesus only reacted to the man's question by hitting home with the man himself and to teach all who read the example.

It wasn't a decree that every person must obey and there are countless examples in the Bible that show there is nothing wrong with having money or the things it can be traded for.

Bosso

[idiom]

we didn't read books, we studied groups.
Dr. Roland Pippin is known for his study of gypsies.
We didn't stay in classrooms, and you are avoiding the text of the gospels. (whatever version you want)
A family isn't structured on capitalism. It is communal.
I don't charge my child- I don't send him a bill at the end of the month for what he eats.
He is my family.
And in Jesus' teachings, he refers to each of us as family.
When you put a band-aid on your childs leg, he doesn't get a medical bill.
In the same sense, Jesus wouldn't charge someone to be healed.
It is a completely different concept, and one that only makes sense if you really believe we all came from the same "father", and that we are only living to make our way to "his" kingdom.

And you never get the medical bills, you never get food bills. Well actually you do, you just absorb the cost and not pass it onto your child.

Now do you not pass it on because an economic textbook tells you not to pass it on? Or do you opertate that way becasue you love your child?

[torchbearer]

Bosso- to do this orderly, start with mark ch. 1-9, and then we will go from there.
if it helps you sleep better at night, jesus agrees 100% with everything you believe... because well, that is what all christian's believe regardless of how different their doctrines are.
it takes someone who isn't beholden to such things for his world to make sense to see the truth as it is written.
thus- take on what i've laid out already- and we will continue 9 chapters a night until you deny the very words you live by.

[torchbearer]

And you never get the medical bills, you never get food bills. Well actually you do, you just absorb the cost and not pass it onto your child.

Now do you not pass it on because an economic textbook tells you not to pass it on? Or do you opertate that way becasue you love your child?

Do you treat each person on this earth as your family or as a consumer?
oops.
damn.
sorry.

[idiom]

Do you treat each person on this earth as your family or as a consumer?

Both. There is no conflict.


oops.
damn.
sorry.

Please elaborate this. What are you trying to say?

[torchbearer]

tomorrow, if i have time, i will do mark 10-18.
if anyone has questions/comments on 1-9, please post them.

all others- everything is fine. please continue with program as usual.

[Brassmouth]

Communists still use money so that argument is invalid also.

Wrong. You know nothing of communist doctrine.


The Bible is the largest selling book in the history of this planet, by billions and billions. It is acknowledged as the greatest book of all times due to its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece and because of its overwhelming importance to all mankind.

Fallacy of popular opinion?


I highly recommend reading it, especially before telling others what its contents are and what they mean.

Me too. Getting people to read the Bible cover to cover is the most efficient way of promoting atheism.


The Bible is the greatest libertarian manifesto ever written; it is even anarchist in some sections.

:rolleyes: Whatever keeps your little fantasy alive, man....


You cant talk logic with someone that believes that logic is not a gift from God.

You can't "talk logic" with someone unless that person agrees that "logic" stems from an invisible man in the sky, without a shred of evidence to support that claim? Sounds pretty illogical to me... *facepalm*



I didn't write the OP, just posted to spur discussion. Sometimes is positive, sometimes it isn't. Thanks for the personal attacks though. This forum is showing it's herd mentality more and more on a daily basis.

QFT.


Also, for all you imbeciles talking about Jesus and "capitalism," I should point out that every biblical fairytale PREDATES capitalism and any principled respect for property rights. Just as there is no mention of any marsupial in the Bible (due to the physical location of the barbaric authors of your book) there is no noncoincidental discussion of "capitalist" doctrines proper. And just because they used gold and silver DOES NOT mean the Bible advocates sound money. The bible predated printing presses and formal central banking. Ludwig von Mises pioneered the charge against fiat money, NOT Middle Eastern soothsayers.

Stop trying to justify libertarianism with your fairytales. Even your own churches would disagree with your interpretations. Religion and the State are eternally intertwined. There is no distinction. Both are institutions used to subjugate, conquer, and exploit people, for the sole purpose of benefiting the exploiters.

[LATruth]

FINALLY, the discussion I wanted to spur...

The thread was topical, doesn't matter how controversial it may have been.

And to settle a small notion about being about to copy and paste items in a forum, sure you can... I am member of the davidIcke Forums as well, all you have to do is quote the person, copy the code, and paste elsewhere. They use vBull as well. I did take the liberty of bolding the numbers, etc for easier reading of a long post.

[BeFranklin]

FINALLY, the discussion I wanted to spur...

The thread was topical, doesn't matter how controversial it may have been.

And to settle a small notion about being about to copy and paste items in a forum, sure you can... I am member of the davidIcke Forums as well, all you have to do is quote the person, copy the code, and paste elsewhere. They use vBull as well. I did take the liberty of bolding the numbers, etc for easier reading of a long post.

Removing some incriminating pictures, the name lucifer as the author, etc.

[LATruth]

Removing some incriminating pictures, the name lucifer as the author, etc.

Who cares who posted it, I'm sure he probably didn't write it himself either. The pictures were irrelevant to the post and I found them in poor taste as well. Also, never once was did I mention where I stood on the post's contents.

And the OP's name was luciferhorus, it's well known that the illuminati claim to be luciferian, and horus has been plagiarized by the bible. His name on the david icke forum, taken in context to where he's posting, isn't all that shocking.

Even in HOT TOPICS on this forum it seems one can't ask questions about 9/11 or doubt the claims of religion. It seems its more follow the leader and know your role or catch hell. Where is the liberty in that? :(

[LibertyEagle]

[B]FINALLY, the discussion I wanted to spur...
What would that discussion be, LA_Truth?

The thread was topical, doesn't matter how controversial it may have been.
What was "topical" about it?

The only thing "controversial" I see, is that you chose to copy someone's post that seemed to be advocating Communism. Did you realize that when you copied it?

[LATruth]

What would that discussion be, LA_Truth?

What was "topical" about it?

The only thing "controversial" I see, is that you chose to copy someone's post that seemed to be advocating Communism. Did you realize that when you copied it?

See the last 10 pages.

[LibertyEagle]

See the last 10 pages.

Oh, I've seen it.

I'm asking you what you meant by this comment.


FINALLY, the discussion I wanted to spur.

Since apparently, the past 10 pages were not going as you hoped them to go.

So spell it out. What was your intent with this thread?

[LATruth]

Oh, I've seen it.

I'm asking you what you meant by this comment.

Since apparently, the past 10 pages were not going as you hoped them to go.

So spell it out. What was your intent with this thread?

It's getting to the point where I totally disregard your posts entirely.

How do you know which way I wanted this post to go? You're obvious bias against me when it comes to religious discussion is seeping from your e-pores.

And to answer your question:


What was your intent with this thread?

T O ... S P U R ... D I S C U S S I O N

What were you expecting? Me to say I'm an agent of Satan trying to undermine the movement? Hardly.

Being a MOD I would expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard and lead by example. You don't.

[idiom]

To Spur Discussion is the MO of things-we-don't-have-here. :)

[LATruth]

To Spur Discussion is the MO of things-we-don't-have-here. :)

I'm starting to get that. I'll walk on the pavement with my head down from now on I swear.

[idiom]

Discussion in and of itself is not a goal of these boards. So maybe state your goals as being to have a specific discussion? Or perhaps to hear and understand alternate points of view on a subject?

[LATruth]

The only thing "controversial" I see, is that you chose to copy someone's post that seemed to be advocating Communism. Did you realize that when you copied it?

I also have been catching your various attempts trying to bait me into saying that I advocate communism. Do you wish to ban me that bad as to resort to such elementary tactics? I do not believe the OP advocated communism in any way, it showed the inconsistencies of the bibles wording with Christianity's teaching as we live today more than anything. ;)

[LATruth]

Discussion in and of itself is not a goal of these boards. So maybe state your goals as being to have a specific discussion? Or perhaps to hear and understand alternate points of view on a subject?

Then we would all post pictures, not words. And wanting to hear someone else's view on said topic should go without saying, or why else would you post it? That should be "understood" and left silent, like "you" in the sentence "Go."

[idiom]

The OP is full of holes and total miscomprehension as outlined in the previous pages. Yet, suprisingly, some people seem to think that the Bible does in fact advocate communism.

Well, not everyone here does in fact want to hear from others. You keep trying to fit yourself into that category. Half the time I dunno why you post stuff.

Posting a bunch of controversial content with no introduction, then turning around pages later and saying you don't agree with anything you posted, is not a form of effective communication.

[LATruth]

So every time someone posts an article here he agrees with it by default?

[LibertyEagle]

It's getting to the point where I totally disregard your posts entirely.

How do you know which way I wanted this post to go?
I didn't. Which is why I asked you TWICE. That's ok. I've figured it out now. ;)


You're obvious bias against me when it comes to religious discussion is seeping from your e-pores.
:rolleyes: It's apparent from your posts that it's not "religious discussion" that you desire. It's a certain type of religious discussion; which so happens to be all about bashing Christianity.

And to answer your question:


T O ... S P U R ... D I S C U S S I O N

What were you expecting? Me to say I'm an agent of Satan trying to undermine the movement? Hardly.
No. I thought you just might be honest about where you were wanting this thread to go.


Being a MOD I would expect you to hold yourself to a higher standard and lead by example. You don't.
:rolleyes:

[LATruth]

No. I thought you just might be honest about where you were wanting this thread to go.


You caught me, I'm an agent of Satan. :eek:

And you claim to have figured it out when I still have said NOTHING in regards to my opinion of the OP.

And was it about bashing Christianity? In a way. Sure. I'm not christian and I do believe it's a bit silly. There are many threads regarding this issue, yet you are focusing on mine.

Now I have engaged myself in 2 pages of defending myself on views you assume I have. You would be a perfect candidate for Obama's precrime unit.

[LibertyEagle]

I also have been catching your various attempts trying to bait me into saying that I advocate communism. Do you wish to ban me that bad as to resort to such elementary tactics? I do not believe the OP advocated communism in any way, it showed the inconsistencies of the bibles wording with Christianity's teaching as we live today more than anything. ;)

I'm not baiting you. I'm just asking a question. The fact that you're imagining all the rest though, is rather interesting.

[LibertyEagle]

You caught me, I'm an agent of Satan. :eek:

And you claim to have figured it out when I still have said NOTHING in regards to my opinion of the OP.

:rolleyes:


And you claim to have figured it out when I still have said NOTHING in regards to my opinion of the OP.
Geez, this is frustrating.

YOU made the comment...

FINALLY, the discussion I wanted to spur.
Which implies that you did not like the discussion that was going on previously. Thus, my question.

[LATruth]

Which implies that you did not like the discussion that was going on previously. Thus, my question.

How does saying "finally the discussion I wanted to spur" indicate a leaning to any side? The 1st few pages were ad hominem attacks and nothing on topic, the last 10 pages were discussion about the OP. Like I said, FINALLY A DISCUSSION, does the wanted to spur throw you off? It was merely using words to liven up the sentence.

Had I not posted that I'm sure this thread would have lived on, but you derailed it with more assumptions. Thanks.

[idiom]

So every time someone posts an article here he agrees with it by default?

Ya. Or would mention that you don't agree with it. Obviously.

There can be thousands of posts per day from people who believe pretty much anything. So if you don't disclaim it then everyone will assume you agree with it.

If you do what you have done in this thread then we assume you have some sort of agenda.

[LATruth]

If you do what you have done in this thread then we assume you have some sort of agenda.

I see your point, however I did post that it was taken from elsewhere. I just didn't post my stance on it.

[LibertyEagle]

And was it about bashing Christianity? In a way. Sure. I'm not christian and I do believe it's a bit silly. There are many threads regarding this issue, yet you are focusing on mine.

Well, I made the mistake of reading your OP and seeing the Communistic BS in it. So, it made me want to check back to see how you were going to extricate yourself from it. :p :)


Now I have engaged myself in 2 pages of defending myself on views you assume I have.
No, you spent 2 pages playing dodgeball, instead of just answering people's questions.


You would be a perfect candidate for Obama's precrime unit.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, it's pretty horrible that I asked you a question.

[idiom]

Rule of thumb on this forum:

It is impossible to overstate your position or intent. If you give them an inch of vaugeness they will take a mile of misreading, misunderstanding and generally convoluting your thread.

Other Rule of Thumb:

Probably half your readers will suspect you of being some type of disinfo agent or agent provocatuer. These fears can only be allayed with consistency and clarity. Even then that probably indicates the Jesuit Alien Cabal sent you, because they overtrain people.

[LATruth]

Rule of thumb on this forum:

It is impossible to overstate your position or intent. If you give them an inch of vaugeness they will take a mile of misreading, misunderstanding and generally convoluting your thread.

Other Rule of Thumb:

Probably half your readers will suspect you of being some type of disinfo agent or agent provocatuer. These fears can only be allayed with consistency and clarity. Even then that probably indicates the Jesuit Alien Cabal sent you, because they overtrain people.

LOL Nice! I make no secret on my stance of religion here, however that doesn't make me a communist sympathizer or a disinfo agent. Those terms are thrown around too loosely here. It's almost a cult-like atmosphere. IMO.

Look, I said IMO. ;)

[idiom]

Yeah, now if we take you well known stance on religion, given no other information we can only assume you have some negative agenda to start a controversial thread on a subject you don't believe in.

The content of your OP would have fitted far more humourously in a thread by a theologian about how Christianity is the sole well spring of capitalism. With a clear disclaimer that you intend to be disagreeable :)

[Bossobass]

Me too. Getting people to read the Bible cover to cover is the most efficient way of promoting atheism.


The most efficient way to promote atheism is to hold a full length mirror up to your subject.

Bosso

[PaulaGem]

All his ideas is about the kingdom to come.

Check your Bible - the Kingdom is spoken of in the present tense. It does not refer to a future Paradise - with or without pearly gates or virgins.

[PaulaGem]

Persons who misinterpreted Jesus teachings the way you do ended up getting people killed in the Early Church.

Correct - Christians who followed the teachings of Yeshua but rejected Roman Christology were killed by Roman Christians. Their gospels and holy books were desctroyed. More Christians were martyred by other "Christians" than were killed in the colusseum.

[TurtleBurger]

Correct - Christians who followed the teachings of Yeshua but rejected Roman Christology were killed by Roman Christians. Their gospels and holy books were desctroyed. More Christians were martyred by other "Christians" than were killed in the colusseum.

Are you making this stuff up or do you have a source?

[idiom]

Specifically I was refering to Ananias and Sapphira. But yeah.

[Working Poor]

Jesus had a profession because he knew he needed to be able to support himself. He had one of his disciples get a coin out of a fishes mouth to pay fees.

Jesus is the man of take nothing and make it something. He fed the masses on 3 loaves and fishes plus had left overs to take up and reuse. He changed water into wine, healed the sick, raised the dead, fulfilled the law and the prophets?

He got mad at money changers sitting outside a temple do you think it was because he was against money?

[PaulaGem]

Are you making this stuff up or do you have a source?

This is knowledge gleaned from my own personal re-evalutation of Christianity. I can't give you a link right this minute, but it is why the Nag Hammadi scrolls were hidden. It is established history.

[idiom]

You hardly need a source. That is Christian M.O. throughout the Millenia.

[BeFranklin]

This is knowledge gleaned from my own personal re-evalutation of Christianity. I can't give you a link right this minute, but it is why the Nag Hammadi scrolls were hidden. It is established history.

Lol. There have been many *real* Christians killed, but they aren't gnostics, which were mostly pagan believers. Just one message after another that the bible can't be true.

The gnostic gospels are very off the wall when compared with the rest of the bible. And frankly, their beliefs may actually be the paganism that crept into the roman catholic church.

If you want to go extra-biblical, here is an interesting legend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

A gnostic. Simon Magus was the witchcraft person in Acts that fooled the whole city and tried to buy the holy spirit.

Like I've said before, the only people I've ever seen attack the bible and try to promote gnostism heavily has been new agers.


Acts 8
1And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

2And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.

3As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

4Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

5Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.

6And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

7For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

8And there was great joy in that city.

9But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:

10To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.

11And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
12But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

13Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

18And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

21Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

22Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

23For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

24Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

[BeFranklin]

FYI

In regards to above, yes, yes that is what people should believe in. Old wives tales about people flying in the air, etc. Gnosticism!

Just kidding.

[BeFranklin]

You hardly need a source. That is Christian M.O. throughout the Millenia.

Not according to my bible.

[idiom]

The Bible doesnt record the last 1900 years of history. Thats why its not in there.

[BeFranklin]

The Bible doesnt record the last 1900 years of history. Thats why its not in there.

Actually, Revelation does. Says the people killing aren't Christians and the man of sin gets thrown in the lake of fire at the end.


1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2000 thousand years ago.


11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

17And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

What most people think of as the end. Revelation says quite a bit about the last 1900 years.

[PaulaGem]

Lol. There have been many *real* Christians killed, but they aren't gnostics, which were mostly pagan believers. Just one message after another that the bible can't be true.

Gnositicism, the belief that salvation or reunification with God is achieved by "Knowing" the "Word" (that which eminates from God) occurs in all religious doctrines.


The gnostic gospels are very off the wall when compared with the rest of the bible. And frankly, their beliefs may actually be the paganism that crept into the roman catholic church.

The Gospel of Thomas closely parallels the synoptic gospels in the teachings of Yeshua.


If you want to go extra-biblical, here is an interesting legend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus

A gnostic. Simon Magus was the witchcraft person in Acts that fooled the whole city and tried to buy the holy spirit.

History is written by the victors, remember? The Bible was compiled by those Romans which would have extinguished all non-Roman or "un-orthodox" Christian traditions.

A very coherent case can be made for the Rabbi Yeshua and John the Baptist being members of a Jewish Gnostic sect.



Like I've said before, the only people I've ever seen attack the bible and try to promote gnostism heavily has been new agers.

Placing the Bible in historic perspective and understandin the Gnostic message in the teachings of Yeshua has made my Christian experience more real. I am unaware of any sect or religious organization that calls itself "New Age". This is actually a term used to refer to people of all religions that belive mankind actually does have a Spiritual future and that it is to be achieved by giving up the old religious dogmas that confine Spirit.

Yeshua taught that we had to be willing to give up everything to follow him. I believe that included the religious doctrines that a political church would use to sublimate real Spiritual experience.

In Christ,
Paula

[BeFranklin]

.

Gnositicism, the belief that salvation or reunification with God is achieved by "Knowing" the "Word" (that which eminates from God) occurs in all religious doctrines.
...
In Christ,
Paula

a) Quoting a definition that defines gnostism is a sure sign that you failed, because gnostism wasn't one set of beliefs or people, but were many different groups.

b) Unless you accept the bible as divinely inspired, you are no Christian in my book, and I will keep away from you as the bible warns us.

Did you even read the link I gave you? Gnostics were people like simon the sorcerer.

[BeFranklin]

1 Timothy 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. 8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.[/QUOTE]

This passages can be applied to gnostics, and probably was first applied to them, as mentioned in a lot of commentaries - as they were the ones that first gave heed to seducing spirits.

[BeFranklin]

.
I am unaware of any sect or religious organization that calls itself "New Age". This is actually a term used to refer to people of all religions that belive mankind actually does have a Spiritual future and that it is to be achieved by giving up the old religious dogmas that confine Spirit.


Cute. You are a new ager.

I'm good at calling these things :( Woe to your soul.

[idiom]

1 Timothy 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. 7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. 8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. 10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

I am pretty sure that bit is talking about Luther.

[PaulaGem]

a) Quoting a definition that defines gnostism is a sure sign that you failed, because gnostism wasn't one set of beliefs or people, but were many different groups.

Gnosticism is a religious concept that is not limited to one set of beliefs or people - so why does that mean that it is indefinable?

I've read a lot of religious propaganda written by Romanists concerning gnositicism. It's all cut from the same cloth, no need to bother. And I've probably read that one too.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward269.htm

A nice presentation of gnostic thought, along with the theory that the Library of Alexandria was burned by the Romans in order to destroy competing Gospel traditions and the proof of their lies.

I will not argue Gnostic philosophy, I can only relate my own Gnostic experience as best I can. I can also point to facts of history. The philosophies and ideas on the linked page may vary somewhat from my own beliefs because the individual perceptions of an Infinite One need not be in agreement.

An adult who six foot tall and is viewing a sculpture will see something very different from what a child of six standing beside him sees. One can not argue that the perception of either is wrong.

[BeFranklin]

Gnosticism is a religious concept that is not limited to one set of beliefs or people - so why does that mean that it is indefinable?

I've read a lot of religious propaganda written by Romanists concerning .

a) You mean was. Calling anything gnosticism today is a dis-service to history.

b) Apparently then, you haven't read the bible, unless you are calling that "roman propaganda", which in other messages you do.

This is below disgusting. The people currently promoting gnosticism are new agers, and its really easy to find such books in occult bookstores.

And in the bible, gnosticism seems again associated with people invoved in witchcraft.

Trying to get people not to read the Holy Bible seems appropiate to those involved in the occult. After all, Jesus Christ himself quoted scripture when the devil was tempting him.

[PaulaGem]

a)

Trying to get people not to read the Holy Bible seems appropiate to those involved in the occult. After all, Jesus Christ himself quoted scripture when the devil was tempting him.

I became a gnostic through the reading of the teachings of Yeshua as recorded in the New Testament.

[BeFranklin]

.
I am unaware of any sect or religious organization that calls itself "New Age". This is actually a term used to refer to people of all religions that belive mankind actually does have a Spiritual future and that it is to be achieved by giving up the old religious dogmas that confine Spirit.



First Commandment:
6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7 you shall have no other gods before me.

[BeFranklin]

I became a gnostic through the reading of the teachings of Yeshua as recorded in the New Testament.

You read poorly. Not everyone that says Lord Lord (or I am a Christian) will enter the kingdom, but he which does the will of my Father in heaven.

The first commandment came from God Himself.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7:21

[PaulaGem]

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."


[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]



http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/03/ben-franklin-quotes.php

[idiom]

First Commandment:
6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7 you shall have no other gods before me.

This thread is specifically about things Jesus directly said.

[BeFranklin]

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/03/ben-franklin-quotes.php

a) Your point is exactly what? Benjamin Franklin wasn't a gnostic. He believed in the divine inspiration of the bible, and went to church.

b) If Benjamin Franklin didn't believe the above, and went to hell, you still shouldn't follow him. I'm telling you about Jesus Christ, not Ben Franklin.

[BeFranklin]

This thread is specifically about things Jesus directly said.

As opposed to quoting benjamin franklin and promiting gnosticsm? Shove it. Your hypocricy always is showing.

[PaulaGem]

a) This is below disgusting. The people currently promoting gnosticism are new agers, and its really easy to find such books in occult bookstores.

And in the bible, gnosticism seems again associated with people invoved in witchcraft.

Trying to get people not to read the Holy Bible seems appropiate to those involved in the occult. After all, Jesus Christ himself quoted scripture when the devil was tempting him.


Occult merely means hidden - the Romans and their political heirs have been trying to hide the truth about the teachings of Yeshua for almost two millenia now so it is not a surpise that this is considered "occult knowledge".

I also quote the teachings of Yeshua when confronted by the lies of Rome. I believe no one can seek truth without God giving them a response. Yeshua taught that when he spoke of the loving Father who would not give his children a stone when they ask for bread.

The Bread of Life can survive even editing by the Roman Church and an English King who believed that he ruled by divine right.

[PaulaGem]

a) Your point is exactly what? Benjamin Franklin wasn't a gnostic. He believed in the divine inspiration of the bible, and went to church.

b) If Benjamin Franklin didn't believe the above, and went to hell, you still shouldn't follow him. I'm telling you about Jesus Christ, not Ben Franklin.

My point is that he believed in the teachings of Yeshua but not necessarly the Roman belief that he was also a god.

By the way - Jesus Christ is a fictional character based on the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua.

[BeFranklin]

Occult merely means hidden - .

So in context, since this is an answer to me, occult bookstores are ok?

Occult certainly means more than that. Sources for the origin of a word is not the word itself.

Looking on google, occult bookstore brings up lots of bookstores selling witchcraft and satanic books.

You failed. Again.

[BeFranklin]

Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/constitutiontrans.asp

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz :
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Passed in Convention the 28th day of September, 1776, and signed by their order.

BENJ. FRANKLIN, Prest.

Notice that you had to believe this to be seated as a government official and Benjamin Franklin's name is on it.

[BeFranklin]

"By the way - Jesus Christ is a fictional character based on the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua."

We've already established that you don't believe the bible, are pushing new age junk, and aren't a Christian, so you don't need to repeat yourself.

FYI: This contradicts your earlier signature of "In Christ". You really shouldn't taunt people, you aren't any good at it.

[PaulaGem]

So in context, since this is an answer to me, occult bookstores are ok?

Occult certainly means more than that. Sources for the origin of a word is not the word itself.

Looking on google, occult bookstore brings up lots of bookstores selling witchcraft and satanic books.

You failed. Again.


I have been wholesaling to metaphysical bookstores for more than 20 years. Very few of them carry Satanist literature, but a few do. Most of thse stores will not carry an upside down cross or an upside down pentacle because they consider perversion of a religion to be Spiritually unsound.

Many of them carry books about a modern religion, wicca. Wiccan practices and their reliance on ritual bear more resemblance to Catholic practices than protestantism does. This is what you label "witchcraft".

These same bookstores carry books on Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and everything else under the sun.

[PaulaGem]

The quote from Franklin clearly says he had doubts about the divinity of "Jesus". This is in direct conflict with the Nicene Creed, and the council of Nicea is where the Lie of Rome became the official religion of the empire.

[BeFranklin]

I have been wholesaling to metaphysical bookstores for more than 20 years. Very few of them carry Satanist literature, but a few do. Most of thse stores will not carry an upside down cross or an upside down pentacle because they consider perversion of a religion to be Spiritually unsound.

Many of them carry books about a modern religion, wicca. Wiccan practices and their reliance on ritual bear more resemblance to Catholic practices than protestantism does. This is what you label "witchcraft".

These same bookstores carry books on Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and everything else under the sun.

This doesn't surprise me at all. You're making money off of promoting this. Selling the souls of men.

[PaulaGem]

"In Christ" was meant in all sincerity. Christ means the annointed of God. The Word, annointing an individual with an understanding of the Truth as it eminates directly from God, has been given to many men in many different religions throughout history. So that is what I mean by "In Christ".

[BeFranklin]

Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/constitutiontrans.asp

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz :
I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Passed in Convention the 28th day of September, 1776, and signed by their order.

BENJ. FRANKLIN, Prest.

Notice that you had to believe this to be seated as a government official and Benjamin Franklin's name is on it.

[idiom]

As opposed to quoting benjamin franklin and promiting gnosticsm? Shove it. Your hypocricy always is showing.

I have not quoted Benjamin Franklin. Call that out if you want.

The Gnostic Gospels purport to be the words of Jesus too.

[BeFranklin]

Acts 19

13Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

14And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

15And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

16And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

17And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

18And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds.

19Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

20So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

[idiom]

And Jesus said which bit?

[LATruth]

And Jesus said which bit?

Even if she quoted scripture, stating a passage that Jesus said, it would be considered hearsay. Technically.

[PaulaGem]

Outrageously hypocritical.

[Bossobass]

My point is that he believed in the teachings of Yeshua but not necessarly the Roman belief that he was also a god.

By the way - Jesus Christ is a fictional character based on the Jewish Rabbi Yeshua.

The birth, life, ministry and death of Jesus ( or, Yeshua in Hebrew, or Jeshua in the Latinized version of the Hebrew, or Iesous in Greek) is foretold in detail through over 200 prophecies that predate Jesus by hundreds of years.

For those who think that some Roman wank (or any other man or group of men) foiled God's plan by somehow discarding or adding or emending the books of the Bible you need only to look to the Jews whose scribes meticulously copied the Scriptures as a profession and under the death penalty.

There are cases were the zealous nature of the scribes led them to make emendations, but the Masoretes, as the copyists that came centuries after Jesus were called, noted these emendations in the marginal notes, which came to be known as the Masorah.

Those verses have been read aloud every Sabbath in the temple over the generations. They were copied so meticulously that Jesus could be traced back to Adam and Eve through his mother's and his step father's genealogies, by Matthew and Luke.

The published fragments of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls verify no deviation from a modern Bibles version of Isaiah.

Looking to apocryphal books such as the Gospel of Thomas, wherein, for example, Jesus is pretended to have performed miracles as a child, is chasing after the wind. To believe in an all powerful, all knowing Creator, and then to sell out that belief by thinking that men altered His handbook to some perverted version is absurd.

It would be better to believe nothing.

Bosso

[TurtleBurger]

Outrageously hypocritical.

Book burning is not anti-libertarian, as long as it's voluntarily done by the books' owners.

[PaulaGem]

The birth, life, ministry and death of Jesus ( or, Yeshua in Hebrew, or Jeshua in the Latinized version of the Hebrew, or Iesous in Greek) is foretold in detail through over 200 prophecies that predate Jesus by hundreds of years.

Those prophetic interpretations are pretty thinly supported, most date to misiterpretations of a misinterpreted version of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint.


For those who think that some Roman wank (or any other man or group of men) foiled God's plan by somehow discarding or adding or emending the books of the Bible you need only to look to the Jews whose scribes meticulously copied the Scriptures as a profession and under the death penalty.

1)The Hebrew texts are highly accurate but not without error, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew) is notoriously bad.

2) The Synoptic gospels contain many contradictions, especially in the biographical details of the life of Yeshua. The only reasonable explaination I have found for this is that they were tacked on to the actual teachings at a later date. That is why the Gospel of Thomas is such an excellent study tool.

3) If God needs a book to get through to people then Christianity and Yeshua lied about the essential nature of God.

4) The Romans destroyed many religious texts similar to the Gospel of Thomas that probably contained a more accurate rendition of his teachings. Many scholars believe that Yeshua taught and believed in reincarnation. Most scholars believe that the passages purporting to represent Yeshua as divine were added to the N.T. by Roman Christologists hundreds of years after his death.






There are cases were the zealous nature of the scribes led them to make emendations, but the Masoretes, as the copyists that came centuries after Jesus were called, noted these emendations in the marginal notes, which came to be known as the Masorah.

Those verses have been read aloud every Sabbath in the temple over the generations. They were copied so meticulously that Jesus could be traced back to Adam and Eve through his mother's and his step father's genealogies, by Matthew and Luke.

Many students of the Bible find those geneologies to be absurd and just more evidence of Roman tampering.


The published fragments of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls verify no deviation from a modern Bibles version of Isaiah.

And how does that address the fraud in the N.T. by the Roman Church? By the way, they concurr with Hebrew texts, but diverge from the Septuagint. The Vulgate and the dogmas concerning the prophecy that supports the Roman deification of the mythological Jesus are based on the Septuagint.


From the Encyclopedia of Judaism: Dead Sea Scrolls

The first finds occurred in 1947, when Bedouin chanced upon a Judean Desert cave containing a batch of seven scrolls wrapped in rags. These all eventually found their way to Jerusalem. Subsequent searches in the Judean Desert, including the specific area of Qumran along the Dead Sea shore, produced thousands of scroll remnants, in varying states of decipherability. Similar scrolls were discovered at Masada. These have all been connected with a sect living in Qumran in the last period of the Second Temple. The Damascus Covenant (or Zadokite) documents found at the end of the 19th century in the Cairo Genizah are now also assumed to have been the literary productions of the same sect. Pottery remains have assisted in dating both the documents and the community which produced many of them to the first century BCE-first century CE.

The Qumran community is identified by many scholars with the Essenes (or a group of them). Their origins in the area date to 140-130 BCE, and according to some even prior to the Maccabean uprising in 167 BCE. The founder of the sect, generally known by a title translated "Teacher of Righteousness" or "The Rightful Teacher" (the title is disputed), was apparently a priest.
.........
A striking aspect of the Qumran sectaries was their belief in their special election as members of a "New Covenant." Other themes basic to their belief were the reality of Divine grace and individual salvation. Their lives centered around Divine worship (although there does appear to have been at least one offshoot whose members worked to earn their daily bread), with prayers held twice daily, at dawn and dusk. Unlike the rest of mainstream Jewry, the sect celebrated the traditional biblical festivals according to the 52-week solar calendar consisting of four 13-week seasons. The drastic consequence of this break with the traditional Jewish luni-solar calendar was that the Jewish festivals were celebrated by the sect on fixed days of the week and thus at times which, for the mass of Jewry, were ordinary working days.

A striking divergence from the predominant national Pharisee-oriented outlook may be found in the sect's belief in Predestination, despite the apparently contradictory opinion expressed in some of their writings that men would be judged by their deeds.

The sacred communal meals of the sect constituted one of its unique features, and may well have been intended as a substitute for the sacrificial meals at the Temple in Jerusalem. Here the Qumran sect struck out on perhaps its most divergent path in that it considered the Jerusalem Temple a place of abomination and pollution, although the biblically ordained Temple and service as such were held in deepest reverence by the Qumran community. According to the War Rule, the sacrificial cult would be properly resumed in the seventh year of the Great War before the onset of the messianic era, this war to be waged by the members of the Qumran sect---the Sons of Light---against the other nonsectaries---the Sons of Darkness. Ritual purity was another extremely important tenet of belief and practice.

........

Apocryphal compositions such as Enoch, Tobit, and Jubilees, seem to have been embraced by the sect. A type of apocryphal literature apparently originating with the Qumran community is to be found in such compositions as the Genesis Apocryphon, the Samuel Apocryphon, psalms not found in Jewish Scripture, and other writings of a similar nature. Of special interest in this respect are the minute scraps from the Hebrew Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) scroll. These, together with the fragmentary portions of two chapters found at Masada, and the substantial sections discovered in the Cairo Genizah almost a century ago, account for about two-thirds of the previously unknown original Hebrew text of this important non-canonical work.

A scroll category of prime interest is the numerous copies of the books of the Bible (with the sole exception of the Book of Esther), including the complete Book of Isaiah, and many fragments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Viewed in their entirety, the Qumran Bible fragments strongly resemble the traditional (Masoretic) Bible text. Nevertheless, careful scrutiny shows divergences, often indicating a strong affinity with the Samaritan Bible and the Septuagint. The greater part of the Judean Desert sect's library is written in the literary Hebrew of the Second Temple era, the remainder in Aramaic, with an insignificant portion of small remnants comprising Greek translations of Scripture.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dead-sea-scrolls

The above supports my personal belief that Yeshua was an Essene, Essenes were also gnostics. The communal supper of the Essenes and early Christians evolved into the Roman ritual of communion. There is a great difference in the Mosiach anticipated by the Jews that would overthrow Rome and restore Israel politically and the many Mosiach (annointed of God) that were recognized by the O.T. and the Jewish people. Yeshua did NOT fulfill the prophecies believed to refer to the political Mosiach.



Looking to apocryphal books such as the Gospel of Thomas, wherein, for example, Jesus is pretended to have performed miracles as a child, is chasing after the wind. To believe in an all powerful, all knowing Creator, and then to sell out that belief by thinking that men altered His handbook to some perverted version is absurd.

It would be better to believe nothing.

Bosso

Perhaps you should read the G.O.T. before you critique it. The G.O.T. is not biographical, you have another apocryphal book confused with this "sayings gospel" which parallels very closely with the teachings in the synoptics. It is obvious to an objective student of the Bible that the biographical anecdotes of the canonical N.T. are later additions so they carry no more merit than these other purported biographical books, by the way.

It is established history that the N.T. is historically inaccurate and that the books chosen for the orthodox canon excluded non-Roman "Christologies" which were merely theories about what Christianity was supposed to be.

Before the Roman Church started destroying them, it is believed there were over 80 gospels. Some of them were undoubtably similar to the Gospel of Thomas and would have given us additional teachings of the master.

What we were left with are three redundant books based on the same teaching source with contradictory biographical and chronological detail - Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

What was destroyed may have included actual first hand accounts. They certainally did include accounts that were closer to the original teachings and the oral form that was used in the early church to preserve those teachings. The Gospel of Thomas was spared by Divine grace to show us this.

[TurtleBurger]

It is established history that the N.T. is historically inaccurate...


"Established history" is a presumptiously confident phrase, especially since a large percentage of historians are convinced of its accuracy. It's pretty hard to buy all these assertions you are making without any evidence to back them up. Have you read the Septuagint in its original Greek to be so convinced that it's full of errors, or are you quoting someone else's work? If so it's good form to let us know whose work you are quoting.

[PaulaGem]

"Established history" is a presumptiously confident phrase, especially since a large percentage of historians are convinced of its accuracy. It's pretty hard to buy all these assertions you are making without any evidence to back them up. Have you read the Septuagint in its original Greek to be so convinced that it's full of errors, or are you quoting someone else's work? If so it's good form to let us know whose work you are quoting.


I did an exhaustive study and a reorientation of my own beliefs as a Christian several years ago. I do not read Greek, Aramaic, or Latin. I attended primarily to scholars who were independent of Christian funded universities because I expected (and found) them to be more objective.

I am summarizing my own studies and I enourage those with serious questions to do their own study as the sources are too many to list here. I found that non-Christian affiliated scholars almost unanimously did not value the "prophecies" and found them to be ex post facto. I was shocked by some things I found, including solid evidence of intentional tampering with N.T. documents by the Roman Church in order to support their views.

A warning - you can approach this problem with an open mind, or you can approach it in an attempt to disprove or prove the Bible. Your approach will pretty much determine the outcome so unless you can be objective on the subject, don't waste your time.

A reminder - Yeshua said that you have to be willing to give up everything to follow him. That includes your religious dogma if Truth is your goal.

[Dieseler]

That's whats so great about faith.
I don't even care who she is quoting.

[TurtleBurger]

I did an exhaustive study and a reorientation of my own beliefs as a Christian several years ago. I do not read Greek, Aramaic, or Latin. I attended primarily to scholars who were independent of Christian funded universities because I expected (and found) them to be more objective.

I am summarizing my own studies and I enourage those with serious questions to do their own study as the sources are too many to list here. I found that non-Christian affiliated scholars almost unanimously did not value the "prophecies" and found them to be ex post facto. I was shocked by some things I found, including solid evidence of intentional tampering with N.T. documents by the Roman Church in order to support their views.

A warning - you can approach this problem with an open mind, or you can approach it in an attempt to disprove or prove the Bible. Your approach will pretty much determine the outcome so unless you can be objective on the subject, don't waste your time.

A reminder - Yeshua said that you have to be willing to give up everything to follow him. That includes your religious dogma if Truth is your goal.

OK if you don't have evidence, could you at least give some examples of passages of the New Testament that were tampered with, and what the "correct" text was supposed to say?

[PaulaGem]

A nice way to study the prallels between the five gospels.

http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/

Note that John is about as far removed from Matthew, Mark and Luke as is the Gospel of Thomas.

[PaulaGem]

OK if you don't have evidence, could you at least give some examples of passages of the New Testament that were tampered with, and what the "correct" text was supposed to say?

I have done so - I have no doubt that the biographical details, including crucifixion and resurrection were not eye witness accounts but Roman tradition and mythology added to the teachings of Yeshua.

The evidence is all over the place if you care to look. It's not that I don't have it, it's that it is a process of study, not a pseudo argument like the "Case for Christ".

[TurtleBurger]

I have done so - I have no doubt that the biographical details, including crucifixion and resurrection were not eye witness accounts but Roman tradition and mythology added to the teachings of Yeshua.

The evidence is all over the place if you care to look. It's not that I don't have it, it's that it is a process of study, not a pseudo argument like the "Case for Christ".

I agree with you that an argument based on sound bites isn't all that useful. On the other hand, there should be some hard simple evidence available that at least proves you have a legitimate argument.
Just as a ballpark estimate, what year do you think the crucifixion and resurrection were added to the gospel accounts, and by whom?

[PaulaGem]

Most of the beliefs of current church going Christians concerning Satan, the Devil, and Angels and Heaven are not Blbilical.

They are not taught (in some cases there are marginal references to their apocryphal source, but no real teaching) in the Bible, N.T. or Old.

The Devil, Heaven and Hell, fallen angel stuff is Zoroastrian, grafted onto Judaism during the exile in Babylon. They are apocryphal to the O.T.

These teachings were originally included in the doctrines of the Roman Church, they were popularized in Dante's Inferno, and they are still perpetuated by contemporary fundamentalist churches, not because they are "scriptural" because they are not. They help build a climate of fear and assist in the domination of the masses by the illuminati.

[PaulaGem]

I agree with you that an argument based on sound bites isn't all that useful. On the other hand, there should be some hard simple evidence available that at least proves you have a legitimate argument.
Just as a ballpark estimate, what year do you think the crucifixion and resurrection were added to the gospel accounts, and by whom?

Gospels were developed all over the known world. In the tradition of religious literature the teachings of Yeshua were combined with localized gods and religious teachings. This is how Yeshua became Jesus and then a Roman god. The resurrection and virgin birth myths are repeated in many ancient religious traditions, including the Roman religions.

Because of the political power of the Romans, their version was made official and even posessing another version was punishable by death. The competing gospels were destroyed and among them I believe there were also non-redacted more truthful accounts of the ministry and teachings of Yeshua.

There is a theory that desctruction of these documents was the real reason the the great Library of Alexandria was destroyed.

We can't say when the synoptics were originally written because there are no early copies. Would these earliesr copies give us more evidence of Roman tampering? I believe so.

[Bossobass]

Getting back on topic:




A Christian is allegedly a 'Christ-like' person who looks to the Jesus of history as a mentor and who claims to believe in his teachings as ‘the word of God.’

Consider that the historical Jesus appears to have been a person who fits the following description.

Tenets of the Historical Jesus.

1: Anti-Monetarism / Anti-Capitalism

He did not believe in any form of monetarism (do not carry money.... do not receive money, only food); he was a homeless (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed ( he called upon those with him to give up their professions), anti-propertyist who propagated not monetarism but proto-Communism (Fr. Communare: to share. Communism: to share all property in common)

a) Nowhere does the Bible quote Jesus as saying he didn't believe in any form of monetarism. Jesus was a carpenter by trade. One would assume that he was quite good at his learned trade. Carpenters had many uses the in economy of Jesus' day and were well paid for their services.

Gold is the first and most often mentioned metal in the Bible. David, for one example, set aside 100,000 talents of gold to build Solomon's temple, estimated to be worth billions at today's prices in dollars.

From Job to Jesus, the unbalanced love for gold is equated with materialism, which is to be avoided, but in Revelation, gold is used to describe the holy city New Jerusalem, and is used symbolically in many places to describe various ideals as exemplary because of its valuable properties and beauty.

In the Gospels the system of weights and measures is mentioned. The system of weights and measures for gold and silver used by the Jews dates all the way back to Abraham. Virtually all of the Greek and Roman copper, bronze, gold and silver coins of the day are mentioned in the Gospels.

Jesus commended the widow's contribution as a good thing, but condemned the money changers abuse of money as a bad thing. He advocated paying the taxes that were due to both the Jews and the Romans.


And the question needs to raised as to how a person who carries no money could pay taxes; one of the alleged reasons for his arrest.

This one is simply typical of the thought process of a man who believes he arose from the cosmic soup, or the impregnation of an ape by aliens.

We're talking about the only begotten Son of God during his ministry and that would lead to his death, the sole purpose for his life here on earth, during which time, he had full use of his Father's Holy Spirit to acommodate his every need.

Jesus could have saved the lion's share of his life earnings as a carpenter and carried that money around with him instead, but how absurd would his claims have been if he used money instead. Claiming that one doesn't need to fret over sustenance while tossing around gold coins from a big sack full of them would be pointless.

"Sell everything you own and give the money to the poor..." is not Communism. 'The poor' wasn't everyone and charity isn't Communist, or any other political ideology. In his parables, he spoke of just wages for a days work, the going price of a sparrow, settling out of court to avoid the cost of debtor's prison, sweeping your house to find a lost coin of value, a stater for the head tax, a denarius to pay Caesar's tax, etc.

Nowhere did he say not to do those things or that they were sinful actions. So, where would one imagine he assumed people would get the coins to pay the taxes and one's living if he advocated zero monetarism?

b) Jesus was not homeless. nor was he unemployed. He was was traveling in his retirement, which he knew was only to be 3 1/2 years from the prophecies regarding the subject. One didn't drag his house with him in his travels, nor was (or is) living with your parents considered being homeless.

Again, it's absurd to believe that Jesus didn't have the option to take a wife, have children and become extremely successful in worldly terms. In fact, Satan had offered him 'all the Kingdoms of the world' if he would just bow before him.

He, instead, chose to follow his Father's wishes to the letter while using parables ("... indeed, were it not for parables, he would not speak to them at all.") to teach the true meaning of "Law and the Prophets", and to fulfill the prophecies about his life on earth as part of the plan for the Kingdom of God, which would make him a Theocrat, not a Communist, or any other man made concept of governance.


Do not worship mammon (Aramaic: Material possessions / clothing / money). Consider Solomon in all his glory?

How does this admonition to not 'worship' money and/or the things it can buy get twisted into the thought that Jesus advocated having no money or possessions?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, Jesus' clothing was the best money could buy, to the point of the Roman soldiers casting of lots over his inner garment rather than cutting it into pieces.

The 'worship' or 'love' of money and possessions is wrong. It always has been, it always will be. But, keeping the proper place for money and possessions in one's life is not sinful in and of itself, regardless of the amount, as seen in Job's and Solomon's examples.


2: No Swearing of Oaths.

..and of course without the swearing of oaths and contracts, Capitalism would cease to exist, and ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag…’ would be a violation of the words and edicts of Jesus, as would American Presidents swearing on stacks of Bibles, and Christians swearing oaths in courts or military oaths to fight the enemies of Capitalism.

True. Never swear an oath before God for fear that you don't uphold that oath. Pledging allegiance to a flag that represents "all the kingdoms of the earth", which Satan has control over (otherwise, what sense would it have made to offer them to Jesus), is a no-brainer.

What good has come from men swearing an oath on a Bible? Does he mean like Bush did? And what penalty did Bush receive for violating that oath? Legal contracts are just another grandiose contrivance of man. They are broken and result in legal action every second in every country on the planet.

If a Christian swears an oath to a man, he or she will honor that oath, regardless of some paper with carefully arranged words of some language known to modern man. Again, this is a no-brainer. OTOH, an unscrupulous man will betray that oath all day long and care not what the carefully worded paper may say.

Presenting oaths and laws and contracts as the savior on mankind is as absurd as the rest of the claims in this threads OP.


3: He cried out against the rich and the religious hypocrites.

Woe to you brood of vipers… hypocrites…serpents.. in the name of the prophets you would have stoned the prophets, etc., etc.
Today it is the Christian state terrorists who have a long history of torturing and murdering Communists, particularly in the post war history of Latin America with their Palace revolutions and miltary coups.

I have no idea what this means. As I've shown, Jesus cried out against no one for simply being rich. Using a term like "Christian terrorist" (or, Christian Militia, a favorite of mine) to describe a true Christian (of whom Jesus said there would be relatively very few vs the unrighteous worldly masses), is just using an example of worldly criminals by any other name.


4: He did not sell salvation for Capitalist coin.

He did not ask for tithes or offerings; he fed the poor and freely cared for the sick.

Jesus was the long awaited and prophesied Messiah. He preached 'the good news of the Kingdom". As King and High Priest in this Kingdom of God, he would have to demonstrate that he indeed would have the power to solve all of man's problems and be righteous in carrying out those duties.

He proved his power over the ultimate enemy, death, by raising Lazarus from the dead, as well as others. Again, how absurd would it have been to hand Lazarus a bill as soon as he emerged from his burial tomb and explain to the crowd that it's gonna cost ya?

I guess if Jesus was, just as most Jews have explained to me over the years when I asked them if they denied he ever existed, replied, "Oh no, we definitely lived back then and rumor has it he was a pretty good carpenter.", or, as the atheists believe, he was just an evolved monkey, one would have expected him to charge a hefty fee for his charity and make no other point in his travels or examples.

But, that's irrelevant to the topic, isn't it?


5: He told the rich to devote their wealth to the poor.

No, he didn't.


6: No Priesthood.

He was clearly ‘against' the priesthood of his age, and indeed against any form of priesthood.

Correct. As Paul later verified, "The Law is a shadow of the reality." Jesus fulfilled the Law and his death did away with the Law. He is King and High Priest of his Father's Kingdom.

Unfortunately for the casual observer, like the OP quotes author, the further details of this subject are the main theme of the Bible and are pieced together from a careful study of all of its 66 books. No casual reply is available, but the information is there for anyone who sincerely wishes to know it.

Understanding and rejecting the greatest story ever told is something I respect a lot more than these out of context and weak attacks.


7: Anti-Capitalist Martyrdom and Rebellion

This is the true meaning of 'take up your cross;' this was a common punishment for anti-Roman terrorists.

He was tortured and executed for his rebellion against the religious establishment, at their request, and allegedly as a political criminal; he did not support the corrupt government and the Solomonic priesthood (the Sadducees).

Again, since every government since the flood belongs to Satan (just check the histories of the successive world powers: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek, Roman and Anglo-American to see the blueprint that has never changed from day one.), as evidenced by his offering them all to Jesus, It would be stupid to imagine him pledging any allegiance to any of them.

He was tortured and killed at the insistence of the ruling class of the Jews because they rejected him as their Messiah, and to fulfill prophecy. As his accusers were asked by jesus on numerous occasions, "... for which of these deeds which you've seen and heard are you prosecuting me?"

Jesus said when he was apprehended: "...or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at once with 12 legions of angels?" Then he goes on to say, "In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must take place this way?"

Read the 19th chapter of John. Pilate repeatedly said he found no fault in Jesus. He even instructed the Jews to impale him themselves because "I find no fault in him." I Matthew's account, Pilate's wife warns him to have nothing to do with this mob action, and in the end, Pilate publicly washes his hands of the affair.

When Pilate again interrogated Jesus, he asked him; "Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to impale you?", Jesus told him, "You would have no authority against me if it were not granted to you from above."

Jesus did not die on a cross. This is such elementary information that I'll just leave it to anyone who is actually interested in the subject to search for his or her self. Therefore, "Take up your cross" has no meaning to true Christians.


8: Non-Idolatry

He was not an idolater, he never referred to himself as the Creator; he may have invoked the Messianic prophecies but he clearly was not so arrogant as to consider himself to be the Creator; indeed he cried out to the Creator at times and referred constantly to the Creator in the Third person. Christians today worship him as an object of idolatry and propagate the Captialist anti-thesis of his teachings.

This is correct.


9: No Public Praying. No Praying in Temples.

He told his followers, 'Do not pray in public in the streets and the Temples.'

In other words, a true Christ-like person would never pray in public or in a church, nor would they construct any form of Temple.

Please. Paul uttered the shortest verse in the Bible: "Pray incessantly." Jesus was instructing people not to be as the Jews ruling religious class were. This example is well enough for a 5 year old to get the point. You gotta be joking with this one.


10: The revolutionary militant (terrorist) Jesus: Armed Revolution.

Consider that at one point he asks his followers to sell their robes if they have to and buy swords. There are two interpretations of the answer, one being 'we have two swords,' and another being 'we have two swords each.' The Judean siccari (Swordsmen or 'terrorists’ to the Romans) commonly carried two swords, as opposed to the sword and shield of the Romans.

'Cohort' (L. a tenth of a Legion).

It clearly states that a cohort (L. a 10th of a legion) of Romans arrested Jesus. A legion was a minimum of 5000 men plus cavalry. Thus a minimum of 500 armed soldiers (plus the Temple guard, who were also armed) arrested Jesus in Gethsemane where an armed fight broke out; outnumbered his followers fled. This begs the question of why 500 armed soldiers would attempt to arrest a group of unarmed pacifists. It simply does not make sense.

Now compare this man to modern day Christians in general. Are they really Christ-like? Do they really believe in all of the above?

Indeed today it is only the Communists who represent his legacy; the Christian Capitalists represent all that he despised.

True Christians are Christ-like, and always have been throughout history. What anyone else does to twist the term to mislead the masses is irrelevant. The fact that, as Jesus pointed out, they are a relatively small percentage of all of the people who have ever lived on earth is also irrelevant to the topic.

To repeat a comment I made earlier in this thread, to see anyone attempt to pin a label on Jesus of some man made political ideology is to witness the devolution of the general knowledge of the subject.

Bosso

[TurtleBurger]

When Pilate again interrogated Jesus, he asked him; "Do you not know that I have authority to release you and I have authority to impale you?", Jesus told him, "You would have no authority against me if it were not granted to you from above."

Jesus did not die on a cross. This is such elementary information that I'll just leave it to anyone who is actually interested in the subject to search for his or her self. Therefore, "Take up your cross" has no meaning to true Christians.



Pontius Pilate = Vlad Dracula

Wow, the conspiracy theories are flying fast and wild in this thread this morning!

[Bossobass]

Those prophetic interpretations are pretty thinly supported, most date to misiterpretations of a misinterpreted version of the Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint.



1)The Hebrew texts are highly accurate but not without error, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew) is notoriously bad.

2) The Synoptic gospels contain many contradictions, especially in the biographical details of the life of Yeshua. The only reasonable explaination I have found for this is that they were tacked on to the actual teachings at a later date. That is why the Gospel of Thomas is such an excellent study tool.

3) If God needs a book to get through to people then Christianity and Yeshua lied about the essential nature of God.

4) The Romans destroyed many religious texts similar to the Gospel of Thomas that probably contained a more accurate rendition of his teachings. Many scholars believe that Yeshua taught and believed in reincarnation. Most scholars believe that the passages purporting to represent Yeshua as divine were added to the N.T. by Roman Christologists hundreds of years after his death.

God doesn't need a book. We do. Nor does he need anyone to tell his story in any other form. As Jesus said God could "cause the stones to cry out" or put it instantaneously and perfectly into every mind at once, if that were his choice.

One might conclude that He has reasons for doing it the way it was done.

God's word contains His message in complete form for its use throughout the time allotted to by Him to His enemies. Arguments that it is missing vital information or contains wrong information or that something is lost to a bad translation or that Jesus was just some really smart and good guy, or whatever the latest claim may be, are just that and show nothing more than a lack of faith or a pursuit of yet another philosophy of man.

The Essenes is a great subject, but off topic. My comment was regarding the book of Isaiah, not apocryphal writings.

They do not negate the Scripture that tells us the "All Scripture is inspired of God..."

The whole 'more-better and accurate' version theory is something I can't argue with anyone. It's a personal choice, which you are free to pursue. To imagine that God's word really isn't God's word because the Romans destroyed the real version (or whatever) tells me all I need to know.

Bosso

[tonesforjonesbones]

I took world religion in college also..and it is taught that all the middle eastern religions come from zorasterism.

It is all a matter of faith. I am having a debate on another thread about The Serpent Seed Theory.

None of us were there. The book is thousands of years old. I have faith that God can keep His word intact.

Nobody can debunk faith...that's impossible. tones

[ClayTrainor]

Nobody can debunk faith...that's impossible. tones

That's like saying "Nobody can debunk my imagination" :)

[PaulaGem]

God's word contains His message in complete form for its use throughout the time allotted to by Him to His enemies. .

They do not negate the Scripture that tells us the "All Scripture is inspired of God..."


Bosso

Chapter and verse on these please -

[PaulaGem]

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

KJV Psalms 119:11

The Word in Jewish thought is that which eminates from God - it may include inspired writings but it is not synonymous with the Bible, or the Torah for that matter.

According to my gnostic Christian beliefs, the Word is also gnosis, the seed of God's Truth that is within us all.

The Scriptures have been variously identified throughout history. They are not a static thing and the Bible is only the Scripture as identified by orthodox Christianity. If one does not accept the authority of orthodox Christianity one is not obligated to define the Word or Scripture as "THE BIBLE".

[Bossobass]

Chapter and verse on these please -


2 Timothy 3:16-17:

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching, reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Bosso

[lucius]

It takes a number of dodgy leaps, contractions of quotes and generally making contradictions.

But hey. Yay Communism!

spot on--dialectic materialistic secular humanism....

[PaulaGem]

I wanted to make sure that was your agrument. But are you SURE that's what the author of Timothy meant?


OK, I’m going to get into New Testament Greek for a moment, but I won’t get too technical (partly because my ability to do so has deteriorated over the eleven years since I finished my Theology degree, and partly because I don't want to put people off). The main point isn’t in the Greek, but comes afterwards, so don’t worry if it’s all … well, Greek to you. It'll make sense in a moment.

2 Timothy 3:16 says this:


πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν, προς ελεγμον, προς επανορθωσιν, προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη

Which, of course, means: “Every scripture is God-breathed and valuable for teaching, for refutation of error, for correction, for training in righteousness.”

Or does it?

An alternative translation is: “Every God-breathed scripture is also valuable for teaching, for refutation of error, for correction, for training in righteousness.”

Both translations are plausible, depending on the translation of one word: και, which can be translated as and or as also.

This leaves us with an interesting question. What did Paul, who wrote those words, actually regard as God-breathed scripture? Bear in mind that there was no New Testament at that point, and what we now know as the Old Testament was what Paul would have regarded as the whole of scripture. Do you think Paul takes it for granted that all the books of the Old Testament are God-breathed scripture, which the first translation would seem to indicate? Or is he referring to “every God-breathed scripture” as in the second translation because he thinks that some of the Old Testament scriptures are not God-breathed?

Also, what does it mean when we say that a scripture is “God-breathed”? Whichever translation you favour, the passage in question says that God-breathed scripture is valuable, or “useful”, for specific purposes: "for teaching, for refutation of error, for correction, for training in righteousness." Does that mean that it is less valuable or not at all valuable outside those specific purposes? And what would that mean for the way we use the Bible? In addition, what does this mean for the New Testament? As it did not yet exist at this point, and thus Paul was not referring to it, can we with any real authority refer to the New Testament as "God-breathed"?

Please leave a comment below with your thoughts on the matter. This is something I’m thinking through for myself at the moment, so I’d appreciate others’ input.

The first and most argument to your point is, if you were a Roman trying to bolster the authority of your "Bible" wouldn't it be a good idea to put a verse like that in?

The second is the above argument - what "scriptures" were being discussed? The Bible as you accept it didn't even exist at the time this passage was supposedly written.

Circular arguments are not very useful for convincing someone who does not accept the authority of the one drawing the circle.

[Theocrat]

On a Justification for Armed revolution. On a Theology of Liberation. On the Revolutionary Jesus. An Anarchist perspective taken from the david icke forum

A Christian is allegedly a 'Christ-like' person who looks to the Jesus of history as a mentor and who claims to believe in his teachings as ‘the word of God.’




Consider that the historical Jesus appears to have been a person who fits the following description.

Tenets of the Historical Jesus.

1: Anti-Monetarism / Anti-Capitalism

He did not believe in any form of monetarism (do not carry money.... do not receive money, only food); he was a homeless (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed ( he called upon those with him to give up their professions), anti-propertyist who propagated not monetarism but proto-Communism (Fr. Communare: to share. Communism: to share all property in common)




And the question needs to raised as to how a person who carries no money could pay taxes; one of the alleged reasons for his arrest.




Do not worship mammon (Aramaic: Material possessions / clothing / money). Consider Solomon in all his glory?



2: No Swearing of Oaths.

..and of course without the swearing of oaths and contracts, Capitalism would cease to exist, and ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag…’ would be a violation of the words and edicts of Jesus, as would American Presidents swearing on stacks of Bibles, and Christians swearing oaths in courts or military oaths to fight the enemies of Capitalism.



3: He cried out against the rich and the religious hypocrites.

Woe to you brood of vipers… hypocrites…serpents.. in the name of the prophets you would have stoned the prophets, etc., etc.
Today it is the Christian state terrorists who have a long history of torturing and murdering Communists, particularly in the post war history of Latin America with their Palace revolutions and miltary coups.

4: He did not sell salvation for Capitalist coin.

He did not ask for tithes or offerings; he fed the poor and freely cared for the sick.

5: He told the rich to devote their wealth to the poor.



6: No Priesthood.

He was clearly ‘against' the priesthood of his age, and indeed against any form of priesthood.



7: Anti-Capitalist Martyrdom and Rebellion

This is the true meaning of 'take up your cross;' this was a common punishment for anti-Roman terrorists.

He was tortured and executed for his rebellion against the religious establishment, at their request, and allegedly as a political criminal; he did not support the corrupt government and the Solomonic priesthood (the Sadducees).

8: Non-Idolatry

He was not an idolater, he never referred to himself as the Creator; he may have invoked the Messianic prophecies but he clearly was not so arrogant as to consider himself to be the Creator; indeed he cried out to the Creator at times and referred constantly to the Creator in the Third person. Christians today worship him as an object of idolatry and propagate the Captialist anti-thesis of his teachings.

9: No Public Praying. No Praying in Temples.

He told his followers, 'Do not pray in public in the streets and the Temples.'



In other words, a true Christ-like person would never pray in public or in a church, nor would they construct any form of Temple.

10: The revolutionary militant (terrorist) Jesus: Armed Revolution.



Consider that at one point he asks his followers to sell their robes if they have to and buy swords. There are two interpretations of the answer, one being 'we have two swords,' and another being 'we have two swords each.' The Judean siccari (Swordsmen or 'terrorists’ to the Romans) commonly carried two swords, as opposed to the sword and shield of the Romans.

'Cohort' (L. a tenth of a Legion).

It clearly states that a cohort (L. a 10th of a legion) of Romans arrested Jesus. A legion was a minimum of 5000 men plus cavalry. Thus a minimum of 500 armed soldiers (plus the Temple guard, who were also armed) arrested Jesus in Gethsemane where an armed fight broke out; outnumbered his followers fled. This begs the question of why 500 armed soldiers would attempt to arrest a group of unarmed pacifists. It simply does not make sense.

Now compare this man to modern day Christians in general. Are they really Christ-like? Do they really believe in all of the above?

Indeed today it is only the Communists who represent his legacy; the Christian Capitalists represent all that he despised.

Two types of Christians; the hypnotists of the 'Jesus Business' and the hypnotised innocents.

I do not believe that the hypnotists of the Jesus business who claim to be 'experts' on the sayings of Jesus can possibly justify their business by the teachings of Jesus. I consider them to be universally corrupt and pied pipers; those who have vested interests in 'Capital' and earn a living from the Jesus business cannot be expected to agree with the tenets above. If they are offended; so too it must be stated that they ‘give offence’ to the students of the historical Jesus and to all liberation theologians and Christian Anarchists.

Consider also that the two major state terrorist countries in the world have Christian heads of state (Obama and Elizabeth Windsor) and that they are totally committed to militant world Capitalist revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies and the economic enslavement of humanity.

The hypnotised innocents; the proletariat.

Clearly many Christians are simply hypnotised, and it is they who need to be woken up; that simply requires education.

On what absolute basis do you judge Christianity to be evil? Why should the standard you use to make such a judgment against Christianity be accepted universally in human experience? How do you justify the immaterial concept of "evil" when you reject immaterial entities in your worldview to begin with? :)

[LATruth]

On what absolute basis do you judge Christianity to be evil? Why should the standard you use to make such a judgment against Christianity be accepted universally in human experience? How do you justify the immaterial concept of "evil" when you reject immaterial entities in your worldview to begin with? :)

I don't necessarily find it evil. I didn't write the post you are quoting. I just posted it. I do think it is another system of control and indoctrination to keep us from attaining knowledge of our true self.

IMO you are this... subservient to a master.

http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Marks%20Gospel/repent.jpg

While I am this... my own master.

http://murdamw.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/adi_da_by_alex_grey2.jpg

[Dieseler]

//

[Bossobass]

I wanted to make sure that was your agrument. But are you SURE that's what the author of Timothy meant?



The first and most argument to your point is, if you were a Roman trying to bolster the authority of your "Bible" wouldn't it be a good idea to put a verse like that in?

The second is the above argument - what "scriptures" were being discussed? The Bible as you accept it didn't even exist at the time this passage was supposedly written.

Circular arguments are not very useful for convincing someone who does not accept the authority of the one drawing the circle.

My Greek interlinear translation is:

16 all scripture God-breathed and beneficial toward teaching, toward reproving, toward straightening up upon, toward discipline the in righteousness, 17 in order that fit may be the of the God man, toward every work good having been fitted out.

I don't think Paul thought any of the things you've decided to put into his head. I believe he was inspired to write the 14 letters, which became books of the Bible as soon as they were written.

God authored the Scriptures, not Paul or any other.

The same straw man argument could be made in the cases of the other human penman of the other 54 books of the Bible. The Scriptures weren't in the Bible when any of them penned their parts.

"What if a Roman decided to alter the Bible to his advantage?" This is not a unique stance, but again, to imagine that the Devil himself, let alone some dopey Roman wannabe, wanted to outwit God and actually thought he might succeed in this puny plan, it would simply have been laughable, and so is the very thought of it to me today.

Nothing personal, I'm just not searching for something that isn't there.

As far as citing the Scriptures that verify the first p[art of the statement I made, I'll tell you this... they're located between Genesis, 1:1 and Revelation 22:21.

Bosso

[Dieseler]

//

[BeFranklin]

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

KJV Psalms 119:11

The Word in Jewish thought is that which eminates from God - it may include inspired writings but it is not synonymous with the Bible, or the Torah for that matter.

According to my gnostic Christian beliefs, the Word is also gnosis, the seed of God's Truth that is within us all.

The Scriptures have been variously identified throughout history. They are not a static thing and the Bible is only the Scripture as identified by orthodox Christianity. If one does not accept the authority of orthodox Christianity one is not obligated to define the Word or Scripture as "THE BIBLE".

You don't have gnostic beliefs either. You've said earlier that you're a wholesaler to occult bookstores and support wiccans (ie witches).

[BeFranklin]

Book Burning advocated on a Libertarian thread... Outrageously hypocritical.

A) This isn't a Libertarian forum, and I'm not libertarian. Deciding to voluntary burn your own books is in the realm of free action. Its called freedom.

B) You've lost all crediability when it became clear you are not even a gnostic, but a new-ager and have a money interest in promoting it - something you kept hidden initially.

C) I posted the verses for your benefit. Read them more closely. According this passage and elsewhere, you ought to burn your own occult books not sell them to do evil.


Originally Posted by PaulaGem
I have been wholesaling to metaphysical bookstores for more than 20 years. Very few of them carry Satanist literature, but a few do. Most of thse stores will not carry an upside down cross or an upside down pentacle because they consider perversion of a religion to be Spiritually unsound.

Many of them carry books about a modern religion, wicca. Wiccan practices and their reliance on ritual bear more resemblance to Catholic practices than protestantism does. This is what you label "witchcraft".

These same bookstores carry books on Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism and everything else under the sun.

Acts 19

13Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

14And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

15And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

16And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

17And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

18And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds.

19Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

20So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.

[torchbearer]

Occultist brought baby Jesus his gifts.
His birth was predicted by astrologist. I guess they are in hell now for their occult beliefs.
;)
This circus is great entertainment. Please tell everyone how it is... a universal god of only one tribe of men.

[BeFranklin]

The birth, life, ministry and death of Jesus ( or, Yeshua in Hebrew, or Jeshua in the Latinized version of the Hebrew, or Iesous in Greek) is foretold in detail through over 200 prophecies that predate Jesus by hundreds of years.

For those who think that some Roman wank (or any other man or group of men) foiled God's plan by somehow discarding or adding or emending the books of the Bible you need only to look to the Jews whose scribes meticulously copied the Scriptures as a profession and under the death penalty.

There are cases were the zealous nature of the scribes led them to make emendations, but the Masoretes, as the copyists that came centuries after Jesus were called, noted these emendations in the marginal notes, which came to be known as the Masorah.

Those verses have been read aloud every Sabbath in the temple over the generations. They were copied so meticulously that Jesus could be traced back to Adam and Eve through his mother's and his step father's genealogies, by Matthew and Luke.

The published fragments of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls verify no deviation from a modern Bibles version of Isaiah.

Looking to apocryphal books such as the Gospel of Thomas, wherein, for example, Jesus is pretended to have performed miracles as a child, is chasing after the wind. To believe in an all powerful, all knowing Creator, and then to sell out that belief by thinking that men altered His handbook to some perverted version is absurd.

It would be better to believe nothing.

Bosso

This is a pretty good post.

Luke 11:21-24
21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: 22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils. 23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out. 25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished. 26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

[BeFranklin]

I did an exhaustive study and a reorientation of my own beliefs as a Christian several years ago. .

You can't have been a Christian several years ago. Elsewhere you say you've been selling to "metaphysical" (occult), bookstores for 20 years. That makes this all a long time ago, and you're pretty old - almost cackling age.

[BeFranklin]

On what absolute basis do you judge Christianity to be evil? Why should the standard you use to make such a judgment against Christianity be accepted universally in human experience? How do you justify the immaterial concept of "evil" when you reject immaterial entities in your worldview to begin with? :)

The originally article is from someone using the handle "lucifer". I went to the other board and checked it out, and posted the parts the user left out to disguise it.

I'd guess the basis to judge Christianity is that he's a satanist. :o

[LATruth]

The originally post is from a poster using the handle "lucifer". I went to the other board and checked it out, and posted the parts the user left out to disguise it.

I'd guess the basis to judge Christianity is that he's a satanist. :o

He also had Horus in him name, maybe his follows Horus. ;)

The OP's name was luciferhorus. Want to flip a coin as to what he believed?

[BeFranklin]

The user poster name might have been that, but the actual name on the article, which you cut out, was lucifer.

Let's repeat that. You didn't need to edit out his user poster name. But you did edit out the name on the article as well as some other stuff that wouldn't make it fly.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63676

From original article (parts cut out here):

By Lucifer
Day of Judgement 2008

....

Shame on Christendom

Though the teachings of Jesus are clearly offensive to the Christian Capitalists, it is quite fair to judge the Christians by the teachings of the person whom they claim to represent. If they do not wish to be so judged, they should not claim to represent Jesus; it would be more honest if they sold their slavation for coin in the name of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand or some other Capitalist .

Jesus was a very offensive person; he ranted and raged at the injustices of his society and cried out 'Woe to you hypocrites,' to the proponents of organised religion and Capital. If he had been diplomatic and had not given offence, it is unlikely that the priesthood would have placed a reward for his arrest. The prophets have always been very extreme and outspoken people

Today in the name of Jesus, all manner of religious hypocrisy is propagated in his name, Capitalist Revolution, the selling of salvation for coin, the construction of elaborate Temples while billions suffer in dire poverty, and 900 million people, mostly women and children are close to starvation.

Shame.

Woe to the Capitalist hypnotists of Christianity, in the name of the prophets they would have persecuted and rejected the prophets.

Great and terrible and dreadful and wrathful shall be the Day of Judgement.

They wheat shall be separated from the chaff (the Capitalists and the hypocrites of religion) and the chaff cast into the fire.

The Final Holocaust shall be worse than any other that has come before.

Lucifer

For Anarchism. For Communism. Lux. For War, Revolution, anything good but strong.

For armed violent apocalyptic revolution in all the world on a day and an hour.

No mercy or quarter on they who deserve none.

And in reply to original post, about forum


No I reject Christ and all his works; Christ is merely the god of Capital, of hypocrisy, of state terrorism, of religion and of all that is evil in the world; it is through the Capitalist Christ that the masses in Christendom have been controlled, hypnotised and made submissive to all manner of tyranny with the promise of eternal heaven to those who are submissive to evil and to the hypnotists of religion. Since this is the David Icke forum I should point out that this is very much his position also, though I use different language.

With regards to the historical Jesus, it is Icke's (owner of this board) position that he never existed; that is not my position; I think it quite likely that he did, and if he did not, well there were so many Messianic Israelite revolutionaries like him and he represents an historical archtype of that era.

[LATruth]

Nope, I went to his myspace (http://www.myspace.com/luciferhorus), thats him... I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. I stand corrected. ;) He wrote it.

[LibertyEagle]

"This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." -- Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

[LATruth]

"This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." -- Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

I'm glad that quote only applies to the collectivist left. ;) Would really suck to put the state before yourself and your family. And those that put any faith in the state need a check up from the neck up.

[PaulaGem]

You can't have been a Christian several years ago. Elsewhere you say you've been selling to "metaphysical" (occult), bookstores for 20 years. That makes this all a long time ago, and you're pretty old - almost cackling age.

Yes, I've been studying the Bible, religion, anthropology and psychology probably longer than you've been alive.

And here is my "Testimony"...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=191133&page=7

[PaulaGem]

I Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
"This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." -- Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

I have to disagree here - I believe that churches in general ( not all of them certainally) condition people to relinquish their moral and Spiritual power to an institution and thereby create willing victims for an abusive political system.

[BeFranklin]

Yes, I've been studying the Bible, religion, anthropology and psychology probably longer than you've been alive.

And here is my "Testimony"...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=191133&page=7

Paula - you do understand I class you in the same degree as the person that wrote the original article on this thread - "Lucifer".

[TurtleBurger]

Paula - you do understand I class you in the same degree as the person that wrote the original article on this thread - "Lucifer".

A guy of the same name supposedly invented gnosticism:

"In the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge [gnosis] of good and evil, you will be like God"

[BeFranklin]

A guy of the same name supposedly invented gnosticism:

"In the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge [gnosis] of good and evil, you will be like God"

Good point :D

[PaulaGem]

A guy of the same name supposedly invented gnosticism:

"In the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge [gnosis] of good and evil, you will be like God"


And aren't we all sons of God according to the Bible?

From my studies Yeshua was a gnostic. His teachings of the Kingdom are gnostic.

[BeFranklin]

And aren't we all sons of God according to the Bible?

From my studies Yeshua was a gnostic. His teachings of the Kingdom are gnostic.

Satan tried asking a question instead of making a statement in the wilderness with Jesus. In fact, satan asked a question of eve too.

No, we aren't.

John 8:44-47
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

[Bossobass]

Occultist brought baby Jesus his gifts.
His birth was predicted by astrologist. I guess they are in hell now for their occult beliefs.
;)
This circus is great entertainment. Please tell everyone how it is... a universal god of only one tribe of men.

This is a perfect example of how men can twist the Bible in many directions by taking parts of it out of context to mislead the ignorant masses.

The nativity scene and Christmas are lies:

1) The gift bearers were Magi. The correct meaning is astrologer. Since the Law held the death penalty for any Jew who practiced astrology, what sense would it make that God would lead astrologers to Jesus?

2) There is no mention of how many Magi visited Jesus. There may have been 3 or 33.

3) The Magi came years after Jesus was born. They visited the 'house' where Jesus lived and Mary brought the 'young child' out of the house for the visitors to see.

4) Herod, after "carefully ascertaining the time of the birth" in consultation with these Magi, ordered all male children aged 2 years and younger to be killed.

5) Jesus was not born in December. This has been (and is every year at christmas) discussed in detail by many people over the centuries.

6) Jews didn't celebrate their birthdays. This is a pagan custom. There are only 2 birthday celebrations mentioned in the Bible, those of Pharaoh and Herod, at each of which celebrations a man was beheaded.

Yes, the Romans, in understanding that there is strength in numbers, decided to meld the Pagan festivities of Saturnalia, the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, after which the days get longer, or... the birth of the SUN... with the Christian belief that salvation is through the birth of the SON.

Yes, they succeeded in using this (and other such devious acts) to control Christianity by changing Magi to Wise Men, and placing them at the scene of Jesus' birth, which date they moved to December 25 to correspond with their pagan festival. The tree with candles, the yule log, the merriment, the exchanging of gifts, etc., were 'Christianized' by organized religion to bring Christians into the fold and under governmental control.

But, this in no way has changed the Bible account or its message.

As far as the universal God of only one tribe of men goes, we are all from one tribe of men, no? Does science disagree with this fact?

As Paul said, the Law was but a shadow of the reality.

Earthly paradise in Eden, perfect pair who chose autonomy/death, The Chosen Ones, 12 tribes, king, high priest, sacrifices for atonement, the temple, the Law, the alien resident, war with pagan enemies, hope of resurrection, etc.

The foretold Messiah arrives, right on schedule. His ministry? To preach the good news of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He is King and High Priest in the manner of Melchizedek. He introduces the thought of a resurrection into this heavenly Kingdom. He provides the needed sacrifice, but once for all time. He speaks of a future war to end all wars with his Father's pagan enemies. He fulfills all requirements for the job and answers all questions correctly. He feeds the hungry, heals the sick and resurrects the dead to show his qualifications.

So, which is it, immortal soul to heaven/hell, or resurrection of the dead?

God told Adam, "In that day, you will positively die. ... for from dust you were made, to dust you will return." Did he lie? Did he really somehow instead mean, "... you're body will die, but your immortal soul will be sent to a place where I'll see to it that you are tortured forever."?

Of course the idea of a universal God of only one tribe of men is absurd. But, not when viewed as it is clearly spelled out. The one tribe of chosen was a shadow of the reality. The Kingdom of God is the main theme of the Bible.

For such a simple concept, it's hard to understand how it's been hidden from most religions over the centuries. They proudly set up their nativity scene in front of their churches every year and participate in pagan rituals that predate Jesus by centuries.

This corruption of the truth, I fully understand and agree that it took place, as well as the why of it. The evidence is everywhere and overwhelming. I only disagree with the notion that the Bible itself was also corrupted to say anything that contradicts what God intended it to say and inspired men to write in it.

Bosso

[BeFranklin]

1) The gift bearers were Magi. The correct meaning is astrologer. Since the Law held the death penalty for any Jew who practiced astrology, what sense would it make that God would lead astrologers to Jesus?


The wise men weren't astrologers. Don't know if that is a mistake above.

They were probably people from the east where the Jews had gone into captivity from before. There would be no other reason they'd even know Jesus was about to be born except they had read something from scripture.

[fedup100]

My oh my, you first come to this forum and profess to be a Christian and who knew, you are really a communist troll who now puts your agenda front and center.

To say that Jesus would be a communist today is just mind blowing.


"he never referred to himself as the Creator;"

Jesus was GOD on earth and he said "If you have seen me, you have seen the father".

All of his teachings can be summed up in "do not be a lover of THIS world", for it belongs to Satan, for now. To be caught up in it, will be your demise. With that said, the Bible never says that those who believe in GOD are to be poor, in fact, the Bible teaches that GODS people will be blessed and cared for and all their needs shall be met. Abraham was not a poor man. David was not a poor man. Joseph was not a poor man. ALL of Gods people were blessed financially.

In fact, after some real research, one will see that Jesus was wealthy. He did indeed have a home and he had so much finance that he had to have a treasurer travel with him. He was a skilled carpenter known in his home town and he was a Torah Rabbi.


He did cry out against the ubber rich money changers and evil ones who were not GODLY that controlled and enslaved everyone, same as today. That would be the communist elite today that fly a private chef to make them pizza while their subjects are starving in tent cities.

He did not ask for tithes because tithes are not money to GOD, please research the tithe. The current modern so called Christian churches who preach and take tithes are in grave error and will pay a high price someday.


In other words, a true Christ-like person would never pray in public or in a church, nor would they construct any form of Temple.



This is a real stretch. He made note that the public chest beater prayers were fake believers. They wanted to be seen as holy. He wanted the true christian to be sincere in prayer. Believers were told that they were to assemble together for prayer for there is much power where there is more than one who is praying. Please read Paul's teachings.


Indeed today it is only the Communists who represent his legacy; the Christian Capitalists represent all that he despised.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This is a blatant lie. You are rabid filth in trying to hypnotise the unlearned as to the truth of communisum.

YOU are telling the world that the Jesus Christ would support this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

10 Conditions For Transition To Communism

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[7]

Communism will mean mass murder of Christians, just as the jew controlled communists in Russia murdered millions of Christians. THIS You say Jesus would support!!!

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=124170;


Consider also that the two major state terrorist countries in the world have Christian heads of state (Obama and Elizabeth Windsor) and that they are totally committed to militant world Capitalist revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies and the economic enslavement of humanity.

First off lets get something real clear. 99.9% of all who claim to be Christians as far as the elite today are NOT christians. They can call themselves christian as Bush has but they are not christians.

Our country and England are not ruled by a christian government. We, they have been over thrown from the inside by the elite jews who control this world and use their communism to destroy the christian. You are obviously part of it.

Your OP is a virulent attack on christianity and our Lord himself. This kind of forum member is a perfect example of how and why so many are fleeing this forum for the demonic are given free reign here to spew this kind of blaspheme.

[BeFranklin]

Your OP is a virulent attack on christianity and our Lord himself. This kind of forum member is a perfect example of how and why so many are fleeing this forum for the demonic are given free reign here to spew this kind of blaspheme.

You must have missed the rest of the thread. "Lucifer" wrote the op, and the "gnostic christian" is a wholeseller to occult bookstores.

I agree. This forum fails if it becomes infested with these people. We won't be able to do anything without constant backstabbing and the foiling of projects.

[fedup100]

Who cares who posted it, I'm sure he probably didn't write it himself either. The pictures were irrelevant to the post and I found them in poor taste as well. Also, never once was did I mention where I stood on the post's contents.

And the OP's name was luciferhorus, it's well known that the illuminati claim to be luciferian, and horus has been plagiarized by the bible. His name on the david icke forum, taken in context to where he's posting, isn't all that shocking.

Even in HOT TOPICS on this forum it seems one can't ask questions about 9/11 or doubt the claims of religion. It seems its more follow the leader and know your role or catch hell. Where is the liberty in that? :(

Your point in posting this was to make sure it was was read by as many as possible. To create discussion is a crock. Try posting child porn or beastiality and defend that too on here. I say go away, I say get lost, I say you are done on this forum.

GOD DID say to have no part of the ungodly and to put no evil thing before your eye's. You have put an evil thing before the eye's of not only GODS people, but those who are too young or immature to know better than to embrace it.

[fedup100]

You must have missed the rest of the thread. "Lucifer" wrote the op, and the "gnostic christian" is a wholeseller to occult bookstores.

I agree. This forum fails if it becomes infested with these people. We won't be able to do anything without constant backstabbing and the foiling of projects.

I know who the original poster of this filth was. That cannot excuse the next demon underling that chooses to continue the evil.

[Deborah K]

To the OP and others:

It's ridiculous to try and pigeon-hole Christ's thinking on economic freedom, capitalism, etc. God manifested himself in the form of man and not for the purpose of teaching us how to deal with money, trade, etc. Christ came here to straighten us out spiritually by teaching us to love, be lovable, and to forgive. If man went astray from this, that is because he was born with the ability to choose.

It's futile (not to mention unfair) to superimpose modern thinking and practises onto ancient text. The bible needs to be viewed in the context from which it was written. This thread is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

[BeFranklin]

It's futile (not to mention unfair) to superimpose modern thinking and practises onto ancient text. The bible needs to be viewed in the context from which it was written. This thread is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

Don't encourage them. They're really like that.

[Deborah K]

Don't encourage them. They're really like that.


Really like what? And how am I encouraging them? :confused:

[BeFranklin]

Really like what? And how am I encouraging them? :confused:

Well, we have 1-3 satanists and a wicca lover. Both among their mumbo jumblo have weird rituals involving bondage etc.

They're perverts if not worse. They like cussing. What they need is scripture.

[PaulaGem]

Well, we have 1-3 satanists and a wicca lover. Both among their mumbo jumblo have weird rituals involving bondage etc.

They're perverts if not worse. They like cussing. What they need is scripture.

Anyone who lies about the beliefs of others and thinks himself to be morally superior based on those lies is a pervert of the worst sort.

[LATruth]

My oh my, you first come to this forum and profess to be a Christian and who knew, you are really a communist troll who now puts your agenda front and center.

Your entire post is laughable. I am not a Christian, I have NEVER claimed to be so. And I have never advocated communism. If I were a troll one would have spotted it 1800 posts ago. You attack me as if I should conform to your beliefs, and get in line with the masses, yet you claim to be libertarian where one is free to choose and write what he wishes.

This forum does not promote free speech or individualism. Doesn't matter about the 1st amendment here, you scream and yell of your strong support for it only in show.

I stand corrected, it does promote free speech as long as its Christian influenced, doesn't ask tough questions, doesn't point out ironies in life, or make someone challenge their own world view. I am not a satanist, but in a libertarian world they would have their little corner of the world too, and it would and should be okay. They are protected under the Constitution to worship who they wish. If I wanted to dress in all green, hop everywhere I go, worship the frog in my backyard and call the religion the "Church of Froggy-Doggy-Dew", I could.

[TurtleBurger]

I actually agree with the point I think the OP is making by posting that article. When people rely solely on one book for their religious views, there's no limit to the craziness that can come out of it. Just from 3 words in the Constitution's "commerce clause" comes a bottomless spring of wacky interpretations; think of how many crazy theories can come out of interpreting 66 books of many different genres. You can find support for absolutely anything you want from the Bible: communism, capitalism, pacifism, fascism, atheism, Buddhism, sadomasochism, you name it. Protestant Christianity holds that each person needs to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, and that exponentially explodes the number of unique interpretations that can come out of the Bible. A new Protestant sect is formed on average every few days, and each one is based on a completely new and usually bizarre interpretation of the Bible.

[BeFranklin]

I actually agree with the point I think the OP is making by posting that article. When people rely solely on one book for their religious views, there's no limit to the craziness that can come out of it. Just from 3 words in the Constitution's "commerce clause" comes a bottomless spring of wacky interpretations; think of how many crazy theories can come out of interpreting 66 books of many different genres. You can find support for absolutely anything you want from the Bible: communism, capitalism, pacifism, fascism, atheism, Buddhism, sadomasochism, you name it. Protestant Christianity holds that each person needs to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, and that exponentially explodes the number of unique interpretations that can come out of the Bible. A new Protestant sect is formed on average every few days, and each one is based on a completely new and usually bizarre interpretation of the Bible.

Like the wiccian said, there is a lot in common between wicca (witchcraft) and catholicism.

Both deny the bible in various ways. Lots of riturals, etc.

Sometimes people use the term "priestcraft" for what priests do, which seems appropiate.

[PaulaGem]

Like the wiccian said, there is a lot in common between wicca (witchcraft) and catholicism.

Both deny the bible in various ways. Lots of riturals, etc.

Sometimes people use the term "priestcraft" for what priests do, which seems appropiate.

You don't care much for the truth, do you? You quoted my opinion and ascribed it to a "wiccan". I am a Christian. I have never subscribed to any other religion than Christianity.

Like Jefferson and Franklin there are parts of the Christian myth I don't accept as fact, and you can't have it both ways. If these dissenting founding fathers are Christian by your definition then I am too.

[Theocrat]

You don't care much for the truth, do you? You quoted my opinion and ascribed it to a "wiccan". I am a Christian. I have never subscribed to any other religion than Christianity.

Like Jefferson and Franklin there are parts of the Christian myth I don't accept as fact, and you can't have it both ways. If these dissenting founding fathers are Christian by your definition then I am too.[Emphasis mine]

Christians do not call their faith a myth. You are not a Christian, and you've been called out. So stop lying and making a mockery of Christianity by your false profession. Your very words betray you.

[PaulaGem]

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua. Myths are used in all religions to answer the unanswerable or communicate a Spriritual concept by allegory.

Yeshua used parables to illustrate a point. Myths are the same as parables except some misconstrue them as fact. Both Jefferson and Franklin were quoted in this thread as not accepting the myth as fact.

[idiom]

So no part of Catholic traditions are myths Theo? Thats not what was said two posts above.

Just saying, I wouldn't want to be accountable to God for pontificating on who is and isn't a Christian on some internet forum.

[Theocrat]

A Christian is one who follows the teachings of the Rabbi Yeshua. Myths are used in all religions to answer the unanswerable or communicate a Spriritual concept by allegory.

Yeshua used parables to illustrate a point. Myths are the same as parables except some misconstrue them as fact. Both Jefferson and Franklin were quoted in this thread as not accepting the myth as fact.

Parables and myths are two different things. Parables are stories which illustrate true doctrine to its hearers, while myths are fables which are accepted as true occurrences in their entirety. I'd love to know which "Christian myths" you do not accept because I still believe you're not a Christian if you reject any teaching or precept found in the Scriptures just because you relegate it as a myth.

[Theocrat]

So no part of Catholic traditions are myths Theo? Thats not what was said two posts above.

Just saying, I wouldn't want to be accountable to God for pontificating on who is and isn't a Christian on some internet forum.

The Bible tells us that we would know a person by his fruit (Matthew 7) and what comes out of his mouth (Luke 6:45). When I hear a professing Christian calling the any part of the Christian faith a myth, that is evidence to me that person does not have the Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 16:13) abiding within him.

Roman Catholic traditions are myths, precisely because they are not part of true, Biblical Christianity. However, calling them "Christian myths" is a contradiction of terms, to be sure.

[idiom]

How handy.

[Up The Deise]

The Bible tells us that we would know a person by his fruit (Matthew 7) and what comes out of his mouth (Luke 6:45). When I hear a professing Christian calling the any part of the Christian faith a myth, that is evidence to me that person does not have the Spirit of truth (John 14:17; 16:13) abiding within him.

Roman Catholic traditions are myths, precisely because they are not part of true, Biblical Christianity. However, calling them "Christian myths" is a contradiction of terms, to be sure.

But isn't tradition rooted in the past. nothing something that is dead and boring but something that is handed on?

[PaulaGem]

The deification of Yeshua was done by the Roman Church in the pagan Roman tradition of deifying its heroes and leaders. It is not a Christian or a Jewish tradition. It is myth.

It is illogical and contradictory to the image of a fair and loving God taught by Yeshua.

Franklin clearly stated that he had personal doubts about the divinity of Christ, I cited that passage, you ignored it and continue to claim that Franklin was a Christian.

Jefferson made his own Bible by cutting out everything but the teachings of Yeshua. I can only imagine how thrilled he would have been to have access to the Gospel of Thomas. Jefferson removed the miracles of Jesus from his Bible. I closely identify with the following quote from Jefferson:


To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html

[Bossobass]

The deification of Yeshua was done by the Roman Church in the pagan Roman tradition of deifying its heroes and leaders. It is not a Christian or a Jewish tradition. It is myth.

It is illogical and contradictory to the image of a fair and loving God taught by Yeshua.

Franklin clearly stated that he had personal doubts about the divinity of Christ, I cited that passage, you ignored it and continue to claim that Franklin was a Christian.

Jefferson made his own Bible by cutting out everything but the teachings of Yeshua. I can only imagine how thrilled he would have been to have access to the Gospel of Thomas. Jefferson removed the miracles of Jesus from his Bible. I closely identify with the following quote from Jefferson:



http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html

You might enjoy Sir Isaac Newton's writings (comprising more than half of his life's writings) on this subject as well.

BTW, why don't you refer to Thomas as Te'oma? ;)

Bosso

[idiom]

Oh, curious piece of wild speculation, the Magi were probably following a collection of prophecies left by Daniel in Babylon.

[Theocrat]

The deification of Yeshua was done by the Roman Church in the pagan Roman tradition of deifying its heroes and leaders. It is not a Christian or a Jewish tradition. It is myth.

It is illogical and contradictory to the image of a fair and loving God taught by Yeshua.

Franklin clearly stated that he had personal doubts about the divinity of Christ, I cited that passage, you ignored it and continue to claim that Franklin was a Christian.

Jefferson made his own Bible by cutting out everything but the teachings of Yeshua. I can only imagine how thrilled he would have been to have access to the Gospel of Thomas. Jefferson removed the miracles of Jesus from his Bible. I closely identify with the following quote from Jefferson:



http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffbsyl.html[Emphasis mine]

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is divine (John 1:1-3; 8:56-58; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 7:3; et. al.), but you would rather attribute such an important characteristic of Christ to Roman Catholic tradition (without any evidence, I might add). That is one reason why I know you do not follow the doctrines of Jesus; you doubt His own testimony about Himself.

Also, the Jefferson Bible is not really a Bible of sorts. Because Thomas Jefferson admired the morals and teachings of Jesus Christ, he separated them into a treatise of his own to illustrate the morals of Christ compared to other religions. When Jefferson did that compilation, he did not call it a Bible. However, sometime later, his chronicling of Jesus's morals and teachings was labeled as "Jefferson's Bible," when it was never intended to be such.

[idiom]

I often check to see if an interpretation of the wider scriptures lines up with the 'Red letters'. If Paul, for example, writes something that seems to contradict the Red letters then obviously I am interpreting what Paul wrote incorrectly.

To me the Red letters are the most straightforward to interpret and reliable part of the Bible. The rest is just expanding on them.

[TurtleBurger]

Roman Catholic traditions are myths, precisely because they are not part of true, Biblical Christianity. However, calling them "Christian myths" is a contradiction of terms, to be sure.

Considering the Bible is itself a Catholic tradition, you must consider it to be a myth too.
Anyway, the word "myth" doesn't imply something is untrue or unchristian. A myth is just an ancient genre of literature, which actually is a part of Jewish and Christian literature (including parts of the Bible).

[TurtleBurger]

Like the wiccian said, there is a lot in common between wicca (witchcraft) and catholicism.

Both deny the bible in various ways. Lots of riturals, etc.

Sometimes people use the term "priestcraft" for what priests do, which seems appropiate.

Have you attended both Wiccan and Catholic services? Just curious.

Anyway, Catholics don't deny the Bible, they just deny your interpretation of it. Since you believe that each person should read and interpret the Bible for themselves, how can you say the Catholic interpretation (or the Communist interpretation for that matter) is less valid than your own?

[PaulaGem]

Considering the Bible is itself a Catholic tradition, you must consider it to be a myth too.
Anyway, the word "myth" doesn't imply something is untrue or unchristian. A myth is just an ancient genre of literature, which actually is a part of Jewish and Christian literature (including parts of the Bible).

But the deification of a hero is Roman tradition. The myth of resurrection on the third day is Mithraism, and it is not Jewish or part of the original Christian beliefs system which was based on judaism.

[PaulaGem]

Considering the Bible is itself a Catholic tradition, you must consider it to be a myth too.
Anyway, the word "myth" doesn't imply something is untrue or unchristian. A myth is just an ancient genre of literature, which actually is a part of Jewish and Christian literature (including parts of the Bible).

The doctrines of the trinity, deification of Yeshua, and physical resurrection are proto-orthodox doctrines, meaning they came from the Roman branch of Christianity which merged the native Roman religion with the teachings of Yeshua, this was done all over the middle east, but it was the Roman version which became dominant or "orthodox" by vurtue of its political power. This took place in the century or two before the Council of Nicea made Christianity the official religion of Rome.

With the alliance of Constantine and the Roman Church orthodoxy was born. The Roman "Catholic" church came into being after the Eastern Church split from the Roman Church.

[TurtleBurger]

The doctrines of the trinity, deification of Yeshua, and physical resurrection are proto-orthodox doctrines, meaning they came from the Roman branch of Christianity which merged the native Roman religion with the teachings of Yeshua, this was done all over the middle east, but it was the Roman version which became dominant or "orthodox" by vurtue of its political power. This took place in the century or two before the Council of Nicea made Christianity the official religion of Rome.

With the alliance of Constantine and the Roman Church orthodoxy was born. The Roman "Catholic" church came into being after the Eastern Church split from the Roman Church.

Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books?

[BeFranklin]

Have you attended both Wiccan and Catholic services? Just curious.

Anyway, Catholics don't deny the Bible, they just deny your interpretation of it. Since you believe that each person should read and interpret the Bible for themselves, how can you say the Catholic interpretation (or the Communist interpretation for that matter) is less valid than your own?

No. I've been to one catholic service, which I regret, after I was well grown up.

a) I don't believe the bible is that hard to understand. It was written for common people to read.

b) We don't interpret it ouselves, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. The roman catholic church denies that the laity has direct access to God, they need intermediaries in the form of priests. Its called captivity.

[BeFranklin]

Originally Posted by BeFranklin
Well, we have 1-3 satanists and a wicca lover. Both among their mumbo jumblo have weird rituals involving bondage etc.

They're perverts if not worse. They like cussing. What they need is scripture.


Anyone who lies about the beliefs of others and thinks himself to be morally superior based on those lies is a pervert of the worst sort.

I needn't repeat myself. The original post was written by a satanist, and you said you wholesaled to occult bookstores and admired witches, as well as leading the conversation the whole way to support those things.

To put your judgement back on yourself, you've been lying about Christianity and the bible the whole time and trying to move it to paganism.
You are a pervert of the worst sort.

[BeFranklin]

///

[BeFranklin]

You don't care much for the truth, do you? You quoted my opinion and ascribed it to a "wiccan". I am a Christian. I have never subscribed to any other religion than Christianity.

Like Jefferson and Franklin there are parts of the Christian myth I don't accept as fact, and you can't have it both ways. If these dissenting founding fathers are Christian by your definition then I am too.

No, Paula, you deny the bible, claim all religions are equal, and say you are a gnostic, which is one type of early pagan cult like witchcraft. You aren't a Christian, and you need to be saved.

[BeFranklin]

Franklin clearly stated that he had personal doubts about the divinity of Christ, I cited that passage, you ignored it and continue to claim that Franklin was a Christian.


He said he had doubts and didn't know. Doubt here isn't denial. He said he hadn't spent any time on it, and didn't know.

The passage is a poor use of history, because since Franklin said as the other disenters do, he isn't talking about the
divinity of Christ in the absolute sense, but the belief in the trinity, which is what some of the disenters had questions about.
This sense of divinity isn't the one you are trying to claim by the quote.

Franklin believed the bible was divinely inspired. You want to claim Franklin denied belief in the bible, but he certainly didn't. If a passage obviously said it, he believed it.

[TurtleBurger]

No. I've been to one catholic service, which I regret, after I was well grown up.

a) I don't believe the bible is that hard to understand. It was written for common people to read.

b) We don't interpret it ouselves, that is the job of the Holy Spirit. The roman catholic church denies that the laity has direct access to God, they need intermediaries in the form of priests. Its called captivity.

How technically does the Holy Spirit communicate the correct interpretation to you? How is it possible (for example) for one Bible Protestant to believe infant baptism is mandatory, and another to believe that infant baptism is an abomination, when both are guided by the Holy Spirit?

[BeFranklin]

How technically does the Holy Spirit communicate the correct interpretation to you? How is it possible (for example) for one Bible Protestant to believe infant baptism is mandatory, and another to believe that infant baptism is an abomination, when both are guided by the Holy Spirit?

How technically does the Holy Spirit communicate to catholic priests?

You have to be born again to see the kingdom of God. But it is ironic that you want to set up a hiearchy of men to have what God gave every Christian to begin with. A personal relationship with God as your Father, not a set of priests all calling themselves your father.

A thousand years of error by the popes, resulting in bloodshed, torture, murder, sexual immorality of the worst sort, and more, and you want to ask why individuals act in different ways.

Look at the popes. Worship God, not men.

Matthew 7

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

[BeFranklin]

How technically does the Holy Spirit communicate the correct interpretation to you? How is it possible (for example) for one Bible Protestant to believe

FYI - you're despising the bible again.

In the political realm, the same thing occurs with the constitution. It is plainly written, but people lie about it.