|
Post by Tobari Sabbatine on Feb 13, 2005 0:47:25 GMT -5
Ok x, here goes.
Wend the Babalons(sp) took over Ireal, the Jews didn't have that much fatih anymore (which is why the Phofels said "lost faith and it will bite you in the ass" kinda why)
they made a massive reform thus many gods that just worship one became only one god.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 13, 2005 1:40:42 GMT -5
There is an actual house in the Vatican that has had a single family guarding it for the past like thousand plus years. They guard various texts that could be dangerous to the religion or otherwise. And its real. Not some conspiracy theory.
Kind of interesting, I'm suprised no group, extremist or otherwise, hasn't tried raiding it.
And I'm sad, no one has commented about the furious might of my uber long post.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 13, 2005 1:57:02 GMT -5
Your long post is old news, Zorak.
And so Sab- you're implying that just prior to setting down in writing their beliefs, they *presto-chango* changed the core of what they believe? I find that a tad hard to swallow. Also, you mean "Babalonians".
|
|
|
Post by Draco Starcloud on Feb 13, 2005 4:04:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 13, 2005 19:36:53 GMT -5
Ack! XD
So it is. Freakin' typos...
***EDIT: And now, for a lesson in theology!
Early on in the thread, it looks like the topics of choice are "good and evil", "free will or destiny", and "the problem of hell". So now I'll state my own beliefs on these topics for reference and review by the rest of the patrons.
Okay, so what's with God? Is he just some powerfull asshole out to get us if we don't all become Jesus freaks, and kick the everloving crap out of all nonbelievers? If he's so good, like everyone's always saying- what's up with all the evil in the world? How can anyone believe in a "good" god that lets so much evil exist?
Time to get down to definitions! Just what is "evil"? For me, at least, it is the conceous action of doing the opposite of the will of God. Good, then, can be seen as the opposite, which would be obedience to God.
Which brings us to free will. Evil exists because both angels and men are given a powerful freedom- the right to choose the path of one's own life. The right to choose to be good, or to choose to be evil. God, being omnicient, is aware of the path that we would forge for ourselves, and , acting through nature and the forseen actions of those who are around us, allows the general path of destiny to unfold.
But no one, without His law, could say what exactly His will was, hence the Law of Moses. But these 10 laws (and their extrapolated codes of behaviour), while the will of God, cannot be kept to at all times. Sooner or later, everyone fails to do what is right, and that single act is enough to make your heart impure.
God, being perfect and holy, cannot accept the lasting presence of evil. But what then can be done? He sets those who have done evil in their hearts apart from Himself. (This eternal separation from the presence of God is what we here have referred to as Hell. In a place entirely without God, from whom all good comes, pain and evil are all that remain) This is the Second Death (the first being the waning of the body).
What then is the point? If all men are doomed to fail, and thus to die, why bother even trying in this life? God, you see, being just in all things, has given us a new choice. If the first choice was the choice to die- this then is the choice to repent of your choice that lead to doom, and regain the inheritance of God's Kingdom.
I speak now of a substitute. If death is what comes of evil, and life of good- this, then is the choice to allow another to die in your stead. Only the blood of the righteous has the power to take the place of a life with a sin... But, if all men fail, where can such a substitute be found?
God, who loves humanity, pathetic and evil as we are, sent a part of Himself to die. In the form of Jesus, who was of man and God, did such a substitute arise. Wholly God and wholly human- the mystery of mysteries unfolded upon the earth 2000 years ago. A man who was God, and lived a life without blame....
But the political factions of the day had a great hatred for Jesus, and they conspired to have him murdered in the most vicious manner known to one of the bloodiest empires the world has ever known- crucifxion. Beaten and scurged, then nailed into a cross- his death would come not with the loss of blood, but from the lacking of strength to pull his hanging frame into a position from which he could draw another labored breath.
Upon that place called Golgotha, man killed a piece of God and the destroyed this perfect man. There, in the place of the skull, was the destiny of man reforged. The blood of the perfect man- acceptable as a substitute for the life of the unrighteous. But also the blood of God, whose value is eternal and without bounds.
But death is not the end- not for the sinner, nor the righteous. When the day of completion had come, Jesus again walked the Earth, proving the power of death undone. Though those who live without Him are forever seperated from him in darkness eternal- those who stand up and admit that they had been evil of heart, and accept the death by which death was undone as their substitute, as Christ himself, will in beauty endure.
Thus God, who loved man enough to die for his sake remains both holy and righteous, as well as loving. This is the foundation of faith.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 14, 2005 17:17:03 GMT -5
Claiming that the Bible is not inherently flawed and saying that some one is taking passages out of context is simply just shifting goalposts. Here's a short list of a few.The Bible was written by men, many men infact. Probably hundreds of people throughout history have in some way shaped what we now call the Bible. Some of these people wanted people to share their philosophy with others. Others wanted to use their writings as means of gaining power and controlling others, such as the Roman Catholic Church. Let's not forget that there are also many versions of the Bible on the market today. KJV, NIV, and NAV just to name three. Some contain books not included in others. Some have different wordings and meanings to the same passages. There are of course discrepencies between the Teachings of Jesus and those of Paul. Most notably, whether or not simply believing in Jesus or doing good works will bring you salvation. Of course, there's also the fact that the story of Jesus's life is basically plagiarized from the Cult of Mithra. An interesting read.. There is no hard evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure. Go ahead and believe what you want to believe, this is just stuff I'm pulling out to defend my point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 14, 2005 18:31:51 GMT -5
There is no hard evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure. Actually, Discovery did a thing on it recently. They actually have found the Roman execution records on him, and the details on his execution and reasons.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 14, 2005 18:50:41 GMT -5
Having not watched the program, I cannot comment on it. However, the burden of proof doesn't fall on me but the person who believes that Jesus existed. If someone wouldn't mind looking it up for me, it would be appreciated.
However, this does not disprove my point that Jesus, as the character we percieve from the New Testament, was not a real person.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 14, 2005 19:08:31 GMT -5
*sigh*
Having read your latest examples, I'll go get my research together, and present my next case as soon as time allows.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 14, 2005 19:21:49 GMT -5
What case? You have none. There is no possible way there was a Jesus of Nazareth on many points.
Number 1: There are no historical documents that point to the existence of such a person, and those that have been brought up have either been proven as hoaxes or could be attributed to many other people who have a similar name. Some claim that the writings of Jewish and pagan scholars recorded the events, but the oldest of these sources was born five years after the supposed death of Christ.
Number 2: Nazareth is not even a real place. The place believed to be Nazareth shows no signs of a settlement in the First Century BCE or First Century CE.
Number 3: There are many historians at the Time of Jesus who could've recorded him, but none of these did. Here's a list.
Number 4: The so-called accounts of Jesus, the Gospels, were all written by hearsay by outsiders who had no idea of the political climate or even the geography of the Gospel's setting.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Feb 14, 2005 20:13:19 GMT -5
No idea where the source is, it was in this. And they have quite a few records on him and his life and the reasons against him.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 14, 2005 20:27:04 GMT -5
I'll look into it. From what I've always understood is that there may have been a guy named Jesus (or, infact, several), and that the first Christians based a minor cult off of that. Then, someone came along, attached the Mithra cult with this Jesus fellow, and BAM, we got a new religion. Sort of. Really, more of a bastardization of older religions and cults, but who cares? It looks good on paper.
By the way, I found this quote from one of the sites:
Kind of interesting, I think, that there are two candidates for Jesus.
|
|
Kensai
Delta
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posts: 207
|
Post by Kensai on Feb 14, 2005 23:13:50 GMT -5
Naarene were actually a nomadic tribe of extremly disciplined men. They usually never shaved, nor cut their hair, and were well respected. They were the jewish monks of the time.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Feb 15, 2005 7:33:12 GMT -5
Doesn't change the fact that Yeshua Netser, the original name of Jesus, means The Savior, the Branch, and probably had nothing to do with where he came from.
|
|
|
Post by Xtermo on Feb 15, 2005 20:25:09 GMT -5
That's Yeshua H'natsri. It means "The Savior the Nazarine". (Although Natsareth is likely a derrivative of the Hebrew Netser, which means a shoot/sprout or branch.)
Coincidentally enough, that would seem to coincide with information I found somewhere that suggested that Nazareth was actually a suburb of a larger town at the beginning of the Common Era, which would make sence to call it a "branch-village." I'll have to go find it again to show it to you, though.
|
|