Eating catfish is just as sinful as homosexuality

[koshergrl]

log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.

Yes, we all know how popular it is for people to die hideous deaths down through the ages based upon their belief on hearsay and fiction.

Explain why nobody, not one person, who was living at the time of Christ, ever came forward to dispute the teachings of the apostles...who were teaching at the time that people who knew and heard Jesus were still alive?

Pretty off considering it was all fiction and heresay. Thousands of people gathered, many who had heard Jesus speak...and yet none came forward to cry "fraud".

Honest. You don't have to lie to make friends.

 

[koshergrl]

I have yet to see any disparagement of Josephus that carries any weight. But knock yourself out:

Josephus.org - The Flavius Josephus Home Page

 

[logical4u]

Where did I state I encourage ANY sex acts?
Where did I state all churches should support anything?
Where did I state all churches should marry anyone?
Someone never washed your mouth out as a youth for telling lies.
You continue to lie.
For the uninformed and ignorant and I count you as one of their leaders:
I encourage NO sex acts as a conservative I mind my own business.
I do not support telling any church what to do as I am a conservative and mind my own business.
You are the one dictating the requirements of what a "Christian" is and isn't.
Shame on you.

Performing "holy matrimony" is encouraging "sex acts" (unless you think that homosexuals will not have sex together because you have declared their sins "acceptable")
I did not say "all" churches.
I referenced the Biblical statements, and once again, you can't handle what is in the Bible and want to attack the messenger. Your life, your choices, if you want to be held responsible for others' sins, do it with full knowledge. Don't pretend you are unaware. The Lord will see your heart, and "know". I will not be sitting beside Him. I will not be with his "prophets". I will be in line to be judged, just the same as you (I will be the quiet one, because I will know that I will receive punishment for my sins that "I" earned).

I am not a preacher and do not conduct weddings.
I can reference the Bible where you should be executed for cursing your parents.
You are going to hell if you do not do that to your kids.

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

 

[Amadoos]

log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.

Yes, we all know how popular it is for people to die hideous deaths down through the ages based upon their belief on hearsay and fiction.

Explain why nobody, not one person, who was living at the time of Christ, ever came forward to dispute the teachings of the apostles...who were teaching at the time that people who knew and heard Jesus were still alive?

Pretty off considering it was all fiction and heresay. Thousands of people gathered, many who had heard Jesus speak...and yet none came forward to cry "fraud".

Honest. You don't have to lie to make friends.

You have ANY proof that jesus actually existed? No? That's what I thought.

 

[Gadawg73]

Performing "holy matrimony" is encouraging "sex acts" (unless you think that homosexuals will not have sex together because you have declared their sins "acceptable")
I did not say "all" churches.
I referenced the Biblical statements, and once again, you can't handle what is in the Bible and want to attack the messenger. Your life, your choices, if you want to be held responsible for others' sins, do it with full knowledge. Don't pretend you are unaware. The Lord will see your heart, and "know". I will not be sitting beside Him. I will not be with his "prophets". I will be in line to be judged, just the same as you (I will be the quiet one, because I will know that I will receive punishment for my sins that "I" earned).

I am not a preacher and do not conduct weddings.
I can reference the Bible where you should be executed for cursing your parents.
You are going to hell if you do not do that to your kids.

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Do you tithe to a church that does not execute children for cursing their parents? If you do YOU are supporting sin.
See how absurd all of your arguments on this subject are? YOU are the one promoting and actively living selective interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Performing "holy matrimony" is encouraging "sex acts" (unless you think that homosexuals will not have sex together because you have declared their sins "acceptable")
I did not say "all" churches.
I referenced the Biblical statements, and once again, you can't handle what is in the Bible and want to attack the messenger. Your life, your choices, if you want to be held responsible for others' sins, do it with full knowledge. Don't pretend you are unaware. The Lord will see your heart, and "know". I will not be sitting beside Him. I will not be with his "prophets". I will be in line to be judged, just the same as you (I will be the quiet one, because I will know that I will receive punishment for my sins that "I" earned).

I am not a preacher and do not conduct weddings.
I can reference the Bible where you should be executed for cursing your parents.
You are going to hell if you do not do that to your kids.

Do you tithe to a church that conducts homosexual (pretend) marriages? If you do, you ARE supporting sin.
I don't curse my parents. They are awesome, and did the best they could with what they had.
Do what to my children?

Is someone supporting sin if they conduct a heterosexual marriage where sodomy takes place? Sodomy being oral and anal sex. Also any heterosexual marriage that's done after someone is divorced (any marriage besides someone's first) is adultery, adultery being one of the worst sins since it's in the 10 commandments and even Jesus himself referenced this (and we all know he didn't reference homosexuality in any marginal way).


So that would mean what? 90-99% of marriages performed are done so while supporting sin?

 

[Uncensored2008]

As I have assfucked her?

Zero?

No, as many times as you've been assfucked by big black men. (If you can count that high!)

Now let's all pray.

Is that what you do to prepare for your assfucking? Get down like you're praying to Allah?

 

[Uncensored2008]

log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.

So, you were born mentally retarded, then?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wasn't he in one of Pontius Pilot's documents about trials?

No, he wasn't.

One of the major problems is that Pontius Pilatus was a Prefect, he wasn't governor of anything, much less Judea. Alexander Jannæus was the Curator of Asyria, including Judea (which was too small to be considered in it's own right.) and Pilat was one of many Prefects in Damascus. There is no evidence that Pilat ever set foot in Israel. Further, Pilat died in 79 BC, about 50 years before the alleged birth of Jesus. Not only is there nothing in Pilat's documents, there are no documents of the alleged trial at all, which Pilat could not have been at unless HE had risen from the dead.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Links please. I've certainly never heard any reputable source call Josephus a fraud.

Josephus isn't a fraud, the passage alleging Jesus is a fraud put into Antiquities AFTER then 9th century AD.

The passage in question translates to;

{About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. }

{Why is this Jesus testimony considered a later insertion?

1. Josephus was a Pharisee. Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a pharisee.

2. Josephus habitually writes chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people and events. The Jesus testimony consists of three sentences. Why would Josephus’ Christ be given only three brief sentences? ?

3. The paragraphs before and after the Jesus testimony describe Romans killing Jews. The paragraph following the Jesus testimony begins "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". Would the "sad calamity" refer to the appearing of the "doer of wonderful works" or Romans killing Jews? The Jesus Testimony is clearly out of context having every appearance of a later insertion.

4. Finally, and most convincing had Josephus actually written the Jesus testimony, church fathers in the following 200 years would surely refer to it in fending off critics of Jesus’ being just another myth. But, not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus’ Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origen’s writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James rather then Jesus. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus’ Jesus testimony because Josephus never wrote it.}

ExChristian.Net - Articles: HISTORY’S TROUBLING SILENCE ABOUT JESUS

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have yet to see any disparagement of Josephus that carries any weight. But knock yourself out:

Josephus.org - The Flavius Josephus Home Page

Josephus was a Pharisee, do you agree?

Would a Pharisee call Jesus "the Messiah?" The passage was written by the Catholic church and inserted into the historical record many years after the fact.

 

[ABikerSailor]

log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.

Yes, we all know how popular it is for people to die hideous deaths down through the ages based upon their belief on hearsay and fiction.

Explain why nobody, not one person, who was living at the time of Christ, ever came forward to dispute the teachings of the apostles...who were teaching at the time that people who knew and heard Jesus were still alive?

Pretty off considering it was all fiction and heresay. Thousands of people gathered, many who had heard Jesus speak...and yet none came forward to cry "fraud".

Honest. You don't have to lie to make friends.

You have ANY proof that jesus actually existed? No? That's what I thought.

Here ya go...........

The Coin of Jesus is a rare coin discovered in Tiberias, at a site on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel in 2004, under the direction of archeologist Prof. Yizhar Hirschfeld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Brown University, in association with the City of Tiberias and the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The coin bears the image of Jesus Christ on one side, and the engraving "Jesus the Messiah King of Kings" in Greek language on the other. This is the first time this coin has been discovered at an Israeli archeological site, and is believed to have been brought from Tiberias to Constantinople where it was minted by a Christian pilgrim around the 11th century.[1]

The site in Tiberias and others around the Sea of Galilee has been the destination of Christian pilgrims for more than 2,000 years. The town is named in honor of Roman Emperor Tiberias, and was built during a time when Jesus was still a teenager. The site is close to the city where Mary Magdalene was believed to be born and the site where Jesus is supposed to have fed a crowd of thousands with just a couple fish and loaves of bread.[2]

Coin of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They only put the likenesses and names of people on coins who actually existed.

 

[koshergrl]

log, the Bible is total hearsay and fiction, with a couple of historical references thrown in for good measure.

Yes, we all know how popular it is for people to die hideous deaths down through the ages based upon their belief on hearsay and fiction.

Explain why nobody, not one person, who was living at the time of Christ, ever came forward to dispute the teachings of the apostles...who were teaching at the time that people who knew and heard Jesus were still alive?

Pretty off considering it was all fiction and heresay. Thousands of people gathered, many who had heard Jesus speak...and yet none came forward to cry "fraud".

Honest. You don't have to lie to make friends.

You have ANY proof that jesus actually existed? No? That's what I thought.

Yes.
The testimony of the apostles, all the people who gathered to hear him, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, the Koran.

Study up and then get back to me, moron.

 

[koshergrl]

I have yet to see any disparagement of Josephus that carries any weight. But knock yourself out:

Josephus.org - The Flavius Josephus Home Page

Josephus was a Pharisee, do you agree?

Would a Pharisee call Jesus "the Messiah?" The passage was written by the Catholic church and inserted into the historical record many years after the fact.

And you know this how?
Josephus wasn't a pharisee. He wrote about pharisees and was interested in them, but he was not one himeself. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need to quit assuming that every lie you hear that validates what you have already formed an opinion about is true. That's what true scholarship is about.

 

[koshergrl]

Links please. I've certainly never heard any reputable source call Josephus a fraud.

Josephus isn't a fraud, the passage alleging Jesus is a fraud put into Antiquities AFTER then 9th century AD.

The passage in question translates to;

{About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. }

{Why is this Jesus testimony considered a later insertion?

1. Josephus was a Pharisee. Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a pharisee.

2. Josephus habitually writes chapter upon chapter about the most insignificant people and events. The Jesus testimony consists of three sentences. Why would Josephus’ Christ be given only three brief sentences? ?

3. The paragraphs before and after the Jesus testimony describe Romans killing Jews. The paragraph following the Jesus testimony begins "About the same time another sad calamity put the Jews in disorder". Would the "sad calamity" refer to the appearing of the "doer of wonderful works" or Romans killing Jews? The Jesus Testimony is clearly out of context having every appearance of a later insertion.

4. Finally, and most convincing had Josephus actually written the Jesus testimony, church fathers in the following 200 years would surely refer to it in fending off critics of Jesus’ being just another myth. But, not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus’ Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origen’s writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James rather then Jesus. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus’ Jesus testimony because Josephus never wrote it.}

ExChristian.Net - Articles: HISTORY’S TROUBLING SILENCE ABOUT JESUS

Exchristian net. Explains so much.

Josephus was not a pharisee, nor was he a Christian (as if he could be both). He was a dedicated historian who wrote of historical events, and he wrote of Christ.

 

[koshergrl]

"

Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail about Jesus.
I should also mention at the outset that, in spite of the sporadic complaints on the Internet about the matter(!), the manuscript evidence in support of the iron-clad, "pre-accretions" reference to Jesus in Jospehus is strong, stable, and accepted by the mass of professional historians. Between the NT and Jospheus, there is no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references.
The internet debate about this subject (generally NOT participated in by the more historically-informed skeptics and Christians) is a very peculiar phenomenon. Graham Stanton is a New Testament scholar of a 'moderate' position. In the most recent edition of his excellent "The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford:2002), Professor Stanton includes this section commenting on the debate [GAJ2, 143-145]:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written C. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. "

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

We could do this all day.
​

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yeah i don't really see much point in questioning whether Jesus existed or not, the question should be whether or not he was really able to perform miracles if he did exist.

Proving Jesus existed wouldn't matter, it'd be proving if whether or not he was as special as the NT says that matters.

 

[koshergrl]

"

"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross. As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus. "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

You can argue his divinity, and for that, there is no evidence that will satisfy those who are committed to denying it.

But people who argue his existence are just being idiots.

 

[Dr.Drock]

"

"We have a good deal of information about the polemical and often bitter arguments Christians, Jews, and pagans had with one another in the early centuries. But the early Christians' opponents all accepted that Jesus existed, taught, had disciples, worked miracles, and was put to death on a Roman cross. As in our own day, debate and disagreement centred largely not on the story but on the significance of Jesus. "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second-century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

You can argue his divinity, and for that, there is no evidence that will satisfy those who are committed to denying it.

But people who argue his existence are just being idiots.

I see, so you can point out the bias of a site with ex-christian in it, but see no pro christian bias in a site called christianthinktank?

Okie dokie

 

[ABikerSailor]

"

Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail about Jesus.
I should also mention at the outset that, in spite of the sporadic complaints on the Internet about the matter(!), the manuscript evidence in support of the iron-clad, "pre-accretions" reference to Jesus in Jospehus is strong, stable, and accepted by the mass of professional historians. Between the NT and Jospheus, there is no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references.
The internet debate about this subject (generally NOT participated in by the more historically-informed skeptics and Christians) is a very peculiar phenomenon. Graham Stanton is a New Testament scholar of a 'moderate' position. In the most recent edition of his excellent "The Gospels and Jesus" (Oxford:2002), Professor Stanton includes this section commenting on the debate [GAJ2, 143-145]:

"Many readers will be surprised to learn that the very existence of Jesus has been challenged. From time to time since the eighteenth century a number of writers have claimed that our gospels were written C. AD 100 (or later) and that only then did the early Christians 'invent' Jesus as a historical person. During the communist era Soviet encyclopaedias and reference books consistently made that claim. In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. "

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

We could do this all day.
​

Considering how many times the Bible has been edited and rewritten, it's really hard to consider the book as "fact". Why? Too many people down through the ages have written and re-written the book, changing things.

Me? I'd rather accept the archaeological proof they foud in Israel, it is a coin with Yeshua's name on one side and His likeness on another. Money that was minted during that time would only have carried the likeness and name of someone who DID exist and who was also influential in the world.