Zone1 The Second Coming of Christ

[ding]

Or they heard stories about Jesus that were embellished. So the birth narratives do have a direct bearing what we are discussing. Either the NT has embellishments or it doesn't. Which is it?

Not according to Christian and Jewish texts. The reason you don't have any texts which dispute the Christian and Jewish texts is because there aren't any. And the reason there aren't any is because the texts were never challenged or questioned.

I don't believe the birth narratives were embellished. But I also don't believe they were widely known until AFTER they realized Jesus was God. So they had no bearing on their worshiping Jesus as God.

Even YOU said, if you had seen, you would have believed. So why is it so hard for you to accept they had seen so they believed?

 

[ding]

AI is no substitute for thinking.

It's convenient when dealing with subversives like yourself who throw out lie after lie.

 

[ding]

Paul was a rabid anti christian persecutor present and in agreement with the stoning of Stephen condemning him and the source of his faith, Jesus, and his inspiration, the Holy Spirit, as evil which Jesus said was the only sin that could never be forgiven.

Paul set the stage for the Romans to assimilate and pervert Christianity with Mithraism, the secret Babylonian MYSTERY RELIGION of the Roman government and military, whose seven sacraments YOUR Church follows identically, because they both hated Jesus.

Damn rabble rouser. He couldn't just join the crowd and make money off the brainwashed.

That bastard!

How much more evidence of Roman contempt for Jesus do you need other that what is openly practiced in your church? Teaching the "faithful" that the Body of Christ is not the words that form the body of his teaching but a matzo MADE BY HUMAN HANDS that you worship and eat on your knees for spiritual life, DERP, and then crap down the toilet?

You need more evidence? Go to church listen and watch the possessed eat Jesus as a demon pulls their strings. Stand up, sit down, kneel, pray to a trinity, give money, **** off.

History does not support your batshit crazy conspiracy theory.

 

[hobelim]

History does not support your batshit crazy conspiracy theory.

Listen dude. You don't realize that you are practicing idolatry every time you blubber on your knees to a trinity that became a sacrificial mangod. You somehow even manage to forget the well documented bloody history of your church. Now thats really fascinating.

Jesus must be very impressed by your faith. lol

I am.

 

[ding]

I think it was later Christians that deprecated the role of women in the church, not Paul.

Most New Testament scholars agree that seven Pauline letters are undoubtedly authentic (undisputed): Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon; these form the core of Paul's undisputed writings, while others like Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are debated, with many scholars considering them Deutero-Pauline (written by later followers in Paul's name).

It should be viewed in the context of the day, not by how one feels about Christianity or Judaism. When viewed in the context of the day, biblical passages are the least misogynistic, in my opinion.

The question of whether the Bible is misogynistic yields no consensus, with views varying widely depending on interpretation, cultural context, and an emphasis on specific passages or the overarching message. The conversation includes strong arguments on both sides.

Arguments that the Bible is Misogynistic
Critics point to numerous passages and narratives that they argue reflect a patriarchal society and portray women as inferior or property.

• Gender Roles and Authority: Specific verses in the Old and New Testaments are cited as evidence of women being assigned subordinate roles. Passages that instruct women to be silent in church or not to have authority over men are often highlighted (1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2).
• Narrative Treatment:
  Critics note that women in Old Testament narratives are often mentioned only in relation to prominent men, such as wives or mothers, or are only given attention when subjected to violence, as in the case of Dinah in Genesis or the concubine in Judges
  .
• • Legal Codes: Certain Mosaic laws, such as regulations regarding menstruation and childbirth that deemed women "unclean," or laws requiring a female rape victim to marry her rapist, are seen as evidence of systemic inequality.
  • Original Sin: The narrative of Eve being the first to be deceived and bringing sin into the world has been interpreted as the foundation for the subjugation of women, a theological point that has historically been used to justify male dominance.

Arguments that the Bible is Not Misogynistic
Defenders of the Bible argue that it presents men and women as equally valuable in God's eyes, and that a proper understanding of the text, often through a historical or a Christ-centered lens, refutes accusations of misogyny.

• Equal Creation and Value: The creation narrative in Genesis 1 states that both men and women were created in God's image, implying equal spiritual worth and value.
• Jesus' Actions: Proponents emphasize that Jesus consistently valued, taught, and empowered women, going against the cultural norms of his time. Women were among his followers, funded his ministry, and were the first witnesses to his resurrection.
• Cultural Context vs. Endorsement: Many scholars argue that the Bible is a historical record written within ancient patriarchal societies, which described misogyny without necessarily endorsing it. Acts of violence against women in the Bible are often described as appalling and sparking condemnation within the narrative itself.
• Mutual Submission: Passages sometimes interpreted as demanding female submission are viewed by others as calling for mutual, voluntary yielding in love, where husbands are instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church and sacrificed himself for it (Ephesians 5).
• Women in Leadership: Examples of women serving as judges (Deborah) or leaders in the early church (Phoebe, Junia) are cited to show that female leadership was accepted in some contexts. Some scholars even suggest certain passages often attributed to Paul and used to restrict women were later insertions or misinterpreted within their original context.

Ultimately, whether an individual finds the Bible to be misogynistic often depends on their approach to interpretation: some read it literally as a set of timeless rules, while others view it through a historical lens, emphasizing the overarching message of love and equality found in the person of Jesus.

 

[ding]

But there is direct irrefutable evidence that your church teaches people to practice idolatry.

If you don't believe me keep your eyes and ears open next time you go to church and you will see and hear it for yourself.

Only because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus. We do.

 

[ding]

Jesus is an idol a god with a face name and personality.

What you are intending for evil, God is using for good.

 

[hobelim]

Only because you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

I know that Jesus was a dignitary, royalty, the Son of God, from another sphere of intelligent life. Still to worship anything that is not God, like a man or a matzo, even Jesus, is idolatry.

But only according to the definition of the word.

We do.

Is that you again legion? Long time no see? How many of you are there?

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect. That's an idiotic comparison and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.

Saint Paul (the Apostle) was a key figure in spreading Christianity through missionary work and writing epistles, focusing on spiritual transformation, while the 9/11 terrorists were perpetrators of mass murder and destruction, driven by extremist religious and political ideologies, making their actions fundamentally opposite: Paul transformed lives through faith, whereas the terrorists ended them through violence. The only common thread might be religious motivation (Paul's Christian faith vs. al-Qaeda's extremist Islam), but their methods and goals were diametrically opposed, with Paul's work being foundational to a major world religion and the terrorists' actions being acts of terror.

Saint Paul (Apostle Paul)

• Role: Missionary, evangelist, theologian, author of significant parts of the New Testament.
• Actions: Traveled extensively, founded churches, taught about Jesus Christ, encouraged spiritual growth, and emphasized love, faith, and community.
• Impact: Profoundly shaped Christian theology and beliefs, leading to the spread of Christianity.

9/11 Terrorists (Al-Qaeda)

• Role: Perpetrators of large-scale terrorist attacks.
• Actions: Hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands, driven by extremist ideology.
• Impact: Caused mass death, widespread fear, and initiated global conflicts, fundamentally different from Paul's message of peace and spiritual renewal.

Key Differences

• Intent: Paul sought to build up believers; the terrorists sought to destroy and instill terror.
• Method: Paul used teaching and writing; the terrorists used violence and murder.
• Outcome: Paul's work led to spiritual movements; the terrorists' actions led to immense death and destruction.

While both operated under religious banners, one was a spiritual leader transforming lives, and the others were mass murderers, making any comparison of their actions inaccurate, as they represent opposite ends of human behavior.

Both Paul and the hijackers were willing to give their lives for their faith so that I'm not sure that is a valid sign of credibility.

 

[hobelim]

Not according to Christian and Jewish texts. The reason you don't have any texts which dispute the Christian and Jewish texts is because there aren't any.

No, there aren't any because your Roman church went on a violent rampage destroying the sects and almost all the writings of any text that contradicted their dogma in 325ce. Almost.

Secretly practicing human sacrifice to Mithras every time they openly crucified someone on the Mithran cross. Mithraism was the secret Babylonian MYSTERY RELIGION of the Roman government and military until 325ce when it became compulsory for the ENTIRE empire, replacing Mithras with the name of Jesus, a false counterfeit Jesus, the Antichrist.

When you celebrate the crucifixion of Jesus you are celebrating human sacrifice to Mithras.

Now you know.

"Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".'

The Gospel according to Philip.

This not only refutes the virgin birth story but also the claim that Jesus was God and had no human father.

 

[hobelim]

Both Paul and the hijackers were willing to give their lives for their faith so that I'm not sure that is a valid sign of credibility.

Paul was dedicated to two things. Perpetuating Pharisaic beliefs, a perverse literal interpretation of Mosaic law that Jesus lived and died opposing and Christians follow to this day, and insuring that the Jewish people would dismiss Jesus out of hand by preaching he claimed to be God and made the Law obsolete which would make him completely insane.

 

[alang1216]

Paul was dedicated to two things. Perpetuating Pharisaic beliefs, a perverse literal interpretation of Mosaic law that Jesus lived and died opposing and Christians follow to this day, and insuring that the Jewish people would dismiss Jesus out of hand by preaching he claimed to be God and made the Law obsolete which would make him completely insane.

I have no reason to doubt Paul really was a convert to Jesus and he may even have had a vision/dream that he met the resurrected Jesus. He worked backwards from the resurrection to Jesus' mission.

I doubt Jesus ever claimed to be God, I think it more likely he was a Jewish zealot, come to free the Jews from Rome. That is why he was considered the Messiah by his followers. From there the legends about his power and fulfillment of prophesies grew.

 

[hobelim]

I have no reason to doubt Paul really was a convert to Jesus and he may even have had a vision/dream that he met the resurrected Jesus. He worked backwards from the resurrection to Jesus' mission.

Really? Did you know that the disciples would have seen through Paul acting blind, visually impaired, fumbling around for a few days and then claimed to be healed and commissioned by Jesus to spread his bullshit? Cant you see them laughing in private?

They knew first hand that Jesus healed a blindness of perception not sight. Obviously Paul didn't.

I doubt Jesus ever claimed to be God, I think it more likely he was a Jewish zealot, come to free the Jews from Rome. That is why he was considered the Messiah by his followers. From there the legends about his power and fulfillment of prophesies grew.

The miracles may not have been demonstrations of divine power over reality but that does not make them any less miraculous.

They were about as miraculous as if ding realized what an asshole he's been and crawled out of his grave, lived up to his baptismal vows, and renounced the work of the devil.

Now that would be a miracle! As miraculous as if the Gerasene demonic returned to sanity.

Or if the Pope abolished "memorial bondage", confessed his sins to the world, abdicated his throne, and was seen drunk off his ass, dancing like a fool, naked at plato's retreat.

Thats would be tantamount to a dead Lazarus coming out of a dark dank and smelly tomb.

 

[ding]

Thats was a perfect comparison. Dimwit.

Anyone who believes God condones violence and bigotry is an idiot who doesn't know how to read ancient texts in the proper context.

You equate the concerted efforts of the gospels to show the divinity of Jesus to terrorism because you wish to subvert Christianity. Your conspiracy theories are idiotic and unsubstantiated.

 

[ding]

AI is no substitute for thinking.

It is when your thinking is wrong. Which is exactly what I am using it to show.

 

[hobelim]

Anyone who believes God condones violence and bigotry is an idiot who doesn't know how to read ancient texts in the proper context.

Tell that to trump and all of his batshit crazy bigoted religious supporters and sycophants.

 

[ding]

Sure.

100%. Your bizarre interpretation of the gospels is batshit crazy.

Portraying Jesus as supernatural isn't just an element in the Gospels; it's fundamental to what the Gospels aim to convey about his identity and purpose.

The Gospels make a deliberate and central effort to portray Jesus as a supernatural being, highlighting his divine nature through miraculous deeds (healings, nature control, resurrection), his unique divine conception, and his identity as the Son of God, with John's Gospel emphasizing his pre-existence and deity most strongly. While different Gospels emphasize different aspects (Matthew as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as perfect Man), all present a figure whose life, actions, and claims transcend the ordinary human experience to reveal God.

Evidence for the Supernatural in the Gospels:

• Miraculous Conception: Jesus's birth is attributed to the Holy Spirit, making him divinely conceived.
• Miraculous Deeds (Signs):The Gospels are filled with miracles, such as:
  • Changing water into wine (John).
  • Feeding multitudes with minimal food.
  • Walking on water and calming storms.
  • Healing the sick, blind, and lame.
  • Casting out demons.
  • Raising the dead (Lazarus).
• Divine Identity: The Gospel of John, in particular, presents Jesus as the eternal Word made flesh, co-equal with God, emphasizing his divine origin and nature from the start.
• Resurrection: The ultimate supernatural event, the resurrection, serves as proof of his divine power and identity, placing the other miracles in a credible light for believers, notes this Project Gutenberg text.

Concerted Effort:

• The authors structured their narratives to build this image, from Jesus's divine birth stories in Matthew and Luke to the "signs" in John designed to show his glory.
• Even the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), which focus on Jesus's humanity and role as servant/king, frame his actions within a supernatural context, contrasting him with ordinary men.

In essence, portraying Jesus as supernatural isn't just an element in the Gospels; it's fundamental to what the Gospels aim to convey about his identity and purpose.

 

[hobelim]

Your bizarre interpretation of the gospels is batshit crazy.

Yeah I know.

What could be crazier that knowing that Jesus was just a man and that 1+1+1= 3.

Woe is me!

 

[ding]

Listen dude. You don't realize that you are practicing idolatry every time you blubber on your knees to a trinity that became a sacrificial mangod. You somehow even manage to forget the well documented bloody history of your church. Now thats really fascinating.

Jesus must be very impressed by your faith. lol

I am.

According to Christian doctrine, the worship of Jesus is not considered idolatry because Jesus is believed to be the incarnate second person of the Triune God (God the Son), not a separate or false god.

Christian Perspective

• The Trinity: Mainstream Christianity adheres to the doctrine of the Trinity, which posits one God existing as three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
• Divine Nature: In this view, Jesus is fully divine and fully human. Worship directed to Jesus is, therefore, considered worship of the one true God, not a created being or an idol.
• Definition of Idolatry: Idolatry, within Christianity, is defined as the worship of anything or anyone other than Almighty God, such as false gods, statues as deities, or worldly things like money or power.
• Role of Images: The use of images or statues in churches (e.g., in Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity) is generally described as veneration or as visual aids to reflection and prayer, not the adoration (worship) due to God alone.

External Perspectives

From the perspectives of other monotheistic religions, such as Judaism and Islam, Christian practice can be seen differently.

• Judaism and Islam: Both Judaism and Islam emphasize the absolute oneness of God (strict monotheism) and do not accept the concept of the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus in the Christian sense. From their theological viewpoints, any doctrine that attributes divinity to a human being or a multiplicity of persons within God is considered a form of idolatry or polytheism.

In summary, the question of whether worshiping Jesus constitutes idolatry depends entirely on the specific theological definition of God and idolatry being used. Within the context of Christian doctrine, it is not considered idolatry.

 

[ding]

I know that Jesus was a dignitary, royalty, the Son of God, from another sphere of intelligent life. Still to worship anything that is not God, like a man or a matzo, even Jesus, is idolatry. But only according to the definition of the word. Is that you again legion? Long time no see? How many of you are there?

Incorrect. The religious beliefs of others should not make you this upset.