So, that's your answer? I should trust you because you can give a partial response to one of the many questions I raised?I've never told you to trust me for anything. What you choose to believe is up to you. If you're an atheist, why are you trying to choose a church anyway? If you want to know what I believe, I will tell you that. And if you make a claim about Christians that is blatantly untrue, I will try to present the evidence to show you your error. Christians aren't trying to start a war in the ME to bring the end times, and Christianity wasn't created by the Flavian Dynasty.
So, that's your answer? I should trust you because you can give a partial response to one of the many questions I raised?I've never told you to trust me for anything. What you choose to believe is up to you. If you're an atheist, why are you trying to choose a church anyway? If you want to know what I believe, I will tell you that. And if you make a claim about Christians that is blatantly untrue, I will try to present the evidence to show you your error. Christians aren't trying to start a war in the ME to bring the end times, and Christianity wasn't created by the Flavian Dynasty. You really like to play with words don't you? I'm not looking for a church. What you believe is not as important as what can be shown to be true. You are making statements about Christianity. You are claiming that you can "show me my errors". So we agree that if anyone here makes a statement, they should have some sort of basis for it. Your basis is often the Bible or some theological commentary. Why should that be considered evidence? Why should it be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?
You are making statements about Christianity. You are claiming that you can "show me my errors". So we agree that if anyone here makes a statement, they should have some sort of basis for it. Your basis is often the Bible or some theological commentary. Why should that be considered evidence? Why should it be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?The Bible is where Christians have said, "This is what we believe." If you want answers about Christianity, the Bible is where you will find them.
You are making statements about Christianity. You are claiming that you can "show me my errors". So we agree that if anyone here makes a statement, they should have some sort of basis for it. Your basis is often the Bible or some theological commentary. Why should that be considered evidence? Why should it be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?The Bible is where Christians have said, "This is what we believe." If you want answers about Christianity, the Bible is where you will find them. While that statement is true, it does not answer the question.
You are making statements about Christianity. You are claiming that you can "show me my errors". So we agree that if anyone here makes a statement, they should have some sort of basis for it. Your basis is often the Bible or some theological commentary. Why should that be considered evidence? Why should it be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?The Bible is where Christians have said, "This is what we believe." If you want answers about Christianity, the Bible is where you will find them. While that statement is true, it does not answer the question. I think I did. Lausten says I make statements about Christianity and can show him the errors he makes concerning Christian beliefs. Since the Bible is the authority of what Christians believe, that's what I use to correct any error on the subject. Peer reviewed history and the use of worldly reason and logic do not tell us about Christian beliefs. They may be used to critique Christianity, but they aren't the authority on what Christianity is.
Since the Bible is the authority of what Christians believe, that's what I use to correct any error on the subject.Okay, so, the Bible is some sort of open book test with the answers in the back or something. Let's see, reviewing my posts, I give myself 100% and you get an F. Sound about right?
You are making statements about Christianity. You are claiming that you can "show me my errors". So we agree that if anyone here makes a statement, they should have some sort of basis for it. Your basis is often the Bible or some theological commentary. Why should that be considered evidence? Why should it be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?The Bible is where Christians have said, "This is what we believe." If you want answers about Christianity, the Bible is where you will find them. While that statement is true, it does not answer the question. I think I did. Lausten says I make statements about Christianity and can show him the errors he makes concerning Christian beliefs. Since the Bible is the authority of what Christians believe, that's what I use to correct any error on the subject. Peer reviewed history and the use of worldly reason and logic do not tell us about Christian beliefs. They may be used to critique Christianity, but they aren't the authority on what Christianity is. The Bible says the Jewish people wandered in the desert for 40 years, yet there is no archeological evidence supporting that. So "Why should (the Bible) be considered equal to peer reviewed history or other forms of reason and logic?"
Author of the book makes his case
worth a watch
worth a watchNot. Just the guy's arrogant attitude should tell you something. If it were true that all we need to do is open our eyes, as he suggests, then why does he not have more support for his theory?
Since the Bible is the authority of what Christians believe, that's what I use to correct any error on the subject.Okay, so, the Bible is some sort of open book test with the answers in the back or something. Let's see, reviewing my posts, I give myself 100% and you get an F. Sound about right? When I was in high school, I cited an encyclopedia as an authority. My teacher instructed me that an encyclopedia has many authors, so that the citation should have named the author. A book, per se, isn't authoritative on anything except what is contained in the book. I went to a rural high school in Michigan and have a tough time believing that students across the country and around the world weren't taught this simple point. In fairness to Ms. Smith, she says that the Bible is the authority of what Christians believe. At best, that is true for some Christians but not others. But if we really look closely, I have yet to meet a Christian who believed everything in the Bible. I seem to recall having that discussion here recently. Or maybe that was somewhere else.
Okay, so, the Bible is some sort of open book test with the answers in the back or something. Let’s see, reviewing my posts, I give myself 100% and you get an F. Sound about right?Nope.
In redressing Atwill’s Caesar Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Christianity, unlike anyone here so far, I have read his book, not his advertisements to sell the book. While I am skeptical of certain aspects of his theory, his arguments are still quite interesting and have a good logical interpretation to it. Know that a title itself isn’t the content. While many titles directly relate to its content, the function of it is to catch the interest of an audience for further inspection. Even if you don’t accept all his ideas and connections, he shows a very good circumstantial case for serious consideration. But you must invest the time to read what he has to say and how he developed his ideas in order to see how he derived his hypotheses, not to mention what precisely it is.
By reading his work, it helped me to open up to a different understanding of the possibility of the Bible’s formation being related to being written as intentionally being a functional piece of propaganda and form of entertainment meant to be understood in the contexts of the audience of the times. It showed how there were common apparent connections to other sources of the times both in comparative relationships to the Jewish Wars at the time and the order in which they perfectly align to another historical commentator who wrote then, namely, Joseph Flavian. His main idea was to suggest that the Bible was written originally as a satire of the Jewish Wars for an audience of the day that would understand it within its original contexts but got carried away and evolved to become the functional foundation of a new religion.
Even if you still came to disagree with him, it is highly entertaining in its development and shows how we can see other possible ways of recognizing how the work could have evolved within a secular perspective. It’s great book and I highly recommend it.
Jesus is related to King David through his stepfather via the Jewish custom of lineage through the father - it is a political or legal connection, not a physical one. (Even though it is not physical, it IS legal-wise that Jesus is related to David through Joseph.) – But, that’s not all! Jesus is ALSO related to King David through his mother, because her father (Heli, Joseph’s father in law) was the PHYSICAL relation! (This is why the Bible lists Joseph as having two different fathers, one was his father-in-law, which is basically what happens when one gets married - duh! Luke ch. 3), and that’s why the lineage in Matthew 1 mentions David the king! ---- So, Jesus Christ fulfills both requirements by Jewish custom for relation: both by POLITICAL relation and by PHYSICAL relation via marriage. (Coincidentally, this is also why the definition of marriage should always remain as it has always been - the connection that is like God and the church between one man and one woman.)
Jesus is related to King David through his stepfather via the Jewish custom of lineage through the father - it is a political or legal connection, not a physical one. (Even though it is not physical, it IS legal-wise that Jesus is related to David through Joseph.) -- But, that's not all! Jesus is ALSO related to King David through his mother, because her father (Heli, Joseph's father in law) was the PHYSICAL relation! (This is why the Bible lists Joseph as having two different fathers, one was his father-in-law, which is basically what happens when one gets married - duh! Luke ch. 3), and that's why the lineage in Matthew 1 mentions David the king! ---- So, Jesus Christ fulfills both requirements by Jewish custom for relation: both by POLITICAL relation and by PHYSICAL relation via marriage. (Coincidentally, this is also why the definition of marriage should always remain as it has always been - the connection that is like God and the church between one man and one woman.)You managed to pack a lot of garbage in that short presentation. It would take 4 pages to respond to all that both in natural and spiritual context. Are you trying to make the point that Jesus was a true king from royal lineage with yellow hair? And what does that mean in a Constitutional Democracy? One might use other definitions, but none of them define the United States as a monarchy.
Constitutional democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/government_type.html Theism is by definition a monarchy and that's why we have an "Establishment clause" in our Constitution. btw. Nuns are married to Jesus, so your god-king is a polygamist (one man, many wives), a cultural custom which is historically verified.
WRITE 4 U said, in response to my previous:
“You managed to pack a lot of garbage in that short presentation. It would take 4 pages to respond to all that both in natural and spiritual context.”
So, Write4U, you are in the habit of telling lies, because you responded in about half a page – not the four pages you said was needed.
So let’s look at your response, shall we?
W4U : “Are you trying to make the point that Jesus was a true king from royal lineage with yellow hair?”
Who said anything about yellow hair? I didn’t. You are just adding words I didn’t say.
Conc. Royal Lineage – if you could read, you would have found where Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. (Here: I will help you –
Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
but to answer the only part of that comment that made ANY sense, yes: Jesus is the true King of Kings (Revelation 19). It will come to pass in the future.
W4U: “And what does that mean in a Constitutional Democracy? One might use other definitions, but none of them define the United States as a monarchy.”
I didn’t say anything about this subject: it has no application or bearing on what I said. You must be ranting and raving at someone else with that lunacy.
W4U: “btw. Nuns are married to Jesus, so your god-king is a polygamist (one man, many wives), a cultural custom which is historically verified.”
What is your source? Catholic source, no doubt: chapter and page, please? Just give me the book name, and I will find something to counter with and defeat this statement, I am sure.
BTW – “The Da Vinci Code” doesn’t count as a credible source of formal research for verification of this nonsense about nuns and Mary M. married to Jesus – total hogwash and a waste of time to even talk about it.
*** All I typed and said was that there is verification of Jesus’ lineage to David through both his stepfather (Jewish legal / political connection) and his mother (physical connection). I realize that, right now, Jesus Christ is not on the Earth right now, he’s not ruling and reigning in the physical right now… but it is coming, and only a fool would deny that supernatural forces are aligning for some big event in the future. (Sorry to spoil the ending: I’ve already read the Book!)
Jesus is related to King David through his stepfather via the Jewish custom of lineage through the father - it is a political or legal connection, not a physical one. (Even though it is not physical, it IS legal-wise that Jesus is related to David through Joseph.) -- But, that's not all! Jesus is ALSO related to King David through his mother, because her father (Heli, Joseph's father in law) was the PHYSICAL relation! (This is why the Bible lists Joseph as having two different fathers, one was his father-in-law, which is basically what happens when one gets married - duh! Luke ch. 3), and that's why the lineage in Matthew 1 mentions David the king! ---- So, Jesus Christ fulfills both requirements by Jewish custom for relation: both by POLITICAL relation and by PHYSICAL relation via marriage. (Coincidentally, this is also why the definition of marriage should always remain as it has always been - the connection that is like God and the church between one man and one woman.)As it has "always been"? The bible and other historical records are replete with examples of polygamy. Where do you get the idea that marriage between one man and one woman has "always been"? Your definition of "always" is an odd one. Lois
Of course, if you expand the definition a bit, you have Lot’s daughters getting him drunk to have sex with him, and and as I recall Abraham was born of the king’s having sex with his wife’s maid.
Occam
Hey, cartoon boy, how many wives did Solomon have again?
As I said, I am not going to waste 4 pages responding to your lunatic ranting and raving. I will advise you to read the qualification embedded in my statement. Calling me a liar based on my post is an ad hominem from ignorance.
But, in the spirit of “good will”, I’ll suggest a few links you may want to look at.
monarchy 1.system of rule by monarch: a political system in which a state is ruled by a monarch 2.royal family: a monarch and his or her family 3.state ruled by monarch: a country ruled by a monarch Synonyms: realm · kingdom · dominion · domain · empire · demesne http://www.bing.com/search?q=monarchy&FORM=MYMSNA&mkt=en-US&mymsn;-headersearch.x=0&mymsn;-headersearch.y=0
Word Origin & History Flavius male proper name, from L. Flavius, a Roman gens name, related to flavus "yellow" (see blue), and probably originally meaning "yellow-haired." Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper Cite This Source http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/FlaviusAnd the Flavian royal line was not established until after Jesus' death.
The Flavian dynasty was a Roman Imperial Dynasty, which ruled the Roman Empire between AD 69 and AD 96, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavian_dynastyNuns marry the church and Jesus. The point you missed is that marriage is NOT only between "one man and one woman". The word has many meanings. And as to lineage, we are all descendants of early hominids migrating from Africa into Europe. The rest is mythology.
The point you missed is that marriage is NOT only between "one man and one woman". The word has many meanings. And as to lineage, we are all descendants of early hominids migrating from Africa into Europe. The rest is mythology.As for marriage, he is also making the mistaken assumption that the Bible defined marriage, as if the institution did not exist before the Bible. Then he cherry picks an idea and ignores the rest of the Biblical definitions of marriage. What a maroon. He almost makes me miss LilySmith.