"Cross" reference by Jesus question
Offline I'm sure this has been asked/answered before but was unable to find it in a brief search of this site so I am hoping a historian, scholar or anyone who has a comment might easily be able to help me with this.
In at least two passages that I'm aware of Jesus supposedly makes reference to cross bearing such as "take up thy cross" or as in the example below.
LUKE 14:27
"And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."
My questions are these:
1. Was this cross bearing idea commonly (or at all) used in language prior to Jesus's story being documented in the bible?
2. Was his death on a cross specifically predicted or prophesied in the Old Testament?
3. Did Jesus specifically ever say that his death would occur on a cross beforehand?
Thanks for any help and, again, sorry for probable the duplication of someone else's question! Also, if this is in the wrong section of the forum, please advise.
- Login to post comments
Offline christianity probably the worlds first religion designed by committee (mirrored closely by the design of scientology)
- Login to post comments
To my limited knowledge there is no evidence to support that the cross had any meaning associated to it prior to jesus' alleged crucifixtion in the christian sense. I still don't know if this is even referring to the crucifixtion or something else.
The symbol of the cross in various cultures had some meaning. The Egyption ankh represented the character for life for example. It's possible that all condemned were forced to carry their crosses to their execution so maybe this is some reference to that act. Perhaps it means that by picking up the cross your old life is ending and beginning a new life following jesus.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Thanks for your thoughts.
I suspect that Jesus's references to cross bearing were thrown in at a much later date after the cross had already been established as a symbol of christianity.
I could be wrong and maybe nobody knows but I am trying to find out.
From what I understand, in the Bible the word for what Jesus was crucified on was "stavros" which means a straight stake (it's the word from which "staff" was derived. )
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I think you are right. I don't believe most people were crucufied on a cross at all the Romans did prefer the stake.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
hmmm... well, the Romanians speak a language that is closer to Latin than modern Italian is. they tended to use stakes on heretics, so the idea that Jesus was hung on a stake does have some merit, considering that the Romanians still hold to old Roman traditions, language, and stories.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Crucifixtion was ancient in the time of Joshua bar Joesph. What the condemed carried was the cross beam which was then affixed to the permanent, verticle support beam.
Early christens used the fish as a symble of thier faith, a cross would have been 'gallows humer' very offensive! About the same as drawing a noose on the door of a modern church. This attitude changed AFTER Constantine and his mother Helen (4th century). btw Helen was Christan, Emperor Constantine was only "converted" on his death bed when he was too sick to argue.
Any reference to "my cross to carry" sounds more like Shakespearian lingo; surprise!!!!!! the King James translation comes at the hight of Shakespeares fame and influence, early 17th century.
In J.C.'s time a person of big ego might have said "my burdon to carry" the reference was to what a camal or donkey would carry. Has anyone ever said in history "my scafold to support" (our modern equivelent) I do not think so.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
No. It is important to remember that Luke was written in the second century where such language was common among Christians, where the cross had become a specific icon, where Mark and Matthew had already circulated. The saying originally appears in Mark.
No. When it comes to the New Testament, there is not such thing as 'prophecy'. There is only interpretation.
Not as far as I'm aware of. This is because the authors of the narratives specifically wanted Jesus' death to reflect a role, which any good storyteller would not reveal too early in the narrative. Luke is taking this saying from Matthew and Mark, the originators of it. It's language that is hinting (foreshadowing) events.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
First the wording of taking up your cross appears at least 7 times I can find:
Matt 16:24, Matt 27:32, Mark 8:34, Mark 15:21, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27, Matt 10:38
and probably more in slightly different wording.
Irenaeus wrote of this in his books Against Heresies in about 180.
from chapter 3 - He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;"(5) and again, "Taking up the cross follow me;" see here.
This was about 150 years after the supposed events so there was plenty of time to take oral legends and wrongly interpret.
1- Crucifixion was a very degrading execution usually reserved for slaves and high treason, so probably not used commonly. see here.
2-The death of Yashua was not predicted. They try to use Psalm 22 and Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 to show it was predicted. Psalm 22 is King David whining about God rejecting him and the Isaiah quotes are about all of the people of Israel as "God's Suffering Servant".
See here for a long list After you read through some you'll see a pattern of how Christianity is trying to fit a square into a round hole. Some are about the messiah the Jews expected that was to lead them to establishing the Kingdom of God with the Jews in control, though most have no relationship and are taken out of context.
3- Yashua never said anything as he didn't write his own autobiography. Those that wrote the Gospels only say he said he would be executed, a safe assumption since he appears to have engaged in rebellion against Rome.
*edit* See Mark 9:30, Matt 17:22-23, and Luke 9:44 where Jesus foretold he would be killed, but not how.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Thanks for all of the replies. Very helpful and interesting. I really appreciate it.
Actually this method of torture/death had been around for a long time as far back as the Persians at least. As each empire was conquored by another it was refined and used. Alexander the Great used it to crucify one of his generals that disagreed with him. By Jesus' day the Romans had perfected it.
Folks here seem to be confusing Christianity with Catholicism. I see a lot of references to 'Christianity is wrong because...' and then a Catholic ritual, tradition or historical event is mentioned. That has to be ignored if you want the truth.
Catholicism is a part of Christianity. Christianity: The acceptance of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Guess what? Catholics are unanimous - Jesus is their Lord and Savior.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Uh no, actually it is not. They may call themselves Christians and many are I'm sure part of God's elect but DOCRTINALLY Catholicism has no part in being a follower of Christ. In 325 AD Constantine then emperor of Rome amalgamated Christianity with paganism to appease the barbarian hoards that were threatening Rome. He issued an edict of toleration at the Nicene council, took the pagan gods and renamed them. When the barbarians came to conquer they would notice these things. His idea was that everyone get along. The halo, for instance, is a symbol of sun worship. X-mas comes from fire and sun worship, it is not Jesus' birthday. Ask a Catholic about these things and any of their other traditions and most have no idea why they do them or how they got there. If they read their Catechism and Church history they would find out some things. Sorry, catholicism was not part of the early Church. The word Catholic itself means Universal, the Chruch is not Universal in that it includes every individual.
I see a lot of ignorance here on both sides of the arguments. Most posts do not use facts to back up their claims. I mainly see opinion and theory. Some of you are very good at backing up your claims, others are laughable at best. For example, the peson who asked if Adam named amoebas and bacteria. Please. That is a 'rational response'? 'Christians' that resort to name calling, anger posts, or say 'because it's in there' are not doing us any favors either.
For the record, I am a follower of Christ. I don't use the word Christian because I don't want to get lumped together with every individual that claims to be one, there's too much hypocrisy. Anyway 'Christian' is a blanket moniker and is used by anyone and everyone. There are Christians living in this country, this is not a Christian nation. The following have nothing to do with Christianity yet I have seen these mentioned all over this site:
x-mas, x-mas trees, and easter
pre-trib rapture
free will
accept Christ, sinner's prayer, walk the aisle, Roman's road
the beast (as a man)
any Catholic ritual
Thanks for letting me post, and replying.
Apologies, I also forgot to mention these:
the Talmud (Pharisees' opinion on what the law meant)
Saints (and statues thereof)
Santa Claus and Easter Bunny
Demons (same as fairies, genies, ghosts etc)
Since my password has not arrived in my email after several requests, I have to continue my post with a slightly altered name. I forgot the following to my aforementioned list:
Speaking in Tongues (the pentacostal way)
snake handling
Joseph Smith (the Mormon kind)
Hal Lindsay, Benny Hin, Oral Roberts, Joel Olestein, Billy Graham (Shall I go on?)
thanks
I thought I saw a Scottsman, but it turned out he was not a TRUE Scottsman.
Catholics are Christians. Sorry to burst your bubble. So are Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Laterday Saints, and the Amish. If you take Jesus as your Lord and Savior you are a Christian. I don't care if you disagree with me or not. This is why we define words. If you don't like definitions, I suggest you stop communicating. Get with the program, please.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Trying to say they are not "True Christians." TM
By the way, the Buybull mentions demons.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
your argument, if you can call it such, is comparable to saying a Common Goldeneye isn't a duck because it's common name doesn't include the word duck in it.
"A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
I prefer "Same shit, different smell".
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
I was under the correct assumption someone else would say that. Thanks, and I agree.
Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back
Laughable at best. I define words as well, and I didn't see one definition in any of these replies. Christianity is defined by the doctrine as laid out in the bible, not what someone 'thinks'. By your definition if Catholics all agreed to call themselves pink elephants then they are such becuase they say so. You need to get rid of your 21st century thinking. Read a book called 2 Babylons by Alexander Hislop or All Roads Lead To Rome.
Again, the Catholic Church and paganism have turned the correct word, daomon, (sp?) into something it's not. The word means to distribute fortunes, fulfill self. I'll post more on this later. The Exocist is fantasy, so is stigmata etc. Funny how all my other point were ignored and instead of returning with facts, I get made fun of. Typical. But I do enjoy the debate.
Is this your revenge on Pope Bendict XVI for claiming only Catholics belong to the "true church"?
You can have your opinion as to who meets your own constructed definition of a Christian, but unfortunately for you it does not agree with the one in use in the real world. You can call them false Christians, fake Christians, hypocrites, and pretend Chrisatians if you'd like.
I agree that those that claim to be Christian do not follow the alleged words of the man from whence the name supposedly originated. That does not mean they don't fit in the definition of the word Christian as used today.
You need to read far more on Constantine. Anything he did was for furthering his own ends, not because he believed in tolerance. Which gods did he rename into Christian gods? Mithra into Jesus is that what you suggest?
Actually I'm an ex-Catholic also ex- Lutheran and I'm very aware of where these traditions came from. Christmas is the B-day of Mithra, as well as all of the sun-gods as it was the Winter Solstice. Many of the ceromonial aspects to Christian worship are based on pagan rituals. Many try to claim the bread & wine ritual was from Mithra, but since Paul wrote it first it may have been the other way. Paul was involved in mystery religions as is clear from reading his letters. See : The Mythmaker by Hyam Maccoby
*Satire On*
Why would Catholics read anything regarding religion? Catholics don't even read their version of the Bible. The Church tells Catholics what is the correct belief and action. This keeps Catholics in better control than the Protestant technique of allowing anyone to interpret God's Word. I mean, look at you. You have your own view of the Jesus stories. That's just completely unacceptable. *Satire off*
The church clearly evolved and it adopted many ideas including the Trinity over the years. However, all of today's Christian beliefs were once part of the Catholic Church. If it had not been made the state religion by Constantine it would have died as most of the other mystic religions. The evolution of Christianity continued through time until the split in 1519 caused by Luther and Calvin. Your Jesus belief today is thanks to the Catholics.
I don't blame you at all. Many are exactly like you describe. Praise Jesus, ask for your support (this always means CASH) and bang the church secretary, or the male Meth hooker. If I were you I'd recycle a 1st century name such as the Ebionites.
X-mas trees - my pagan ancestors thank you for remembering.
Easter - all the fertility goddesses thank you
X-mas- China in general thanks you
Rapture - yeah right.
Free will - I'm sick of talking about this.
Accept Christ, sinner's prayer, yada, yada - I agree why accept Christ.
The beast - John was on a hallucingenic when he wrote
Any Catholic ritual - All theistic rituals are a waste
Pharisees - including Paul the deceiver.
Saints - Including the day of wandering saints in Matthew 27:52
Santa and the Eveready Bunny aren't real?
Demons - you've never met my ex-wife
Speaking in tongues - is a learned BS technique no more
Snakes - have a real purpose in our environment
Joseph Smith - cons work in many ways.
There is not room for all the BS theists on TV here.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
It is simplified and borrowed from Wikimedia Commons but
I wonder what this might look like in another 2000 years...
No revenge, just pointing out facts, not opinions.
Constantine - yes I am aware that there was much more to it than just tolerance, I only mentioned that part becuase it pertained to what I was referring to.
The fact that you know the background on the rituals etc is probably why you are an ex catholic. You are one person and saying 'i know where they come from' doesn't mean most catholics do.
you've responed to my 'list' above. SO you pretty much agree with me for th most part yes? I did say these things have no place in Christianity remember?
I will expand on my point later when I have more time, thanks.
Well I thought this would be much more fun but I am bored. I truly thought I'd get some intelligent debating here but instead I get:
'I don't care if you disagree with me or not.'
'I prefer "Same shit, different smell'
and the ever-popular 'I thought I saw a Scottsman, but it turned out he was not a TRUE Scottsman'
What happened to facts and logic? These are rational responses? I never even got to really get into it because you can't get past the 'Catholics are Christians' topic. Look at my original post, I used the word 'DOCTINALLY'. If they preach a doctrine different than what's written in the Bible, it's false doctrine, and therefore NON-CHRISTIAN!.
oh well...
You claim Jesus is the messiah.
Catholics have a lot of detailed BS they claim too.
Many other denominations have altered Catholic BS or have invented their own.
All of these groups claim to be Christian.
A Jesus believer from what I remember is like the Essenes, Ebionites, or the early church.
They rejected the BS of Paul the deceiver.
Are you suggesting you are one of the Jesus believers that is like the original Jerusalem Church?
This means you follow what James says in Acts or the Ebionites or similar. This would mean Jesus is the messiah but as James indicates all of the Jewish law still must be followed for Jews. If you are not a Jew then you can follow the Noahide Laws and add Jesus is the messiah. Is this what you are saying?
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Can these people answer your question or what??!! Terrific that anyone would take the time and effort and care anough to answer. Tough to find theses days!
POST~HOMINID PROTOTYPE
It appears that drp/stilldrp is a Calvinist (possibly of the hyper variety). It's understandable that he believes his religion is the ONLY one.
He's still wrong but I understand where he comes from.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You use the word claim, you just proved my point. Just because someone says they are something, doesn't mean they are. 'Yawn' Is this the best you have? Essenes have nothing to do with Jesus. Essenes may have followed a similar doctrine (there's that word again) but I would not call them 'Jesus followers'
Ok, last try: II Cor 11:3,4,13-15 But I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled (exapatao - seduce wholly) Eve through his subtility (panourgia - shrewd, clever, cunning), so your minds should be corrupted (phtheiro - deprave, ruin, defile) from the simplicity (haplos-singleness, implies pure or holy) that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth "another Jesus"-- (this is not the Jesus of the Bible that says we must take up our cross daily, deny (aparneomai - utterly contradict) ourselves, forsake all that we have or we cannot be his disciple - Luke 9:23;14:27,33) --whom we have not preached, or if ye receive "another spirit", (small s--the Holy Spirit is Truth - John 14:17, 15:26, & 16:13, 1 John 5:6-- They will preach another truth, which is not the truth at all, but a lie disguised as the truth) -- which ye have not received, or "another gospel",--the true gospel is death to the flesh/self and the resurrection daily in our mortal bodies - 1 Cor 15:1-4, 2 Cor 4:10-12,16,17 - The "other Jesus" requires no death to self, no daily cross, no self denial, but rather, this Jesus does not resurrect in us daily -- instead he says to us that we can "distribute fortunes" (daemon) to ourselves thus ruling our own flesh, setting our own rules and overthrowing (diabolos) the law of God in our lives -- this gospel is no gospel, that fulfills the flesh.) It is the devil's counterfeit gospel.-which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For such are false apostles deceitful (dolios- to live by trickery, decoy, guile) workers, transforming (metaschematizo - disguise or change) themselves into the apostles of Christ (It is the devil disguised as Jesus)--but it is another Jesus. And no marvel - for Satan himself is transformed (metaschematizo - disguised) into an angel of light.. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed (metaschematizo - disguised) as the ministers of righteousness: whose end shall be according to their works. (They will pass themselves off as truth-sayers when they are soothsayers.)
The word doctrine is the Greek word didache meaning "instruction". The devil's doctrine has always been the same. It says "cast God off the throne of your life"; you don't have to deny self in obedience to his word that says,"forsake all you have -- take no thought for your life what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink: nor yet for your body what ye shall put on."
The "instruction (doctrine) of the devil" never changes. It is always "distributing fortunes" and bowing to the god of this world who blinds mens' minds to the truth, lest the light of the "glorious gospel" (not the false gospel) should shine unto them (II Cor 4:4).
The preachers who preach that God wants his people to have the best that this world has to offer -- cars, houses, land, investments, European vacations, self-esteem, self indulgence, excessive luxury and catering to the flesh and all that self wants -- These are the preachers who have departed from the faith (faith is death to self -- which is believing God in opposition to self) and they are giving heed to doctrines of devils because they are seducers and impostors.
God's doctrine says -- Die!! Lose your life and gain Christ (Luke 9:24,25) The Devil's doctrine (instruction) says -- Live!! gain the whole world -- be comfortable -- be at ease -- prosper in the world -- He lies through his preachers saying, "This is what God wants for your life."
These evil teachers legalize the things (literal and material) of this world and call them godly. They "suppose" that the gain of this world is godliness. They continually assert these doctrines saying, "See how God has blessed me with things and cars and houses and lands and money and position and applause and self glory". These preachers are false apostles who have transformed (metaschematizo - disguised) themselves as apostles of Christ. Many of these leaders are Satan's children.
If you are looking for the doctrine of the devil, you look for someone who looks like Jesus and sounds religious but does not teach his doctrine of the daily cross and death to self. They look good but preach "distribute fortunes". The difference in Jesus of the Bible and another Jesus (the devil in disguise) is in their doctrines (instruction) -- either death to self or fulfill the flesh. Catholic DOCTRINE does not concur with the Bible. whether you believe the Bible or not, this is fact not opinion. Baptist DOCTRINE does not concur, nor does Methodist, shall I go on? The Bible teaches a world wide apostasy at the end of time, not a world wide revival where everyone 'gets saved'.
By the way, will someone tell Mattshizzle what a jot and tiddle are? Not that hard to look up sir! When you bring ignorance to this site you hurt the overall cause. I disagree with you all, obviously, but come on, use some facts will you please?
Yes, I have met many pretend Christians of all denominations. So what? What you have suggested is Christian means something else other than common usage. Common usage defines a Christian to be one that looks to Jesus as the messiah. You can deny all you'd like but Catholics are considered Christians.
My comment about Essenes, Ebionites and early believers was solely because you act like the "doctrine" of generally propagated Christianity was not your interpretation. I was trying to get you to explain your perspective. I know Essenes weren't per se "Jesus Believers".
I call Paul the deceiver for reasons. Just look at your interpretations.
1- Paul claims no one has preached a "true gospel" but him. Just who do you think was preaching another "gospel". Could it be the Jerusalem Church under James? Could it be Peter? Could it be the other false Jewish Moshiachs?
2 Cor 11:3-4 is but one of his rants about false teaching. His most explicit warning is Galatians 1:6-10 where even if an angel from heaven preaches another gospel he should be accursed. Is this delusional? Paul claims here even if God's angels not a fallen one tells them a gospel different than his it's false. It appears that even though he can never tell his revelation story the same way twice that his gospel is the only true one. Such an ego.
Paul contradicts himself in his supposed conversion in all accounts or his propaganda agent Luke does. Paul contradicts positions he promotes such as in 1 Tim 3 he appears to have no issue with marriage even for bishops and deacons. In 2 Tim 2:4 he says a good soldier of Christ should not be entangled with affairs of this life. In 1 Cor 7:1-9 he suggests it is better not to marry but if they must it is better than fornication.
In most places Paul speaks of Christ as a man. He says by one man came death (Adam) and by man (not the SOG) came also the resurrection of the dead, 1 Cor:15:21. When he calls Christ the son of god it may be the Jewish context which was common, all Jews were technically Sons of God. If you'd like to prove his context please feel free to try.
2-Paul's relationship with the Jerusalem Church. He shows he is subservient to James as the leader in Acts15:13-35. Yet again in Acts 21:18-26 he does as James instructs after being called on the carpet for his teaching to forsake the Law and Moses.
3-Following his arrest and his revelation he is a Roman there does not seem to be a relationship with the Jesus believers in the Jerusalem Church.
You need to bring evidence for "the devil" before you can discuss "doctrine" of the devil.
Assertion of a "doctrine" from an unproven entity.
True. Jesus taught give all away and follow me. This means the clothes on your back and little else.
These assertions have no evidence.
1-Provide evidence for God as you interpret first. Using the Bible as proof isn't going to be helpful.
2-Provide evidence God has such a "doctrine".
3-Provide evidence "the Devil" has actual existence.
4-Provide proof there is a "doctrine" propagated by the devil.
I agree they are evil and deceitful seeking self serving status and riches. I don't agree they are "Satan's children" as there is no proof of his existence.
I understand your basis in this statement is from Paul's writing. I consider Paul to be a deceiver and self serving. It is assertion to claim there is a doctrine of the devil being promoted by the self serving greed seeking evangelists. I agree they are self serving and greedy, taking advantage of believers. You can claim John's rant is the end of the world scenario if you'd like, but even it has judgments and separation. Catholics do not suggest "all will be saved" nor do the others. I consider John to be delusional ranting in his interpretation of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Enoch interspersed with Pauline influence.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
common - of or relating to a community at large. Greek Koinos - shared by all, profane, unholy, defiled, unclean. This is the context of the word. Just because something is 'in common use' doesn't make it true. The idea of the World being flat was in common use until it was proven otherwise. False doctrine or common doctrine is an abomination to God.
Paul - he said 'if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus WE preached.' He says WE, not I. He means he and the other apostles. It is true that he and Peter had disagreements but they reconciled later on.
Galatians - why is this a rant? The Galatian Church had issues and he was addressing them. The Jewish converts in that Church were trying to force the old Jewish traditions on the Gentile converts. Seems they still held to those even though they also believed in Jesus. He uses the example of the angel preaching simply to stress the importance of holding true to the Gospel. And again he uses the word WE not I.
Marriage - you're taking these verses out of context. You have to look at who is writing to. He says marraige is fine but if it is going to be a distraction then it's better not to. When a man marries, he becomes preoccupied with pleasing his wife and the worries of the world instead of preaching the Gospel.
Jesus was man, God in the flesh.
James - this was early on right after Paul's conversion, they did not yet trust Paul. Paul was before a murder of Christians. He was ashamed and humbled. Jasmes was one of the original 12 who was with Christ. Why would he not be subservient? Acts 21 is later on, there is a time factor here where Paul has grown. Not sure why you used this version to prove contradiction. PLease explain.
Not sure what you're getting at with #3 here.
Evidence - unfortunately this is where we have our biggest problem. I use the Bible as evidence and you refute it's validity. I can use facts and history but FAITH is the key here. Faith is the belief in something unseen. However, you have not presented any proof that God and the devil do not exist.
All will be saved - attend some churches and see if you don't here 'all will be saved' Today we have an easy gospel preached where anyone can 'join the club' SHow me a congregation that preaches repent or you'll go to hell, that God has predestined his elect Church (ekklesia - called out). It's the same political correctness going on in the world, and the same thing that Constantine put into practice in 325 AD. the world is steeped in Catholicicm whether they belive it or not. We are in, and have been in, the Apostacy at the end of time. Jesus said narrow is the way and few will enter. He said my sheep herar my voice. Not everyone is a sheep. Most are goats. The word for hear is the same word for obey. To hear is to obey. Show me a congregation that preaches thiat. Watch Billy Graham if you want to see a deceiveer.
General use of language means it is what people generally understand a word to mean. It is what you find in a dictionary. If this definition changes because the majority of people use a word in a different way the definition will change.
Christian Merriam-Webster - 1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
Christian Dictionary.com -
Stop inventing your own definition of words.
You don't know which other apostles so don't assume he means the 12. It is likely to be those who were his companions such as Timothy or Silas at this point. He already had developed bad blood with Barnabas by the time he wrote this letter. Acts 15:39 - "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: . . " in about 52 or 53 CE. Galatians was written in about 58 CE.
Exactly, which is what he was told to do by James in Acts 15:13-35 in about 51 CE before the issues with Barnabas. Paul didn't follow instructions from Jerusalem that to be a full believer they had to convert and follow Jewish laws. They of course could be a God fearing believer and follow the Noahide rules. See Also Genesis 9; Leviticus 17:10-16.
As I said, Jesus called himself the son of man. All Jews claim to be sons of God. Prove otherwise.
No this was not right after his conversion, that trip was in 35 CE as in Acts 9:26-31. He went to Jerusalem when he was summoned in Acts 15 in about 51 CE, 16 years later. You do not know your biblical history.
No this James was not one of the 12, but supposedly "the brother of the Lord", sometimes called James the Just, which may or may not be true.
James of the original 12 was executed in Acts 12:2 in about 44 CE. James "the brother of the Lord" aka "the Just" was killed in about 62 CE. Acts has nothing about his death, but Josephus details it. See Wiki
You really do not know your Biblical history.
You cannot assert that people are affected by an entity called Satan or the Devil without first providing proof he exists. Satan in the Bible is God's servant no more. There is no "war in heaven" in the Hebrew Bible where angels rebel. There is in Genesis 6 a number of "sons of God" that disobey but Satan isn't one of them. Prove your assertion of the Devil.
Exactly. You could start by first proving the Jews were wrong in their interpretation of the Mosiach.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Faith is just plain stupid. The burden of proof is always on the one claiming something exists because proving something does not is impossible.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
So if everyone started calling cats dogs, then cats become dogs because everyone says they are such? Here's another example. X-mas is in general use and commonly believed to be the birth of Christ but it most certainly is not. By your definition then x-mas is the birth of Christ, even though it may not have been before, but since it's in general use, it now becomes Jesus' birthday.
Spain is a Catholic country. I'm tired of this ridiculous argument. You have no idea about doctrine period. Since you do not believe, your mind is already closed.
boring.
Fuss and complain all you want but Christians are still those that claim to accept Jesus as the messiah.
I know December 25th is not the Bday of Christ but is adapted from the pagan festivals. It is the day Christians celebrate the birth of the more than likely mythical Jesus. So what?
Spain has Catholics and again, so what?
I'm aware of the differences in doctrine between supposed believers in Jesus. All are based on distortion of Jewish belief. Jewish beliefs are based on a volcano god and other myths and stories. No, I don't accept your interpretations because the basis of your argument is unproven. Bring evidence not assertion and interpretation.
You sure are.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.