Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Jesus


Abiyoyo

Recommended Posts

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

 

And how exactly does this show that the majority of law in this country is based on the bible? This shows a politician with a deistic leaning sucking up to the primarily christian constituency. Hell, even Clinton made sure to be seen at church.

 

 

Well. The influence is there, as to Benjamin's stance in affairs at that time. Also, He refered to a Biblical verse, of the New Testament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goodbye Jesus
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Abiyoyo

    18

  • mwc

    15

  • quicksand

    11

  • SkepticOfBible

    11

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin

"God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel" Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

Hehehe...just for fun!

 

Benjamin Franklin

 

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

 

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects of Christianity, we shall find that few have not in their turn been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves in England and America."

 

 

What year did he write that? The Convention was 3 years before his death.

 

 

Do you know how many times God, and His choosen leaders in the Ot said that the greatest of the commandments is to love the Lord with all thy heart, mind, and soul? Read up. It is there, and makes very clear sense Biblically. :Doh:

 

The leaders also said to follow to law completely. So why are you not doing so?

 

last time I checked, as a Gentile; I am only upheld to the Jerusalem Decree, as well as Christs teachings.

 

Christ clearly said that the law should be followed completely.

 

If you think you don't have to follow the law, well please tell that to this messianic jew who thinks otherwise

 

http://www.therefinersfire.org/challenging_christianity.htm

 

And when I said leaders, I meant the leaders of the Old Testament.

 

So. Question? The Levitical Law contained also the law in regards to sacrifices of certain animals and whatnot. correct. So, does that mean that the "messianic jew" pays no regard to what God said in Isaiah? About how He hates offerrings, and even goes as far to ask, " who told you to do this".

 

 

Your trying to put kittens with mountain lions. You cant mix the notion of historical influence of the Bible in general, with the simple perception that this current country, was influenced by the God of Israel, through Christ.

:scratch: I wish I understood what you just said here. :scratch:

 

This country was and still is influenced by people that believe the bible. It is also, and was, influenced by Unitarians, Universalists, Diests, etc... Even if they were all Christian, they knew enough to keep it out of government.

 

And I will repeat what I said earler...This county is influenced by people that believe in God, not by God directly. You claim this country "was influenced by the God of Israel, through Christ." Just because people like you believe this, doesn't make it true. All I see are believers of all faiths and non-believers influencing culture.

 

I believe in God...just not your perception of it.

 

Your simple perception of mountain lions is nothing more than kitties roaming all over this country. :grin:

 

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. Question? The Levitical Law contained also the law in regards to sacrifices of certain animals and whatnot. correct.

 

Indeed and there were specifics to sin sacrifice that needed to be completed, of which Jesus fulfilled zero requirement.

 

So, does that mean that the "messianic jew" pays no regard to what God said in Isaiah?About how He hates offerrings, and even goes as far to ask, " who told you to do this".

 

Err, the sacrficial system was installed by God. Btw the verse rebuts Jesus because God prefers compliance to the law rather than sin sacrifice.

 

So back to the orginal question

 

God clearly told the Isrealite that if they love him, then they should obey all of the law?So why are you not doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. The influence is there, as to Benjamin's stance in affairs at that time. Also, He refered to a Biblical verse, of the New Testament.

Are you arguing that the United States should be a theocracy? Otherwise, who the f cares floating, invisible being the founders believed in.

 

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

And somehow with all this Christian influence the Decalogue was ommitted from the Consitution. Um, YoYo, these men were by and large, lawyers. Lawyers argue in very specific terms. Jefferson, Adams specifically who wrote the Consitution and argued for it in a series of newspaper articles called the Federalist papers.

 

Don't you think that they wouldn't bother to make the Decalogue explicit in the Consitution?

 

So no YoYo, Jesus is not in the Consitution.

 

Always worth throwing this out again:

 

Treaty with Tripoli (1796)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

Remember this was written by Lawyers. Not the clergy (which Adams hated), not Jesus, not the pope, and not the Puritans –who were previously busy around that time having a grand 'ole time with their theocracy burning witches which gave Thomas Paine cause to write "The Age of Reason" as a reaction against a theocracy.

good.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. You forgot to highlight the "NOT" so that must mean we are a xian nation. YoYo wins! :HaHa:

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh oh. You forgot to highlight the "NOT" so that must mean we are a xian nation. YoYo wins! :HaHa:

 

mwc

Well then...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

 

...how that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better. :grin:

 

So what you're saying is that the USA isn't a xian nation? But the founding fathers all were. :lmao:

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last time I checked, as a Gentile; I am only upheld to the Jerusalem Decree, as well as Christs teachings.

So you don't have to follow the ten commandments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

God clearly told the Isrealite that if they love him, then they should obey all of the law?So why are you not doing that?

 

 

 

:woohoo: There you go! Thats the ticket. Should is the key word there. You just answered the question of why would God let Jesus come and die the way He did. You just said if the Jews loved Him, then they wouldve followed the law. Correct.

 

God knowing that, even the greatest of devoted elect of His, were still in unable to be perfect. So, just looking at the entirity of the storyline and theme, God sent Jesus as the only one that followed the law entirely until death.

 

As Paul said. Because of the law, we know sin.

 

Well. The influence is there, as to Benjamin's stance in affairs at that time. Also, He refered to a Biblical verse, of the New Testament.

Are you arguing that the United States should be a theocracy? Otherwise, who the f cares floating, invisible being the founders believed in.

 

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

And somehow with all this Christian influence the Decalogue was ommitted from the Consitution. Um, YoYo, these men were by and large, lawyers. Lawyers argue in very specific terms. Jefferson, Adams specifically who wrote the Consitution and argued for it in a series of newspaper articles called the Federalist papers.

 

Don't you think that they wouldn't bother to make the Decalogue explicit in the Consitution?

 

So no YoYo, Jesus is not in the Consitution.

 

Always worth throwing this out again:

 

Treaty with Tripoli (1796)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

Remember this was written by Lawyers. Not the clergy (which Adams hated), not Jesus, not the pope, and not the Puritans –who were previously busy around that time having a grand 'ole time with their theocracy burning witches which gave Thomas Paine cause to write "The Age of Reason" as a reaction against a theocracy.

 

 

 

:scratch: humm. That street goes both ways though. Here is something written on that perspective, where there is much also written on the opposite veiw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What year did he write that? The Convention was 3 years before his death.

Wiki says this:

 

The Autobiography (1817)

 

Various incomplete editions of this work were published from 1791 onwards; Franklin is known to have worked on it intermittently from 1771 to 1789.

So, it's not known for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last time I checked, as a Gentile; I am only upheld to the Jerusalem Decree, as well as Christs teachings.

So you don't have to follow the ten commandments?

 

 

Well, the Jerusalem decree was set forth for the Gentile population, as they were receiving the Holy Spirit; and the Jews didnt know what to do about it. So they gave them those limitations, which included Peters influence; whom supposedly was the one that would loose and bind whatever he let be on earth and heaven, through Christ.

 

Christ did say to the Jews that anyone that teaches otherwise is wrong, yet that was said to the Jews. Jesus still obeyed the Jewish heritage and went to the required places, yet He just did things to open the eyes of those that were stuck in the realm that the law alon would make them closer to God. Ex. If a jew was following all the physical law and had lustful thoughts about a woman, and didnt act on it, yet kept himself in thought; then he wasnt going againist the law. Jesus came around saying the opposite. Jesus did say that even if we look at a woman lustfully then we have already committed adultery, in which that would mean that every american here probualy has committed adultery.

 

The catch is that even though Jesus claimed hertage to the Father, He didnt judge. He even said that the Father judges, but if He were to judge, He would judge justly. That makes me think of the woman that was going to be stoned, the adulteress. Jesus said to the crowd, those without sin cast the first stone.

 

 

 

What year did he write that? The Convention was 3 years before his death.

Wiki says this:

 

The Autobiography (1817)

 

Various incomplete editions of this work were published from 1791 onwards; Franklin is known to have worked on it intermittently from 1771 to 1789.

So, it's not known for sure.

 

Well. Either way, its not a huge deal. I was just showing that there was supporting documentation, whatever the root theology may be; that the influence of a higher power was there.

 

I assume that it was from the God of Israel 1) because of Franklins quote of scripture 2) Because of the whole basis of religion and power from the country that early Americans came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last time I checked, as a Gentile; I am only upheld to the Jerusalem Decree, as well as Christs teachings.

So you don't have to follow the ten commandments?

 

 

Well, the Jerusalem decree was set forth for the Gentile population, as they were receiving the Holy Spirit; and the Jews didnt know what to do about it. So they gave them those limitations, which included Peters influence; whom supposedly was the one that would loose and bind whatever he let be on earth and heaven, through Christ.

 

Christ did say to the Jews that anyone that teaches otherwise is wrong, yet that was said to the Jews. Jesus still obeyed the Jewish heritage and went to the required places, yet He just did things to open the eyes of those that were stuck in the realm that the law alon would make them closer to God. Ex. If a jew was following all the physical law and had lustful thoughts about a woman, and didnt act on it, yet kept himself in thought; then he wasnt going againist the law. Jesus came around saying the opposite. Jesus did say that even if we look at a woman lustfully then we have already committed adultery, in which that would mean that every american here probualy has committed adultery.

 

The catch is that even though Jesus claimed hertage to the Father, He didnt judge. He even said that the Father judges, but if He were to judge, He would judge justly. That makes me think of the woman that was going to be stoned, the adulteress. Jesus said to the crowd, those without sin cast the first stone.

So christians don't have to follow the ten commandments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

 

Exactly WHICH laws are Christian laws enshrined within the Consitution. Please tell me.

 

And you better be specific.

 

 

___________

 

 

Your still arguing for a theocratic state, probably, so be damn explicit in your citations for the above question. And if you not arguing for a theocracy, then why bother? Oh, I know, you need it legitize your religion. Gotcha. I am so three-steps ahead of you I should be called prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one of the things the Constitution miss:

 

Ex 20:8-9 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy ...

 

Sabbath is on Saturday, if anyone wonder what day we're talking about, and not Sunday.

 

Ex 31:15 ... Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

 

Now, there are Christian book stores open on Saturdays. So should this 4th commandment from the 10 commandments be implemented or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one of the things the Constitution miss:

 

Ex 20:8-9 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy ...

 

Sabbath is on Saturday, if anyone wonder what day we're talking about, and not Sunday.

 

Ex 31:15 ... Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

 

Now, there are Christian book stores open on Saturdays. So should this 4th commandment from the 10 commandments be implemented or not?

Well "Blue Laws" on in the books in some counties and there are dry counties, too. But those laws are not enshrined in state consitutions, but in local ordinances...or (lets call a spade a spade here) local theocracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

 

Exactly WHICH laws are Christian laws enshrined within the Consitution. Please tell me.

 

And you better be specific.

___________

 

 

Your still arguing for a theocratic state, probably, so be damn explicit in your citations for the above question. And if you not arguing for a theocracy, then why bother? Oh, I know, you need it legitize your religion. Gotcha. I am so three-steps ahead of you I should be called prophet.

 

 

 

http://www.morallaw.org/declaration.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Jerusalem decree was set forth for the Gentile population, as they were receiving the Holy Spirit; and the Jews didnt know what to do about it. So they gave them those limitations, which included Peters influence; whom supposedly was the one that would loose and bind whatever he let be on earth and heaven, through Christ.

The Jerusalem Decree was more specifically about being circumcised and salvation. In the end it effectively dropped the Jewish provisions for Gentiles except for: abstaining from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. Of course when you actually look at what these things mean most xians aren't doing quite as good as job as they think they are.

 

The first is easy since not too many people are going to pagan temples anymore. So it's easy to refrain from eating the alter meat.

 

The second one, however, is being failed by every single xian who ever takes part in the communion ceremony. I'm not sure how jesus could institute such a ritual, show it to Paul as well and then have the spirit tell the Gentiles that it is okay to not do it because "blood" or the appearance of blood is a violation of this rule (so using wine or grape juice and simply saying the wine represents jesus' blood puts you in violation...sorry).

 

The third rule of strangulation, means that you must kill your meat in accordance with the Jewish rules. Can you guarantee that all the meat you consume has been killed properly? If not, you are in violation.

 

And last but not least, the fornication rule is not just sex but adultry. So, no sex with divorced people or by divorced people. Yes, I'm looking your way YoYo. You might still be married now but who knows what the future holds and I want to make sure that you stay true to your word and keep it in your pants as per this decree.

 

Ex. If a jew was following all the physical law and had lustful thoughts about a woman, and didnt act on it, yet kept himself in thought; then he wasnt going againist the law. Jesus came around saying the opposite. Jesus did say that even if we look at a woman lustfully then we have already committed adultery, in which that would mean that every american here probualy has committed adultery.

You do realize that some people believe that this only applies if the person doing the lusting is a man and he is knowingly lusting after a married woman, right? Otherwise he's in the free and clear. The point is it appears that several interpretations can be made depending on how someone wishes to interpret it. Obviously, you like to think that only Americans can look at women lustfully. I would say that most every straight man here has looked at woman lustfully and every man here has probably lusted after someone else at some point.

 

The catch is that even though Jesus claimed hertage to the Father, He didnt judge. He even said that the Father judges, but if He were to judge, He would judge justly. That makes me think of the woman that was going to be stoned, the adulteress. Jesus said to the crowd, those without sin cast the first stone.

What? Jesus judged non-stop. He called people vipers, fools and all sorts of judgemental things. Also, the story of that you speak of is a later insertion. That aside, they had every right to stone her under the law. The law was never about perfect people passing judgement on imperfect people so his point was moot and so is yours. The irony of "god" not knowing the purpose of his own law is truly mind blowing.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God knowing that, even the greatest of devoted elect of His, were still in unable to be perfect. So, just looking at the entirity of the storyline and theme, God sent Jesus as the only one that followed the law entirely until death.

So where does god say that you have to follow the law absolutely perfect? All those righteous people throughout the bible were unable to do it so you must be able to be righteous without following the law perfectly.

 

As Paul said. Because of the law, we know sin.

Well, Paul can easily be shown to...well, let's not call him an outright liar...let's say "twist" the truth to serve his own purposes. For example, what you just cite Paul as saying. That's a "twist." God gave the law to Moses to bring people closer to god. David praised god and the law since it brought him closer to god. The law is basically praised throughout the OT for how it brought people closer to god. Yet Paul alone demonizes the law and Paul alone is somehow right while everyone else is somehow wrong. How does that happen? How did the law going from being something to draw you to god to being something to show you how worthless you are? Why is it no one else managed to see this and god never mentioned it once (even in jesus form)? Why is it considered a blessing and why would it be brought back when god returns to rule if it is to only point out flaws? I think Paul's understanding of the law is what is flawed and by extension so is yours and most every other xians understanding is flawed as well.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go! Thats the ticket. Should is the key word there. You just answered the question of why would God let Jesus come and die the way He did. You just said if the Jews loved Him, then they wouldve followed the law. Correct.

 

Which some of them did. You don't do away with the stop sign just because some people break it.

 

God knowing that, even the greatest of devoted elect of His, were still in unable to be perfect.

 

Obviously you have not read your bible. The old testament clearly mentions that people were made righteous in front of God, such as Job, Noah, King David.

 

Even the your NT mentions a similar thing in the book of Luke

 

God sent Jesus as the only one that followed the law entirely until death.

Too bad even Jesus could not uphold the law at many times. He encouraged his disciples to break the sabbath, which itself a sin by itself.

 

Plus he taught others that all food is ok to eat, when Lev 11 states otherwise

 

 If a jew was following all the physical law and had lustful thoughts about a woman, and didnt act on it, yet kept himself in thought; then he wasnt going againist the law

Jesus did say that even if we look at a woman lustfully then we have already committed adultery, in which that would mean that every american here probualy has committed adultery..

 

Gee I guess his disciples forgot to remind him about that when he initated the blood drinking ritual?

 

Jesus said to the crowd, those without sin cast the first stone.

 

Too bad the law mentions no such thing

 

If he really followed the law as you claimed he did, he would have stoned her to death as the law demanded. He had no problem doing so to the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath, so why spare the women?

 

http://www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/sticksandstones.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

 

Exactly WHICH laws are Christian laws enshrined within the Consitution. Please tell me.

 

And you better be specific.

___________

 

 

Your still arguing for a theocratic state, probably, so be damn explicit in your citations for the above question. And if you not arguing for a theocracy, then why bother? Oh, I know, you need it legitize your religion. Gotcha. I am so three-steps ahead of you I should be called prophet.

 

 

 

http://www.morallaw.org/declaration.htm

 

YoYo are being purposely obtuse? I am asking you for what EXACTLY is in the Consitution that is Christian in origin. The language must be specific. Remember we are dealing with the founding law, the founding framework for which all other laws are derived from in our Democractic Republic.

 

This is site is Alamba's former Judge Roy Moore and his crusade to keep a religious symbol, a monument to the Ten C's outside his courtroom... which he lost. And some of the other most right-wing listed, ie theocratic cases and issues that religious bigots naturally rally around in a putsch to turn the USA in a theocracy. Are you telling me YoYo that you are aligning yourself with them?

 

Since this is the best you could come up with, you've lost the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else find it more than a little humorous that YoYo seems to be arguing that he, nor any Gentile xians, should be bound by the law under the Jerusalem Decree and yet he posts a link to a website arguing that the 10 commandments should be posted in government buildings? :grin:

 

I guess those Jews that come into court will appreciate it since no one else has a use for them, right YoYo? Oh, and which of the three sets of the 10 commandments should we make those Jews follow?

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those righteous people throughout the bible were unable to do it so you must be able to be righteous without following the law perfectly.

 

Unless YoYo wants to claim that David, Moses, Solomon and all the rest of the infamous characters are now burning in hell for being imperfect? If not, then it is pretty puts the christian position in a bind because imperfect can be saved. So the pretty God changed the rules for Jesus.

 

BTW hell has zero support for it from the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

Yoyo, I highly recommend you to read the Jewish position on the law and righteousness and the so called "perfection" claim of Christian theology, over here

 

http://p069.ezboard.com/fmessiahtruthfrm1....t=1&stop=20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if YoYo was taught anything like I was then those folks (Moses, etc.) did not go to Heaven but went to Hell but to the "good" part that was Paradise (it would be like the original garden). It was separated by the "bad" part by a rift of some sort so the truly damned couldn't get to it. When jesus died this is where he went to lead these folks to Heaven if they accepted him as their savior.

 

How does this make any real sense? It doesn't. You can cherry-pick enough verses to create the illusion this doctrine exists but like the trinity doctrine it's really nowhere to be found.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am referring to that paticular timeframe of the United States, and its leaders and contributors influence of the forming of what we still hold as our laws today.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

 

Exactly WHICH laws are Christian laws enshrined within the Consitution. Please tell me.

 

And you better be specific.

___________

 

 

Your still arguing for a theocratic state, probably, so be damn explicit in your citations for the above question. And if you not arguing for a theocracy, then why bother? Oh, I know, you need it legitize your religion. Gotcha. I am so three-steps ahead of you I should be called prophet.

 

 

 

http://www.morallaw.org/declaration.htm

 

 

YoYo, perhaps this escaped your steel trap mind, but the Declaration of Independence is NOT a law or body of laws. It was prior to the Constitution and has no bearing except as a historical document.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

http://www.morallaw.org/declaration.htm

 

 

YoYo, I read that link, but I couldn't find the words "jesus", "yahweh", "cross", "christ", "christian", or "christianity" anywhere. The ONLY deity mentioned is "Nature's God" and the "Supreme Judge" of the world. Those terms fit in perfectly with a Deist (or any other religion you may wish to follow), am I missing something here? How do you read that and conclude the founders wanted a XTIAN nation? :shrug:

 

Please explain.

:scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.