Prophecy Clarified

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa


Sorry but what does all your lovely statement have to do with Jesus wanting his enemies brought before him to be slain, killed or murdered?

PLENTY, when it was a PARABLE.

How many times do you have to be told to read my posts?

In other words, if the King James Version of the New Testament says something in English pretty clearly then if you don't understand something different than is clearly printed in Luke, you become an enemy of G-d.

I gave you a clearer idea of context assuming you would READ the first part in the first place. Since you did not, you wacked out the whole thing.

I already know about your desire to combat the "deceptive missionary techniques of evangelical Christian denominations and the Messianic movements".

Since I now know where you are coming from, I know now why you ignore my points. It comes from unwillingness to believe. -Not lack of proof.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
So I was given free will to accept Jesus or suffer eternal damnation? No one can prove there is such a thing

Running doesn't help.

and if this is Gods' idea of free will, I wonder how he feels about creating it in the first place. A test to see if what he created is worthy of him? Odd game.

Not a game at all. We were created with a purpose. Would you think otherwise?

Our purpose was to be companions with Him. We messed that up. Now we either choose to come back or be terminated.

Rather logical, when you think about it, and you still have free will.

 

[dilloduck]

where did I say I was running? I just said there was no proof of eternal damnation. Created for a purpose? Who knows? You say I exist to be Gods' buddy. And if I don't act right he will condemn me to eternal damnation. Sounds mean. Would he REALLY do that to me?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
where did I say I was running? I just said there was no proof of eternal damnation. Created for a purpose? Who knows? You say I exist to be Gods' buddy. And if I don't act right he will condemn me to eternal damnation. Sounds mean. Would he REALLY do that to me?

How do you make it to school/work every morning?

The way you ask questions in flurries without thought to previous topics of discussion begs total disregard for your presence.

Everytime I answer your questions, you come back later with the same ones.

I am getting tired of this. Answer them yourself.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by NewGuy
How do you make it to school/work every morning?

The way you ask questions in flurries without thought to previous topics of discussion begs total disregard for your presence.

Everytime I answer your questions, you come back later with the same ones.

I am getting tired of this. Answer them yourself.

I'm sorry you're getting tired of this but you never answer this question. Thats why i ask it repeatedly. The "flurries" you refer to are other attempts at getting answers other than "read the bible". I have read it. I'm asking YOU. Answer them myself?? I thought I had to answer them your way or go to hell.

 

[freeandfun1]

That is probably the best answer yet! As I mentioned in another thread, it has become obvious to me that dillo likes to argue in an attempt to boost his obviously low self-esteem.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
That is probably the best answer yet! As I mentioned in another thread, it has become obvious to me that dillo likes to argue in an attempt to boost his obviously low self-esteem.

and the Christians resort to insults in effort to--------?

 

[freeandfun1]

if you consider that an insult, well..... what can I do about it?

I was making an observation.

If you disagree, outline why? You ask questions only to start a disagreement. We have learned from your ongoing actions, so have decided to no longer participate. You offer no substance and are just argumentative. There is a big difference between debating positions and just arguing.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

No. I said, very clearly, they are ONE God, -three parts of one and the same. Not GODS, but GOD. I already said that.

Sorry but seem to have lost count of those gods again. Let me do the math again: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Which god did you say that Jesus was praying to?

You are really being a troll now.

Sorry for your having to call names again but you are being so helpful in my understanding of your faith with your excellent replies.

I told you, and if you would read the Bible instead of taking verses out of context, you would see Mary was already a believer and she was a Jew. She was already His "chosen". In addition, when Jesus walked the earth, this new "marriage of sorts" as you are again trying to take out of context, did not take effect until after He died.

Now you have me confused again. Let's see what you are trying to say. Mary was a Jew and already a believer but what religion did she believe in before the immaculate conception (impregnation) of her son out of wedlock?

So you say this 'marriage of sorts' took place until after Jesus was crucified, died on the cross and was risen. Am I taking this out of context too? I just heard that France has just passed a law in which a person has the right to marry someone who has already died. Is that what you are talking about?

I JUST POSTED THE VERSES. Do you not read?

Yes I read your verses but they did not seem to have an relevance to the question either in or out of context.

Who said He did? No reference anywhere points to God needing a guide, and nowhere did I claim such a thing either.

Please allow me to quote your own sentence referencing the one who GUIDES us all to the truth: "Jesus called him the Spirit of Truth, the one who guides us into all the truth and glorifies both the Father and the Son."

You really do a fantastic job taking Bible scripture and making it whatever you want.

You do too.

He was "born under the Law." The historical parameters of the Jewish Law were cancelled by His redemptive and restorational work (3:19), He was born a Jewish male in the context of the old covenant Judaic law jurisdiction.

Is that like the New Testament redemptive and restorational work being cancelled out by Joseph Smith and his meeting with Jesus in Philadelphia, USA? The Mormons say exactly that as well.

Jesus was circumcised according to the Law (Lk. 2:21), was taught the Torah, and went to synagogue. He knew from personal experience the bondage of that performance-based system of Law, even though He lived perfectly "without sin" (II Cor. 5:21).

Interesting take on a sinless Jesus. You say that Jesus was taught the Torah and went to the synagogues where he learned the law and taught it himself. He must have known that killing of any living thing without good reason is a sin against the Father. Why did Jesus kill the fig tree when it had no fruit and he was hungry and why did Jesus kill the innocent swine in whom he chased the demons out of the men? Do you mean like that?

1. It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what is PROPHECY, and what is God's will. In this case, both are overshadowing.

Yep depending on whether you believe in the G-d who created everything and is timeless or you believe in an out-of-wedlock son in whom claims were made in his name of being a god with some form of divinity.

2. What you throw out as a supposition in our time with non-believing attitudes predominating, do not necessarily apply to a Jewish culture to believers in a more traditional world.

WHAT????

Who said it was? Again, you suppose something nobody has information on. Who said it wasnt a cloning process? DNA and egg. Not too difficult to slip a piece of DNA in there if you can walk on water or create the world in 6 days, is it?

Then you are taking the immaculate conception creation out of context and define the process as you wish? I can't walk on water but I can fly in an airplane and I can ski on water without falling into the water. As for the six days of creation, you must know that the sun wasn't created until the third day so how would you have a twenty-four hour earth day unless you understood about the Quantum physics of time, gravity and space. Another of the Creator's miracles.

Because they are ONE. I already pointed you to the verses about nobody coming to the Father but through Jesus. Again, you aren't reading.

Really I am reading the verses but they still don't point to one god instead of a tri-une god grouping of gods who do stuff for one another. As for Jesus learning his birth religion, he knew very well that in his original bible he studied, there is no intermediary between each man and woman and their G-d. Jesus went directly to his G-d just like everyone else does to this very day.

Are you even listening?

Very closely......

How the heck can you ignore answers to your questions and continue to ask more?

I'm sorry but when you answer my questions with responses totally unrelated or with irrelevant bible verses, what else am I to do?

I guess I must be right. Trinity, bub....Get over it.

I am over it BUB... I too believe in G-d but the same one that Jesus believed and prayed to daily.

Why should I give you anything further? You cannot read what I have given you so far. I will not cast pearls before swine. If you want a decent discussion, read the points that are made and think about them. We can go further after that.

Yes it is hard to answer responses that simply don't agree with your own preconceived ideas and lessons taught to you as a child. You might want to think that those pearls have been cast before swine and were gobbled up by same. Listen, you are entitled to believe in your faith with all your heart and faith. You needn't have to do good deeds or live a life of goodness or mercy as you are saved by the shed blood of Jesus.

But when your proselitizing buddies try to convert others by PRETENCE then you are treading on G-d's territory.

TaTa For Now.....

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
if you consider that an insult, well..... what can I do about it?

I was making an observation.

If you disagree, outline why? You ask questions only to start a disagreement. We have learned from your ongoing actions, so have decided to no longer participate. You offer no substance and are just argumentative. There is a big difference between debating positions and just arguing.

you observed that I argue due to low self esteem? Where did you see that? I have offered substance and you reject it. You MUST reject it as you feel any belief other than yours to be wrong. When I challenge a viewpoint in the form of a question you hestitate to answer. When I ask again you accuse me of not accepting the answers THAT YOU NEVER GAVE.

 

[freeandfun1]

blah blah blah blah

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
No. I said, very clearly, they are ONE God, -three parts of one and the same. Not GODS, but GOD. I already said that.

Sorry but seem to have lost count of those gods again. Let me do the math again: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Which god did you say that Jesus was praying to?

You are again ignoring my posts.

You are really being a troll now.

Sorry for your having to call names again but you are being so helpful in my understanding of your faith with your excellent replies.

I did not call you a name, I told you your behavior was as a term defined by the board.

I told you, and if you would read the Bible instead of taking verses out of context, you would see Mary was already a believer and she was a Jew. She was already His "chosen". In addition, when Jesus walked the earth, this new "marriage of sorts" as you are again trying to take out of context, did not take effect until after He died.

Now you have me confused again. Let's see what you are trying to say. Mary was a Jew and already a believer but what religion did she believe in before the immaculate conception (impregnation) of her son out of wedlock?

I have confused you? Read the text. You should be proving all things as scripture dictates. Mary WAS a believer. -In God, and His son coming back to save mankind. Why do you think her reaction was the way it was?

So you say this 'marriage of sorts' took place until after Jesus was crucified, died on the cross and was risen. Am I taking this out of context too? I just heard that France has just passed a law in which a person has the right to marry someone who has already died. Is that what you are talking about?

Nice. Refusing to read scripture combined with current day politics to try to prove a point of being able to invalidate scripture is not quite logical.

I JUST POSTED THE VERSES. Do you not read?

Yes I read your verses but they did not seem to have an relevance to the question either in or out of context.

Yes, they did.
You DID NOT READ.

Who said He did? No reference anywhere points to God needing a guide, and nowhere did I claim such a thing either.

Please allow me to quote your own sentence referencing the one who GUIDES us all to the truth: "Jesus called him the Spirit of Truth, the one who guides us into all the truth and glorifies both the Father and the Son."

EXACTLY. "US". -Not God.

You really do a fantastic job taking Bible scripture and making it whatever you want.

You do too.

Right. Too bad you haven't proven that.

He was "born under the Law." The historical parameters of the Jewish Law were cancelled by His redemptive and restorational work (3:19), He was born a Jewish male in the context of the old covenant Judaic law jurisdiction.

Is that like the New Testament redemptive and restorational work being cancelled out by Joseph Smith and his meeting with Jesus in Philadelphia, USA? The Mormons say exactly that as well.

Is that supposed to be a disproving?

Jesus was circumcised according to the Law (Lk. 2:21), was taught the Torah, and went to synagogue. He knew from personal experience the bondage of that performance-based system of Law, even though He lived perfectly "without sin" (II Cor. 5:21).

Interesting take on a sinless Jesus. You say that Jesus was taught the Torah and went to the synagogues where he learned the law and taught it himself. He must have known that killing of any living thing without good reason is a sin against the Father. Why did Jesus kill the fig tree when it had no fruit and he was hungry and why did Jesus kill the innocent swine in whom he chased the demons out of the men? Do you mean like that?

1.The true crime of the fig tree was in not bearing fruit (Jesus is full of compassion and love) - it had just passed winter. The tree would have been surrounded by other fig trees with no leaves, this tree was regaled in its leafy splendour but was full of empty promises - hypocrisy.
2. The swine ran into the water. That was not Jesus killing them. Nice of you to twist scripture again:

Mark 5: 11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.
12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.
13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.

1. It doesn't matter what I think, it matters what is PROPHECY, and what is God's will. In this case, both are overshadowing.

Yep depending on whether you believe in the G-d who created everything and is timeless or you believe in an out-of-wedlock son in whom claims were made in his name of being a god with some form of divinity.

Then we agree on one point. PRophecy and God are what is important, not what I or YOU think. Maybe you should be looking for proof in the Bible as to see if what I am saying IS fact.

2. What you throw out as a supposition in our time with non-believing attitudes predominating, do not necessarily apply to a Jewish culture to believers in a more traditional world.

WHAT????

Apply more than a 3 second attention span, and you will figure it out.

Who said it was? Again, you suppose something nobody has information on. Who said it wasnt a cloning process? DNA and egg. Not too difficult to slip a piece of DNA in there if you can walk on water or create the world in 6 days, is it?

Then you are taking the immaculate conception creation out of context and define the process as you wish?

Actually, you did that. I helped give you a possibility that made your idea actually possible. -Thus showing a valid potential explaination for Biblical scriptural proof which you claim to not see as proof.

I can't walk on water but I can fly in an airplane and I can ski on water without falling into the water. As for the six days of creation, you must know that the sun wasn't created until the third day so how would you have a twenty-four hour earth day unless you understood about the Quantum physics of time, gravity and space. Another of the Creator's miracles.

Adress that in another thread so you don't create so much flurrying BS no one else can follow.

Because they are ONE. I already pointed you to the verses about nobody coming to the Father but through Jesus. Again, you aren't reading.

Really I am reading the verses but they still don't point to one god instead of a tri-une god grouping of gods who do stuff for one another.

That is because you have not requested those specific verses. You are now jumping around like a flipping Jehovas witness.

As for Jesus learning his birth religion, he knew very well that in his original bible he studied, there is no intermediary between each man and woman and their G-d. Jesus went directly to his G-d just like everyone else does to this very day.

I said that. You ignored my statements.

Are you even listening?

Very closely......

To WHO?

How the heck can you ignore answers to your questions and continue to ask more?

I'm sorry but when you answer my questions with responses totally unrelated or with irrelevant bible verses, what else am I to do?

Nobody else on this board reading what I have posted could possibly say that in all seriousness. IF you want to play these games, go play with someone else.

I guess I must be right. Trinity, bub....Get over it.

I am over it BUB... I too believe in G-d but the same one that Jesus believed and prayed to daily.

Not by what you claim.

Why should I give you anything further? You cannot read what I have given you so far. I will not cast pearls before swine. If you want a decent discussion, read the points that are made and think about them. We can go further after that.

Yes it is hard to answer responses that simply don't agree with your own preconceived ideas and lessons taught to you as a child.

-And at what age did I get these pre-concieved notions as a child?

Again, you are proving your ignorance.

You might want to think that those pearls have been cast before swine and were gobbled up by same.

Yes, apparently they have.

Listen, you are entitled to believe in your faith with all your heart and faith.

Believe in my faith with faith?

You needn't have to do good deeds or live a life of goodness or mercy as you are saved by the shed blood of Jesus.

Actually, good works are a proof of faith.

But when your proselitizing buddies try to convert others by PRETENCE then you are treading on G-d's territory.

TaTa For Now.....

Spoken as one who must know.

To bad you cannot understand scripture, read posts, or understand responses to your questions.

 

[Mustafa]

To argue your Gospel scripture written in Greek, retranslated into Latin and into English is much like debating the wind. You take the New Testament as gospel even though it has been done in many versions by many different sources; ie King James of England.

Have You Heard of the Origins of Roman Christianity Before?


The faithful referred to Mithras (REMEMBER, 4000 years ago!) as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. According to Persian mythology, Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The god remained celibate throughout his life, and valued self-control, renunciation and resistance to sensuality among his worshippers. Mithras represented a system of ethics in which brotherhood was encouraged in order to unify against the forces of evil.

The worshippers of Mithras held strong beliefs in a celestial heaven and an infernal hell. They believed that the benevolent powers of the god would sympathize with their suffering and grant them the final justice of immortality and eternal salvation in the world to come. They looked forward to a final day of judgement in which the dead would resurrect, and to a final conflict that would destroy the existing order of all things to bring about the triumph of light over darkness.

Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the god. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the god was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this god had been accomplished, he took part in a Last Supper with his companions before ascending to heaven, to forever protect the faithful from above.

However, it would be a vast oversimplification to suggest that Mithraism was the single fore-runner of early Christianity. Aside from Christ and Mithras, there were plenty of other deities (such as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus) said to have died and resurrected. Many classical heroic figures, such as Hercules, Perseus, and Theseus, were said to have been born through the union of a virgin mother and divine father. Virtually every pagan religious practice and festivity that couldn't be suppressed or driven underground was eventually incorporated into the rites of Gentile Christianity as it spread across Europe and throughout the world.

The Lord's supper was not invented by Paul, but was borrowed by him from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. Paul's "home-town" was Tarsus, from where Mithraism began. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected.

Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

Originally Mithra was one of the lesser gods of the ancient Persian pantheon, but he came to be regarded as the spiritual Sun, the heavenly Light, and the chief and also the embodiment of the seven divine spirits of goodness; and already in the time of Jesus he had risen to be co-equal with, though created by, Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda), the Supreme Being [J.M. Robertson, /Pagan Christs/, p. 290.], and Mediator between him and man [Plutarch, /Isis et Osiris/, ch. 46; Julian, /In regem solem/, chs. 9, 10, 21.]. He appears to have lived an incarnate life on earth, and in some unknown manner to have suffered death for the good of mankind, an image symbolizing his resurrection being employed in his ceremonies [Tertullian, /Praescr/., ch. 40.]. Tarsus, the home of Paul, was one of the great centers of his worship, being the chief city of the Cilicians; and, as will presently appear, there is a decided tinge of Mithraism in the Epistles and Gospels. Thus the designations of Jesus as the Dayspring from on High [Luke, i. 78.], the Light [2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. v. 13, 14; I. Thess. v. 5; etc.], the Sun of Righteousness [Malachi iv. 2]; and much used in Christianity, and similar expressions, are borrowed from or related to Mithraic phraseology.

Mithra was born from a rock [Firmicus, /De errore/, xxi.; etc.], as shown in Mithraic sculptures, being sometimes termed ''the god out of the rock'', and his worship was always conducted in a cave; and the general belief in the early Church that Jesus was born in a cave is a direct instance of the taking over of Mithraic ideas. The words of Paul, "They drank of that spiritual rock ... and that rock was Christ'' [I Corinthians x. 4.] are borrowed from the Mithraic scriptures; for not only was Mithra "the Rock'', but one of his mythological acts, which also appears in the acts of Moses, was the striking of the rock and the producing of water from it which his followers eagerly drank. Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /Dial. with Trypho/, ch. 70.] complains that the prophetic words in the Book of Daniel [Daniel ii. 34.] regarding a stone which was cut out of the rock without hands were also used in the Mithraic ritual; and it is apparent that the great importance attached by the early Church to the supposed words of Jesus in regard to Peter -- "Upon this rock I will build my church" [Matthew xvi. 18.] -- was due to their approximation to the Mithraic idea of the /Theos ek Petras/, the "God from the Rock''. Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian "Rock'', was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

The chief incident of Mithra's life was his struggle with a symbolical bull, which he overpowered and sacrificed, and from the blood of the sacrifice came the world's peace and plenty, typified by ears of corn. The bull appears to signify the earth or mankind, and the implication is that Mithra, like Jesus, overcame the world; but in the early Persian writings Mithra is himself the bull [J.M. Robertson, /Pagan Christs/, p. 298.], the god thus sacrificing himself, which is a close approximation to the Christian idea. In later times the bull is interchangeable with a ram; but the zodiacal ram, Aries, which is associated with Mithra, was replaced by a lamb in the Persian zodiac [Bundahish, ii. 2.], so that it is a lamb which is sacrificed [Garucci, /Les Myste`res du Syn. Phrygien/, p. 34.], as in Easter concept of Jesus. That this sacrifice had originally a human victim, and that it later involved the idea of the sacramental death of a human being, is clear from the fact that the Church historian, Socrates, believed that human victims were still sacrificed in the Mithraic mysteries down to some period before A.D. 360 [Socrates, /Eccles. Hist., bk. iii., ch. 2.].

Thus the paramount Christian idea of the sacrifice of the lamb of God was one with which every worshipper of Mithra was familiar; and just as Mithra was an embodiment of the seven spirits of God, so the slain Lamb in the Book of Revelation has seven horns and seven eyes "which are the seven spirits of God'' [Revelation v. 6.]. Early writers say that a lamb was consecrated, killed, and eaten as an Easter rite in the Church; but Easter was a Mithraic festival [Macrobius, /Saturnalia/, i. 18.], presumably of the resurrection of their god, and the parallel is thus complete, in which regard it is to be noted that in the Seventh Century the Church endeavored without success to suppress the picturing of Jesus as a lamb, owing to the paganism involved in the idea [Bingham, /Christian Antiq./, viii. 8, sec. 11; xv. 2, sec. 3.].

The ceremonies of purification by the sprinkling or drenching of the novice with the blood of bulls or rams were widespread, and were to be found in the rites of Mithra. By this purification a man was "born again" [Beugnot, /Hist. de la Dest. Du Paganisme/, i. p. 334.], and the Christian expression "washed in the blood of the Lamb" is undoubtedly a reflection of this idea, the reference thus being clear in the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins". In this passage the writer goes on to say: "Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh ... let us draw near ... having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water" [Hebrews x. 19.]. But when we learn that the Mithraic initiation ceremony consisted in entering boldly into a mysterious underground "holy of holies", with the eyes veiled, and there being sprinkled with blood, and washed with water, it is clear that the author of the Epistle was thinking of those Mithraic rites with which everybody at that time must have been so familiar.

Another ceremony in the religion of Mithra was that of stepping across a channel of water, the hands being entangled in the entrails of a bird, signifying sin, and of being "liberated" on the other side; and this seems to be referred to by Paul when he says: "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" [Galatians v. 1.].

Tertullian [Tertullian, /Praescr./, ch. 40.] states that the worshippers of Mithra practiced baptism by water, through which they were thought to be redeemed from sin, and that the priest made a sign upon the forehead of the person baptized; but as this was also a Christian rite, Tertullian declares that the Devil must have effected the coincidence for his wicked ends. "The Devil'', he also writes, "imitates even the main parts of our divine mysteries", and "has gone about to apply to the worship of idols those very things of which the administration of Christ's sacraments consists".

In this rite he must be referring both to the baptismal rite and also to the Mithraic eucharist, of which Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /1 Apol./, ch. 66.] had already complained when he declared that it was Satan who had plagiarized the ceremony, causing the worshippers of Mithra to receive the consecrated bread and cup of water. The ceremony of eating an incarnate god's body and drinking his blood is, of course, of very ancient and originally cannibalistic inception, and there are several sources from which the Christian rite may be derived, if, as most critics think, it was not instituted as an actual ceremony by Jesus; but its connection with the Mithraic rite is the most apparent.

The worshippers of Mithra were called "Soldiers of Mithra", which is probably the origin of the term "Soldiers of Christ'' and of the exhortation to Christians to "put on the armour of light" [Romans xiii. 12. Compare also Ephesians vi. 11, 13.], Mithra being the god of Light. As in Christianity, they recognized no social distinctions, both rich and poor, freemen and slaves, being admitted into the Army of the Lord. Mithraism had its austerities, typified in the severe initiation rites endured by a "Soldier of Mithra"; and the Epistle to Timothy, similarly, exhorts the Christian to "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ" [2 Timothy ii. 3.]. It also had its nuns and its male celibates [Tertullian, /Prascr./, ch. 40.]; and one of its main tenets was the control of the flesh and the repudiation of the world, this being symbolized in the initiation ceremony, whereat a crown was offered to the novice, who had to reject it, saying, as did the Christians, that it was to a heavenly crown that he looked. We hear, too, of hymns which could be used with equal propriety by Christians and Mithraists alike [/Rev. Arch./, vol. xvii. (1911), p. 397.]. The Mithraic worship always took place in caves, these being either natural or artificial. Now the early Christians, openly and for no reasons of secrecy or security, employed those subterranean rock chambers known as catacombs both for their burials and for public worship. Like the Mithraic caves, these catacombs were decorated with paintings, amongst which the subject of Moses striking the rock, which, as I have said above, has a Mithraic parallel, is often represented. The most frequent theme is that of Jesus as the Good Shepherd; and although it is generally agreed that the figure of Jesus carrying a lamb is taken from the statues of Hermes Kriophoros [Pausanias, iv. 33.], the kid-carrying god, Mithra is sometimes shown carrying a bull across his shoulders, and Apollo, who, in his solar aspect and as the patron of the rocks [/Hymn to the Delian Apollo./], is to be identified with Mithra, is often called "The Good Shepherd". At the birth of Mithra the child was adored by shepherds, who brought gifts to him [/Encyc. Brit./, 11th ed., vol. xvii., p. 623.].

The Hebrew Sabbath having been abolished by Christians, the Church made a sacred day of Sunday, partly because it was the day of the resurrection, but largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance. But, as a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as /Dominus/, "Lord'', Sunday must have been "the Lord's Day" long before Christian times. December 25th was the birthday of the sun-god, and particularly of Mithra, and was only taken over in the Fourth Century as the date, actually unknown, of the birth of Jesus.

 

[NewGuy]

To argue your Gospel scripture written in Greek, retranslated into Latin and into English is much like debating the wind. You take the New Testament as gospel even though it has been done in many versions by many different sources; ie King James of England.

I accept your admission of forfeit.

Greek IS the original written language the New Testament text is in.

I can and DO verify my understanding of Biblical text square with Greek.

OCA can attest to that. As being Greek, when I have posted verses and shown original Greek, he has verified.

I have compared the following versions as well:

NIV
NKJV
KJV
NWT
NLT
and everything Wescott and Hort have modified down the chain.

I know full well wether my understanding is in collaboration with original text or not.

Anything not based on the Textus Receptus is not totally accurate.

I come from a point of being fully educated with my point of view.

Just because you can point to a parallel religion of the time the Bible New Testament was created, doesn't mean that the two are the same.

By your logic, a mormon is a jehova's witness, is a lutheran.

By relevant timeline, that is what you are summarizing.

This also does not adress the Biblical doctrine of using God's word to prove its self as I have shown it does. Your refusal to read and go that route have brought you to a point of believing a lie that some parallel religion of the time MUST be Biblical doctrine simply because it existed at the same point in time.

That is not logical, factual, and requires more blind faith than proving the Bible with its self.

 

[dilloduck]

If Jesus spoke Greek instead of Aramaic this all would be so much simpler.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
If Jesus spoke Greek instead of Aramaic this all would be so much simpler.

Agreed.

 

[Mustafa]

Originally posted by NewGuy

To cede to an apponent when debating one's faith is noble as there is no one who can win when both are stalemated.

Greek IS the original written language the New Testament text is in. I can and DO verify my understanding of Biblical text square with Greek. OCA can attest to that. As being Greek, when I have posted verses and shown original Greek, he has verified.

Nice to have a Greek verify that your interpretation agrees with the original text even though there is no original copy of the gospels that were written by the unknown authors of these books.

For a good Greek word for word translation from English to Greek, check the following site.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1085687797-7564.html#18

I have compared the following versions as well:

NIV
NKJV
KJV
NWT
NLT
and everything Wescott and Hort have modified down the chain.

I know full well wether my understanding is in collaboration with original text or not.

Good for you.

Anything not based on the Textus Receptus is not totally accurate. I come from a point of being fully educated with my point of view.

That too is good but if you had a copy of the original gospels. But alas there is none known.

Just because you can point to a parallel religion of the time the Bible New Testament was created, doesn't mean that the two are the same. By your logic, a mormon is a jehova's witness, is a lutheran.

I am not attempting to make a parallel comparison to Christianity. You must know the history of your faith from a realistic point of view instead of just accepting everything by faith alone. Christianity came into its zenith with Constantine, Roman emperor. St. Paul said it best, to the Jew I became a Jew and to the pagan I became a pagan to get people to come to the belief in Christ.

Christianity has had to incorporate many pagan beliefs into the body of the religion so that many different peoples would accept this new faith. The Romans came with their old religion of Mythra and its very similar beliefs that you accept as fact today. The Christmas tree is not mentioned in the New Testament gospels and yet it to is from pagan rites of the renewal of growth cycle.

By relevant timeline, that is what you are summarizing.
This also does not adress the Biblical doctrine of using God's word to prove its self as I have shown it does. Your refusal to read and go that route have brought you to a point of believing a lie that some parallel religion of the time MUST be Biblical doctrine simply because it existed at the same point in time. That is not logical, factual, and requires more blind faith than proving the Bible with its self.

Not at all...... Every religion has a god whose religious doctrines prove themselves to the believers. The Mythra religion existed many years before Christ's arrival on earth. The New Testament Gospels follow many religious story lines that existed before Christ.

Keep your faith close to you for to deny Christ would mean that you would have to give up your salvation from your sins. There is no way I want to take that away from you.

I hope you are taken up in the rapture when Christ comes back.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Mustafa
To cede to an apponent when debating one's faith is noble as there is no one who can win when both are stalemated.

I countered your falsities with evidence and proof. There is no stalemate.

Greek IS the original written language the New Testament text is in. I can and DO verify my understanding of Biblical text square with Greek. OCA can attest to that. As being Greek, when I have posted verses and shown original Greek, he has verified.

Nice to have a Greek verify that your interpretation agrees with the original text even though there is no original copy of the gospels that were written by the unknown authors of these books.

You keep saying that and yet I have shown you wrong.

For a good Greek word for word translation from English to Greek, check the following site.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1085687797-7564.html#18

I have been there before. They are worthy of me referencing, but they are not the only source.

Anything not based on the Textus Receptus is not totally accurate. I come from a point of being fully educated with my point of view.

That too is good but if you had a copy of the original gospels. But alas there is none known.

Been there, done that.

Just because you can point to a parallel religion of the time the Bible New Testament was created, doesn't mean that the two are the same. By your logic, a mormon is a jehova's witness, is a lutheran.

I am not attempting to make a parallel comparison to Christianity. You must know the history of your faith from a realistic point of view instead of just accepting everything by faith alone. Christianity came into its zenith with Constantine, Roman emperor. St. Paul said it best, to the Jew I became a Jew and to the pagan I became a pagan to get people to come to the belief in Christ.

Adopting a culture is not replacing your faith.

Christianity has had to incorporate many pagan beliefs into the body of the religion so that many different peoples would accept this new faith.

You mean catholocism. Catholocism is not Christianity.

The Romans came with their old religion of Mythra and its very similar beliefs that you accept as fact today. The Christmas tree is not mentioned in the New Testament gospels and yet it to is from pagan rites of the renewal of growth cycle.

So? Who ever claimed a christmas tree is Christian?

By relevant timeline, that is what you are summarizing.
This also does not adress the Biblical doctrine of using God's word to prove its self as I have shown it does. Your refusal to read and go that route have brought you to a point of believing a lie that some parallel religion of the time MUST be Biblical doctrine simply because it existed at the same point in time. That is not logical, factual, and requires more blind faith than proving the Bible with its self.

Not at all...... Every religion has a god whose religious doctrines prove themselves to the believers. The Mythra religion existed many years before Christ's arrival on earth. The New Testament Gospels follow many religious story lines that existed before Christ.

Prophecy proves the Bible accurate. That is the way non-believers can become believers as well. No man can know the future, and the Bible contains prophecy far in advance such things occuring. It also has basis for explaining scientific facts we have only recently come to understand. Wether you want to believe it or not, the Bible proves its self.

Keep your faith close to you for to deny Christ would mean that you would have to give up your salvation from your sins. There is no way I want to take that away from you.

I hope you are taken up in the rapture when Christ comes back.

What is that supposed to mean?

Any believer in Christ as their lord and savior in a relationship with Him is saved by all accounts.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by NewGuy

I countered your falsities with evidence and proof. There is no stalemate.

The only proof you given of my (falsies) is your 8 X 10 personally signed glossy of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Finding evidence of your god Christ on a floor in Cesaria made by men hundreds of years after Jesus time on earth proves zero.

You keep saying that and yet I have shown you wrong.

Is that your educated opinion or just wanting your faith to be the one true one? I suspect the latter.....

I have been there before. They are worthy of me referencing, but they are not the only source.

You have no idea of the time span from the time of Jesus Christ and those who wrote about him in the gospels. There is no proof that any witness living with Jesus wrote one of the gospels nor of any living witness who knew Jesus alive was quoted by one of the unknown authors of the gospels. Simply your own faith and your own truths. The Muslims are more certain of their god Allah than you are of Jesus. Does that make their god any more real than yours?

Been there, done that. Adopting a culture is not replacing your faith.

True enough. Adopting a culture does not replace your faith but simplly creates a new one in a rewritten and revised versions of now non-existent gospel texts.

You mean catholocism. Catholocism is not Christianity.

Martin Luther would disagree with you.

So? Who ever claimed a christmas tree is Christian?

Lets see, Christmas tree (Christ Mass) green tree rebirth of nature every year is a eon old pagan belief. You might be interested in the Christian Easter bunny origins.

Prophecy proves the Bible accurate. That is the way non-believers can become believers as well. No man can know the future, and the Bible contains prophecy far in advance such things occuring. It also has basis for explaining scientific facts we have only recently come to understand. Wether you want to believe it or not, the Bible proves its self.

I love it...... Give me just one prophecy of the New Testatment gospels that has come to fruition. Copying the Old Tesatment prophecies and reworking them to conform with Christ's life is not prooof of anything. Just as reworking the New Testament is not proof of prophecy of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

What is that supposed to mean?

If you don't know what my words say, then you have never read the Gospels.

Any believer in Christ as their lord and savior in a relationship with Him is saved by all accounts.

Thats nice....

Your rerlationship with Jesus Christ will give you salvation but a relationship with the G-d of the universe does not guarantee anything. You will be tried on your own merits and not of any suicidal god whose only purpose on earth was to save Christians.

All mankind are G-d's children and all were given the choice of living this life (not one of a promised pie-in-the-sky) with charity, justice and mercy for one's fellow man.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck

If Jesus spoke Greek instead of Aramaic this all would be so much simpler.

Yes and if Jesus wrote even one line in Paul's New Testament gospel, there would be something to debate.