what the heck are you talking about. Just because I explained what Jesus taught about salvation does not mean I think people should not be good. I think a Christian who asks the holy spirit to come into their life sort has sort of a interesting deal. You see Christians trying to struggle with what is Gods will vs selfish desires. When you are following Gods will you seem to be in the zone. Everything just flows. Luck happens you read something and then boom it becomes useful. However, when you start to get too caught up on yourself and your won desires - setbacks happen. When you are in the zone of doing what God wants, sin loses its grip. When you find yourself struggling to be good you run a gut check and you start to realize you were getting selfish. This struggle goes on thorughout life. Anyone who has the holy Spirit touch their lives, knows what I am talking about. Real Christians know they are not good. Which is why your criticism is so off the mark. However, Christians also know when they are following God's will they are far less likely to give in to temptation. ---------------- zzz Christians do suck, but how bad they suck is really between them and God - in terms of their salvation. Every persons path starts from a different starting point and paths have a lot of setbacks. I wonder what percentage of people who claim to be Christians are actually doing God's will. (by the way I wonder the same about myself all the time.) zzz - Jesus and you both condemn hypocrites. Jesus condemns the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders in the temple. They were profiting from their office, pretending to be pious making all sort of rules which were separating Jews from God. You seemingly condemn Christians and their leaders for the same thing. The difference is that as you condemn hypocrisy your hypocrisy shines through. Should I not point it out how your cultural relativism is used so selectively. Is it not odd that you can't condemn other cultures when they support child molestation, but you condemn Christians. Do you realize how funny it is to be a hypocrite about being hypocritical.
If this prophet "likely" was "nonexistent", ,how could he "decide" to "rewrite" ANYTHING? You don't think before you write, do you?
http://thehappyheretic.com/current.htm Happy Easter, Mithra! APRIL 2009 Happy Easter to you all! Have fun with your bunny-rabbits and fuzzy little yellow chicks and colored eggs. Hard-boiled preferably. It all symbolizes the coming of spring, of things new and young and fresh. The world is waking from its cruel, cold winter, so itâs time to celebrate. Nothing wrong with any of that. However, what on earth does this stuff have to do with the death, burial and supposed âresurrectionâ of a Jew who died around the year 33 A.D. in Jerusalem? I donât believe there ever was an historical Jesus, and if you want to begin your own investigation, just Google Mithra and you will be amazed. However, letâs deal first with the story in the New Testament of the Bible about Jesus and his death and burial. After all, thatâs all Christians have to rely on in making their incredible claims about their incredible beliefs. There are no independent sources. So, according to Scripture, Jesus makes his grand entry into Jerusalem on an ass, knowing he is going to die there. It is his mission. To die. He is supposed to die for the sins of everyone else, although if people sin and donât ask for forgiveness in the right way, they will still go to hell. I know, I know, it makes no sense, but weâre dealing with the Bible here so try to stay with me on this. Jesus is found guilty by the Jewish priests and scribes of claiming to be the Son of God and, thereby, failing to give proper tribute to Caesar, which of course is treason and thereby naturally a capital offense. They dumped their petty Jewish squabble into Pontius Pilateâs lap, who could have cared less. Still, because Jewish riots were always a threat, and occasionally serious ones (look up Maccabees) these scuffles had to be quelled as soon as possible. Fearing a serious Jewish rebellion, Pilate had Jesus whipped and questioned, and when it was over Pilateâs reaction is one of the most difficult âfactsâ to believe in the Bible. Pontius Pilate found no guilt at all in the man and, therefore, ordered him to be crucified. You have to read that twice, donât you? It makes no sense at all, in any way, and must have been cobbled together to fulfill those incessant, relentless Old Testament prophesies. Anyway, the Jewish Elders still screamed for Jesusâ blood, charging sedition, so Pilate then sent Jesus to Herod, a Jewish ruler. Herod mocked Jesus but, again, found no serious fault, so he sent him back to Pilate. Pilateâs actual words about this tomfoolery are recorded in the Bible. Pilate âSaid unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. I will therefore chastise him, and release him.â (Luke 23:14-16) [All biblical references from the King James Version.] Are you following this? Itâs not easy. Just begin reading at Luke 23, plow through it and try to grasp the logic. Pontius Pilate repeatedly says he can find no fault with Jesus. âThen said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.â (Luke 23:4) But the throng continues to call for his death, while Pilate continues to claim Jesusâ innocence: âAnd he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.â (Luke 23:22) Apparently tired of their haranguing, Pilate finally says, in essence, âOkay. Go kill the guy.â Now wait a minute. First off, no Roman procurator would be dictated to by a bunch of rowdy Jews. Pilate might have ordered the crowd to be disbanded, very roughly, but never would have allowed them to manipulate such a powerful Roman. Second, Pilate wouldnât give a ratâs rear what Herod thought or did, as long as he kept the Jews in line. Keep in mind however that the Gentiles who wrote the New Testament had to blame the Jews somehow, even though they knew perfectly well that crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish one. Jews stoned or strangled or beheaded, but they did not crucify. So that alone might explain this bizarre story about Pilate and the Jews, but youâd think someone could have made it at least slightly convincing. On the Third Dayâ¦. Well, moving on, we now have a dead body to deal with. The Bible is repetitive in its insistence that Jesusâ body will rise from the dead on the third day. Why the third day? Why not the second? The fourth? âFor he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.â (Mark 9:31) And again: âAnd they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.â (Mark 10:34) And again: âAnd they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.â (Luke 18:33) Well, enough. We get it, okay? Itâs gonna happen on the third day. But no one ever asks the obvious question: Why the third day? The answer is rather ghoulish, but understandable. Ancient Jewish burial rites were strict and complex. Dr. Kenneth V. Iserson, author of the book Death to Dust, offered an expert yet easy to understand explanation. The three day wait was to prevent premature burials, which did happen. Dr. Iserson appeared on a documentary titled âCrypts, Coffins and Corpses.â Produced in 2001, the documentary was very informative. On that show the narrator opened with: âAround the time of Christ bodies in the Roman Empire began to be wrapped in shrouds and buried in caves. Fears of being buried alive forced religious leaders to change the Jewish burial rites. From Iserson on Jewish burial rules: âPeople wrapped up the bodies, put them in the cave, wouldnât seal the cave for at least three days. And the family was required to go and visit the body every day for three days. Why was that? âCuz they may have made a mistake. The body may not have been dead. And in fact that happened. Because they did not have any of the modern tools to diagnose death. If after three days there was evidence of putrefaction, body breaking down, or clearly the body was dead, theyâd seal the cave until the next burial.â All of a sudden the âthird dayâ stuff makes sense. Youâll notice the family was required to visit the body every day for three days. So much for the stone and the Roman soldiers supposedly guarding the stone in front of the tomb of an unknown Jew. The stone stuff never happened. The daily visits would have happened, as required by Jewish Law, and that makes sense. Finally! Something in this idiotic story that makes sense! Aside from making sense, it emphasizes the primitive nature of medicine at the time in question. Not being able to distinguish coma from death can definitely be considered primitive. But there is another complicating factor, for Christians anyway, in this story. Jewish Law demanded that any Jew killed as a criminal could not be buried in a private tomb, according to the Mishnah (the first section of the Talmud) so Jesus would have had to be buried in a non-private tomb with other criminals. He was killed for sedition, remember? This criminal-burial thing totally contradicts the Gospels. But, like so many other contradictions in the Gospels, this one is completely ignored. It may be ignored, but it may not be eliminated. Enter Mithra What, you may rightly ask, does any of this have to do with Mithra, the Persian God who was worshipped five centuries before, and two centuries after, the supposed birth of Christ? Well, for you fence-sitters and closet atheists in need of ammunition, consider the following âcoincidencesâ and then try to claim that Jesus was separate and unique from any other Gods of his time. Jesus and Mithra shared the following characteristics: · Both were born of virgins · Both had shepherds adoring them at birth · Both had twelve followers · Both had ritual baptisms · Both had ritual communion and used wafers in their rituals · Both claimed Sunday to be a Holy Day · Both believed in the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead · Both performed miracles · Both were considered mankind's savior · Both were known as âThe Light of the worldâ ANDâ¦GET READY FOR THE BIGGEEâ¦â¦ · Both were born on December 25!
First I note I do not know any Christians who state we know that Jesus was born on the 25th. It is pretty widely accepted that when the Church was trying to convert pagans they renamed certain holidays. The 25th being around the time of solstice celebrations. The most of the rest of your concerns are dealt with here. From: http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.http://www.carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false for a chart go the site.
The Hebrew / (Old Testament ) Bible is at its most ancient dated 500 years BC. There are other elements or fragments of it which appear drawn from earlier texts (in other words copied) and those have an outside maximum age of 1000 years BC. Then there is Mithra which is 1400 years BC. It is quite obvious the manuscripts of the oldest Hebrew and Old Testament writings are based on older Persian mythical scripts which predated even the Hebrew by 1000 years. You're a Buzz Lightyear of religious bible thumping religious apologists who will argue to absurdity and beyond. The more ridiculous and outrageous religion can get , the more its loony brigade of eccentric followers say it must be true. If you need to chase fairy stories there are many more kinder humanistic books to believe in than the despicably barbaric Bible.
Motto: Don't look for a god to believe in. Look for a God who believes in you. It's kind of cliche because the true God does not believe in anything. God knows all. And God knows you...as you are...not as you believe yourself to be. Those who are awakening must put their faith in universal predestination. All are destined to awaken. The dream will be gone, and eternity will resume as if nothing every happened. Christ!
Don't look for a god... Look for a God..... oh come on now dude, do worse... you've been a lot more nonsnsical that. stu
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/jared-diamond-the-evolution-of-religions/ Jared Diamond: The Evolution of Religions Professor Diamond argues that religion has encompassed at least four independent components that have arisen or disappeared at different stages of development of human societies over the last 10,000 years.