Is Christianity something other than a religion?

Inane non sequitur deflection.

Except for the source that he appeared to be good health, apart from a few scars, to those he appeared before in multiple different locations that he must have had the strength to travel to unaided.

 

It's just what so many do.

 

He didn't as he was dead. It is likely just a story.

 

Deflection. I take said deflection as an admittance that you cannot prove for a fact that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

Wow! There is so much here that I hardly know where to begin.

But I will try.

The Book of Revelation (or "The Apocalypse," in Catholic Bibles) is written in apocalyptic language. It certainly is not to be taken literally--whichever of the four methods of interpretation one may embrace (i.e. the poetic method; the preterist method; the continuous historical method; or the futurist method).

The number 12 (like the number 7) was a special number for the Hebrew people. (Remember, there were 12 original apostles; and before that, 12 tribes of Israel.)

The term, "the last hour"--like "the last days"--is debatable. Some truly scholarly people believe that the New Testament writers believed that Jesus was about to return soon, to establish an earthly kingdom; and that this language merely reflects that belief. Other, equally scholarly people, believe that these are merely synonyms for the final dispensation (i.e. the Christian dispensation--which followed the Mosaic dispensation; which followed the Patriarchal dispensation.)

And to try to relate the New Testament--or any portion thereof--to "the scorpion's kiss," or to astrology in general, is really a leap.

 

You may ignore my post if you wish.

I will assume that this means, however, that you can make no intelligent response to it...

 

Why, exactly, is it an "inane non sequitur"?

Hannibal's crossing of the Alps seems to me to be quite comparable.

 

Most of the people that I know--myself included--see the Jesus of the scriptures.

But if you believe you see a deficiency in most Christians, why don't you just try to do better, instead of rejecting Christianity out of hand?

 

12 was significant for more than just the Hebrew people. I mentioned the 12 apostles in my post, and yes, the 12 tribes are another example. I'm saying that the number is also astrologically significant and that it all ties together, the religious and astrological mythology. We're accustomed to separating these things today, but they were quite interwoven in the ancient past and of common origin, in everything from the constellations and zodiacal houses to the planets (including the sun and moon) and their apparent motions. The "magi" featured in one of the nativity stories were Persian astrologers (no doubt also fictional characters, but indicative of how significant astrology was at the time). That is what the term referred to.

It is no leap for Judas Iscariot to be representative of Scorpio. Many other zodiacal motifs have a similar presence in the gospels, with John the Baptist representing Aquarius, the water-bearer, and the dove that descends being indicative of Cygnus the Swan, a constellation in the same house of the Zodiac as Aquarius. The site's author also argues that Sagittarius the archer was included as the spear that pierced Jesus's side. These are just examples that have stuck with me; there is quite a lot more to examine. The entirety of Matthew in particular follows the Zodiac very well. Another notable example, but this time from Old Testament texts, is Perseus. His slaying and beheading of Medusa is mirrored in David's slaying and beheading of Goliath.



Returning a moment to Scorpio and the scorpion's kiss,

http://solarmythology.com/lessons/solarmyth16.htm

In late October the sun enters Scorpio, the Scorpion. The name of this sign in Arabic and Syriac is Al Akrab, which means wounding him that cometh. The brightest star in this sign bears the ancient Arabic name of Antares, which means the wounding.1 Thus, when the sun enters the house of Scorpio, the Scorpion figuratively stings the sun wounding it to make it slowly die.
----

You see, astrology informed religion in ancient times. It was considered wisdom, a way to know the will of the gods and foresee the future, in pre-scientific times. There was the practical side of it, establishing working calendars that would make agriculture possible, but there was also the mythological side of it, serving people's spiritual needs. The sun died and was reborn every year; it is not surprising that this model was eventually adapted to religious use, telling humans that they, too, could achieve immortality. People fear death and want to survive it.

 

Well, we have firsthand accounts.

What more do you demand?

 

Take it however you wish.

I have already submitted my evidence. I see no need to reiterate it.

(By the way, are you suggesting that you are not doing as I suggested? To ignore my question would be a true deflection.)

 

Most people are familiar with the term, "exegesis." But a less-well-known term is eisegesis. Basically, it just means reading a meaning into something ("eis"), rather than taking the (intended) meaning out of something ("ex").

Do you suppose that this could fit your "interpretation" of events?

 

Sure. But neither should the facts be ignored and the possibility dismissed out of hand.

 

Your failure to address your own contradiction is not my problem since it only negatively impacts your credibility.

 

Your inability to engage in a rational debate without inane deflections to irrelevancies is not my problem.

 

We have people claiming that something happened. I don't see how it can be that alien a thought to you that maybe one might require more than someone claiming something to consider it proven beyond doubt.

 

There are people who can tell you, today, right now, that they have seen UFO's, ghosts, Sasquatch, and the Virgin Mary.

I don't doubt their sincerity. However ....

 

Your Pastor was right. The confusion from the world comes from "defining Christianity". The world will say anyone that wears a cross, or attends mass, or goes to Church, or completes a sort of catechism is by definiton....Christian. Those efforts of mankind to reach God are by definition religious and constitute a "religion".

The true definition of Christianity can only be examined by looking to the source. Originally it was not even called "Christianity" but the group that followed Jesus were called "Followers of the Way". Christianity does not depend on efforts of mankind to make him good enough to satisfy God. Believers understand those efforts will never be good enough. True Christianity is built on the premise of God's own efforts to reach mankind and accepting that premise is the ONLY way to Salvation. It is through understanding that "Grace" that salvation comes. Christ actually abides in those that accept His provision. I know of no "religion" that does not require "works" to be acceptable.

In Christianity any "works" result after the fact of "believing" and that is a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. All good works, therefore, are attributed to the Glory of God and no Christian has boasting rights. The Word of God, which Jesus directed us to, is the source. The Promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us into Truth is the teacher.

I like the fact that Thomas finally said to the Lord, "I believe, now help me in my unbelief". We all find ourselves in that position at times. It requires a spirit of humility and perseverance to get through it. Thomas understood his Salvation only depended on the Grace of God.

 

I don't think you break anything to believers who walk by faith.

 

Christianity is not an objective Truth if you view mankind as the source of all things as do those that reject it's premise. One must have their eyes on God. He is the source and His Ways are perfect.

 

I'm a believer and an active part of an growing fundamental Christian Church.

I don't think the average person who calls himself a Christian in the World really is one.

 

You have unverifiable stories of first hand accounts. Observation is the weakest form of evidence. To trust the stories of the Bible is to trust the objectivity, integrity and honesty of the authors. Humans are fallible as are our senses as what one perceives as true is not always in reality true.

Verifiable evidence that supports a claim of a fact.

 

Those are NOT "first hand" since none of them are originals. The earliest dates are decades after Jesus is alleged to have died.

 

Is your BLOTUS a Christian?

 

what are the fundamentals of your fundamental christian church? I presume that is the measure you use to guage the average christian.