Christianity and the Old Testament

Christians don't persecute anyone. Did you watch the video?

 

Homosexuality is sin because gay couples cannot conceive children?

 

Homosexuality is sin because God's Word says it is sin.

 

Now you are rambling nonsense. What have I said that is not factual ?

Is it not factual that the Pope issued a Papal bull making torture legal or that "Christian dogma" at the time was that heretics should be burned at the stake ?

Christianity (christian Dogma) often deviates from the Bible. Christian Dogma is often about folks using religion to advance their own agenda. You are the one dancing around the issue - the issue that Christian Dogma often does not reflect the Bible.

 

I agree there are many false churches and false doctrines. However, that doesn't mean there aren't true churches with biblical doctrine.

 

Which do you think have "true" doctrine (doctrine which is not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus) ?

I can only think of one legitimate prospect off the top of my head - Ebionites - as they reject the Trinity.

Salvation by faith alone "Sola Fide" (along with the Trinity) put's Protestantism out of the running.

This is just for starters. Fundamentalists completely make things up as they go (probably the worst offenders in modern times)

 

Okay, let's discuss the trinity. Jesus taught the trinity. Matthew 28:19.

 

The Vatican is not Christianity, nor is it of Jesus Christ. The Vatican is the mother of Harlots, she is the mother of all churches. And all nations sip from the wine of her fornications, and partakes in the abundance of her delicacies. They are using Christianity for a means of riches and vast power. To this day, it continues to work for them. Constantine acknowledged that the more they tried to persecute Christianity, the stronger it became. Thus he embraced it, as a tool for their riches and power. However more and more Catholic Christians are seeing this, and are separating themselves from this evil.

 

How does telling people to baptize in the name of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" mean that Jesus was God ( God of Abraham) ?

The second point is the fact that this was not what Jesus taught ! The passage in Matt - was not originally in Matt - it was a later insertion - (aka - Pious Fraud). An example - and there are many others - of artistic licence to change scripture to better conform with the dogma of the day.

https://www.godfire.net/baptizing_in_the_name.htm

Other problems are numerous. Jesus almost always refers to "The Father" as someone other than himself. He asks God to not make him go through with crucifixion. If Jesus was God he would have no reason to ask this. It makes no sense.

Jesus says that God has forsaken him in his dying breath. This makes no sense. If it is God hanging on the cross - then what happened? Did he forget who he was in some masochistic delirium ?

Jesus says there are things that the Father knows that he does not.

Then we have the fact that almost all the early Church fathers believed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

It was Constantine that insisted that the Trinity become official doctrine. He did this for political purposes. Even so, for many centuries after non-trinitarian christian groups still persisted.

Eusebius (dude to put the Bible together for Constantine) refused to sign off on the Trinity doctrine and was banished. He then came to his senses and signed. This is called coercion.

The modern Trinity doctrine was first stated by Tertullian around 200 AD - at the time the Church declared this doctrine heresy.

 

I am not sure what your point is ? I agree in general that the Catholic Church (the only Church for some 700 years after Constantine) was about as anti Jesus-anti Christ as can be imagined.

The Catholic Church (and Orthodox after the split around 1000 AD) was Christianity from the 4th to16th century. How you can say that this was not Christianity is quite absurd.

Further if you think that the influence of Catholic Dogma (having a monopoly for over a millennium) does not extend to Protestantism - you are mistaken.

 

Your writer forgets that Jesus spoke as a man before the resurrection. He was God in the flesh and the bible says tempted in all ways as we are. He had to pray as a man. And there is much in your post that is questionable and easily refuted. Here you go.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm

 

Spare me the apologist website. The website does not even address any of my points never-mind refute them.

What is questionable ? All I did was give the words of Jesus ? Are you saying the words of Jesus are questionable ?

That you have refuted anything - by adding a link which does not even address my points- is abject nonsense.

I addressed your point - and gave the refutation. You have not addressed a single on of my points.

This is akin to running to the playground and sticking head deep in the sandbox of denial.

 

The Bible is the defining authority of Christianity. No matter what a person claims, the claim must be judged against the Bible. You can point out people who have acted contrary to the Bible, that does not prove your point.

Clearly you cannot provide any factual argument against the Bible and resort to pointing out peoples failure to follow the Bible.

 

The site uses Scripture. Are you going to refute scripture now?

 

Answer this, who is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Almighty?

 

What is your 'factual' argument for the Bible? The only 'factual' evidence is that backed up with external evidence and some of that belies the Bible.

 

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. FACT. Anything else is an adaptation and addition to OT scriptures. Revelation is an adaptation of Jewish scriptures with Christian additions.

 

I do not need to refute any scripture because none of the scripture in the link you posted refutes anything I said.
Most of what I said is not even addressed your link.

You posting that link was just an attempt to dodge the scripture I posed and arguments made - so you could run to the playground and stick head deep in the sands of denial.

 

I was not making an argument against the Bible ? I was merely saying that the dogma/doctrine of Christianity often does not reflect the teachings of Jesus.

Something here is getting lost in the translation. Do you know what "dogma" means ?

 

The link gives scripture that shows the Trinity. Who is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Almighty?

 

I have never claimed there is objective proof that the Bible is true. The Bible consists of a series of documents written over several 1,000 years, which tell a unified story. Whether you believe the story is a matter each person must address. I believe it is true, but have no objective proof that can convinces any and every person that the Bible is true.

But that is not the issue. The claim is that some have factual proof that the Bible is not true, or that Christianity is not true. Furthermore, such people claim that people who believe the Bible are naïve, foolish, fooled, etc. I am asking such people to make their factual argument.

 

There is little more lame than giving a link and claiming - "The link proves my claim"
without showing what in the link proves your claim or giving any explanation.

Since you can not give any explanation, lets look at a quote from your link that you claim "proves" the trinity.

This one is from Micah:

This quote does not even mention the Trinity and nor is there any explanation given as to why this quote "proves" the Trinity. Any idiot can set up a website and make nonsensical claims. What is just as idiotic are folks who see some heading "this is proof of the trinity" and believe it without validating it for themselves.

The Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah of OT Scripture - and it is there book after all.

There is nothing in your link that explains why Jesus almost always refers to God as someone other than himself.

There is nothing in your link that explains why Jesus states that his God has forsaken him in his final breath.

There is nothing in your link that explains why the early church fathers did not believe Jesus was "God" (God of Abraham).

As mentioned previously - you are just avoiding the fact that you have no refutation to any of my points so you run to the playground to stick head deep in the sands of denial.

 

Certainly, and anyone who has a computer and the internet knows what "dogma" means.

Maybe you should look into the difference between dogma and doctrine. I bet you have the 2 confused.

 

There is no difference when it comes to the main tenets of religious belief. The two are one in the same.

 

Wrong. All dogma is also doctrine, but not all doctrine is dogma. You better do some reading.