Part 39 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

No, that's poorly misunderstood based on very bad translations.

That's the problem when x-tians translate texts, everything is seen through their world view, which is anachronistic.

Take the Sumerians. As far as they were concerned, there's no such things as gods. They recognized certain beings as being superior to them, but those beings were mortal -- they could die; they did die; and they there are texts describing their deaths, and they could not be brought back to life and there was no after-life.

In ancient Egypt, the pharaoh and no other person was "entitled" to an "after-life" but then the pharaoh was also a "god" and upon death, the pharaoh would travel in some kind of special "boat" (that poor translation thing again) to a distant place in the stars to be with the gods.

That's what m-s-s or "moses" means, right?

Pharaoh Ptahmoses = Emanated from Ptah

I emanated from Ptah, meaning I was born of Ptah, or Ptah created me or Ptah is my father.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat for:

Dedumoses = emanated from Dedu
Rameses = emanated from Ra
Anmoses = emanated from An
Tutmoses = emanated from Toth
Amenmoses = emanated from Amen

The aforementioned pharaohs all claimed to be gods because they emanated from gods, and then later, much later they were demi-gods, being the product of a god and a human.

No. Stop reading Pukipedia nonsense.

The concept of reincarnation arises very late and at nearly the exact same time as the Greeks.

Cairo was a very cosmopolitan city. It wasn't just ancient Egyptians living there -- as separate and distinguishable from the Arabs who live in Egypt today -- it was Medes, Persians, and even Hindis. There's evidence Chinese were there as well.

And Greeks. Lots of Greeks as government administrators, scribes, etc etc.

All of the noted Greek philosophers spent their entire childhoods studying in Cairo with one notable exception: Aristotle.

So, the Greeks invent reincarnation and it's transmitted via cultural contact.

There's an issue with Buddhism. It is still unclear if Buddhism was corrupted by Hinduism, or if Buddhism adopted reincarnation through Greek cultural contact in Media/Persia and we know the Greeks were there, because many Median/Persian royalty and others have Greek names or Grecofied names.

 

No, that is John quoting what Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ said as written in Chapter 14 verse 6 in John's Gospel. Basically what Our Lord is saying is that one must be a follower/believer of Him otherwise they will not be saved and will not go to heaven to be with Our Heavenly Father.

And no, John's Gospel does not conflict with the other three Gospels. The actual conflict here is in your mind because you're not interpreting the Scriptures of the Holy Bible correctly. You've already proven that you can't interpret Scripture correctly by claiming that John is the one making the statement in Chapter 14 verse 6 of John's Gospel.

John is not the Messiah, he was one of the twelve disciples of Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ the Messiah and so it wouldn't make sense for John to be the one making the statement in Chapter 14 verse 6 of his Gospel that depicts the life of Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

Actually it's you the one that has no credibility. I know you're trying like so many other unbelievers to discredit the Holy Bible but sorry we believers can't be fooled. The irony here is the only ones you're fooling are other fools like yourself the unbelievers. You folks continually misinterpret Scripture.

We Read in Scripture:

1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good! Psalm 53:1 NLT

The question you should actually be asking yourself is, "How is it that I don't know when Our Lord Savior Jesus Christ died when it is clearly written in the Scriptures of the Holy Bible? Why do I have trouble interpreting Scripture correctly?

I might be able to help you here, it's because satan/devil has blinded your mind and others like yourself. So you need an exorcist done to get satan/devil out of your mind then and only then will you interpret the Scriptures of the Holy Bible correctly. Then maybe you will finally see the light and become a believer/Christian...just sayin.

We Read in Scripture:

4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don’t understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God. 5 You see, we don’t go around preaching about ourselves. We preach that Jesus Christ is Lord, and we ourselves are your servants for Jesus’ sake. 2 Corinthians 4:4-5 NLT

 

Correction: So you need an exorcism done to get satan/devil out of your mind then and only then will you interpret the Scriptures of the Holy Bible correctly. Then maybe you will finally see the light and become a believer/Christian...just sayin.

 

Miracles are what religions are made of, though if you ask most priests if they've ever experienced one they all reply; "Certainly, I've seen a sunrise"

 

For your own sake, please don't use BC and AD in most Ancient History classes. I know profs who will fail you right there since they regard it as pejorative and even ant-Semitic. The correct usages now are CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era)

It's a small thing but important to many.

 

I was born in 1958 AD

 

And I was born in 19--AD...lol

 

I was born in 19--AD...lol

 

I really don't see the point of this.

We know Jesus was not born at the point we start CE.

And, we know there is no year 0.

We also know that the exact time of Jesus' birth is irrelevant to any question of religion or history.

So, flunking history over this seems like an unnecessary response.

 

Jesus almost certainly lived. He was one of many "Wonder Workers" some of whom made a very good living by exploiting the Intellectual/Spiritual ferment of the area and the times and some of whom got themselves executed for doing so. The only other one beside Jesus I know of was Simon Magistes, from whose name we get the word "magician" (There is some doubt of his real existence too, more than Jesus, I think.)

And while Jesus was indeed a real man and actually existing historical figure whether he was a real GOD is a matter of religious faith entirely. This should go without saying but I do think it should be mentioned

 

I am sorry it upset you...

 

LOL - your understanding of history can't possibly upset me.

I do have concerns about how science and religion intersect.

Tip: If you want to try to upset me, go there!

 

Let me respond the way you usually do.

I am just telling you what the Scriptures of the Holy Bible says - why you trying to shoot the messenger.

Sorry but the rest of your post was just nothing but the usual gibberish so no sense in me responding to it, if I respond to gibberish all I'm going to do is add more gibberish in response...lol

 

And yet the common era is based on Jesus and His teachings, so it's stupid. But then again stupidity and the lack of recognition of who and what we are and what formed and made us, is becoming a past time lately.

But it's all part of the Great Reset and One World Government and the advent of the Antichrist and the culmination of all evil.



When chaos reigns in West and East
then we'll await the coming beast.

Who'll put us all right to the test,
by telling us that he knows best.

And to avoid our bodily harm,
we'll all submit without a qualm.

Our souls he'll mark on hands and head
to free us all from fear and dread.

But woe to us, anguish will be
for we had eyes, yet couldn't see. - Jeannette

 

I think Christianity still has to recognize the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:31-end. I think it's interesting that he walked that walk that he states is required from all who follow him - it wasn't just words. He repeatedly found individuals in need of help, and humbled himself to give them the help they needed without judgement.

To me, this is an outstanding part of Christian philosophy - an inspiration!

In fact, it is a constant reminder of my very Christian father, who gave his time, energy and money to help those in need whom he sought out in prisons, in hospitals, in the foreign student community of the university where he taught, among the population of American minorities on campus and in the city, etc.

I know there are those who would gut Christianity of this hugely significant asset.

And as it is religion, they are free to do so.

 

It's perfectly logical that we have CE as a date that doesn't vary over time or religious belief.

The dates related to Jesus have changed over time and are not uniform even among the groups that agree with his existence on Earth. Plus, dates are subject to change as more is learned about the period.

By having CE, history doesn't come with a built in requirement to argue about religion.

 

Thats is not how I respond .. when I make a claim about what Jesus said .. I back it up .. with scripture .. not run from scripture like you do - in particular the words of Jesus... often running to that horrible "God Questions" website ..and posting directly from there .. a site run by - snake charmers and decievers.. and this has been demonstrated to you numerous times.

You have responded as you often do .. with a dance of avoidance .. failure to address "tough questions" in relation to your claims on behalf of God.

OK now rather than run from the words of Jesus -- in Matt 7 where Jesus says We are to put the words his words into practice to make it into heaven.

1) What must believe in order to make it into heaven - as per your comment above .. talking as if you know the criteria Jesus will use when he Judges you .. which is good .. tell us this criteria you are speaking of .

2) What are the words that we are to put into practice to make it into heaven ? - as per Scripture.
3) how does 1 satisfy 2 ?

 

The dates reflect an era, and the civilization that was formed in that era by the advent of Jesus Christ. So by taking away the name of Jesus you're not removing the civilization that came about because of His advent, you're only removing the source of the civilization, so that people could bask in ignorance of what formed them and their values.

I can understand that it might be upsetting to people of different faiths, but it shouldn't be considering that Western civilization has dominated the world, and that Christianity was a major part of it.

 

Many religions have their own calendars. Islam has their lunar calendar, and they view year 622 CE as year 1. Judaism has their lunisolar calendar. Jews believe that 1 CE was year 3761 BCE.

Anyway, the study of history is international and is based on CE dates.

I would add that there isn't agreement even within Christianity concerning when Jesus was born. There is about an 8 year span of time within which most of the estimates of that birthday fall.

And, I don't believe ANYONE thinks Jesus was born on Christmas, do they?

This idea of tying our whole dating system to Jesus and demanding that the entire world use that system is just not even slightly justified.

 

Thanks to the British punctuality our clocks are based on Greenwich time. Do you think it shouldn't be called Greenwich time because the whole world is not British or maybe that everyone should have their own time according to when the c@ck crows. (What a mess that would be?)

After all in Mount Athos they still go by Byzantine time - so is that being fair to them? Hmmm! Now that I think of it they have their own calendar too?

Cockle Doodle Doo

Zee people should know
zat when I crow
it's time for zee planes
and trains to go - Jeannette
(Pardon my accent, I'm a French C@ck)​

 

Mt Athos would be a good place to put the Prime Meridian

Though my choice is Istanbul. It is about the most central city there is in regard to both land and sea routes together. Napoleon said it would make the best World Capital for that reason

 

There was no one on the planet named Jesus 2,000 years ago. The name Jesus didn't exist until around the year 1630, about 391 years ago.

 

Fascinating, Please elaborate.

 

I once read: Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James Reston Jr.

It was a great book - really great - right up until, after 800-years - this nut author suddenly discovered "evidence" that King Richard was a homosexual. I guess everyone was in on the big secret and kept their mouths shut until this author came along. I threw the book in the garbage where it belongs.

People can find evidence for whatever they want to be able to say - but in 99% of cases, its a fairy tale.

 

No idea where you are getting this from .. While I agree that it is possible that the personage of Jesus may have never existed .. no way that this was made up only 400 years ago. .. just makes no sense. The Church battled for years over the nature of Christs divinity - which led to the council of Nicene around 325 AD