Was Jesus a gay?

[karezza]

Ugly, obese nincompoop, Elton John, has claimed that Our Lord is gay.:shocked:

Do you agree with this horrible toad?

[\PJ/]

cue arista.

[arista]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131518

[Crimson Dynamo]

Elton John is gay

no wonder, no woman would look at him

[InOne]

ReYfDlIa-Z8

[WOMBAI]

No doubt - he is a very intelligent and witty guy - whether people agree with his opinions or not!

[InOne]

No doubt - he is a very intelligent and witty guy - whether people agree with his opinions or not!

Who Jesus?

[Shasown]

No doubt - he is a very intelligent and witty guy - whether people agree with his opinions or not!

No doubt about that, and he could teach Paul Daniels a thing or two about magic tricks.

[WOMBAI]

Who Jesus?

Ha, ha - :joker:

What is the guy's name - do you know? He is someone I imagine can think on his feet and very quickly quell any opposition to his arguments! Very sharp!

[Shasown]

Ha, ha - :joker:

What is the guy's name - do you know? He is someone I imagine can think on his feet and very quickly quell any opposition to his arguments! Very sharp!

Sorry thought you meant Jesus

[InOne]

Ha, ha - :joker:

What is the guy's name - do you know? He is someone I imagine can think on his feet and very quickly quell any opposition to his arguments! Very sharp!

He is Pat Condell, he is a legend!!!! He tells it how it is, he is a youtube hero.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell He has tons of videos

[Crimson Dynamo]

He is Pat Condell, he is a legend!!!! He tells it how it is, he is a youtube hero.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell He has tons of videos

lol

youtube hero

perhaps if you are 12

Give me epic beard man anyday

[InOne]

lol

youtube hero

perhaps if you are 12

Give me epic beard man anyday

Who is that? God ;)

[WOMBAI]

He is Pat Condell, he is a legend!!!! He tells it how it is, he is a youtube hero.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell He has tons of videos

Thanks - makes for interesting viewing!

[Crimson Dynamo]

Who is that? God ;)

Jesus is God

many people forget that

[InOne]

Jesus is God

many people forget that

Almost every Christian has a different answer to if Jesus is god or not.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Almost every Christian has a different answer to if Jesus is god or not.

That is just not true. Jesus is God and it says so many times in the Bible. Christians take the Bible to be the Truth.

[InOne]

That is just not true. Jesus is God and it says so many times in the Bible. Christians take the Bible to be the Truth.

Then why on the cross did he ask God (himself) why he has forsaken him?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Then why on the cross did he ask God (himself) why he has forsaken him?

Psalm 22

[InOne]

Psalm 22

?????????????? The Bible is pretty useless when is comes to actually trying to prove anything.

[setanta]

That guy is always worth a watch. Nicely done.

[InOne]

That guy is always worth a watch. Nicely done.

Indeed, funny and brutal at the same time.

[setanta]

Indeed, funny and brutal at the same time.

Yeah, but not malicious. The tone is always upbeat.

[InOne]

Yeah, but not malicious. The tone is always upbeat.

Yeah, he's had a fair few complaints and death threats

[Crimson Dynamo]

?????????????? The Bible is pretty useless when is comes to actually trying to prove anything.

He was quoting from the OT

why is that hard?

[WOMBAI]

Yeah, he's had a fair few complaints and death threats

Death threats - who from - seems obvious - but surprise me!

[InOne]

He was quoting from the OT

why is that hard?

I highly doubt he was.

[InOne]

Death threats - who from - seems obvious - but surprise me!

No suprises darling ;)

[WOMBAI]

No suprises darling ;)

Says it all really!

[InOne]

Says it all really!

That other vid with that girl in the feminism thing, she does the same kind of vids and gets them too.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I highly doubt he was.

I am sure but if you read your Bible you would be in no doubt.

[InOne]

I am sure but if you read your Bible you would be in no doubt.

You know it is foolish to take it at face value.

[Shasown]

You know it is foolish to take it at face value.

Come on the Bible has it all, romance, sex, drama, political intrigue.


Must admit I personally prefer a Tom Clancy.

[WOMBAI]

That other vid with that girl in the feminism thing, she does the same kind of vids and gets them too.

Do you mean from same groups or from feminist groups - they don't do that, do they?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Come on the Bible has it all, romance, sex, drama, political intrigue.


Must admit I personally prefer a Tom Clancy.

You get 66 books for the price of one with the Bible

that is value

[InOne]

Come on the Bible has it all, romance, sex, drama, political intrigue.


Must admit I personally prefer a Tom Clancy.

Yeah, but the end was a bit predictable though you see, a good read though.

[InOne]

Do you mean from same groups or from feminist groups - they don't do that, do they?

Nooo she does religious videos as well, or anti-religious, shes not just against feminism lol

[Shasown]

You get 66 books for the price of one with the Bible

that is value

Depends which version you get.

73 in the old Catholic version now thats what I call value for money.

Just makes me want to run out and sign up now, With value like that.

[setanta]

Yeah, he's had a fair few complaints and death threats

Any free and independent voice usually does.

[InOne]

Any free and independent voice usually does.

Pretty much, or just called a racist.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Any free and independent voice usually does.

I doubt Noddy Holder has and he speaks a lot of truth

even when he declares the Lord's birthday each year

[setanta]

I doubt Noddy Holder has and he speaks a lot of truth

even when he declares the Lord's birthday each year

Well he's hardly trying to open an intelligent discourse like this fella though, is he? Anybody who contradicts or questions any time honoured traditions that an establishment holds to be true will always be targeted by the masses. That's always how it works.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well he's hardly trying to open an intelligent discourse like this fella though, is he? Anybody who contradicts or questions any time honoured traditions that an establishment holds to be true will always be targeted by the masses. That's always how it works.

either that or the guy is a narcissistic t wat


you takes your pick

[setanta]

either that or the guy is a narcissistic t wat


you takes your pick

He may very well be, but you could say the same about a great many people out there who like to talk in front of a camera, the large majority of which haven't got a pittance of sense, unlike this fella.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He very well might be, but you could say the same about a great many people out there who like to talk in front of a camera, the large majority of which haven't got a pittance of sense, unlike this fella.

iyho

[setanta]

iyho

Which is an opinion that's obviously shared by quite a few on the forum.

[Shasown]

I doubt Noddy Holder has and he speaks a lot of truth

even when he declares the Lord's birthday each year

Except it isnt the Lords birthday on 25th December, is it? That day was chosen when the early christians decided to incorporate the pagan Mid Winter festival into their calendar in order to make conversions to christianity easier.

[setanta]

Except it isnt the Lords birthday on 25th December, is it? That day was chosen when the early christians decided to incorporate the pagan Mid Winter festival into their calendar in order to make conversions to christianity easier.

Yep, nicely said squire.

[arista]

ReYfDlIa-Z8


There you go LT
Fact.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Except it isnt the Lords birthday on 25th December, is it? That day was chosen when the early christians decided to incorporate the pagan Mid Winter festival into their calendar in order to make conversions to christianity easier.

Yes well perhaps my use of Noddy Holder would suggest a certain light-hearted tone to the post!

A factual statement about the birth date of Jesus and the Christian celebration of Christmas was not my intention, nor was it Noddies..

[Crimson Dynamo]

There you go LT
Fact.

I take my Arista facts the same way I take my boiled eggs...




(and both incidently originate from a hen's arse)

[Crimson Dynamo]

There you go LT
Fact.

and the guy is clearly miming

like JLS did

:joker:

[arista]

ReYfDlIa-Z8

LT
No this is all good sense,
infact Pat on this VT
is Bang On Right.

[Crimson Dynamo]

LT
No this is all good sense,
infact Pat on this VT
is Bang On Right.

yes he is a big you tube hit

like Susan Boyle

and Charlie bit my finger

:rolleyes:

[Dr.Gonzo]

I've been hearing a lot about Jesus loving cock lately. Maybe they should implement this new information into weekly mass...? What do you think, LT?? Imagine the poor bastard mincing up that hill with a sore arse and a big wooden bondage rack on his back....

I heard a guy kissed him just before he died.

[M X]

Yes, most defintely. lol.

[Crimson Dynamo]

What is rather surprising is that this should be seen as a slur, jumped upon by the new village atheists excitedly

i thought that being gay was not a bad thing in 2010?

[Shasown]

Yes well perhaps my use of Noddy Holder would suggest a certain light-hearted tone to the post!

A factual statement about the birth date of Jesus and the Christian celebration of Christmas was not my intention, nor was it Noddies..

Yeah its not a problem. One date is as good as another i suppose.

Take your pick

April 17, 6 BC/BCE

June 17, 2 BC/BCE

September 8th 4BC/BCE

September 11th, 3 BC/BCE

Would show God had a sense of humour if he was born on April 17th, however he was definately born before 1 BC/BCE

[Dr.Gonzo]

What is rather surprising is that this should be seen as a slur, jumped upon by the new village atheists excitedly

i thought that being gay was not a bad thing in 2010?

It isn't. But we village atheists know that Christians think otherwise and rejoice at rubbing Jesus' pink crotchless sexy-wear in your brainwashed little faces.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It isn't. But we village atheists know that Christians think otherwise and rejoice at rubbing Jesus' pink crotchless sexy-wear in your brainwashed little faces.

..always with the sex angle



i would try a rectangle

[Dr.Gonzo]

The 'sex angle'? I would think that it's a vallid area of thought in a thread about Jesus being gay.

I'm sure you would try anything.

[Shasown]

I've been hearing a lot about Jesus loving cock lately. Maybe they should implement this new information into weekly mass...? What do you think, LT?? Imagine the poor bastard mincing up that hill with a sore arse and a big wooden bondage rack on his back....

I heard a guy kissed him just before he died.

PMSL, you better hope there isnt a god otherwise you will go straight to hell.

Incidentally he may have just been a giver and not a taker.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Luke 20:9-19

He began to tell the people this parable. "A man planted a vineyard, and rented it out to some farmers, and went into another country for a long time. At the proper season, he sent a servant to the farmers to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. But the farmers beat him, and sent him away empty. He sent yet another servant, and they also beat him, and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. He sent yet a third, and they also wounded him, and threw him out. The lord of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be that seeing him, they will respect him.’ "But when the farmers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.’ They threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy these farmers, and will give the vineyard to others." When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!" But he looked at them, and said, "Then what is this that is written, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the chief cornerstone?’ "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, But it will crush whomever it falls on to dust." The chief priests and the scribes sought to lay hands on Him that very hour, but they feared the people—for they knew He had spoken this parable against them.

[arista]

What is rather surprising is that this should be seen as a slur, jumped upon by the new village atheists excitedly

i thought that being gay was not a bad thing in 2010?



Ask the Mental Pope.

[ElProximo]

Almost every Christian has a different answer to if Jesus is god or not.

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.
For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

[Crimson Dynamo]

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.
For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

well said my wrestling friend

[InOne]

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.
For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

Catholics and everyone else disagree about it. Which is why the Catholic Church also uses different texts. Would you care to explain the trinity to me then 1+1+1=1???????????

[Crimson Dynamo]

Catholics and everyone else disagree about it. Which is why the Catholic Church also uses different texts. Would you care to explain the trinity to me then 1+1+1=1???????????

Read the Bible if you seek answers

or go to church


http://www.carm.org/trinity

[InOne]

Just explain the trinity please, in your own words.

[Vicky.]

Who cares if jesus was gay?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Who cares if jesus was gay?

Christians would but he was not so it is a moot point


not many people are gay, only around 4% of the total population specify that as their sexual proclivity

[Vicky.]

Christians would but he was not so it is a moot point



And you know this how?

And christians are ridiculous tbh...being gay does not change a person

[Crimson Dynamo]

Just explain the trinity please, in your own words.

"God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God."

this ^^^

[Crimson Dynamo]

And you know this how?

And christians are ridiculous tbh...being gay does not change a person

who says it does. the christian view has always been love the person but not the act.

i have not met many people who would disagree

[Patrick]

Hes not real never mind Gay.

[Vicky.]

who says it does. the christian view has always been love the person but not the act.

i have not met many people who would disagree

But it would make a difference if they found out that jesus was gay? Why?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Hes not real never mind Gay.

says mr Eastenders..


:xyxwave:

[Crimson Dynamo]

But it would make a difference if they found out that jesus was gay? Why?


It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

what if we found out that evolution was made up by John Craven to get his own back on Maggie Philben

what if Arista posted a thread and then never voted it 5 stars...

[Vicky.]

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile


How is it? its perfectly plausible that he might have been gay.

[Crimson Dynamo]

How is it? its perfectly plausible that he might have been gay.

bearing in mind he has 4 independent accounts of his life - 3 from eyewitness and backed up by around 5000 surviving documents it would seem unlikely that we missed this nugget

[Patrick]

says mr Eastenders..


:xyxwave:

Wha'?

[Shasown]

That is not true.
For nearly 2000 years there is tremendous unity on the nature of Christ and of Him being God incarnate.
Even as far back to the earliest councils recorded we see the earliest Christians having very little disagreement and even that being on 'how' He was God incarnate.For centuries Christians around the world and crossing denominations recited the Nicene, Apostles creeds every Sunday,
and,
to this day, even with as many 'exceptions proving the rule' we see a massive global church of so many denominations which acknowledge this. Even those disagreeing intensely on many 'in house' issues will be in total agreement on the nature of Christ.

So why you said something like this really amazes me. Its as if you just thought it 'sounded good' and fit your worldview of what you would like Christianity to 'come across' like... and so you wrote it.
Hoping it would just fly.

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wha'?

you
got
it

[Patrick]

you
got
it

Is it an insult?

[Crimson Dynamo]

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

[Crimson Dynamo]

Is it an insult?

no

LT never insults posters

:nono:

[Shasown]

How is it? its perfectly plausible that he might have been gay.

Given his divine nature why is it plausible? Surely it can be accepted that if he was indeed god incarnate, he wouldnt need to be a sexual being. Also if he was God incarnate would he give himself a sexuality that would if he was discovered have at the very least undermined his ministry at the time and even nowadays in some peoples eyes, and probably shortened his life dramatically. (They used to love stoning people did those jews).

[Patrick]

no

LT never insults posters

:nono:

Oh okay :thumbs:

[Vicky.]

Given his divine nature why is it plausible? Surely it can be accepted that if he was indeed god incarnate, he wouldnt need to be a sexual being. Also if he was God incarnate would he give himself a sexuality that would if he was discovered have at the very least undermined his ministry at the time and even nowadays in some peoples eyes, and probably shortened his life dramatically. (They used to love stoning people did those jews).

Because I believe jesus was just a normal person...who people wrote stories about...no reason why he couldnt be gay :D

They are hardly going to put in the bible 'Jesus walked on water while sticking a finger up his bum to the thought of moses' now are they :laugh:

[InOne]

"God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. Each has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of personhood. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God."

this ^^^

in other words, one big contradiction lol

[Shasown]

throughout his earthly ministry Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed..

mark 14:61-62
John 5:18. 20; 8:58; 10:30-33

and vindicated his claims to deity by living a sinless life

I really could have some fun ripping this apart, its a translation fron Ancient Greek consequently the answer "I am" can also be read as The I am is here.

I suppose you are using one of the newer dumbed down version of the Bible, I use the older and more reliable Catholic Bible, upbringing sorry to say

and sitting at gods right hand should be read as sitting at the right hand of the power,

they are both quotes from scriptures namely Exod 3:14 and Ps 110:1 see also Dan 7:13.

It wasnt an affirmation of being the Christ, it was an answer to question the high priests right to question him. throughout his ministry he challenged the Pharisees and priests, this was a direct challenge against the authority of the Sanhedrin.


As in the case of the John references as well:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”

Bear i mind though John was again wrote in Anciet Greek so the translation we have do not draw on the full context of the original Aramaic words the man himself used .

While the Greek phrase in John does mean “I am,” the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means “to be” or “to become.” In other words God is saying, “I will be what I will be.” Thus the “I am” in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said “I am” did not make him God.

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

[Shasown]

Because I believe jesus was just a normal person...who people wrote stories about...no reason why he couldnt be gay :D

They are hardly going to put in the bible 'Jesus walked on water while sticking a finger up his bum to the thought of moses' now are they :laugh:

How many normal people do you know that can walk on water? Except me of course honey! Or turn water into wine except homebrewers? Oh ok who can get scourged etc, crucified, take a spear in the side , and then appear a few days later all bright eyed and bushy tailed?

[Vicky.]

How many normal people do you know that can walk on water? Except me of course honey! Or turn water into wine except homebrewers? Oh ok who can get scourged etc, crucified, take a spear in the side , and then appear a few days later all bright eyed and bushy tailed?

I already know its a load of bullshine...if thats what your getting at :)

[GunthersTeabag]

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

what if we found out that evolution was made up by John Craven to get his own back on Maggie Philben

what if Arista posted a thread and then never voted it 5 stars...
Your comparing being gay to being a murderer or a paedophile?

[WOMBAI]

It is a moot point the same as saying what if we found out he was a murderer and a paedophile

what if we found out that evolution was made up by John Craven to get his own back on Maggie Philben

what if Arista posted a thread and then never voted it 5 stars...

I wondered who put the stars there - I thought it was admin - but thought the judgement was strange sometimes - it is explained!

[ElProximo]

The nature of Jesus' divinity was asserted by Saul of Tarsus later St Paul. Jesus never said he was God incarnate. Other religious including early christian sects at the time that knew of Jesus and his ministry were later declared heretic, outlaw and suppressed. Take for example Gnostics, Essenes, Donatists.. to name a few.

Incidentally the Nicene Creed came about in 325AD/CE after the first ecumenical council.

Yes but all you are doing is proving out what I told you.
First off - part of the reason YOU EVEN KNOW about early Christian sects (and gnostics definitely make up a lot of them) is because this is not only referred to in the New Testament itself,
but,
also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

And a reminder that listing exceptions to the rule - proves the rule.
You can list me Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and keep going with handfuls of little cults
(if you list names it makes it sound more over-whelming),
but,
65 wacky fringe denominations don't change the fact that some 1 billion people from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Presbys, Lutherans, Methodists... really any and all massive main denominations all agree on the Divinity of Christ.
It might even be a rare thing we all DO entirely agree on.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I really could have some fun ripping this apart,
snip

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

[Crimson Dynamo]

snip

Given that neither book were actually wrote as they are alleged to have occurred, but consdierably later after his death, dont you find it amazing that the writer in the case of Mark's godspel can quote what was said word for word, given that they werent actually there because it was wrote about 2 centuries after the actual event?

this whole paragraph is nonsensical and just plain incorrect,

Mark was written mid to late 50s AD to mid to late 60s AD

John was written 70-100 AD

Mark was eyewitness dictation from Peter

John was an apostle, one of the 12 disciples ("the disciple whom Jesus loved"), John the son of Zebedee.


This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.

[karezza]

Jesus was also a Vegan and he didn't drive a car.

[Niamh.]

Jesus was also a Vegan and he didn't drive a car.

he did, he drove a Range Rover

[Shasown]

You really could have some fun ripping apart basic Christian doctrine that has survived and flourished for 2000 odd years?

That is probably the most arrogant and self-righteous statement that Tibb will get in 2010.

Others far, far greater than you have tried and failed.

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.




This is not my own personal opinion it is historical accepted fact which can be fully checked online or in any modern study Bible.

and the Bible translation I use is the ESV if you can prove to me that the Catholic Bible (which uses the vulgate) uses better sources and more up to date manuscript and sources than the ESV that would be just grand.


As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Thats why everyone believes in Jesusand the Gospels isnt it, because it cant be ripped apart. Incidentally it was your interpretation of the passages you quoted that i referred to.

Your claim was that it was not Biblical to claim that Jesus did proclaim that he was God and that it incorrect. It may be worth asking what you think Jesus was?



Basic Christian tenets are mulled over argued over and ripped apart in churches, schools and seminaries everyday and have been since shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, so no its not arrogant and self righteous, Get over it.

Christians believe that Jesus is God. The Bible teaches that God is one in essence, three in Person: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each is fully God. God is not three gods but three in one. This is not a mathematical contradiction. Although humans cannot completely grasp the paradox of the tri-unity of God, we trust His revelation is true. Christians do not believe in three gods. Our one God manifests Himself in three Persons. If you do not believe that then you are not a Christian

Believing the words that are put in front of you are the words of God, who had them wrote specially for you is And that your interpretation or beliefs in them is the only correct belief or interpretation is.

Sorry that does not make sense!


As for their actual date of origin, no one can say, the dates you quote are the earliest best guess, however when the author called Mark wrote his gospel he was aware of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of writing, this happened in 70 AD/CE.

These dates are commonly held by our best Biblical historians and the Christian Church.

As for being a dictation from Peter. Peter knew the area where he had been born and lived, Mark obviously hadnt been there, this is evidenced by some of the accounts of the travels of Jesus.

Is a minority view and not commonly held by the Christian Church

Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Glasgow and Dublin. See also Mark 11:1. Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. this could also rule out a direct dictation, couldnt it?

as above

The earliest accurate historical reference to the Gospels as belonging to any particular writer wasn't until the 2nd century AD.

Not sure what you are driving at but i can see how far down the Wikipedia page for the Gospel of Mark you are!

As for John the apostle being the actual author of the gospel bearing his name thats is extremely unlikely, its possible a student of his started it, however studies of it has shown it being penned by at least two people. A fact born out by the Gospel itself, in chapter 21 it is stated that it derives from the testimony of the 'Disciple whom Jesus loved',

Biblical evidence and external evidence from church fathers suggest that you are wrong as does the Christian Church and 2000 yeas of Christianity

It is more than likely the three synoptic gospels were drawn from one historical source whether this was Mark itself or the Gospel of the Hebrews or even the mythical Q document, who knows.

But if you want to believe that the apostles who's names they bear wrote them, feel free, thats what Faith is about.

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

[Glenn.]

What was wrong with calling this thread 'Was Jesus Gay?' Instead of 'Was Jesus a Gay.
Does it really matter? He isnt real. Just a character in a book that was written years and years ago. In a thousand years they will be talking about Harry Potter, and how he defeated the Dark Lord as fact.
Thats where Jesus came from. He is just part of the best selling book ever written.

[Crimson Dynamo]

What was wrong with calling this thread 'Was Jesus Gay?' Instead of 'Was Jesus a Gay.
Does it really matter? He isnt real. Just a character in a book that was written years and years ago. In a thousand years they will be talking about Harry Potter, and how he defeated the Dark Lord as fact.
Thats where Jesus came from. He is just part of the best selling book ever written.

It is bizarre that an opinion like this even exists!

But then I presume that you do not "believe" in Pliny, Plato, Caesar, King Henry the 8th

:crazy:

[Shasown]

also because early church leaders (before Nicea) wrote about them, wrote about where they went wrong and wrote about how they were NOT squaring with the church at large or the leadership,
and
if you ever want confirmation on that then you get Nicea where it starts with almost every representative from every region ALREADY understanding.. as a 'given'... that Jesus is God incarnate.
In fact the 'big debate' is over Arius and a couple of his friends who DONT actually deny anything,
but,
have some nearly 'definition games' over just what exactly 'essence' might mean.

To say "every christian has a different idea of this" is about as wrong as wrong can get.

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils. Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument, with the weight of the agreement of the over 300 bishops in attendance. [Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west). The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated; Socrates Scholasticus and Epiphanius of Salamis counted 318; Eusebius of Caesarea, only 250.]"


So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God, in some cases they believed that God had sent him, spoke through him or simply he was a very good man whose example should be followed Other heresies believed in the non humanity of Jesus. Others had still differing views about the created of the holy trinity etc.

Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,

Cerintus, , Carpocratians They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ;

Nestorianism (named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Ebionitism. Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divine. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings

Dynamic Monarchianism claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God,

Docetism is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die

The Nazareans, or "Jewish-Christians" as some of them were eventually called by the Romanized Christians, did not appreciate this distortion of their Teachers of Righteousness. These Nazareans did not accept the writings and doctrines of Paul, nor did they take much account of the Gospels which found their way into the New Testament bible. Instead, they used the Gospel of Hebrews which denied, among other things, the Roman version of the virgin birth.

Pelagianism - In their view every child was born absolutely innocent, free of what the traditional church called 'the original sin'. In effect this meant that to Pelagius Christ was not a saviour who took Adam's original sin upon himself, but merely a teacher who gave mankind an example of what man should be

All of them were christian all had one thing in common they were declared heretic, their teachings suppressed and they were given the chance to move back into what became the Roman Catholic Church, if not they were surpressed. A few hundred years ago denying the pope would have got you declared heretic and ex-communicated from the church at best.

Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

[Crimson Dynamo]

snip
To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

that is why we have The Bible and we judge Christianity on Jesus and his earthly ministry and not on man.

[Shasown]

all of what you say seems to have been gleaned from Wikipedia. I would suggest that rather than relying on that you rely on Biblical and historical weight of evidence.

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

[Crimson Dynamo]

So the bible is 100% factually true?

God made the first man, Adam and the first women, Eve and everyone else is descended from them?

The Bible has many literary styles: poetry, allegory, historical fact, eyewitness account, love song, poetry, prophesy, psalms, proverbs and apocalyptic revelations. You read it as literature, paying close attention to form, figurative language and fantasy imagery.

[Shasown]

Genesis 1:26 Then god said "let us make man ...
:27 And god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them.

Chapter 2 Seventh day he rested then Genesis 2: 7 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground..... man became a living being. Gensisi 2:21 So the Lord god caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept...... ( takes rib makes Eve)

So did god have two pops at making men or not?

Adam and Eve have two children Cain and Abel, with me so far?

Genesis 4:17 And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived ... Enoch who then had Irad. Where did all these women come from?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Genesis 1:26 Then god said "let us make man ...
:27 And god created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him, male and female he created them.

Chapter 2 Seventh day he rested then Genesis 2: 7 then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground..... man became a living being. Gensisi 2:21 So the Lord god caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept...... ( takes rib makes Eve)

So did god have two pops at making men or not?

Adam and Eve have two children Cain and Abel, with me so far?

Genesis 4:17 And Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived ... Enoch who then had Irad. Where did all these women come from?


As you have "gleaned" these bog standard questions online and not from your own genuine questions let me save several posts and forward you to:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy

[Shasown]

As you have "gleaned" these bog standard questions online and not from your own genuine questions let me save several posts and forward you to:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy

Wrong again. these questions and lots more were asked years ago by myself and others in RI(Religious Instruction) I was educated at a catholic school prior to entry into a seminary at 17.

Incidentally, what faith are you? You may feel this doesnt matter, but think about it. If you believe in the Bible so much how come you havent converted to Catholicism? After all Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

Is that not Jesus investing Peter as the earthly head of his church, in which case the catholic Church is the only church with a line of authority directly from Jesus.

[ElProximo]

Get your facts right, the winners decide history in wars and religion, thats why so called heretical gospels were suppressed and the followers were in some cases annihilated.

But you just made that up.
Based on nothing.
You actually just wrote some baseless fantasy and said it like it was 'fact'.

There is every reason to believe gnosticism was a big problem in the early church and so too was 'legalism' (or we say 'Galatianism' too),
but,
No.
No, there is no story of gnostics getting defeated in some war with the orthodox christians,
and,
further more there is no reason to believe the 'winners' then erased the history of the other.

Here let me remind you again - THE REASON YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT SOME GNOSTICS AND OPPOSING GROUPS IS BECAUSE THE CHRISTIANS RECORDED THIS FOR US.
So in your fake story you made-up it asks us to believe they first suppressed their history but then all the early church fathers RECORDED AND PRESERVED THEIR ACCOUNTS, CRITICISMS AND DOCTRINES.
Stupid.

I mean if you are going to make up fake stories out of thin air then at least try and make them non-stupid like that one.


"Before 325 AD, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate within the churches. After 325 AD, some opinion was formulated as dogma through the canons promulgated by the councils.

But that is NOT what happens at Nicea.
In fact - the most 'telling' thing about Nicea is that Bishops begin the discussion like everyone ALREADY well understood all the basics and even most everything else.
The whole thing starts out in SO MUCH AGREEMENT that there is VERY LITTLE discussion about ANY of the Christian doctrines.

This is THE 'smoking gun' evidence that Christianity and its doctrines are ALREADY well established.
That they did not even feel the need to bring them up and carried on discussions as if already understood.

Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, which was hammered out at the Council of Nicaea, addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion and closes the books on the argument,

No, that is not true at all.
There was no passionate discussions about 'each line' and what is the most telling is that there WAS NOT any passionate debates about these things.

The only 'passionate debate' was over a couple of dudes who were NOT debating whether or not Christ was Divine but over just what exactly 'essence of God' should mean.


So out of 1800 bishops, you have 318 or thereabouts who actually attended Nicaea. Hardly every belief represented. And if you didnt follow the Church of Rome's line, you were a heretic.

Uhh... well they were not representatives of 'different beliefs' but were bishops and leaders of Christian churches,
and,
again.. what is MOST TELLING is that the ones who made it came from often far-flung and entirely separate regions where many may well have never even know of the others.
IF there were 'many different beliefs' then you sure bet we would have seen it exposed when they all got to meet and compare,
but,
No... instead it is very obvious they all understood Christian doctrines and in near perfect agreement (certainly on all the basics which were a 'given' in this meet-up).

The following were supressed christian sects which didnt all believe that Jesus was the Son of God,............
Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism, Agnosticism Marcionites, Tritheism, Modalism, Basidilians, Tertullianists, Origenists, Manicheans, Millenarians, Novatians, Montanism,


Even after 'pre-mocking' this you still went for that weak 'overwhelming list',
but,
What you do is (as I said already) give me a list of exceptions PROVING THE RULE.
and,
Here again you screw your own made-up story about 'suppression' because YOU KNOW ABOUT MOST OF THESE FROM THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WHO ARE YOUR TEACHERS AND PRESERVED THIS KNOWLEDGE YOU JUST RECEIVED.

Orthodox Christians recorded and preserved knowledge of the critics. In fact early Church fathers did a superb job documenting these groups.
Woops!


Incidentally Arius was deemed heretic, welcomed back into the church and then after his death declared heretic again.

Yes, I am already aware you have been on Wiki for over an hour and finding ways to 'retell' this but in a way that makes it sound like its arguing against Christianity and for your fake story and 'as if' you were educating.
Good job!

To take the line you finished on maybe its me but I understand it to mean if you took a hundred christians regardless of whether they came from the same church or not and questioned them in depth on god, jesus etc you would get 100 different sets of answers.

What I would tell you is that a billion Christians crossing the planet and crossing just about every mainline denomination (certainly all the largest ones) go to their church that accepts Jesus as God incarnate as Nicene described it and as is the 'orthodox' view.

Again, you can go ahead and list the 200+ 'Christian' orgs with some other views but that is just making my point for me.

What about this is confusing to you anyways?
You thought Roman Catholics, Presbys, Lutherans, Anglicans all had 'different interpretations' and all had different opinions about whether Jesus was God or not?
Well wrong.
Get real.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wrong again. these questions and lots more were asked years ago by myself and others in RI(Religious Instruction) I was educated at a catholic school prior to entry into a seminary at 17.

Incidentally, what faith are you? You may feel this doesnt matter, but think about it. If you believe in the Bible so much how come you havent converted to Catholicism? After all Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

Is that not Jesus investing Peter as the earthly head of his church, in which case the catholic Church is the only church with a line of authority directly from Jesus.

Matt. 16:18 you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter's relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter's confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself. But even if “this rock” refers to Peter, the question remains as to what that means. Protestants generally have thought that it refers to Peter in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah, and that the other disciples would share in that role as they made a similar confession (see Eph. 2:20, where the church is built on all the apostles; cf. Rev. 21:14). Jesus' statement did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles (indeed, Paul corrects him publicly in Gal. 2:11–14), nor did it mean that he would be infallible in his teaching (Jesus rebukes him in Matt. 16:23), nor did it imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an office. Certainly in the first half of Acts Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church, but he is still “sent” by other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18). Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem council, and James has the decisive final word (Acts 15:7–21). And, though Peter certainly has a central role in the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16. “Church” (Gk. ekklēsia) is used only here and in Matt. 18:17 in the Gospels. Jesus points ahead to the time when his disciples, his family of faith (12:48–50), will be called “my church.” Jesus will build his church, and though it is founded on the apostles and the prophets, “Christ Jesus himself [is] the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Some scholars object that Jesus could not have foreseen the later emergence of the “church” at this time, but the use of Greek ekklēsia to refer to God's “called out” people has substantial background in the Septuagint (e.g., Deut. 9:10; 31:30; 1 Sam. 17:47; 1 Kings 8:14). Jesus is predicting that he will build a community of believers who follow him. This “called out” community would soon become known as “the church,” a separate community of believers, as described in the book of Acts. gates of hell (Gk. hadēs, “Hades”; cf. “gates of Sheol” [Isa. 38:10]; “gates of death” [Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18]). “Gates” were essential for a city's security and power. Hades, or Sheol, is the realm of the dead. Death will not overpower the church.

ESV Study Bible notes

[InOne]

Well to be fair it does not matter what the Christians think, there is no God anyway.

[Shasown]

But you just made that up.

Get real.

PMSL I didnt make any of it up, there is no need to. Its a matter of historical fact. Regardless of how much you try to ridicule the truth, you know it is true and you cant disprove it.

The early christians recorded it so that everyone would know what was the true faith(in their eyes).

If you cant handle the truth you best not look at subjects like the Cathars, the burning of Priscillian and his followers?

Constantine converted to christianity in the 310's after that time christianity became a persecuting religion. Following the decline of the Roman Empire things settled, however business resumed as normal in the heretic persecution industry in the 11th century.

What was the Inquisition all about then?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Well to be fair it does not matter what the Christians think, there is no God anyway.


You keep telling yourself that Inone and perhaps one day you may convince yourself


:joker:

[Shasown]

Matt. 16:18 you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. This is one of the most controversial and debated passages in all of Scripture. Roman Catholics have appealed to this passage to defend the idea that Peter was the first pope. The key question concerns Peter's relationship to “this rock.” In Greek, “Peter” is Petros (“stone”), which is related to petra (“rock”). The other NT name of Peter, Cephas (cf. John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12), is the Aramaic equivalent: kepha’ means “rock,” and translates in Greek as Kēphas. “This rock” has been variously interpreted as referring to (1) Peter himself; (2) Peter's confession; or (3) Christ and his teachings. For several reasons, the first option is the strongest. Jesus' entire pronouncement is directed toward Peter, and the connecting word “and” (Gk. kai) most naturally identifies the rock with Peter himself. But even if “this rock” refers to Peter, the question remains as to what that means. Protestants generally have thought that it refers to Peter in his role of confessing Jesus as the Messiah, and that the other disciples would share in that role as they made a similar confession (see Eph. 2:20, where the church is built on all the apostles; cf. Rev. 21:14). Jesus' statement did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles (indeed, Paul corrects him publicly in Gal. 2:11–14), nor did it mean that he would be infallible in his teaching (Jesus rebukes him in Matt. 16:23), nor did it imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an office. Certainly in the first half of Acts Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church, but he is still “sent” by other apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14), and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1–18). Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem council, and James has the decisive final word (Acts 15:7–21). And, though Peter certainly has a central role in the establishment of the church, he disappears from the Acts narrative after Acts 16. “Church” (Gk. ekklēsia) is used only here and in Matt. 18:17 in the Gospels. Jesus points ahead to the time when his disciples, his family of faith (12:48–50), will be called “my church.” Jesus will build his church, and though it is founded on the apostles and the prophets, “Christ Jesus himself [is] the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Some scholars object that Jesus could not have foreseen the later emergence of the “church” at this time, but the use of Greek ekklēsia to refer to God's “called out” people has substantial background in the Septuagint (e.g., Deut. 9:10; 31:30; 1 Sam. 17:47; 1 Kings 8:14). Jesus is predicting that he will build a community of believers who follow him. This “called out” community would soon become known as “the church,” a separate community of believers, as described in the book of Acts. gates of hell (Gk. hadēs, “Hades”; cf. “gates of Sheol” [Isa. 38:10]; “gates of death” [Job 38:17; Ps. 9:13; 107:18]). “Gates” were essential for a city's security and power. Hades, or Sheol, is the realm of the dead. Death will not overpower the church.

ESV Study Bible notes

Neat quote mate however To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

[InOne]

You keep telling yourself that Inone and perhaps one day you may convince yourself


:joker:

I think it is you who needs to keep convincing himself there is lol

[Crimson Dynamo]

Neat quote mate however To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom.

Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

I will go with the ESV scholars thanks

and it is Mr mate to you

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think it is you who needs to keep convincing himself there is lol

keep trying:hugesmile:

[Shasown]

I will go with the ESV scholars thanks

and it is Mr mate to you

No thanks respect has to be earned in my eyes.

Incidentally isnt your arguement that Peter wasnt meant to be Pope flying in the face of christine doctrine established for 16 centuries (from the foundations of the church until the reformation)? Or is that once again muddying the issue with fact? I do recall you accusing me of something similar.

[InOne]

keep trying:hugesmile:

I still don't know if you're even really Christian or not lol

[Crimson Dynamo]

No thanks respect has to be earned in my eyes.

Incidentally isnt your arguement that Peter wasnt meant to be Pope flying in the face of christine doctrine established for 16 centuries (from the foundations of the church until the reformation)? Or is that once again muddying the issue with fact? I do recall you accusing me of something similar.

I don't have an argument, however you seem to have issues with semantics that have scaled your eyes to the rather obvious bigger picture.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I still don't know if you're even really Christian or not lol

I would suggest that you have little idea what to be a Christian really is, and i don't mean that in a mean way.

[InOne]

I would suggest that you have little idea what to be a Christian really is, and i don't mean that in a mean way.

I know what it is about, I just don't need a 'god'

[arista]

I still don't know if you're even really Christian or not lol


No he is a Bible Freak.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I know what it is about, I just don't need a 'god'

For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of time--to show us his grace through Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:9

[Crimson Dynamo]

No he is a Bible Freak.

Friday night and the lights are low
Looking out for the place to go
Where they play the right music, getting in the swing
You come in to look for a king
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music's high
With a bit of rock music, everything is fine
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance

You are the Bible freak, young and sweet, only seventeen
Bible freak, feel the beat from the tambourine oh yeah
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
Ooo see that girl, watch that scene, diggin the old LT

[WOMBAI]

Friday night and the lights are low
Looking out for the place to go
Where they play the right music, getting in the swing
You come in to look for a king
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music's high
With a bit of rock music, everything is fine
You're in the mood for a dance
And when you get the chance

You are the Bible freak, young and sweet, only seventeen
Bible freak, feel the beat from the tambourine oh yeah
You can dance, you can jive, having the time of your life
Ooo see that girl, watch that scene, diggin the old LT

Are you a dancing queen! :joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Are you a dancing queen! :joker:

I love that song and it is not a homosexual anthem. They cannot steal a classic like they did with "he's the greatest dancer"

[Shasown]

But that is NOT what happens at Nicea.
In fact - the most 'telling' thing about Nicea is that Bishops begin the discussion like everyone ALREADY well understood all the basics and even most everything else.
The whole thing starts out in SO MUCH AGREEMENT that there is VERY LITTLE discussion about ANY of the Christian doctrines.



Is that why it was only composed in part and adopted at the First Council of Nicea (325) and revised with additions by the First Council of Constantinople (381)?

And less than 300 out of the 320 odd attendees out of the 1800 invitees actually agreed to it?



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nicene.htm

http://www.crcna.org/pages/nicene_creed.cfm

And just for you proxi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

[ElProximo]

Is that why it was only composed in part and adopted at the First Council of Nicea (325) and revised with additions by the First Council of Constantinople (381)?

Here again you can't just 'say it' but need to ask some open-ended question 'as if' that alone is sufficient to cast all doubts,
but,
here is what I am going to do for you.. just snip out the section in wikipedia you deliberately ignored:

*Keep in mind, typically wikipedia is NO FRIEND to Christianity and if there was a way for them to make the most critical and suspicious picture they would, yet they clearly state (as is well known)...

the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had also long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[3] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

You might as well embolden and underline every sentence in that.

And less than 300 out of the 320 odd attendees out of the 1800 invitees actually agreed to it?

This has to be the dumbest complaint ever. Especially considering the tremendous distances and I can just imagine the eye-brows raised getting special invitation by Constantine of all people (even though he had very little to do with it but be a 'master or ceremonies for the opening),
but,
Yeah, actually 300 different bishops from all over is extremely good and that they ALREADY had such such unity is about all the mathematical probability you could ever ask for in just about any historical investigation of that time.
but hey,
If you need to make-up fake 'what we don't know' conspiracy theories about the rest then enjoy your fantasies.
You'd like the Koran too.

As for your other 'backfire' about the diabolical 'clarifying' I really wonder what you are trying to do here - prove yourself wrong?
Clarifying.. adding more specific details (mainly to eliminate any doubts over little word and definition games),
we have described in Wiki:

For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.

1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God. This is considered one of the mysteries of the catholic church.
3. Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.



OH NOES!
So we know for certain by 325 Christian leaders from around the empire already knew Jesus was God incarnate,
but,
at this point - because of a couple of quibbles - they had to clarify it down to the most finite details.
Oh no!
All of which just goes to show you HOW ESTABLISHED this central Christian doctrine already was.

To this day the vast majority of all Christians on earth crossing nearly every denomination stand in church and recite that Nicene Creed.
Those make up the vast almost entirety of Christianity today.

Oh yes.. they may disagree on many other things too. 'in house debates' over just what exactly is meant by 'transubstantiation' or arguments over whether someone was a virgin or not,
but,
Without a doubt the Divinity of Christ is one thing so unifying across the board it must be a testimony to everyone of the power of that cross.
To think over 1 Billion people crossing the globe from any culture and wide-spread and differing denominations over 2000 years of history and yet that is something they rock-solid stand firm in unity.
Amazing really.

[Shasown]

There are none so blind as those that wont see.

here is what I am going to do for you.. just snip out the section in wikipedia you deliberately ignored:

Unlike yourself I read and digest all of an article. You missed the bit

"The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. "

So much for a unified belief.

the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. The council did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ as is sometimes claimed. This idea had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. It had also long been widely endorsed by the Christian community of the otherwise pagan city of Rome.[3] Instead, the council affirmed and defined what it had found to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is; that Christ is the one true God in Deity with the Father.

Why do the early church leaders need to define unity of beliefs if they were so united? The council didnt invent Christ's divinity, thats true, that may have been invented earlier in church history. Whether you believe Jesus is divine is down to you. Thats what faith is about.


Yeah, actually 300 different bishops from all over is extremely good and that they ALREADY had such such unity is about all the mathematical probability you could ever ask for in just about any historical investigation of that time.

Its fantastic isnt it, given that means nearly 1500 invitees didnt attend. As for unity, you stated earlier there was no debate, it was in your eyes pretty much a done deal agreeing to the articles, how do you know? Please share this wonderful knowledge you have of the Council of Nicaea.


OH NOES!
So we know for certain by 325 Christian leaders from around the empire already knew Jesus was God incarnate,
but,
at this point - because of a couple of quibbles - they had to clarify it down to the most finite details.
Oh no!
All of which just goes to show you HOW ESTABLISHED this central Christian doctrine already was.


Yes very established and all believing the same thing, so why were so many early christian sects declared heretic? We know there were many beliefs declared heresies because council decisions had to be made public and recorded.

Prior to the first Ecumenical Council, decisions within the church were taken by the church Council in Jerusalem. (apostolic council). They had a good say in how things should be within the early church. Including altering Gospels to prove the Messiahship of Christ. Authorising and rejecting gospels to be included within the churches belief.

Just because, as you say, 1 Billion Christians stand up every sunday and recite a creed doesnt mean they believe it or even understand it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Shasown

Why don't you either give up or say succinctly what the point is that you are badly trying to make.

[Glenn.]

It is bizarre that an opinion like this even exists!

But then I presume that you do not "believe" in Pliny, Plato, Caesar, King Henry the 8th

:crazy:


There is no proof that Jesus was real other than the bible. The only written accounts of him are in the bible.

[Crimson Dynamo]

There is no proof that Jesus was real other than the bible. The only written accounts of him are in the bible.

is incorrect.

and what do you know of Biblical manuscript evidence and indeed 1-5 century manuscript evidence for any historical figure?

(I will go and make some tea meantime)

[Glenn.]

Im not going to sit here and try and prove Jesus was real. If there was any way of knowing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Im not going to sit here and try and prove Jesus was real. If there was any way of knowing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

i love it when a poster owns himself in 2 posts:devil:

[setanta]

Im not going to sit here and try and prove Jesus was real. If there was any way of knowing, we wouldnt be having this conversation.

He was a real historical figure and his name isn't just mentioned in the Bible.

[Glenn.]

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

[Crimson Dynamo]

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

read the Bible and make your own mind up


no one will persuade you. it is up to you. it is your responsibility.

[setanta]

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

That's irrelevent really to the debate you've decided to open up which questions whether or not Christ lived at all. There's alot of evidence to support the fact that a prophet known as Jesus did exist at that time and had many followers, during his life and after his death - forget about the wine and bread stuff for a second. You don't have to believe in that stuff and it's not a question of faith; it's just commonly accepted that Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being.

[Crimson Dynamo]

That's irrelevent really to the debate you've decided to open up which questions whether or not Christ lived at all. There's alot of evidence to support the fact that a prophet known as Jesus did exist at that time and had many followers, during his life and after his death - forget about the wine and bread stuff for a second. You don't have to believe in that stuff and it's not a question of faith; it's just commonly accepted that Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being.

thank you Setanta

[Vicky.]

In a thousand years they will be talking about Harry Potter, and how he defeated the Dark Lord as fact.
.

PMSL :laugh2:

The funnier thing is...this could be true :shocked:

[Glenn.]

In answer to this thread. How can Jesus had been gay when the Christian community were so against homosexuality?
If he WERE real, I do not think he would of been gay.

[Crimson Dynamo]

PMSL :laugh2:

The funnier thing is...this could be true :shocked:

to suggest that is to lay forth your ignorance to the forum

you are what is known as a Chronological snob

[Crimson Dynamo]

In answer to this thread. How can Jesus had been gay when the Christian community were so against homosexuality?
If he WERE real, I do not think he would of been gay.

can you explain "the Christian community were so against homosexuality"?

[Glenn.]

Various websites on this matter with one site quoted homosexuals to be, 'an evil abomination in the eyes of God'

Was'nt Jesus God's son?

[Shasown]

It is my opinion that Jesus did not exist. My opinion.
How can someone be born without conception? How someone can feed 5000 people with a bit bread.
If you can explain to me how this was possible without saying that it was a miracle then you have me converted.

Whether or not the person is reputed to have been born without conception doesnt negate the fact that a person called Jesus, lived and preached in the Middle East and had an effect on enough people to start a religion in his name.

The last thing leaders of a new religion are going to do is make claims about a ficticious person especially as the religion remained and grew in the area, after the time of Jesus' death. Wouldnt people just turn and say, "Jesus? Crucifiction? what the hell are you on about?"

If he was God incarnate then being born without conception and feeding a few thousand people with next to nothing would have been childs play.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Various websites on this matter with one site quoted homosexuals to be, 'an evil abomination in the eyes of God'

what websites?

[Vicky.]

you are what is known as a Chronological snob

If believing the bible to be nothing but stories is now known as being a chronological snob...then Im proud to be one.

At least I'm not gullible :D

[Glenn.]

^^^^^^^^^^
My view exactly



This website for one.
http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective

[Crimson Dynamo]

If believing the bible to be nothing but stories is now known as being a chronological snob...then Im proud to be one.

At least I'm not gullible :D

no

you are ill informed

read

[Shasown]

what websites?

There are quite a few sites make that claim about homosexuality, whether its is homophobics masking as christians or fundamental christians etc is a decision to take after viewing the sites.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=homosexuality+abomination+in+the+eyes+of+God&meta=&aq=&oq=homosexuality+abomination+in+the+eyes+of+God&fp=a73fa2ac306dd28e

[Crimson Dynamo]

There are quite a few sites make that claim about homosexuality, whether its is homophobics masking as christians or fundamental christians etc is a decision to take after viewing the sites.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=homosexuality+abomination+in+the+eyes+of+God&meta=&aq=&oq=homosexuality+abomination+in+the+eyes+of+God&fp=a73fa2ac306dd28e

why not just read the Bible?

websites?

are you serious?

[Shasown]

why not just read the Bible?

websites?

are you serious?

Hey dont shoot the messenger, you asked what websites, I provided a link for you to a list of quite a lot.