|
Post by maryhig on Sept 20, 2023 12:20:57 GMT -5
It's disgusting, a man is a man and a woman is a woman, God created male and female to be as one, not male and male or female and female. And now it's getting even worse where you can't even call someone male or female as they are "non binary" it's pathetic. It's hell enlarging itself and people are falling deeper and deeper into it as they fall for the temptations of their perverted lusts, and it's wrong before the living God! From what I can tell righteousness is mentioned more than all other rules combined that the religion "Christianity" want to enslave it's members too. Regardless of your sexual preferences and those you do not like Jesus was most concerned about how you treat other people, Scripture needs to be read in the context of culture and time. What you have just done is sent a lot of good people to your hell just because you disagree with their sexual preferences or feelings. I now find that a disgusting way to look at your fellow human beings. Matthew 25, the Christ character was being righteous, not straight or gay or religious or what ever, generosity to others is the key, not generosity to yourself........ Plenty of things I do not like or disgree with in regards to these topics in our society today, but telling people they are part of a expanding hell because of ones religious beliefs despite the actual content of their character is the defenition of hell itself......... I'm sorry Chuck, but regardless of what you think, it's wrong for a man to become a woman in the eyes of God as clearly seen in the Bible. And it doesn't matter if the text is thousands of years old, God doesn't change. And I'm not condemning anyone to hell, we create our own hell in the here and now if we follow the lusts of the flesh rather than live by the will of God. I would help anyone in need regardless of who they are or what they are doing, but I would also tell them the truth in God and leave God to judge them and me. And Jesus isn't a Christ character, he is the Christ, the son of the living God.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 20, 2023 16:28:00 GMT -5
True, but when a group of people like the apostles are all willing to face horrific deaths rather than deny the story, it does lend some credibility to what they say.. I've yet to meet anyone who was willing to die in order to uphold a fabricated fairy tale!
What also makes a story true is when a dozen people all witness the same thing and tell the same story, without contradicting one another.
Conspiracies are generally fabricated for personal gain, money, power, etc... What motivation do you suppose the apostles had to lie? Did they suffer affliction, persecution, hatred, and death for the purpose of upholding a set of falsehoods? I kinda doubt it. The apostles and prophets were convinced of a truth they could not deny.
Have you ever been jolted awake by an epiphany, wondering if you might be losing your mind? How is it possible that, in the span of the last 2000 years, not a single scholar has explored or spoken about the idea that has been brewing in my mind for some time now? This revelation first dawned on me after a friend visited the so-called holy land and shared the intriguing details of his journey. Among the places he ventured was the site where King Herod constructed a temple dedicated to Caesar Augustus. In this particular region, Herod the Great undertook the ambitious task of building a temple in honor of Caesar Augustus, a move prompted by the abandonment of his previous supporters who were at odds with Augustus. Herod sought to placate Augustus with a proposition: "I understand you may harbor thoughts of ending my life, but spare me, and I will prove my unwavering loyalty as a true friend." King Herod's unwavering allegiance extended from Maritime Caesarea to Caesarea Philippi. In Caesarea Philippi, where the temple to Augustus stood alongside the Temple of Pan with a portal to the underworld; a natural spring with water levels fluctuating throughout the year, Dr. James Tabor led the expedition my friend was on. He encouraged them to observe their surroundings, pointing out the multitude of deities present, including the offspring of gods, gods themselves, minor deities, and even Caesars. It was within this diverse pantheon that Jesus posed the famous question, "Who do people say that I am?" In this bustling spiritual marketplace, Jesus found himself in competition right there in Caesarea Philippi, ready to make his mark. This rich tapestry of beliefs and faiths envelopes this historical site. It struck me that Jesus emerged seemingly out of nowhere, asking the question, "Who do people say that I am?" The responses varied, with some suggesting he was John the Baptist, others Elijah, and still others the prophet. Then, he turned to Peter, who confessed, "You are the Son of the Living God." However, even in that moment, Jesus withdrew the confession from Peter and stated, "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you; my Father in heaven did," as it was his Father who had affirmed his sonship at the beginning of the narrative. Peter did not comprehend this on his own; it was a revelation from the divine, which was further confirmed on the Mount of Transfiguration. While this particular gospel author may not be meticulous about every detail, they had an awareness that Caesarea Philippi housed temples dedicated to various other gods. So, I ask, is this then not the stuff myth is made of; Jesus standing before all these other gods trying to make his mark? While I can’t be sure of the 12 being real actual people you would have me believe their words were actual historical fact. Do you not see the myth material floating through the whole works?
Jesus was asking his apostles who they thought he was in order to see if they recognized him. He wasn't looking for confirmation, trying to make his mark, or in competition with other nonexistent gods at Caesarea Philippi. Myths don't perform miracles or rise from the dead. His disciples knew he was the promised Messiah after his resurrection, and I believe they were willing to face death because of what they witnessed. They didn't just experience an epiphany, but were first hand witnesses of the manifestation of God on Earth. I'm convinced that the apostles and Christ himself did not face horrendous deaths in order to felicitate a myth. People just don't endure what they did to support a conjured-up story that emanated from their imaginations.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 20, 2023 17:27:44 GMT -5
Have you ever been jolted awake by an epiphany, wondering if you might be losing your mind? How is it possible that, in the span of the last 2000 years, not a single scholar has explored or spoken about the idea that has been brewing in my mind for some time now? This revelation first dawned on me after a friend visited the so-called holy land and shared the intriguing details of his journey. Among the places he ventured was the site where King Herod constructed a temple dedicated to Caesar Augustus. In this particular region, Herod the Great undertook the ambitious task of building a temple in honor of Caesar Augustus, a move prompted by the abandonment of his previous supporters who were at odds with Augustus. Herod sought to placate Augustus with a proposition: "I understand you may harbor thoughts of ending my life, but spare me, and I will prove my unwavering loyalty as a true friend." King Herod's unwavering allegiance extended from Maritime Caesarea to Caesarea Philippi. In Caesarea Philippi, where the temple to Augustus stood alongside the Temple of Pan with a portal to the underworld; a natural spring with water levels fluctuating throughout the year, Dr. James Tabor led the expedition my friend was on. He encouraged them to observe their surroundings, pointing out the multitude of deities present, including the offspring of gods, gods themselves, minor deities, and even Caesars. It was within this diverse pantheon that Jesus posed the famous question, "Who do people say that I am?" In this bustling spiritual marketplace, Jesus found himself in competition right there in Caesarea Philippi, ready to make his mark. This rich tapestry of beliefs and faiths envelopes this historical site. It struck me that Jesus emerged seemingly out of nowhere, asking the question, "Who do people say that I am?" The responses varied, with some suggesting he was John the Baptist, others Elijah, and still others the prophet. Then, he turned to Peter, who confessed, "You are the Son of the Living God." However, even in that moment, Jesus withdrew the confession from Peter and stated, "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you; my Father in heaven did," as it was his Father who had affirmed his sonship at the beginning of the narrative. Peter did not comprehend this on his own; it was a revelation from the divine, which was further confirmed on the Mount of Transfiguration. While this particular gospel author may not be meticulous about every detail, they had an awareness that Caesarea Philippi housed temples dedicated to various other gods. So, I ask, is this then not the stuff myth is made of; Jesus standing before all these other gods trying to make his mark? While I can’t be sure of the 12 being real actual people you would have me believe their words were actual historical fact. Do you not see the myth material floating through the whole works?
Jesus was asking his apostles who they thought he was in order to see if they recognized him. He wasn't looking for confirmation, trying to make his mark, or in competition with other nonexistent gods at Caesarea Philippi. Myths don't perform miracles or rise from the dead. His disciples knew he was the promised Messiah after his resurrection, and I believe they were willing to face death because of what they witnessed. They didn't just experience an epiphany, but were first hand witnesses of the manifestation of God on Earth. I'm convinced that the apostles and Christ himself did not face horrendous deaths in order to felicitate a myth. People just don't endure what they did to support a conjured-up story that emanated from their imaginations.
It seems that I may not be expressing my thoughts as clearly as I'd like. Many modern Christians view the Twelve disciples as exemplary conveyors of God's message following Jesus's death, with Peter being one of them. However, the origins of this idea may not be as straightforward as we think. Traditional cues do not single out any of the Twelve for special attention; instead, they are collectively seen as trustworthy transmitters of the tradition. The notion of Peter's prominence partly arises from the idea that they traveled in pairs, as hinted in the Gospel of Mark. However, Mark doesn't favor this arrangement. In fact, it includes Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, and Peter, who denied Jesus three times. The women also never instruct the disciples to go to Galilee, causing them to miss seeing the Risen Jesus. Furthermore, James and John's request to be at Jesus's right and left hands is denied, as those positions are occupied by thieves. This portrayal leaves the impression that the Twelve disciples, including Peter, are not particularly successful, with Peter standing out as a notable figure, albeit not positively, due to his denial. Then comes Matthew, who seeks a reliable transmitter of tradition among the Twelve and from Jesus himself. Matthew seizes upon Peter's confession in the Gospel of Mark, where Peter identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Matthew elevates Peter, suggesting that the church will be built upon him or his confession. This also leads to the concept of Peter holding the keys, where what is bound in heaven is bound on Earth, a secondary notion derived from Mark's Gospel. Returning to the Gospel of Mark, we find an intriguing passage involving Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, as I mentioned above is another interesting aspect in Mark is the recognition of Jesus's identity, as seen through the woman who anoints Jesus for his impending death, drawing from the Euryclia episode. Simon Peter, despite getting it right, is instructed not to disclose Jesus's Messiahship. This echoes the theme of secrecy found in the Odyssey, where both Jesus and Odysseus initially keep their identities hidden, only to reveal them later. Meanwhile, the Gospel of John takes a different perspective, highlighting the Beloved Disciple as a significant figure, despite Peter's role as the one told to 'Shepherd my sheep' in the epilogue. This competition for prominence among the disciples is a recurring theme in the Gospels, with each Gospel author portraying Peter and the other disciples differently. In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew favors Peter, making him the patron saint of the Petrine church, while the Beloved disciple becomes the patron saint of the so-called Johannine tradition. Additionally, we have the Pauline tradition, a separate issue we haven't discussed, and the Gospel of Thomas, which plays a distinct role in the history of Christendom. Various Apostles are championed as the faithful transmitters of Jesus's Legacy, and Matthew is the first known person to single out Peter as the most authoritative transmitter of the Jesus tradition. I’m sorry I can’t help you see the literary aspects of the Gospel of Mark, specifically the author's use of the temples near the Sea of Galilee. There is no doubt in my mind that the author employs this as a literary device to enhance the narrative. Moreover, Mark's subtle references to Caesar and the influence of the Aeneid demonstrate the cleverness of Mark as a writer and myth-maker. My Hats off to whom ever used the nom de guerre of Mark
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 20, 2023 23:28:10 GMT -5
A fundamentalist is not exactly an example of open-mindedness. Refusing to even consider other opinions is closed-mindedness. An open-minded person listens and then determines the validity of what's presented. Since I'm convinced that Jesus is the truth, then of course I'd reject any opinion that contradicts Christ. What he taught and did is not up for debate, so in that respect, I reckon I'm not open-minded... Neither was Jesus! At least you accept the definition for yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2023 11:52:52 GMT -5
time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/And mothers fall under the category of "birthing people". And "breast feeding" is now "chest feeding". Welcome to woke.
[warning: you cannot 'unsee' the photo at the top of the article]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2023 19:13:33 GMT -5
time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/And mothers fall under the category of "birthing people". And "breast feeding" is now "chest feeding". Welcome to woke.
[warning: you cannot 'unsee' the photo at the top of the article]
ugh...I want to vomit...
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 21, 2023 20:33:51 GMT -5
Jesus was asking his apostles who they thought he was in order to see if they recognized him. He wasn't looking for confirmation, trying to make his mark, or in competition with other nonexistent gods at Caesarea Philippi. Myths don't perform miracles or rise from the dead. His disciples knew he was the promised Messiah after his resurrection, and I believe they were willing to face death because of what they witnessed. They didn't just experience an epiphany, but were first hand witnesses of the manifestation of God on Earth. I'm convinced that the apostles and Christ himself did not face horrendous deaths in order to felicitate a myth. People just don't endure what they did to support a conjured-up story that emanated from their imaginations.
It seems that I may not be expressing my thoughts as clearly as I'd like. Many modern Christians view the Twelve disciples as exemplary conveyors of God's message following Jesus's death, with Peter being one of them. However, the origins of this idea may not be as straightforward as we think. Traditional cues do not single out any of the Twelve for special attention; instead, they are collectively seen as trustworthy transmitters of the tradition. The notion of Peter's prominence partly arises from the idea that they traveled in pairs, as hinted in the Gospel of Mark. However, Mark doesn't favor this arrangement. In fact, it includes Judas Iscariot, the betrayer, and Peter, who denied Jesus three times. The women also never instruct the disciples to go to Galilee, causing them to miss seeing the Risen Jesus. Furthermore, James and John's request to be at Jesus's right and left hands is denied, as those positions are occupied by thieves. This portrayal leaves the impression that the Twelve disciples, including Peter, are not particularly successful, with Peter standing out as a notable figure, albeit not positively, due to his denial. Then comes Matthew, who seeks a reliable transmitter of tradition among the Twelve and from Jesus himself. Matthew seizes upon Peter's confession in the Gospel of Mark, where Peter identifies Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. Matthew elevates Peter, suggesting that the church will be built upon him or his confession. This also leads to the concept of Peter holding the keys, where what is bound in heaven is bound on Earth, a secondary notion derived from Mark's Gospel. Returning to the Gospel of Mark, we find an intriguing passage involving Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi, as I mentioned above is another interesting aspect in Mark is the recognition of Jesus's identity, as seen through the woman who anoints Jesus for his impending death, drawing from the Euryclia episode. Simon Peter, despite getting it right, is instructed not to disclose Jesus's Messiahship. This echoes the theme of secrecy found in the Odyssey, where both Jesus and Odysseus initially keep their identities hidden, only to reveal them later. Meanwhile, the Gospel of John takes a different perspective, highlighting the Beloved Disciple as a significant figure, despite Peter's role as the one told to 'Shepherd my sheep' in the epilogue. This competition for prominence among the disciples is a recurring theme in the Gospels, with each Gospel author portraying Peter and the other disciples differently. In the synoptic Gospels, Matthew favors Peter, making him the patron saint of the Petrine church, while the Beloved disciple becomes the patron saint of the so-called Johannine tradition. Additionally, we have the Pauline tradition, a separate issue we haven't discussed, and the Gospel of Thomas, which plays a distinct role in the history of Christendom. Various Apostles are championed as the faithful transmitters of Jesus's Legacy, and Matthew is the first known person to single out Peter as the most authoritative transmitter of the Jesus tradition. I’m sorry I can’t help you see the literary aspects of the Gospel of Mark, specifically the author's use of the temples near the Sea of Galilee. There is no doubt in my mind that the author employs this as a literary device to enhance the narrative. Moreover, Mark's subtle references to Caesar and the influence of the Aeneid demonstrate the cleverness of Mark as a writer and myth-maker. My Hats off to whom ever used the nom de guerre of Mark
I don't follow your logic, you seem to be implying that the gospel writers had different agenda's? Each writer wrote from a different perspective to a different audience. Matthew wrote to the Jews and the religious of our day. Mark spoke to the Romans, Luke wrote to the Greeks, and John wrote to the world, but none contradicted the other.
Peters proclamation, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" is found in 3 gospels, and his denying Christ is found in all four, so I don't see how you've concluded that Matthew exemplified Peter? It was Peter's awareness of Jesus being the 'Living Son of God' which was the rock Jesus built his church upon, not Peter himself. The apostles cemented the foundation with "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 20:2).
I don't see where any gospel was contrived to conflate different agenda's. While not being carbon copies, they all independently relay a single story.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Sept 22, 2023 6:38:03 GMT -5
time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/And mothers fall under the category of "birthing people". And "breast feeding" is now "chest feeding". Welcome to woke.
[warning: you cannot 'unsee' the photo at the top of the article]
That's just awful, the world has gone mad!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 22, 2023 21:17:40 GMT -5
time.com/4475634/trans-man-pregnancy-evan/And mothers fall under the category of "birthing people". And "breast feeding" is now "chest feeding". Welcome to woke. [warning: you cannot 'unsee' the photo at the top of the article]
That's just awful, the world has gone mad!!!!! It's a religious right knee jerk reaction to some weirdo's passing pun-fest.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Sept 26, 2023 7:09:15 GMT -5
From what I can tell righteousness is mentioned more than all other rules combined that the religion "Christianity" want to enslave it's members too. Regardless of your sexual preferences and those you do not like Jesus was most concerned about how you treat other people, Scripture needs to be read in the context of culture and time. What you have just done is sent a lot of good people to your hell just because you disagree with their sexual preferences or feelings. I now find that a disgusting way to look at your fellow human beings. Matthew 25, the Christ character was being righteous, not straight or gay or religious or what ever, generosity to others is the key, not generosity to yourself........ Plenty of things I do not like or disgree with in regards to these topics in our society today, but telling people they are part of a expanding hell because of ones religious beliefs despite the actual content of their character is the defenition of hell itself......... I'm sorry Chuck, but regardless of what you think, it's wrong for a man to become a woman in the eyes of God as clearly seen in the Bible. And it doesn't matter if the text is thousands of years old, God doesn't change. And I'm not condemning anyone to hell, we create our own hell in the here and now if we follow the lusts of the flesh rather than live by the will of God. I would help anyone in need regardless of who they are or what they are doing, but I would also tell them the truth in God and leave God to judge them and me. And Jesus isn't a Christ character, he is the Christ, the son of the living God. "I'm sorry Chuck, but regardless of what you think, it's wrong for a man to become a woman in the eyes of God as clearly seen in the Bible. And it doesn't matter if the text is thousands of years old, God doesn't change." This flawed thought process has led to untold pain over the centuries. The reason it is flawed is because God= your religion expressed by you with a loud hailer........as we go back in time the loud hailer was followed up with physical action and not just mental abuse. Thousand+ year old texts need to be read as it was applied then, understand the thought process of why they may have conveyed such things and then you look forward as to what has changed and what it means for us today. Regardless of what someone wishes to indentity as and wether I agree with that or not makes absolutely no difference to what happens when you die, as the Hebrew writers say you return to the dust.....so instead of lifting one's self up above others because ones religions interpretation of an ancient wisdom from foriegn cultures how about we treat people based on the content of their character and not one's religion. Yes I know what you think Jesus is but read in the Hebrew context a name is reference to a character or characteristics, they think about the function not the form of a name, so the "Son of God" is described in our language as "one of a similar character", remember the Hebrew G O D was the L O R D, and the Name of the L O R D was gracious compassionate ect ect... Exodus 34:5-7 [5]And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. [6]And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, [7]Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. And Jesus being the son of God is one of similar character to the Hebrew G O D the L O R D....., it is not describing the form as in a son and father like you are familiar with in our culture, that form you have in your head is all Western born, nothing to do with what the Hebrew Scriptures were talking about with the words G O D and L O R D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 9:24:47 GMT -5
I'm sorry Chuck, but regardless of what you think, it's wrong for a man to become a woman in the eyes of God as clearly seen in the Bible. And it doesn't matter if the text is thousands of years old, God doesn't change. And I'm not condemning anyone to hell, we create our own hell in the here and now if we follow the lusts of the flesh rather than live by the will of God. I would help anyone in need regardless of who they are or what they are doing, but I would also tell them the truth in God and leave God to judge them and me. And Jesus isn't a Christ character, he is the Christ, the son of the living God. "I'm sorry Chuck, but regardless of what you think, it's wrong for a man to become a woman in the eyes of God as clearly seen in the Bible. And it doesn't matter if the text is thousands of years old, God doesn't change." This flawed thought process has led to untold pain over the centuries. The reason it is flawed is because God= your religion expressed by you with a loud hailer........as we go back in time the loud hailer was followed up with physical action and not just mental abuse. Thousand+ year old texts need to be read as it was applied then, understand the thought process of why they may have conveyed such things and then you look forward as to what has changed and what it means for us today. Regardless of what someone wishes to indentity as and wether I agree with that or not makes absolutely no difference to what happens when you die, as the Hebrew writers say you return to the dust.....so instead of lifting one's self up above others because ones religions interpretation of an ancient wisdom from foriegn cultures how about we treat people based on the content of their character and not one's religion. Yes I know what you think Jesus is but read in the Hebrew context a name is reference to a character or characteristics, they think about the function not the form of a name, so the "Son of God" is described in our language as "one of a similar character", remember the Hebrew G O D was the L O R D, and the Name of the L O R D was gracious compassionate ect ect... Exodus 34:5-7 [5]And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. [6]And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, [7]Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. And Jesus being the son of God is one of similar character to the Hebrew G O D the L O R D....., it is not describing the form as in a son and father like you are familiar with in our culture, that form you have in your head is all Western born, nothing to do with what the Hebrew Scriptures were talking about with the words G O D and L O R D. As misled and delusional as usual chuckite, keep up the good work...
|
|