Re: Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable path to salvation?
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:44d9437a$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> path to ``salvation''? Does it define itself as such - actually in the
> bible?
"I am the way, the truth, and the life:No man comes unto the Father except
by me."
Any questions?
Ike
bam
"Lucy" <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote in message
> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> path to ``salvation''? Does it define itself as such - actually in the
> bible?
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by
me."
BAM
vince garcia
>
> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> path to ``salvation''? Does it define itself as such - actually in the
> bible?
>
> shalt be saved" or words to that effect, but that in itself is not
> exclusive. It doesn't imply "Don't follow me and thou shalt be doomed
> to some nasty fate" in as much as "Take the lift and you'll reach the
> top of the building" doesn't imply "Those that take the stairs are
> guaranteed to fail". Both parties are aiming for the same place.
>
> Does the strong feeling I get from some christians that their method
> is
> the only valid one come directly from Christ's teachings, or is it
> something that's been added in interpretation by a few later? Wasn't
> the story of "The Good Samaritan" an example of respecting people with
> other beliefs?
No.
Here is what "Gentle Jesus" said about people who sincerely hold
different beliefs:
Lk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Jn 9:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for
if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
And here is what He had to say about the sincere Jews of Capernaum who
didn't believe in Him:
Mat. 11:23,24 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt
be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done
in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
And here is what apostle John said about sincere people with different
beliefs:
1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Christ and (true) Christianity teach absolute zero tolerence for other
relgions and belief systems.
direkt
"Sid" <shi...@shifty.com> wrote in message
news:44d9860e$0$1195$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> I'm new to the faith. I have one or two puzzling readings to discuss.
> Can you or anyone else explain why the God of the Bible allows
> slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus
> 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing
> babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Murder, rape,
> pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by
> saying that some god says it's OK. This type of criminal behavior
> should shock any moral person.
> Or am I missing something?
They were people of their time - just like the mighty Christian crusaders
who set out to slaughter Muslims and Jews.
Religion is a means of controlling and brainwashing the masses. It's the
root of much of the evil in the world, no matter what religion it might be.
It turns good people into bigots and killers.
Roger T.
"Sid"
> I'm new to the faith. I have one or two puzzling readings to discuss.
> Can you or anyone else explain why the God of the Bible allows
> slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus
> 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing
> babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Murder, rape,
> pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by
> saying that some god says it's OK. This type of criminal behavior
> should shock any moral person.
> Or am I missing something?
All evidence that there is no loving God, or a hateful one either.
Religion was invented by man to explain the unexplainable and to keep the
unwashed masses in check.
The "opiate of the masses" as one dictator correctly explained it.
tin...@isbd.co.uk
teaching *without* being a Christian. Certainly I see very little
connection between the bulk of the Christian church's teachings and
the above quote.
--
Chris Green
Boz
"Sid" <shi...@shifty.com> wrote in message
news:44d9860e$0$1195$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
The Wanderer
> I'm new to the faith. I have one or two puzzling readings to discuss.
> Can you or anyone else explain why the God of the Bible allows
> slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus
> 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing
> babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Murder, rape,
> pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by
> saying that some god says it’s OK. This type of criminal behavior
> should shock any moral person.
> Or am I missing something?
You're confusing faith and religion. Faith is a gift of your God, religion
is the gift of the devil.
Or you're trolling, looking at the disparate selection of NGs where you've
posted this crap.
--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net
Sla#s
> I'm new to the faith. I have one or two puzzling readings to discuss.
> Can you or anyone else explain why the God of the Bible allows
> slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus
> 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing
> babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Murder, rape,
> pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by
> saying that some god says it’s OK. This type of criminal behavior
> should shock any moral person.
> Or am I missing something?
You are a Troll, Who is Carol T and why are you cross posting to all
these groups?
However - No, you are not missing anything - anyone with half their
critical facilities left would realise that all god based religions
deny reality and glorify ignorance.
The worrying thing is that 20% of those in the UK believe it! And it's
worse in the US with nearly 50%!
Slatts
kj
John of Aix
> If God tells you to do it, it's alright.
Of course, but I always like to confirm by fax or telephone,
unfortunately I just can't find his number anywhere.
John of Aix
> The "opiate of the masses" as one dictator correctly explained it.
"Opium of the people" Karl Marx. Not even a politician let alone a
dictator.
Pat P
importance on the New Testament. (OK, we all know about the Spanish
Inquisition, and Torquemada, to name just a couple of points!)
Pat P
"Sid" <shi...@shifty.com> wrote in message
news:44d9860e$0$1195$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
John Firth
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Yeickleb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lu6dnXa4fda71UTZ...@comcast.com...
Yet another cross poster from an American source as usual. How do you get
through to these people that religion is an evil monster created by mankind
that will surely destroy us all eventually if greed doesn't destroy our
planet sooner.
John
vince garcia
>
> I'm new to the faith.
No you're not. You're the same liar who was posting the same sort of
drivel about being "new to the faith" last year here, pretending to be
some sort of Christian and then slandering the Bible with every post,
and showing your agnostic mischaracterizations and incompetant exgesis
of what it teaches.
I have one or two puzzling readings to discuss.
> Can you or anyone else explain why the God of the Bible allows
> slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus
> 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing
> babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Murder, rape,
> pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by
> saying that some god says it’s OK. This type of criminal behavior
> should shock any moral person.
> Or am I missing something?
You're missing a whole lot, but then I don't cast pearls before swine
like you.
Roger T.
"John of Aix" <j.mu...@libertysurf.fr> wrote in message
news:44d9ce96$0$997$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
Yes, I realised my error after posting but it was around 01:00 in the
morning and I was too tired to post a correction. :-)
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> path to ``salvation''? Does it define itself as such - actually in the
> bible?
>
> shalt be saved" or words to that effect, but that in itself is not
> exclusive. It doesn't imply "Don't follow me and thou shalt be doomed
> to some nasty fate" in as much as "Take the lift and you'll reach the
> top of the building" doesn't imply "Those that take the stairs are
> guaranteed to fail". Both parties are aiming for the same place.
>
> Does the strong feeling I get from some christians that their method
> is
> the only valid one come directly from Christ's teachings, or is it
> something that's been added in interpretation by a few later? Wasn't
> the story of "The Good Samaritan" an example of respecting people with
> other beliefs?
In the Episcopal church we have the 39 Articles of religion,
of which article 18 says
Article XVIII
Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man
shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be
diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of
Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus
Christ, whereby men must be saved.
Jim
Ac 4:12 - Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
M
"Roger T." <roge...@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
news:ad343a6887085c20...@grapevine.islandnet.com...
Was he a Russian Jew ?
Roger T.
>>> "Opium of the people" Karl Marx. Not even a politician let alone a
>>> dictator.
>>
>> Yes, I realised my error after posting but it was around 01:00 in the
>> morning and I was too tired to post a correction. :-)
>>
>>
>
> Was he a Russian Jew ?
German Jewish background but his family converted to Protestant so his
father could keep his job with a prominent law firm.
--
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Michael
<tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> path to ``salvation''?
It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
Does it define itself as such - actually in the
> bible?
It? As Christ yes. Perhaps you are confusing churchanity and
Christianity. They should be identical, but we all know that no
organization of men is pervect, but that has nothing to do with
Christianity. Usually only the Biblically illiterate are ignorant.
>
> I've come across terms like "... and Christ said Follow Me and thou
> shalt be saved"
Does He provide any other alternative?
or words to that effect, but that in itself is not
> exclusive.
To not be 'inclusive' what other alternative does He provide for?
It doesn't imply "Don't follow me and thou shalt be doomed
> to some nasty fate"
Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Granted,
'nasty fate' is way over the edge and sounds more like the flawed wording
of a Christophobe or someone from the radical religious left. Christ deos
not give folks up to a 'nasty fate', but purification although those who
do not wish to be purified may not like the experience.
in as much as "Take the lift and you'll reach the
> top of the building" doesn't imply "Those that take the stairs are
> guaranteed to hrfail". Both parties are aiming for the same place.
So if Christ is the lift, where does He mention the stairs?
>
> Does the strong feeling I get from some christians that their method
> is
> the only valid one come directly from Christ's teachings,
Probably a strong reaction to your stong religious feeling that He is not
the Way.
or is it
> something that's been added in interpretation by a few later? Wasn't
> the story of "The Good Samaritan" an example of respecting people with
> other beliefs?
No, if you see this here, perhaps your understanding of the event is
flawed. The Good Samaritan has nothing to do with belief system
alternative methods to salvation. How in the world did you come to this
conclusion and why? Salvation is not at issue in the context of the
event.
--
"-----------------"
May God Bless You
Michael
Michael
of a troll in about 20 different newsgroups.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
> <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>
>> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>> path to ``salvation''?
>
>
> It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
kj
> Lucy, this is bad form to post a question which appears to be in the style
> of a troll in about 20 different newsgroups.
>
> In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
> <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>
>> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>> path to ``salvation''?
>
>
> It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
if you want to go to a christian heaven you are probably correct...I'd
rather not and would rather spend some time with my gods
Humble Scribe
<mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
><tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>
>> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>> path to ``salvation''?
>
>
Christ did not die for you!"
(And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
creation?) Sheesh! :-((
--
John
Pat P
<jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message ......... snipped all the
irrelevant religious stuff.
Just who do you think you are impressing? Certainly not many on here - nor
on the rest that you cross post to. Just leave the local groups out of it -
please!
Pat P
"kj" <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote in message
news:SaidnSwdMLre30bZ...@bt.com...
>>
>> No, if you see this here, perhaps your understanding of the event is
>> flawed. The Good Samaritan has nothing to do with belief system
>> alternative methods to salvation. How in the world did you come to this
>> conclusion and why? Salvation is not at issue in the context of the
>> event.
The "Good Samaritan" was simply a normal, good human being (even humanist) -
no more, no less. He did what any other decent human being would do, without
any thought of "salvation" or reward.
Not really what you`d expect of an Arab or Jew in this day and age!!!
Pat P
kj
Jesus, they were much victimised by the Jews and other religions in the
region, they did however have a tradition of hospitality hense the
action of the'good samaritan' they were probably an offshoot of
traditional judasim before they became monosthetic
Mudstomper
"Pat P" <eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:INJCg.13036$t%.5538@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
human reaction to the world?
The Natural Philosopher
kj
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Pat P wrote:
> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message ......... snipped all the
> irrelevant religious stuff.
>
of which article 18 says
Article XVIII
Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man
shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be
diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of
Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus
Christ, whereby men must be saved.
Jim
Ac 4:12 - Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
> Just who do you think you are impressing? Certainly not many on
here - nor
> on the rest that you cross post to. Just leave the local groups out of it -
> please!
This is alt.religion.christian.episcopal, the 39 Articles
are the historical position of the Episcopal Church.
If all you can do is erase, maybe you need to
learn some history?
Jim
Joh 9:39 - And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that
they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made
blind.
kj
he save anybody?
D. E. Evans
This is alt.religion.christian.episcopal, the 39 Articles
are the historical position of the Episcopal Church.
If all you can do is erase, maybe you need to
learn some history?
Perhaps you should read the following, which lays out the position of
the Episcopal Church (in the U.S.) as regards the articles. Passing
the Articles off as the "historical" position seems to be missing some
large gaps of history.
<URL:http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract91.html>
--
D. E. Evans <sin...@gnu.org>
<URL:http://www.deevans.net/contact.html>
Humble Scribe
"jwshe...@satx.rr.com" <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> writes
>
>Pat P wrote:
>> <jwshe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message ......... snipped all the
>> irrelevant religious stuff.
>>
> In the Episcopal church we have the 39 Articles of religion,
> of which article 18 says
>
> Article XVIII
>Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ
>They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man
>shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be
>diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of
>Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus
>Christ, whereby men must be saved.
>
>
:-))
--
John
The Natural Philosopher
Michael
<a@b.c> wrote:
Coming from you, such intolerance to diversity can only be accepted as a
compliment, thanks.
Michael
humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
> In message <mikeburt-100...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
> ><tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> >> path to ``salvation''?
> >
> >
> So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you Muslims and Jews-
> Christ did not die for you!"
Not that I can see, but that is a popular urban religious legend from
Christophobes on the radical religious left.
>
> (And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
> creation?) Sheesh! :-((
Sounds more like your comment is demonstrating intolerance to the unique
diversity of Chrsitianity.
Humble Scribe
>In article <Bl$qZLCQr...@nocraphere.please>,
>humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>
>> In message <mikeburt-100...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
>> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>> >In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
>> ><tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>> >> path to ``salvation''?
>> >
>> >
>> So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you Muslims and Jews-
>> Christ did not die for you!"
>
>Not that I can see, but that is a popular urban religious legend from
>Christophobes on the radical religious left.
>
Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
believe His divinity. Muslims and Jews faithful to their religions
*cannot* believe in the divinity of Christ without being apostates. If
they do convert to believing in the divinity of Christ, they
automatically become "Christians" and nor Muslims or Jews. Thus
Christ's salvation is for Christians only.
Which part of this logic do you not understand?
>>
>> (And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
>> creation?) Sheesh! :-((
>
>Sounds more like your comment is demonstrating intolerance to the unique
>diversity of Chrsitianity.
>
Not at all. I distinguish between "faith" and "religion", the latter
being the secular organisation of the holders of "faith". History tells
us that those secular organisations manipulate their faithful to achieve
contemporary, secular objectives by re-interpreting sacred works to
support the current objectives. This applies to Christianity, Judaism
and Islam equally. BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
and/or Judaism.
--
John
The Natural Philosopher
> In message <mikeburt-110...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>> In article <Bl$qZLCQr...@nocraphere.please>,
>> humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>>
>>> In message <mikeburt-100...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
>>> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>> >In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
>>> ><tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>>> >> path to ``salvation''?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you Muslims and Jews-
>>> Christ did not die for you!"
>>
>> Not that I can see, but that is a popular urban religious legend from
>> Christophobes on the radical religious left.
>>
> No. Follow the logic. The Christian religious dogma is based on
> Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
> believe His divinity.
I believe not.
The words were as I recall, 'only believe in me, and ye shall be saved'
not 'Believe in me ONLY and ye shall be saved (otherwise damned)'. I.e.
a good sales pitch. "Nothing works faster than Christianity, so why
bother with anything else?"
The unilateral doctrine of self righteousness is very much the Roman
Churches invention.
> Muslims and Jews faithful to their religions
> *cannot* believe in the divinity of Christ without being apostates. If
> they do convert to believing in the divinity of Christ, they
> automatically become "Christians" and nor Muslims or Jews. Thus
> Christ's salvation is for Christians only.
>
> Which part of this logic do you not understand?
>
The logic is fine: Its the facts that are at issue.
>
>>>
>>> (And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
>>> creation?) Sheesh! :-((
>>
>> Sounds more like your comment is demonstrating intolerance to the unique
>> diversity of Chrsitianity.
>>
> Not at all. I distinguish between "faith" and "religion", the latter
> being the secular organisation of the holders of "faith". History tells
> us that those secular organisations manipulate their faithful to achieve
> contemporary, secular objectives by re-interpreting sacred works to
> support the current objectives. This applies to Christianity, Judaism
> and Islam equally. BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
> and/or Judaism.
Marketing is the second oldest profession.
Humble Scribe
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>
>>>
>> No. Follow the logic. The Christian religious dogma is based on
>>Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
>>believe His divinity.
>
>I believe not.
>
>The words were as I recall, 'only believe in me, and ye shall be saved'
>not 'Believe in me ONLY and ye shall be saved (otherwise damned)'.
>
>
>
>Marketing is the second oldest profession.
.......... Political PR overtook both a long time ago! :-))
--
John
Michael
humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
> In message <mikeburt-110...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >In article <Bl$qZLCQr...@nocraphere.please>,
> >humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
> >
> >> In message <mikeburt-100...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
> >> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >> >In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
> >> ><tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> >> >> path to ``salvation''?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you Muslims and Jews-
> >> Christ did not die for you!"
> >
> >Not that I can see, but that is a popular urban religious legend from
> >Christophobes on the radical religious left.
> >
> No. Follow the logic.
This should be good.
The Christian religious dogma is based on
> Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
> believe His divinity.
Not really what He said at all, What He said was John 14:6* Jesus saith
unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
Father, but by me.
Muslims and Jews faithful to their religions
> *cannot* believe in the divinity of Christ without being apostates.
OK, what is your point?
If
> they do convert to believing in the divinity of Christ, they
> automatically become "Christians" and nor Muslims or Jews. Thus
> Christ's salvation is for Christians only.
>
> Which part of this logic do you not understand?
The flawed logic that anything in the above has anything to do with your
earlier statement that " So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you
Muslims and Jews-Christ did not die for you!"
Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
the righteous.
1John 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world.
You really don't much understand this Christianity that you appear to be
intolerant to, do you?
>
>
> >>
> >> (And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
> >> creation?) Sheesh! :-((
> >
> >Sounds more like your comment is demonstrating intolerance to the unique
> >diversity of Chrsitianity.
> >
> Not at all. I distinguish between "faith" and "religion",
Good, since Christianity is nat a religion.
the latter
> being the secular organisation of the holders of "faith".
In that we can agree, keep that in mind and do not confuse churchanity
with Christianity.
History tells
> us that those secular organisations manipulate their faithful to achieve
> contemporary, secular objectives by re-interpreting sacred works to
> support the current objectives. This applies to Christianity, Judaism
> and Islam equally.
Partially true, but that has nothing to do with Christianity. Your
allegations lie at organizations of sinful men called a church, and most
Christians in the church agree with you that any any organization of
sinful men, faith based, religious or secular, falls far short of Christ
and needs constant reforming itself.
History may tell us that whenever the church has not stoven to live in the
Image of Christ, it has errred. Those are the sins of organizations of
men and have nothing to do with errs of Christianity which they weren't
following. But that is a validation of Christianity, not a condemnation
of it.
Fortunately, if repentant, our Father forgieves even erred sins of
organizations of men called churches, although that does not necessarily
mitigate the consequencces of sin anymore that saying I am sorry does at
times. But It does appear that you may be intolerant to forgieveness.
BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
> and/or Judaism.
IOW, your opinion is that Islam and Judaica believe that Christ is the
only begotton Son of the Father? As a comedian, you might want to keep
your day job.
None of your fellow UK Islamic countrymen arrested before they blew up
innocent folks on planes in London would agree with you that there is no
diversity between Islam and Christianity. What they attempted to do may
be in the image of Mohammed according to some, but decidedly not in the
Image of Jesus Christ.
Michael
<kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > Lucy, this is bad form to post a question which appears to be in the style
> > of a troll in about 20 different newsgroups.
> >
> > In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
> > <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> >> path to ``salvation''?
> >
> >
> > It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
>
> if you want to go to a christian heaven you are probably correct...I'd
> rather not and would rather spend some time with my gods
if you want to go to a pagan heaven you are probably correct, there is
only one God and He does sometimes grant the prayers of all. Have a great
life.
--
Michael
<eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "kj" <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote in message
> news:SaidnSwdMLre30bZ...@bt.com...
>
> >>
> >> No, if you see this here, perhaps your understanding of the event is
> >> flawed. The Good Samaritan has nothing to do with belief system
> >> alternative methods to salvation. How in the world did you come to this
> >> conclusion and why? Salvation is not at issue in the context of the
> >> event.
>
> The "Good Samaritan" was simply a normal, good human being (even humanist) -
> no more, no less. He did what any other decent human being would do, without
> any thought of "salvation" or reward.
In that we can agree. God created all men and called that good, who are
we to disagree?
>
> Not really what you`d expect of an Arab or Jew in this day and age!!!
The former can be understood by comparing the life of Mohammed (even ones
written by Islamic authors) and the life of Christ. The latter can be
understood by comparing what the Pharisees were hawking at the Temple and
why Christ disagreed with them.
Michael
<kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
WOW, what history books are you reading?
Alfred Packer
news:mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100...
> In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
>
> Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
> the righteous.
no he died because Pilate said "I've had enough of this shit, get rid of
him"
Al
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
kj
then he needs to be reborn again and again and again so that he can be
executed for your sins a million times over..cause he failed the first time.
kj
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100...
>> In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
>>
>> Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
>> the righteous.
That how you justify his death. He was executed because he was a
troublemaker
kj
> In article <SaidnSwdMLre30bZ...@bt.com>, kj
> <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Lucy, this is bad form to post a question which appears to be in the style
>>> of a troll in about 20 different newsgroups.
>>>
>>> In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
>>> <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>>>> path to ``salvation''?
>>>
>>> It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
>> if you want to go to a christian heaven you are probably correct...I'd
>> rather not and would rather spend some time with my gods
>
> if you want to go to a pagan heaven you are probably correct, there is
> only one God and He does sometimes grant the prayers of all. Have a great
> life.
and a great after-life.......
There is not one god there are many...even in the pantheon of your god
Jehoveh there are many gods...it is only man that has decided there is
one god..and then only certain men.
kj
kj
ones written by middle eastern scholars, not fantasy writers like MML& J
and their translators.
Humble Scribe
<mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
>humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>
>
>The Christian religious dogma is based on
>> Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
>> believe His divinity.
>
>Not really what He said at all, What He said was John 14:6* Jesus saith
>unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
>Father, but by me.
>
..... And 14.7 says ;"Now that you have known me", he said to them, "you
will know my Father and from now on you do know him and you have seen
him", - clearly identifying himself with God, and thus divine.
> Muslims and Jews faithful to their religions
>> *cannot* believe in the divinity of Christ without being apostates.
>
>OK, what is your point?
>
> If
>> they do convert to believing in the divinity of Christ, they
>> automatically become "Christians" and nor Muslims or Jews. Thus
>> Christ's salvation is for Christians only.
>>
>> Which part of this logic do you not understand?
>
>The flawed logic that anything in the above has anything to do with your
>earlier statement that " So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you
>Muslims and Jews-Christ did not die for you!"
>
>Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
>the righteous.
>
>1John 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
>but also for the sins of the whole world.
>
>You really don't much understand this Christianity that you appear to be
>intolerant to, do you?
>
Possibly more than you, though?
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> (And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
>> >> creation?) Sheesh! :-((
>> >
>> >Sounds more like your comment is demonstrating intolerance to the unique
>> >diversity of Chrsitianity.
>> >
>> Not at all. I distinguish between "faith" and "religion",
>
>Good, since Christianity is nat a religion.
>
> the latter
>> being the secular organisation of the holders of "faith".
>
>In that we can agree, keep that in mind and do not confuse churchanity
>with Christianity.
>
Well! That's a new twist! "churchanity"- eh? :-))
>History tells
>> us that those secular organisations manipulate their faithful to achieve
>> contemporary, secular objectives by re-interpreting sacred works to
>> support the current objectives. This applies to Christianity, Judaism
>> and Islam equally.
>
>Partially true, but that has nothing to do with Christianity.
>
Yes- you said- it is the fault of churchanity"! :-))
> BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
>> and/or Judaism.
>
>IOW, your opinion is that Islam and Judaica believe that Christ is the
>only begotton Son of the Father? As a comedian, you might want to keep
>your day job.
>
As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written word.
I wrote that Islam and Judaism deny the divinity of Christ.
>None of your fellow UK Islamic countrymen arrested before they blew up
>innocent folks on planes in London would agree with you that there is no
>diversity between Islam and Christianity. What they attempted to do may
>be in the image of Mohammed according to some, but decidedly not in the
>Image of Jesus Christ.
>
You should look up the meaning of the word "diversity"!. Interesting
that you assume I am a Muslim- I am not, having been a cradle-Catholic
and educated in the RC version of Christianity until I reached the age
of reason and now an agnostic. :-)) [ Probably you could not accuse
me of being Jewish because of the fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.
:-))]
--
John
Alfred Packer
> Alfred Packer wrote:
>> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100...
>>> In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
>>>
>>> Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
>>> the righteous.
>
> That how you justify his death. He was executed because he was a
> troublemaker
>>
>> no he died because Pilate said "I've had enough of this shit, get rid of
>> him"
>>
>> Al
I'm not into justifying his death. You said he "Christ died to justify the
sins of the world, the whole world, not just the righteous."
I merely pointed out a more obvious reason he died. Your reasons were
concocted several canturies later to fit a myth.
Al
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
kj
how would you tell the difference ..they were both arabs!!! (and are
both incarnations of Shiva)
>>
> You should look up the meaning of the word "diversity"!. Interesting
> that you assume I am a Muslim- I am not, having been a cradle-Catholic
> and educated in the RC version of Christianity until I reached the age
> of reason and now an agnostic. :-)) [ Probably you could not accuse
> me of being Jewish because of the fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.
> :-))]
and the vast majority of terrorists in the US are white, christians with
grudges on racial grounds going back to the union...how diverse is that
Michael
<Alfred...@LakeCity.com> wrote:
> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100...
> > In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
> >
> > Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
> > the righteous.
>
> no he died because Pilate said "I've had enough of this shit, get rid of
> him"
Not really, Pilate was a whimp. Matthew 27:17* Therefore when they were
gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto
you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?...24* When Pilate saw that
he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took
water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of
the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Michael
Not really, but that is the religious opinon of the radical far left quite
outside of Scripture who expect Christ to be crucified over and over.
Hebrews 10: 26* For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Christ said to the woman, you are forgieven, go and sin no more. He did
not say you are forgieven go and sin some more.
--
Michael
> Alfred Packer wrote:
> > "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100...
> >> In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
> >>
> >> Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
> >> the righteous.
>
> That how you justify his death. He was executed because he was a
> troublemaker
Tee hee hee, no He was executed because the world didn't want to hear the
Truth. There is nothing new under the sun.
> >
> > no he died because Pilate said "I've had enough of this shit, get rid of
> > him"
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
120,000+ Newsgroups
> > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
--
Michael
humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
> In message <mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
> >humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
> >
> >
> >The Christian religious dogma is based on
> >> Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
> >> believe His divinity.
> >
> >Not really what He said at all, What He said was John 14:6* Jesus saith
> >unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
> >Father, but by me.
> >
>
>
> ..... And 14.7 says ;"Now that you have known me", he said to them, "you
> will know my Father and from now on you do know him and you have seen
> him", - clearly identifying himself with God, and thus divine.
IN that we can agree.
>
> > Muslims and Jews faithful to their religions
> >> *cannot* believe in the divinity of Christ without being apostates.
> >
> >OK, what is your point?
> >
> > If
> >> they do convert to believing in the divinity of Christ, they
> >> automatically become "Christians" and nor Muslims or Jews. Thus
> >> Christ's salvation is for Christians only.
> >>
> >> Which part of this logic do you not understand?
> >
> >The flawed logic that anything in the above has anything to do with your
> >earlier statement that " So, in other words,......"yahboo and sucks to you
> >Muslims and Jews-Christ did not die for you!"
> >
> >Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
> >the righteous.
> >
> >1John 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
> >but also for the sins of the whole world.
> >
> >You really don't much understand this Christianity that you appear to be
> >intolerant to, do you?
> >
> Possibly more than you, though?
That is not self evident.
>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> (And this is Christianity demonstrating God's love for all His
> >> >> creation?) Sheesh! :-((
> >> >
> >> >Sounds more like your comment is demonstrating intolerance to the unique
> >> >diversity of Chrsitianity.
> >> >
> >> Not at all. I distinguish between "faith" and "religion",
> >
> >Good, since Christianity is nat a religion.
> >
> > the latter
> >> being the secular organisation of the holders of "faith".
> >
> >In that we can agree, keep that in mind and do not confuse churchanity
> >with Christianity.
> >
> Well! That's a new twist! "churchanity"- eh? :-))
Nothing new at all, Christianity is 6000 years old, but was reformed
during the life of Christ, and often in addition before and after that,
even the Great Reformation from the words of Wycliffe reformed the
organization of men called church back to Scripture.
>
>
> >History tells
> >> us that those secular organisations manipulate their faithful to achieve
> >> contemporary, secular objectives by re-interpreting sacred works to
> >> support the current objectives. This applies to Christianity, Judaism
> >> and Islam equally.
> >
> >Partially true, but that has nothing to do with Christianity.
> >
> Yes- you said- it is the fault of churchanity"! :-))
Churchanity is not Christianity.
>
> > BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
> >> and/or Judaism.
> >
> >IOW, your opinion is that Islam and Judaica believe that Christ is the
> >only begotton Son of the Father? As a comedian, you might want to keep
> >your day job.
> >
> As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written word.
> I wrote that Islam and Judaism deny the divinity of Christ.
True, which invalidates your claim that there is no diversity between the
three. As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written
word.
>
>
> >None of your fellow UK Islamic countrymen arrested before they blew up
> >innocent folks on planes in London would agree with you that there is no
> >diversity between Islam and Christianity. What they attempted to do may
> >be in the image of Mohammed according to some, but decidedly not in the
> >Image of Jesus Christ.
> >
> You should look up the meaning of the word "diversity"!. Interesting
> that you assume I am a Muslim-
I didn't assume that you were. It is interesting that you assumed that I
assumed that you were Islamic.
I am not, having been a cradle-Catholic
> and educated in the RC version of Christianity until I reached the age
> of reason and now an agnostic. :-)) [ Probably you could not accuse
> me of being Jewish because of the fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.
> :-))]
I didn't accuse you of being anything, you seem paranoid and defensive
without provacaton.
Michael
<Alfred...@LakeCity.com> wrote:
> "kj" <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote in message
> news:vaidnWM2gqY...@bt.com...
> > Alfred Packer wrote:
> >> "Michael" <mike...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100...
> >>> In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
> >>>
> >>> Christ died to justify the sins of the world, the whole world, not just
> >>> the righteous.
> >
> > That how you justify his death. He was executed because he was a
> > troublemaker
> >>
> >> no he died because Pilate said "I've had enough of this shit, get rid of
> >> him"
> >>
> >> Al
>
> I'm not into justifying his death. You said he "Christ died to justify the
> sins of the world, the whole world, not just the righteous."
> I merely pointed out a more obvious reason he died. Your reasons were
> concocted several canturies later to fit a myth.
Well, at least that is the religious beliefs of the radical religious
left concocted by fundie Jesus Seminar types thousands of years after the
fact.
Michael
Tee hee heee, Christ was an 'arab' incarnation of Shiva? Tee hee hee. It
is no wonder the Kingdom lost an empire.
> >>
> > You should look up the meaning of the word "diversity"!. Interesting
> > that you assume I am a Muslim- I am not, having been a cradle-Catholic
> > and educated in the RC version of Christianity until I reached the age
> > of reason and now an agnostic. :-)) [ Probably you could not accuse
> > me of being Jewish because of the fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.
> > :-))]
> and the vast majority of terrorists in the US are white, christians with
> grudges on racial grounds going back to the union...how diverse is that
Sounds like something that a racist would say celebrating his diversity.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> > In article <SaidnSwdMLre30bZ...@bt.com>, kj
> > <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael wrote:
> >>> Lucy, this is bad form to post a question which appears to be in the style
> >>> of a troll in about 20 different newsgroups.
> >>>
> >>> In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
> >>> <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
> >>>> path to ``salvation''?
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
> >> if you want to go to a christian heaven you are probably correct...I'd
> >> rather not and would rather spend some time with my gods
> >
> > if you want to go to a pagan heaven you are probably correct, there is
> > only one God and He does sometimes grant the prayers of all. Have a great
> > life.
>
> and a great after-life.......
There is no 'after-life', that is an oxymoron.
>
> There is not one god there are many...even in the pantheon of your god
> Jehoveh there are many gods...it is only man that has decided there is
> one god..and then only certain men.
Tee hee hee, well, at least that is one religious opinion.
--
Michael
Just goes to show, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
Obviously, they didn't understand Assyrian occupation.
kj
real history book about Pilate to see what he was like not Hans
Christian Anderson
kj
But did she ignore him and just carry on sinning?
kj
What nonsense.
kj
and its no wonder the world thinks Americans are stupid, pig-headed and
ignorant.
Hindu's..a real religion, beleive Christ was Shiva incanate..the Jews
are an Arab race, The Samaritans were a race of people you know
absolutely nothing.
How clever are you..how many christs have there been, what does messiah
mean and who is this person you keep talking about, 'Jesus' he never
existed, it is an invented name
kj
> In article <vaidnWI2gqa...@bt.com>, kj <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael wrote:
>>> In article <SaidnSwdMLre30bZ...@bt.com>, kj
>>> <kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>>> Lucy, this is bad form to post a question which appears to be in the style
>>>>> of a troll in about 20 different newsgroups.
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <44d943e8$0$1192$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com>, Lucy
>>>>> <tra...@tiptonISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does christianity define itself as the only possible/acceptable
>>>>>> path to ``salvation''?
>>>>> It doesn't. Christ is the only possible/acceptable path to 'salvation'.
>>>> if you want to go to a christian heaven you are probably correct...I'd
>>>> rather not and would rather spend some time with my gods
>>> if you want to go to a pagan heaven you are probably correct, there is
>>> only one God and He does sometimes grant the prayers of all. Have a great
>>> life.
>> and a great after-life.......
>
> There is no 'after-life', that is an oxymoron.
ther is no after-lfe for you, you rot until judgement day!!
>
>> There is not one god there are many...even in the pantheon of your god
>> Jehoveh there are many gods...it is only man that has decided there is
>> one god..and then only certain men.
>
> Tee hee hee, well, at least that is one religious opinion.
no yours is the religious fantasy opinion, mine is the historical
opinion, Jehoveh first appears in the patheon of the pre-jewish
Sumarians where he is a god of agriculture.
kj
try reading a history book, or if that is problem look up Samaritan on
the internet. There you will find E.c.y.l.o.p.e.a.d.i.a's that will
tell you the truth.
The good samaritan story is about not judgeing anybody by his religion
or creed and loving you neighbour, something the new followers of Christ
know nothing about
>
kj
> It certainly helps me to concentrate.
>
> http://pages.globetrotter.net/mcordeau/2004/exercice1.swf
>
> Really it is the only possible comment on this thread.
>
> Pastor Bill
you are probably right
Humble Scribe
>In article <GmAKEhHy...@nocraphere.please>,
>humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>
>> In message <mikeburt-120...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
>> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>> >In article <seFiiqHJ...@nocraphere.please>,
>> >humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >The Christian religious dogma is based on
>> >> Christ, allegedly saying that nobody can enter Heaven*unless* they
>> >> believe His divinity.
>> >
>> >Not really what He said at all, What He said was John 14:6* Jesus saith
>> >unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
>> >Father, but by me.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ..... And 14.7 says ;"Now that you have known me", he said to them, "you
>> will know my Father and from now on you do know him and you have seen
>> him", - clearly identifying himself with God, and thus divine.
>
>IN that we can agree.
>
>>
the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me" [Jn 14:6] and His
claiming divinity, saying ;"Now that you have known Me, you will know my
Father and from now on you do know Him and you have seen Him" [Jn 14:7].
Thus Christ the Divine is saying the only route to Heaven is by
believing in Him. Muslims and Jews cannot believe in his divinity and
remain faithful to their religion, thus according to the Bible, they
cannot be saved. In which case, Christ's sacrifice did not include
saving Muslims and Jews without their becoming apostate. [As I said!]
Is that the doctrine of Christianity or "churchanity")?
>
>>
>> > BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
>> >> and/or Judaism.
>> >
>> >IOW, your opinion is that Islam and Judaica believe that Christ is the
>> >only begotton Son of the Father? As a comedian, you might want to keep
>> >your day job.
>> >
>> As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written word.
>> I wrote that Islam and Judaism deny the divinity of Christ.
>
>True, which invalidates your claim that there is no diversity between the
>three. As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written
>word.
>
>
"Diverse:
1 : differing from one another : unlike
2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities"
Christianity, Islam and Judaism differ from each other over Christ's
divinity (among other things)- therefore they are externally diverse
(meaning 1).
Schisms in Christianity, Islam and Judaism exist owing to each
schismatic party having a different interpretation of the sacred work
underlying that religion- therefore they are internally diverse (meaning
2)
Thus my statement "Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
and/or Judaism" holds true as all three Semitic religions are equally
diverse (meaning 2).
--
John
Humble Scribe
<kevi...@supernet.com> writes
>
>no yours is the religious fantasy opinion, mine is the historical
>opinion, Jehoveh first appears in the patheon of the pre-jewish
>Sumarians where he is a god of agriculture.
>>
YahWeh (YHWH) which itself is based on Ancient Hebrew (I think) for "I
am".
--
John
kj
nown by descriptive titles such as AGLA, Elohim, Adonai, which mean
things like most merciful or on high. The title Jehoveh comes from four
letters in Hebrew Yeh He Vo Ha and each letter has a meaning.
Intrestingly enough names ending in 'EL' indicate the feminine so angels
such as Micael, Gabriel, Auriel and Raphael were all original female.
This is also indicated in some of the titles of God were a more feminine
side is required. according to some texts there are 365 titles of god.
Possibly the strangest is Tetragammatron which is considered holy, but
is just a word that describes letters used to describe gods title.
Up until the time of Moses Judeism had a pantheon of gods which included
Asteroph, Baal and others that were later turned into demons my the
Monothiests. Baal was often represented as a golden bull hense the
story of Moses finding that his followers had reverted to the worship of
Baal
Humble Scribe
<kevi...@supernet.com> writes
>Humble Scribe wrote:
>> In message <fd6dnSj-StEk3ULZ...@bt.com>, kj
>><kevi...@supernet.com> writes
>>>
>>> no yours is the religious fantasy opinion, mine is the historical
>>>opinion, Jehoveh first appears in the patheon of the pre-jewish
>>>Sumarians where he is a god of agriculture.
>>>>
>> There is an argument that Jehovah is purely a Western rendition of
>>YahWeh (YHWH) which itself is based on Ancient Hebrew (I think) for "I
>>am".
>the name is made up of four letters. The hebrew god has no name and
>is nown by descriptive titles such as AGLA, Elohim, Adonai, which mean
>things like most merciful or on high. The title Jehoveh comes from
>four letters in Hebrew Yeh He Vo Ha and each letter has a meaning.
four Hebrew consonants (YHWH) called the tetragrammaton.
The personal name of God probably was known long before the time of
Moses. The name of Moses' mother was Jochebed (Yokheved), a word based
on the name Yahweh. Thus, the tribe of Levi, to which Moses belonged,
probably knew the name Yahweh, which originally may have been (in its
short form Yo, Yah, or Yahu) a religious invocation of no precise
meaning evoked by the mysterious and awesome splendour of the
manifestation of the holy.
The meaning of the personal name of the Israelite God has been variously
interpreted. Many scholars believe that the most proper meaning may be
“He Brings Into Existence Whatever Exists” (Yahweh-Asher-Yahweh). In
I Samuel, God is known by the name Yahweh Teva-'ot, or “He Brings the
Hosts Into Existence,” the hosts possibly referring to the heavenly
court or to Israel.
After the Exile (6th century BC), and especially from the 3rd century BC
on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism
became a universal religion through its proselytizing in the Greco-Roman
world, the more common noun Elohim , meaning “god,” tended to
replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel's God
over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly
regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in
the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (“My Lord”), which
was translated as Kyrios (“Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek
version of the Old Testament.
The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to
reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of
the name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim.
Thus, the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being
>Intrestingly enough names ending in 'EL' indicate the feminine so
>angels such as Micael, Gabriel, Auriel and Raphael were all original
>female. This is also indicated in some of the titles of God were a more
>feminine side is required. according to some texts there are 365
>titles of god. Possibly the strangest is Tetragammatron which is
>considered holy, but is just a word that describes letters used to
>describe gods title.
>
EL was the general term for “deity” in Semitic languages as well as
the name of the chief deity of the West Semites. In the ancient texts
from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria, El was described as the
titular head of the pantheon, husband of Asherah, and father of all the
other gods (except for Baal). His most common epithet was “the Bull,”
but he was also sometimes called “Creator/Possessor of Heaven and
Earth.” Although a venerable deity, he was not active in the myths,
which primarily concerned his daughters and sons.
He was usually portrayed as an old man with a long beard and, often, two
wings. He was the equivalent of the Hurrian god Kumarbi and the Greek
god Cronus. In the Old Testament, El is commonly used as a synonym for
Yahweh and less commonly as the general term for “deity.”
>Up until the time of Moses Judeism had a pantheon of gods which
>included Asteroph, Baal and others that were later turned into demons
>my the Monothiests. Baal was often represented as a golden bull hense
>the story of Moses finding that his followers had reverted to the
>worship of Baal
EL was often represented as a bull as well.
[All of the above comes from Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004]
--
John
The Natural Philosopher
IIRC is more "I am that I am". Yod He Yah Weh
Cf the Tao 'that which exists through itself'
Michael
humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
Where does it say this?
In which case, Christ's sacrifice did not include
> saving Muslims and Jews without their becoming apostate. [As I said!]
>
> Is that the doctrine of Christianity or "churchanity")?
Sounds more like the doctrine held by Christophobes. certainly not Christianity.
1John 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > BTW Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
> >> >> and/or Judaism.
> >> >
> >> >IOW, your opinion is that Islam and Judaica believe that Christ is the
> >> >only begotton Son of the Father? As a comedian, you might want to keep
> >> >your day job.
> >> >
> >> As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written word.
> >> I wrote that Islam and Judaism deny the divinity of Christ.
> >
> >True, which invalidates your claim that there is no diversity between the
> >three. As a reader, you need to polish your understanding of the written
> >word.
> >
> >
> "Diverse:
> 1 : differing from one another : unlike
> 2 : composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities"
>
> Christianity, Islam and Judaism differ from each other over Christ's
> divinity (among other things)- therefore they are externally diverse
> (meaning 1).
We agree.
>
> Schisms in Christianity, Islam and Judaism exist owing to each
> schismatic party having a different interpretation of the sacred work
> underlying that religion- therefore they are internally diverse (meaning
> 2)
We agree as to churchanity, disagree as to the Body of Christ.
>
> Thus my statement "Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
> and/or Judaism" holds true as all three Semitic religions are equally
> diverse (meaning 2).
Not true, the Body of Christ is not diverse at all, but it is the most
inclusive of any body of men (an English word inclusive to both male and
female for the linguistically challenged) the world has ever known.
Michael
Well at least that is one religious opinion, we leave you to your proofs.
Read a
> real history book about Pilate to see what he was like not Hans
> Christian Anderson
And how are you defining 'real'?
How does Scripture not meet the defination of 'real' and why specifically?
What are you reading?
How does it meet the defination of 'real' and why specificallly?
You are entitled to your religious opinion; however, without supporting
documentation, it is just your religious opinion.
Michael
Probably not, in both local and greater context of the incident, Christ
judges from what was in her heart, and what was in her heart requested
redemption, obviously in context, the request was granted.
--
Michael
Well, at least that is one religious opinion lacking support. Perhaps
you should read a 'real' history book about Wycliffe and Tyndall and their
reforms of churchanity even within jolly old England.
I suppose if one can't debate an issue shakiing one's religious
foundations and intolerance to diversity, 'What nonsense' is all one has
to give an appearance of intelligence.
So, if you know, why is it nonsense with specificity and particularity?
You do know about Wycliffe, don't you? They are in 'real' history books.
For the religious imparaired, Wycliffe, a Christian according to 'real'
history books, condemned churchanity and affirmed Christianity. But only
the Biblically illiterate would be confused.
--
Michael
<kevi...@supernet.com> wrote:
Coming from the world who thinks Christ was an 'arab' incarnation of Shiva
and a world intolerant to diversity, that can only be accepted as a
compliment, thanks for your admission.
BTW, I would love to see your proofs that Christ was an 'arab' incarnation
of Shiva. Your postings seem to be strong on prejudicial and intolerant
to diversity opinion and quite short on explanation.
>
> Hindu's..a real religion, beleive Christ was Shiva incanate..the Jews
> are an Arab race, The Samaritans were a race of people you know
> absolutely nothing.
>
> How clever are you..how many christs have there been, what does messiah
> mean and who is this person you keep talking about, 'Jesus' he never
> existed, it is an invented name
> >
> >
> >>> You should look up the meaning of the word "diversity"!. Interesting
> >>> that you assume I am a Muslim- I am not, having been a cradle-Catholic
> >>> and educated in the RC version of Christianity until I reached the age
> >>> of reason and now an agnostic. :-)) [ Probably you could not accuse
> >>> me of being Jewish because of the fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.
> >>> :-))]
> >> and the vast majority of terrorists in the US are white, christians with
> >> grudges on racial grounds going back to the union...how diverse is that
> >
> > Sounds like something that a racist would say celebrating his diversity.
> >
--
Humble Scribe
<mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>In article <q3utxrBe...@nocraphere.please>,
>humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>
>> Thus Christ the Divine is saying the only route to Heaven is by
>> believing in Him. Muslims and Jews cannot believe in his divinity and
>> remain faithful to their religion, thus according to the Bible, they
>> cannot be saved.
>
>Where does it say this?
>
>In which case, Christ's sacrifice did not include
>> saving Muslims and Jews without their becoming apostate. [As I said!]
>>
>> Is that the doctrine of Christianity or "churchanity")?
>
>Sounds more like the doctrine held by Christophobes. certainly not
>Christianity.
>
>1John 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only,
>but also for the sins of the whole world.
>
Does that mean Muslims and Jews are saved even though they deny Christ's
divinity?
>
>
>>
>> Schisms in Christianity, Islam and Judaism exist owing to each
>> schismatic party having a different interpretation of the sacred work
>> underlying that religion- therefore they are internally diverse (meaning
>> 2)
>
>We agree as to churchanity, disagree as to the Body of Christ.
>
>>
>> Thus my statement "Christianity is no more diverse than Islam
>> and/or Judaism" holds true as all three Semitic religions are equally
>> diverse (meaning 2).
>
>Not true, the Body of Christ is not diverse at all, but it is the most
>inclusive of any body of men (an English word inclusive to both male and
>female for the linguistically challenged) the world has ever known.
>
Pius XII, in the encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943; “The Mystical
Body”), identified the mystical body with the Roman Catholic Church!
--
John
Humble Scribe
>documentation, it is just your religious opinion.
>
is just that, "opinion". There is no proof of anything religious, just
irrational faith that certain things are true.
--
John
kj
The scriptures are written by people who never met Jesus, based on 2nd
or 3rd hand material and full of actual errors as well as historical
inaccuracies.. Like all Americans you try to change history to suit
your purpose
>
> What are you reading?
Real histories based on the multitude of real documents from the actual
time of your supposed saviour, who in reality is just another Jewish
prophet among hundreds. The Romans kept some of the best records in
history shame Xtians didn't
>
> How does it meet the defination of 'real' and why specificallly?
>
> You are entitled to your religious opinion; however, without supporting
> documentation, it is just your religious opinion.
as stated there is a multitude of supporting information...unfortunately
you have none...but that is the nature of faith and you choose to put
your faith in fairy stories..that up to you.
>
kj
call it fact....your entire is invented by man so go on and invent some
more.
kj
thats because it is a big wide world with lots of different religion of
which yours is just one
Humble Scribe
>
>You do know about Wycliffe, don't you? They are in 'real' history books.
>
>For the religious imparaired, Wycliffe, a Christian according to 'real'
>history books, condemned churchanity and affirmed Christianity. But only
>the Biblically illiterate would be confused.
>
Interesting that you choose Wycliffe, Michael! He attacked the RC
Church of the day, especially the doctrine of transubstantiation as
idolatrous and unscriptural. To support his theological position, he
commissioned two more translations of the Bible. As the Encyclopaedia
Britannica says: "The most likely explanation of his considerable toil
is that the Bible became a necessity in his theories to replace the
discredited authority of the church and to make the law of God available
to every man who could read."
There, in a nutshell, you have the problem that plagues the reliability
of religion: its sacred works are re-interpreted frequently to support
the latest theological position. [This also applies to the Torah and
the Qur'an!]
As you know, John Wycliffe was theologically influenced by "
predestinarianism" that enabled him to believe in the “invisible”
church of the elect, constituted of those predestined to be saved.
[Only 144,000 male virgins if you believe Revelation 14: 3-4!]
--
John
Michael
Question dodged, noted.
> >
> > How does Scripture not meet the defination of 'real' and why specifically?
>
> The scriptures are written by people who never met Jesus,
What are your proofs beyond your opinion?
>based on 2nd
> or 3rd hand material and full of actual errors as well as historical
> inaccuracies..
What are all of these' actual errors as well as historical inaccuracies'
with specificity and what are your proofs that they are errors and
historical inaccuricies?
> Like all Americans you try to change history to suit
> your purpose
Sounds like something someone who was intolerant to diversity would say.
> >
> > What are you reading?
>
> Real histories
And what are those with specificity and what is your defination of 'real'
(previously asked but quietly dodged) and why how do these secret books
meet your secret defination of 'real'?
>based on the multitude of real documents from the actual
> time of your supposed saviour,
Beyond your rather prejudicial opinion, what are your proofs?
who in reality is just another Jewish
> prophet among hundreds. The Romans kept some of the best records in
> history shame Xtians didn't
And what are these 'well' kept records of the Romans that have the secret
knowledge you claim but have not proven?
BTW, thanks for using the X for it gives great honour to the cross that He
was crucified on.
> >
> > How does it meet the defination of 'real' and why specificallly?
Question dodged, noted.
> >
> > You are entitled to your religious opinion; however, without supporting
> > documentation, it is just your religious opinion.
>
> as stated there is a multitude of supporting information
Let's start with what you think is the top one and why.
>...unfortunately
> you have none...
No, actually, I have a lot, you are just prejudicial about it.
but that is the nature of faith and you choose to put
> your faith in fairy stories..that up to you.
Tee hee hee, and you seem to place your faith in secret documents you
can't even identify.
Have you ever considerd taking a class in tolerance to diversity or anger
management?
Michael
Question avoided, noted.
> >
> > You do know about Wycliffe, don't you? They are in 'real' history books.
Question avoided, noted.
Well, at least that is one opinion intolerant to diversity.
and then
> call it fact....your entire is invented by man so go on and invent some
> more.
Sounds like your entire is invented by you.
Michael
Perhaps, what does that have to do with the question you are avoiding
regarding your proofs that Christ was an 'arab' incarnation of Shiva?
> >
> >
> >
> >> Hindu's..a real religion, beleive Christ was Shiva incanate..the Jews
> >> are an Arab race, The Samaritans were a race of people you know
> >> absolutely nothing.
> >>
> >> How clever are you..how many christs have there been, what does messiah
> >> mean and who is this person you keep talking about, 'Jesus' he never
> >> existed, it is an invented name
> >>>
> >>>>> You should look up the meaning of the word "diversity"!. Interesting
> >>>>> that you assume I am a Muslim- I am not, having been a cradle-Catholic
> >>>>> and educated in the RC version of Christianity until I reached the age
> >>>>> of reason and now an agnostic. :-)) [ Probably you could not accuse
> >>>>> me of being Jewish because of the fear of being labelled anti-Semitic.
> >>>>> :-))]
> >>>> and the vast majority of terrorists in the US are white, christians with
> >>>> grudges on racial grounds going back to the union...how diverse is that
> >>> Sounds like something that a racist would say celebrating his diversity.
> >>>
> >
--
Michael
humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
> In message <mikeburt-140...@192.168.1.100>, Michael
> <mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
> >
> >You do know about Wycliffe, don't you? They are in 'real' history books.
> >
> >For the religious imparaired, Wycliffe, a Christian according to 'real'
> >history books, condemned churchanity and affirmed Christianity. But only
> >the Biblically illiterate would be confused.
> >
> Interesting that you choose Wycliffe, Michael! He attacked the RC
> Church of the day, especially the doctrine of transubstantiation as
> idolatrous and unscriptural. To support his theological position, he
> commissioned two more translations of the Bible.
He did, how are you defining 'commission' and which two did he 'commission'?
As the Encyclopaedia
> Britannica says: "The most likely explanation of his considerable toil
> is that the Bible became a necessity in his theories to replace the
> discredited authority of the church and to make the law of God available
> to every man who could read."
OK, IOW, he rejected churchanity (the word of the pope) and acccepted
Christianity (the Word of God).
>
> There, in a nutshell, you have the problem that plagues the reliability
> of religion:
Not really, the Word of God showed that the word of the pope was not correct.
its sacred works are re-interpreted frequently to support
> the latest theological position.
Where does it say that Wycliffe did any 'reintrepretation'? It is a
common religious belief of Christophobes, but there is no evedence of that
in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
[This also applies to the Torah and
> the Qur'an!]
Perhaps, we will leave you to your proofs here as well.
>
> As you know, John Wycliffe was theologically influenced by "
> predestinarianism" that enabled him to believe in the “invisible”
> church of the elect, constituted of those predestined to be saved.
> [Only 144,000 male virgins if you believe Revelation 14: 3-4!]
Well, at least if one is Biblically illiterate, I suppose.
The Natural Philosopher
> Does this help?
Plonk
Humble Scribe
<mike...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>In article <wgCAOHGu...@nocraphere.please>,
>humble...@nocraphere.please wrote:
>> >
>> Interesting that you choose Wycliffe, Michael! He attacked the RC
>> Church of the day, especially the doctrine of transubstantiation as
>> idolatrous and unscriptural. To support his theological position, he
>> commissioned two more translations of the Bible.
>
>He did, how are you defining 'commission' and which two did he 'commission'?
>
See below. Unsurprisingly the "Wycliffe Bible" that you can read on
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/
and read the background on
http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/Wycliffe.htm
> As the Encyclopaedia
>> Britannica says: "The most likely explanation of his considerable toil
>> is that the Bible became a necessity in his theories to replace the
>> discredited authority of the church and to make the law of God available
>> to every man who could read."
>
>OK, IOW, he rejected churchanity (the word of the pope) and acccepted
>Christianity (the Word of God).
>
*His* interpretation of the "Word of God".
>>
>> There, in a nutshell, you have the problem that plagues the reliability
>> of religion:
>
>Not really, the Word of God showed that the word of the pope was not correct.
>
> its sacred works are re-interpreted frequently to support
>> the latest theological position.
>
>Where does it say that Wycliffe did any 'reintrepretation'? It is a
>common religious belief of Christophobes, but there is no evedence of that
>in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
>
>
"From August 1380 until the summer of 1381, Wycliffe was in his rooms at
Queen's College, busy with his plans for a translation of the Bible and
an order of Poor Preachers who would take Bible truth to the people.
(His mind was too much shaped by Scholasticism, the medieval system of
learning, to do the latter himself.) There were two translations made at
his instigation, one more idiomatic than the other."
[Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004]
Monoglot American may not realise that "translation" inevitably requires
some "interpretation" owing to target and source languages rarely have
identical vocabularies, semantics, grammatical structures and stress
patterns. This is even more difficult when the calligraphies differ,
e.g. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic. So, unless you are reading
the Bible in a mixture of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, what you are
reading has been translated (and thus inevitably interpreted by the
translator.)
>[This also applies to the Torah and
>> the Qur'an!]
>
>Perhaps, we will leave you to your proofs here as well.
>
Do some of your own research, read up on the rival interpretation
Koranic schools of interpretation of Basra and Kufa. Check out the
claim by Encyclopaedia Britannica that "The theological schools of
medieval Islam all sought to support their doctrines with the aid of
Qur'anic exegesis, and each of them produced their own commentaries."
>>
>> As you know, John Wycliffe was theologically influenced by "
>> predestinarianism" that enabled him to believe in the “invisible�
>> church of the elect, constituted of those predestined to be saved.
>> [Only 144,000 male virgins if you believe Revelation 14: 3-4!]
>
>Well, at least if one is Biblically illiterate, I suppose.
>
Well, "O literate One", please instruct us in the "proper"
interpretation, giving *your* proofs", of course.
--
John
kj
them to do it for themselves. tee hee hee
kj
never going to happen..he's only allowing for the reading of one book
and even then one version of the many hundreds of versions.
Typical'the bible is true because it says so' and deny all other
soureces available through a quick search on the interent.
not very bright but fun to have a dig at.
cteas...@gmail.com
> I'm new to the faith. I have one or two puzzling readings to discuss.
> Can you or anyone else explain why the God of the Bible allows
> slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus
> 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing
> babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). Murder, rape,
> pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by
> saying that some god says it's OK. This type of criminal behavior
> should shock any moral person.
> Or am I missing something?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Jesus gives men choices Sid, He gives us the choice to treat our
slaves/servants/employees(today) as members of our own family, brothers
and sisters in Christ. When the slave traders finally came to
understand the true meaning of God's message they took action to
rectify our forefather's past behaviours.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REwilberforce.htm
In the future generations of our children may have to come to rectify
situations in this world now by realising the power of Christ's
salvation for themselves.
God Bless.
Carol T
kj
from Slavery by providing money to the slavers. It was also against its
abolition in the USA
cteas...@gmail.com
Jesus invites us to follow Him if we are to know the way to His Father.
Christians, in any situation, have to ask themselves. What would Jesus
do if they were to live by His standard? The answer to this question is
within yourself too. Did Jesus kill or maim anyone?
"If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall
also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will [my] Father honour."
KJ John 12:26
Have you ever read the story of Stephen in Acts 6:-8:1 ?
The multitude of followers chose Stephen from amongst them because he
was filled with the Holy Spirit and was a living example of a man of
God. He went on to do wonders and miracles before them, and he was
filled with holiness and power.
So, what of the nature of those who are not filled with God's Holy
Spirit because of sin?
Stephen cried out to God as he died asking Him not to charge men with
their sin towards him.
Religion is always a problem to men as ultimately it calls on men to
reflect the true nature of the god who rules their souls. Remember that
Jesus stood up against religious men too.
In Christ's love
Carol T
> They were people of their time - just like the mighty Christian crusaders
> who set out to slaughter Muslims and Jews.
> Religion is a means of controlling and brainwashing the masses. It's the
> root of much of the evil in the world, no matter what religion it might be.
> It turns good people into bigots and killers.
cteas...@gmail.com
> more nonsense from Carol...the church was one of the biggest benefactors
> from Slavery by providing money to the slavers. It was also against its
> abolition in the USA.
Men have choices to make Kevin and when they hear Christ's voice
through His word they hear how to treat their brothers and sisters.
Even those who have accepted Jesus into their life have to start their
journey with Him and unlearn the old ways they once had.