igot some thing to say jesus

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..

Bardock42
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..


He wasn't born in your town though.

JesusIsAlive
So.

rare_fox
Where he was born the winters where vary cold.

JesusIsAlive
And?

Barker
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..
no expression

http://www.worldweather.org/013/c00043f.htm#climate

It's not that cold.

(It's close enough to Bethleham.)

Or:

http://www.weathersa.co.za/Climat/Climstats/BethlehemStats.jsp

DigiMark007
Best. Argument. Ever. no expression

You do know the whole December thing is basically a guess anyway, right? Beyond that, it has to do with the sun's position in the sky. Around that time the sun is the lowest in the horizon in that part of the world. Circa December 25, after 3 days of hovering at the lowest position, it begins to "rise" in the sky....relatively speaking (since it's really just the axis of the Earth and all that jazz, nothing's really rising in a literal sense). Jesus isn't the first important historical figure to have a late December birthday because of that.

§cimitar
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness .. no expression

This is as noobish as posting MySpace bullitens in the OTF.

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..

December 25 is Mithras birthday that was adopted by early christians as Jesus'.

debbiejo
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Best. Argument. Ever. no expression

You do know the whole December thing is basically a guess anyway, right? Beyond that, it has to do with the sun's position in the sky. Around that time the sun is the lowest in the horizon in that part of the world. Circa December 25, after 3 days of hovering at the lowest position, it begins to "rise" in the sky....relatively speaking (since it's really just the axis of the Earth and all that jazz, nothing's really rising in a literal sense). Jesus isn't the first important historical figure to have a late December birthday because of that. Yep...Winter Solstice.
The rebirth of the sun.
The birth of the Son.


CHRISTIANITY: Any record of the date of birth of Yeshua of Nazareth (later known as Jesus Christ) has been lost. There is sufficient evidence in the Gospels to indicate that Yeshua was born in the fall, but this seems to have been unknown to early Christians. By the beginning of the 4th century CE, there was intense interest in choosing a day to celebrate Yeshua's birthday. The western church leaders selected DEC-25 because this was already the date recognized throughout the Roman Empire as the birthday of various Pagan gods. 1,2 Since there was no central Christian authority at the time, it took centuries before the tradition was universally accepted: Eastern churches began to celebrate Christmas after 375 CE.
The church in Jerusalem started in the 7th century.
Ireland started in the 5th century
Austria, England and Switzerland in the 8th
Slavic lands in the 9th and 10th centuries. 3


The church strikes again......If there was a Jesus, then he could not of been born in Dec....the shepards were keeping the flocks out, and in winter they pen them up.

peejayd
* i couldn't have to agree more...

* in the very first place, the Bible do not have any sufficient evidence on when did Mary gave birth the flesh manifestation of Christ...

* if the date was important, it should have been in the Bible somehow, telling other Christians to celebrate Jesus' birthday too...

* the early Christians and the Bible, even in its latest translation, do not tell or even suggest any kind of date regarding Jesus' birth, nor should it be celebrated...

* the date - December 25 - is pagan, taken from a certain Sun-god worship... however, it was never done by Christians... it was done by Catholics, to merge both "christian" (as they claim themselves) and pagan worship... wink

Regulus A Black
Christ was born in April, around what we celebrate as Easter

autumn dreams
Jeus wasn't born in December, he was born around Spring, or so I have heard. I askthis question once before. Also, on some Pagan websites, it tells how the Pagans celebrated a festival on Xmas day, but the Christians stole it from them because they thought that same day was the ideal time to celebrate the birth of some dude who decided what a great idea it would be to allow a bunch of guys to murder him. roll eyes (sarcastic)

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Regulus A Black
Christ was born in April, around what we celebrate as Easter

Any way to verify this?

Originally posted by autumn dreams
Jeus wasn't born in December, he was born around Spring, or so I have heard. I askthis question once before. Also, on some Pagan websites, it tells how the Pagans celebrated a festival on Xmas day, but the Christians stole it from them because they thought that same day was the ideal time to celebrate the birth of some dude who decided what a great idea it would be to allow a bunch of guys to murder him. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Read my and debbiejoe's posts. It wasn't stolen so much as it was simply assimilated from past practices with other sun-related deities who were said to have risen or been reborn.

autumn dreams
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Read my and debbiejoe's posts. It wasn't stolen so much as it was simply assimilated from past practices with other sun-related deities who were said to have risen or been reborn.

Thanks wink

Regret
Do a search on "when was Christ born" you'll probably get all the information you need.

Originally posted by Regulus A Black
Christ was born in April, around what we celebrate as Easter

I believe this is based on a Mormon myth, it is also a topic that anti-Mormon propaganda jumps on as well. We do not have knowledge as to when Christ was born, and the LDS Church has never claimed it. Here is a statement on Mormon belief as to the time of Christ's Birth:



This is in reference to the month as well as the day.

Alliance
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..

Actually, I believe many scholars put his birth in spring (April/May) and his death in Decemberish.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Actually, I believe many scholars put his birth in spring (April/May) and his death in Decemberish.
March or September is the most common guess. It is due to the two possible times Zacharias could have been working in the Temple.

Alliance
Didn't it also have something to do with Jupiter, Mars, and Venus aligning...that whole Star of Bethlehem thing.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Didn't it also have something to do with Jupiter, Mars, and Venus aligning...that whole Star of Bethlehem thing.

Some of the extreme people claim that, I don't know exactly if that's religious crap or if it's fact.

Alliance
I believe it is fact. I don't have any pro-religious bias.

Regret
Then I'd say you might be right, I don't know much about astronomy.

Alliance
I do and don't. I let the experts do the science.

Regret
Yeah, it is best that way... someone should tell those mainstream Christian people wink

peejayd
* in actuality, science and Bible really do coincide with one another... not until some religious group/s dealt their mighty hand to condition people's minds what to believe and what's not to believe... wink

Alliance
science was identical to religion until 150 years ago or so.

Regret
Originally posted by peejayd
* in actuality, science and Bible really do coincide with one another... not until some religious group/s dealt their mighty hand to condition people's minds what to believe and what's not to believe... wink

I agree, but now, I don't think that Pat Robertson and his lot deal with "real" scientists often.

Alliance
or even know what science is.

Regret
or know that they don't know what science is.

Alliance
I believe is more factual than not.

peejayd
* it's the misinterpretation of the Bible of some religious group/s and injecting their so-called "faith" whether the people like it or not... it's like apologizing for the death of a famous scientist that was persecuted in his time by discovering something that is against the so-called "faith" of certain misled religous group/s... sigh... wink

Grimm22
Jesus wasnt born in decemeber, Christmas just got moved to that time to fit in with all the other holidays wink

He was born in april or somthing like that erm

peejayd
* to fit and merge with a pagan celebration... but Jesus' birth was not even in the Bible, neither was it celebrated by the early Christians... so that date was not important... wink

Alliance
True...but it still is awkward.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by peejayd
* in actuality, science and Bible really do coincide with one another... not until some religious group/s dealt their mighty hand to condition people's minds what to believe and what's not to believe... wink

Right, they certainly can in many parts. It's those who take the Bible too literally that get into trouble, and those who view it as more of a metaphorical doctrine have an easier time.

A shame more don't continue with that trend to see that pretty much the entire thing is nothing but a metaphor...it would open up so many windows of tolerance and love for them.

peejayd
Originally posted by peejayd
* it's the misinterpretation of the Bible of some religious group/s and injecting their so-called "faith" whether the people like it or not... it's like apologizing for the death of a famous scientist that was persecuted in his time by discovering something that is against the so-called "faith" of certain misled religous group/s... sigh... wink

* smile

debbiejo
Originally posted by Regret
Then I'd say you might be right, I don't know much about astronomy. there is much written about many of the stories being based on astronomy and also astrology...the year of the fish and Jesus, and certain constellations and planets, the sun. morning star (Venus)....Draco (the dragon)...all played parts in myth stories and according to many has been adopted into Christianity.

Some examples:

The Age of Pisces
The Christian Mythos coincided with the Age of Pisces. This is the reason why there is much in the way of water symbolism in the New Testament. There is the mention of Baptism, the fact that the disciples were mostly fishermen. Then there is the walking on the water, the washing the feet of the disciples, the feeding of the five thousand with two fish, etc,. The Christians still use the symbol of the fish to symbolize Jesus. The letters of the word Jesus Christ the Savior of the World, in Latin, give the word for fish. The Pope wears the "Ring of the Fisherman," and the Pope's headdress is a fish head, from the side. The early Christians were called the "Little Fishes." In the Old Testament we read about the prophet Jonah being swallowed by the whale or the great fish. All the imagery of the chapters and verses of the New Testament can be related to the Precessional phenomena, as that it what it was composed for in the first place. It was never meant to be a biography.

The 33 years of Christ's ministry
This is a number that connects directly with the zodiac and the movement of the sun around it. As mentioned above, the sun takes 2,160 years to pass backward through one sign of 30 degrees. Now this number 2160 or its shorter version 216, is a number that turns up in megalithic construction throughout the world. It was encoded into most of the cyclopean structures, to represent the Serpent or Sidereal Cults who were the Magi, or astrologers. Now it takes 2,160 years for the sun to clear a house. In degrees this is 30. But the sun enters at the 30th degree but is not totally clear until the 33rd degree, as it is of a certain size also. This is why they said in the Bible that the ministry of Christ begins at 30 and finishes at 33. This reference would have been unmistakable to anyone aware of the secrets of astrology. The number is connected to the initiation of the "Sun" of god not "Son," passing through the zodiac. This is why the Freemasonic lodges also utilize the number. There are also 33 vertebrae in the spinal column.

Jonah and Daniel
Two stories that make reference to these heavenly paranatellons are that of Jonah and the Whale and that of Daniel in the Lion's den. In the latter the sign of Leo is being cryptically inferred, for just like Samson and Hercules, or any solar hero, there are trials that test merit and valor. Fighting the lion or being in a den of lion is a reference to the hero conquering his own vanity or egotism. In Celtic legends, many of the heroes face a dangerous boar or dragon. The boar relates to Taurus and the dragon to the constellation called Draco, one of the most arcane of the sabean symbols. Now the great whale relates to the constellation of Cetus, in the sign of Pisces. That people still imagine Jonah being swallowed by a physical whale, to re-emerge again, is testimony to the ignorance that exists in the world

Regret
Originally posted by debbiejo
there is much written about many of the stories being based on astronomy and also astrology...the year of the fish and Jesus, and certain constellations and planets, the sun. morning star (Venus)....Draco (the dragon)...all played parts in myth stories and according to many has been adopted into Christianity.

Some examples:

The Age of Pisces
The Christian Mythos coincided with the Age of Pisces. This is the reason why there is much in the way of water symbolism in the New Testament. There is the mention of Baptism, the fact that the disciples were mostly fishermen. Then there is the walking on the water, the washing the feet of the disciples, the feeding of the five thousand with two fish, etc,. The Christians still use the symbol of the fish to symbolize Jesus. The letters of the word Jesus Christ the Savior of the World, in Latin, give the word for fish. The Pope wears the "Ring of the Fisherman," and the Pope's headdress is a fish head, from the side. The early Christians were called the "Little Fishes." In the Old Testament we read about the prophet Jonah being swallowed by the whale or the great fish. All the imagery of the chapters and verses of the New Testament can be related to the Precessional phenomena, as that it what it was composed for in the first place. It was never meant to be a biography.

The 33 years of Christ's ministry
This is a number that connects directly with the zodiac and the movement of the sun around it. As mentioned above, the sun takes 2,160 years to pass backward through one sign of 30 degrees. Now this number 2160 or its shorter version 216, is a number that turns up in megalithic construction throughout the world. It was encoded into most of the cyclopean structures, to represent the Serpent or Sidereal Cults who were the Magi, or astrologers. Now it takes 2,160 years for the sun to clear a house. In degrees this is 30. But the sun enters at the 30th degree but is not totally clear until the 33rd degree, as it is of a certain size also. This is why they said in the Bible that the ministry of Christ begins at 30 and finishes at 33. This reference would have been unmistakable to anyone aware of the secrets of astrology. The number is connected to the initiation of the "Sun" of god not "Son," passing through the zodiac. This is why the Freemasonic lodges also utilize the number. There are also 33 vertebrae in the spinal column.

Jonah and Daniel
Two stories that make reference to these heavenly paranatellons are that of Jonah and the Whale and that of Daniel in the Lion's den. In the latter the sign of Leo is being cryptically inferred, for just like Samson and Hercules, or any solar hero, there are trials that test merit and valor. Fighting the lion or being in a den of lion is a reference to the hero conquering his own vanity or egotism. In Celtic legends, many of the heroes face a dangerous boar or dragon. The boar relates to Taurus and the dragon to the constellation called Draco, one of the most arcane of the sabean symbols. Now the great whale relates to the constellation of Cetus, in the sign of Pisces. That people still imagine Jonah being swallowed by a physical whale, to re-emerge again, is testimony to the ignorance that exists in the world

Debbiejo... mad

laughing

We discussed my view of other religions on another thread. This type of thing doesn't effect my view due to it. Also, I had assumed you wouldn't be one to repeat the same argument as you had used with me previously.

Similarities in religions, according Mormon belief, are due to the fact that God has loved all people from the beginning of time. Due to this love, God has spoken to all peoples from time to time in their own tongue. This communication is then taken by the people and often interpreted poorly or blatantly altered. As such most religions have a basis in truth, that the same God that spoke in the Bible gave them. From our view it is not a surprise that similarities arise. Also, there is no reason to believe the Hebrews received it first. Our view merely states that they were the people that would bring forth Christ, and that they held more closely to the teachings of the Prophets given them.

I believe my other post was more eloquent, and as such would be better reference for the topic. I'm lazy at the moment, and won't go looking for it.

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
Similarities in religions, according Mormon belief, are due to the fact that God has loved all people from the beginning of time. Due to this love, God has spoken to all peoples from time to time in their own tongue. This communication is then taken by the people and often interpreted poorly or blatantly altered. As such most religions have a basis in truth, that the same God that spoke in the Bible gave them. From our view it is not a surprise that similarities arise. Also, there is no reason to believe the Hebrews received it first. Our view merely states that they were the people that would bring forth Christ, and that they held more closely to the teachings of the Prophets given them.

So does this mean that your religion and your god is right, or is your (mormon) interpretation as flawed as the rest?

debbiejo
Sorry Regret.........I forgot I was talking to you........lol


Interesting........what do you say Regret??.....



stick out tongue

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
So does this mean that your religion and your god is right, or is your (mormon) interpretation as flawed as the rest?

We claim that the Gospel and the Organization as we believe it are not flawed.

Given this, the people of the religion are not perfect. In the Bible the Israelites begged for a king and God gave them a king because they requested it, he did however tell them that it was not a wise course of action. The people have caused some things to be less than they would be if the people lived properly.

e.g. Our Word of Wisdom, the health code we follow. In it's preface we have:



The key phrase here is "adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest." This means that because we, members of the Church, were unable to maintain a more complete law, we were given this lesser law. Some parts of our beliefs are as such. This does not constitute flaws in our belief, but flaws in the members of the Church.

Interpretation is not always important to us, we believe God speaks to our prophets. Given this, we are told what God expects of us, our interpretations really mean nothing, if God is speaking to the prophet then the important thing is listening to his advice. Interpretation is something man does, and it can be flawed. In our belief God has explained the meaning of the various scriptures through the prophets, at least as far as is important for us to know, so interpretation isn't necessary on some topics.

Here is an example of this: We believe that Joseph Smith saw God, and standing next to him was standing Christ, both with physical bodies. Given this, interpretation of scripture as to the nature of God and Christ's relationship is unnecessary.

Now, by contrast, mainstream Christianity claims that prophets have not existed since the coming of Christ. They need man to interpret the scripture, therefore their beliefs have become flawed. IMO the reason Islam is flawed is due to the belief that Muhammad was the last prophet, perhaps if they had not clung so tightly to this their beliefs would have stayed closer to the true manner religion should take. Other beliefs I hold similar views on.

We also believe that this is the last dispensation of the Gospel and that God has stated that he will not allow it to fall away before the fullness of times.

Now, that doesn't mean that the people in the Church do what they are supposed to either wink

I think that was clear, if not, let me know, sometimes when I think things through it is more garbled than I'd like it to be.

Regret
Originally posted by debbiejo
Sorry Regret.........I forgot I was talking to you........lol

Np, figured you were just forgetting we had the discussion previously wink

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
We claim that the Gospel and the Organization as we believe it are not flawed.

So Mormonism is the one true religion, the only interpretation of all the religous doctrine that the one god has spread?

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
So Mormonism is the one true religion, the only interpretation of all the religous doctrine that the one god has spread?

That would be our claim.

Alliance
Then I think Mormonism is hypocritical in this respect...and arrogant.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Then I think Mormonism is hypocritical in this respect...and arrogant.

I don't see how it would be hypocritical, you would need to explain this view better.

As far as arrogance goes, Bible following religions should believe that there is only one way to do things, it is the only way it has occurred throughout Biblical history. Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Besides we believe God stated it.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Regret
Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Well said.

Tptmanno1
Originally posted by Regret
I don't see how it would be hypocritical, you would need to explain this view better.

As far as arrogance goes, Bible following religions should believe that there is only one way to do things, it is the only way it has occurred throughout Biblical history. Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Besides we believe God stated it.
You realize that your claim is exactly the same claim that every other religion makes (with the possible exception of Agnosticism, but thats a totally different story) That attitude isn't limited to LDS or even Bible following religions. Its been the only way to keep followers, and been used since the advent of Hinduism (Which as the first organized religion basically set the precident for everything else.) What would a religion be if they didn't say "We'll this is the way it is. Our god, or gods said it so, and people better than you heard it even though you couldn't concieve it every happening you need to follow us anyway or else scary and really bad things will happen."

I don't believe any of it. And if you look at all religions with the same skeptical eye, you see that they are all ludicris. Every faith, From Scientology to Ancient Greek beleifs, with everything else in betwen are completly silly.

Julie
December....who said Jesus had to be born in DEC anyway????

Regret
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
You realize that your claim is exactly the same claim that every other religion makes (with the possible exception of Agnosticism, but thats a totally different story) That attitude isn't limited to LDS or even Bible following religions. Its been the only way to keep followers, and been used since the advent of Hinduism (Which as the first organized religion basically set the precident for everything else.) What would a religion be if they didn't say "We'll this is the way it is. Our god, or gods said it so, and people better than you heard it even though you couldn't concieve it every happening you need to follow us anyway or else scary and really bad things will happen."

I don't believe any of it. And if you look at all religions with the same skeptical eye, you see that they are all ludicris. Every faith, From Scientology to Ancient Greek beleifs, with everything else in betwen are completly silly.

I do realize this. The question was:

Originally posted by Alliance
So does this mean that your religion and your god is right, or is your (mormon) interpretation as flawed as the rest?

I answered the question. I did not shout it at everyone that disagreed with me, I would find that arrogant and rude. Alliance was asking about my belief, so I stated it. I don't believe in lying, it is our belief. I would never have insulted another's beliefs by stating this, but it is the simple answer to a direct question.

I do not understand the purpose of your post. It is merely a statement saying you disagree. If that was all you were wanting to say, then ok, nice to know.

mahasattva
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..

Many have already answered this question based upon their individual resources..but i have another question, we know that Jesus(Yehua) of nazareth at his early young age at 12(correct me if am wrong) was gone at the history til he got back only at the age around 20's to preach his own gospel...where and what did he do during those lost years in life???

anyone?...... confused

Regret
Originally posted by mahasattva
Many have already answered this question based upon their individual resources..but i have another question, we know that Jesus(Yehua) of nazareth at his early young age at 12(correct me if am wrong) was gone at the history til he got back only at the age around 20's to preach his own gospel...where and what did he do during those lost years in life???

anyone?...... confused

There is evidence that he may have traveled with Joseph of Aramethea (not sure if this was the correct person or spelling, someone correct me here if I'm wrong.) Who was a merchant. There is possible reference to Jesus in rolls at various eastern temples and also in northern Europe. Debbiejo posted the references somewhere on the forum.

Alliance
I will respond in a bit erm

debbiejo
Originally posted by mahasattva
Many have already answered this question based upon their individual resources..but i have another question, we know that Jesus(Yehua) of nazareth at his early young age at 12(correct me if am wrong) was gone at the history til he got back only at the age around 20's to preach his own gospel...where and what did he do during those lost years in life???

anyone?...... confused It's said he went to India...

This appear to be the consensus now among the scholars. This viewpoint is that Jesus, having travelled to India in his youth, returned there after the Crucifixion. He spent most of his life there, and passed away there, and is burred in Shrinagar, Kashmir. This viewpoint is supported by people such as Holger Kersten, Dr Fida Hussnain and Andreas Faber-Kaiser, all who have written on the subject.

hat evidence is there that Jesus went to India?


A list of documents containing information about Jesus' travels to the East and also his ministry in Kashmir can he seen here.

There is local legend and evidence that the man in the tomb is the same person as Jesus Christ. This evidence is also presented at the Ancient Documents page. The Jewish origin of the people of Afghanistan and India is explored here and also forms part of the documented evidence about Jesus' travels by providing a motive.


Look at these ancient documents...

http://www.tombofjesus.com/ancient.htm

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
As far as arrogance goes, Bible following religions should believe that there is only one way to do things, it is the only way it has occurred throughout Biblical history. Also, I do not believe that any religion that does not claim such can be accurate. I don't believe we can pick and choose our method of worship, either one is true or all are false. Truth is not a gray area, it is a black and white statement.

Besides we believe God stated it.

But that is what *all* Christian groups claim. According to the Christian theory all but one are wrong - but they all claim to be the *one* for the exact same reason with out providing a single iota more of proof then any of the others.

So how can any person say, with complete confidence, which is the correct one? Really, God wants people to believe, I'd have thought he would make an effort to point out which is his true religion. But no, he seems happy to have a few hundred different interpretations going, all disliking the others and all claiming to be the one and only.

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
Due to this love, God has spoken to all peoples from time to time in their own tongue. This communication is then taken by the people and often interpreted poorly or blatantly altered. As such most religions have a basis in truth, that the same God that spoke in the Bible gave them. From our view it is not a surprise that similarities arise.

This is where your idea fails. You install your god at teh top of this hierarchy. You (magically may I add) have been "able" to not change the word of god, but all other religoins are rip-offs of Mormon Chirstianity. This is completely illogical

It is even more illigical becuase your faith continuously gains new interpretations (but granted from only one prophet at a time (the power structure must be maintained)). This means that the will of god is constantyl changing. Kind of funny for a "god' that has a plan for everything dont ya think?

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
It's said he went to India...

This appear to be the consensus now among the scholars. This viewpoint is that Jesus, having travelled to India in his youth, returned there after the Crucifixion. He spent most of his life there, and passed away there, and is burred in Shrinagar, Kashmir. This viewpoint is supported by people such as Holger Kersten, Dr Fida Hussnain and Andreas Faber-Kaiser, all who have written on the subject.

hat evidence is there that Jesus went to India?


A list of documents containing information about Jesus' travels to the East and also his ministry in Kashmir can he seen here.

There is local legend and evidence that the man in the tomb is the same person as Jesus Christ. This evidence is also presented at the Ancient Documents page. The Jewish origin of the people of Afghanistan and India is explored here and also forms part of the documented evidence about Jesus' travels by providing a motive.


Look at these ancient documents...

http://www.tombofjesus.com/ancient.htm

* Saint Luke provides the age, Jesus was 12 when He was seen talking in synagogues, after that, a big gap and Jesus started preaching at the age of 30... so where was He?

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Mark 6:3

* the Jews knew Jesus from His early childhood up to His preaching... the missing 13-29 age gap was clearly spent on carpentry, Jesus helping His foster father Joseph... wink

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
This is where your idea fails. You install your god at teh top of this hierarchy. You (magically may I add) have been "able" to not change the word of god, but all other religoins are rip-offs of Mormon Chirstianity. This is completely illogical

It is not at the top of this hierarchy. It is only the current incarnation of the same thing. They are not rip offs, they were given what they needed at that time. As to our ability to not change the word of God, refer to my comments further below.



"Adapted to the circumstances" is the important phrase. Throughout history there have been variances in the application of the Gospel. This was due to what the people needed.

Originally posted by Alliance
It is even more illigical becuase your faith continuously gains new interpretations (but granted from only one prophet at a time (the power structure must be maintained)). This means that the will of god is constantyl changing. Kind of funny for a "god' that has a plan for everything dont ya think?

We do not gain new interpretations. The will of God is not constantly changing. Most frequently the prophet and the Twelve are maintaining the Gospel, similar to what is described here:



Also, if there were revelation since the time of Christ, there would be no room for non-Christians to claim that changes had occurred. Why? Because God would have been there constantly correcting the Christians that were in error. The problem is that the Apostles disappeared, there became a void in the authority in the Church. Due to this many truths were lost, you yourself have claimed this is so even though you do not believe in it.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But that is what *all* Christian groups claim. According to the Christian theory all but one are wrong - but they all claim to be the *one* for the exact same reason with out providing a single iota more of proof then any of the others.

So how can any person say, with complete confidence, which is the correct one? Really, God wants people to believe, I'd have thought he would make an effort to point out which is his true religion. But no, he seems happy to have a few hundred different interpretations going, all disliking the others and all claiming to be the one and only.

We claim that God speaks directly to our prophet today. Mainstream Christians do not claim this. They typically claim that prophets were ended with Christ. We believe God speaks to a prophet today.

I understand other religions may claim similar, I don't deny it. This is our belief, and the question was what we believed.

Alliance
but you still calim that your interpretation of "gods word" is more right than anyone elses.

Example: polygamy. It was accepted. Now it is not. There was a change in interpretation. There wil be future ones. How can you say your interpretation is any more right?

debbiejo
Originally posted by peejayd
* Saint Luke provides the age, Jesus was 12 when He was seen talking in synagogues, after that, a big gap and Jesus started preaching at the age of 30... so where was He?

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Mark 6:3

wink

debbiejo
Show me this please.... smile

Alliance
Jesus's childhood is covered extensivly in the Bible....didn't you know?

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
but you still calim that your interpretation of "gods word" is more right than anyone elses.

Example: polygamy. It was accepted. Now it is not. There was a change in interpretation. There wil be future ones. How can you say your interpretation is any more right?

We believe God told the prophet we could end polygamy. It wasn't interpretation.

The Bible shows examples of this, why do Christians not offer blood sacrifices? Why did the Jews suddenly get a large amount of worship law (Moses)? It did not exist before. There are other instances.

We claim that god has told us what he means in many instances, not that we interpret things correctly. The areas that we have interpretation are possibly in error, the Church does not make doctrinal statements based in interpretation, we believe God has told us what we need. The interpretational portions are not doctrine. When I speak with a non-Mormon I use the term interpretation because they do not believe as I do, and do not accept the Mormon prophets. This is me showing them respect. Also, the verses can be interpreted as I claim. So for them, it is a possible interpretation.

Change in worship and practice are not without Biblical precedent, they are not counter to God's will. God does not change, what is required of man does.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
Jesus's childhood is covered extensivly in the Bible....didn't you know? Give me the verses that state so between the ages of 12 and 30 please... smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
Give me the verses that state so between the ages of 12 and 30 please... smile

I think he was being sarcastic. wink

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by debbiejo
Give me the verses that state so between the ages of 12 and 30 please... smile

They cut them out and declared them gnostic as all they involved was Jesus drag racing his parents cart down the main street with young hooligans and playing the X-BOX 360 AD. (Yes, Microsoft will eventually reach through all time and space.)

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think he was being sarcastic. wink

I was NOT being sarcastic. lol

debbiejo
Originally posted by peejayd
* i couldn't have to agree more...

* in the very first place, the Bible do not have any sufficient evidence on when did Mary gave birth the flesh manifestation of Christ...

* if the date was important, it should have been in the Bible somehow, telling other Christians to celebrate Jesus' birthday too...

* the early Christians and the Bible, even in its latest translation, do not tell or even suggest any kind of date regarding Jesus' birth, nor should it be celebrated...

* the date - December 25 - is pagan, taken from a certain Sun-god worship... however, it was never done by Christians... it was done by Catholics, to merge both "christian" (as they claim themselves and who were they...cause that word only mean "doers of good"...and the gnostics where called that too." and pagan worship... wink You seem to separate Christians from Catholics...........yet one sprung form the other..........In fact the Calhocis church sees it this way.......Protestants are the daughter of the Mother church...........Martin Luther started to see it, though he loved the church,........but you need to read all about church history and from all views meaning from they're perspective ....not from your faiths perspective,,,,,,,because they are always selective (why not be if they had a agenda?),,,,,,,don't control of an empire!!!.......It's just that.........It's called critical thinking..........if you have a they did?.....Think!........then study it ) Study then you need to go to the real source, not an interpretation of it......in that way you get a clearer picture...............BTW, I'm, not saying I have all the answers.....not at all..........but I do believe I have a handle on how things work to some degree.. smile

Read outside those books they tell you not too.............Put it all together..............that's all...........

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
Show me this please.... smile

* ain't it sufficient enough?

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Mark 6:3

* they know that Jesus is a carpenter,
* they know that Jesus is the son of Mary,
* they know that Jesus is the brother of James, Joses, Juda & Simon,
* they know that Jesus' sisters were offended at Him,
* what else?

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Matthew 13:55

* they know that Jesus is the son of Joseph, the carpenter... wink

peejayd
Originally posted by debbiejo
You seem to separate Christians from Catholics...........

* yes, as it should be...

Originally posted by debbiejo
yet one sprung form the other..........

* and you let yourself be fooled? i understand, you know the chaos made by the "christians" (as you call them, but they are Catholics) as they conquered almost the whole world with their unbiblical doctrines... just take a look at the Bible, it supplies the kind of people REAL Christians are...

Originally posted by debbiejo
In fact the Calhocis church sees it this way.......Protestants are the daughter of the Mother church...........Martin Luther started to see it, though he loved the church,........but you need to read all about church history and from all views meaning from they're perspective ....not from your faiths perspective,,,,,,,because they are always selective (why not be if they had a agenda?),,,,,,,don't control of an empire!!!.......It's just that.........It's called critical thinking..........if you have a they did?.....Think!........then study it ) Study then you need to go to the real source, not an interpretation of it......in that way you get a clearer picture...............BTW, I'm, not saying I have all the answers.....not at all..........but I do believe I have a handle on how things work to some degree.. smile

Read outside those books they tell you not too.............Put it all together..............that's all...........

* i don't need to read other books to comprehend the big difference of Christianity and Catholicism... read the Bible, New Testament in particular, if you see any Catholic-esque works of the Christians stated in the Bible, i might reconsider, okay? wink

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by peejayd
* i couldn't have to agree more...

* in the very first place, the Bible do not have any sufficient evidence on when did Mary gave birth the flesh manifestation of Christ...

* if the date was important, it should have been in the Bible somehow, telling other Christians to celebrate Jesus' birthday too...

* the early Christians and the Bible, even in its latest translation, do not tell or even suggest any kind of date regarding Jesus' birth, nor should it be celebrated...

* the date - December 25 - is pagan, taken from a certain Sun-god worship... however, it was never done by Christians... it was done by Catholics, to merge both "christian" (as they claim themselves) and pagan worship... wink

Good Points. Except for one fact: Catholics ARE Christian. They predate Protestants. wink

I know you like to separate yourself from Catholics for your own social, influential, and personal convienence, but don't go as far as to LIE as say Catholics are not Christian. They clearly are, they are earlier Christians than you. wink

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Good Points. Except for one fact: Catholics ARE Christian. They predate Protestants. wink

I know you like to separate yourself from Catholics for your own social, influential, and personal convienence, but don't go as far as to LIE as say Catholics are not Christian. They clearly are, they are earlier Christians than you. wink

Yes, exactly.

It is foolish to separate Catholics from the rest of the Christians - Catholics meet all the criteria to be called Christians. What this is, is merely the old "But they aren't doing it right, so they can't be Christians"

There are Mormons who say it about every other Christian group.

There are the Brethren who say it about every other Christian group.

Seven Day Eventists believe they are correctly following it.

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox - they disagree with each other, and also have a tendency not to say that the others aren't following the Bible right.

They are just the tip of the ice berg. But simply put a Christian is "a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination" - which includes Catholics. It doesn't matter whether someone doesn't like the way they do things, they remain Christian. They remain Christian by historical terms, by literary terms, by theological terms. The only way they would stop being Christian is if they dropped Jesus and a big chunk of the Bible. But ultimately, as long as Jesus and the Bible are part of their Church, they ARE Christian.

mahasattva
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, exactly.

It is foolish to separate Catholics from the rest of the Christians - Catholics meet all the criteria to be called Christians. What this is, is merely the old "But they aren't doing it right, so they can't be Christians"

There are Mormons who say it about every other Christian group.

There are the Brethren who say it about every other Christian group.

Seven Day Eventists believe they are correctly following it.

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox - they disagree with each other, and also have a tendency not to say that the others aren't following the Bible right.

They are just the tip of the ice berg. But simply put a Christian is "a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination" - which includes Catholics. It doesn't matter whether someone doesn't like the way they do things, they remain Christian. They remain Christian by historical terms, by literary terms, by theological terms. The only way they would stop being Christian is if they dropped Jesus and a big chunk of the Bible. But ultimately, as long as Jesus and the Bible are part of their Church, they ARE Christian.

Nice put..the same thing with Buddhism..there are different Buddhist traditions(sects) with different and contradictory beliefs/practices but all considered buddhists because all buddhists from whatever traditions take refuge Buddha, Dharma and the sangha(3 jewels) which is the foundation of of this religion...

mahasattva
Originally posted by debbiejo
It's said he went to India...

This appear to be the consensus now among the scholars. This viewpoint is that Jesus, having travelled to India in his youth, returned there after the Crucifixion. He spent most of his life there, and passed away there, and is burred in Shrinagar, Kashmir. This viewpoint is supported by people such as Holger Kersten, Dr Fida Hussnain and Andreas Faber-Kaiser, all who have written on the subject.

hat evidence is there that Jesus went to India?


A list of documents containing information about Jesus' travels to the East and also his ministry in Kashmir can he seen here.

There is local legend and evidence that the man in the tomb is the same person as Jesus Christ. This evidence is also presented at the Ancient Documents page. The Jewish origin of the people of Afghanistan and India is explored here and also forms part of the documented evidence about Jesus' travels by providing a motive.


Look at these ancient documents...

http://www.tombofjesus.com/ancient.htm

Thanks... smile Do u have other links whick talks about lost years of jesus...

Wonderer
Originally posted by mahasattva
Thanks... smile Do u have other links whick talks about lost years of jesus...
Here we go again with evidence and history. It's not about that, but about the ideas that Buddha and Jesus wanted to get over to us - not even about whether or not they existed as people, but about the teaching itself.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by mahasattva
Nice put..the same thing with Buddhism..there are different Buddhist traditions(sects) with different and contradictory beliefs/practices but all considered buddhists because all buddhists from whatever traditions take refuge Buddha, Dharma and the sangha(3 jewels) which is the foundation of of this religion...

Exactly.



There are a lot of people who, I think fairly, would find it a lot easy to believe with evidence. That, and history is an enjoyable, fascinating subject that can help one understand the context of a belief and the like.

Personally, being a history buff, I think it would be interesting, from a perfectly scholerly view, to find evidence proving a link between Buddha and Jesus.

peejayd
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Good Points. Except for one fact: Catholics ARE Christian. They predate Protestants. wink

I know you like to separate yourself from Catholics for your own social, influential, and personal convienence, but don't go as far as to LIE as say Catholics are not Christian. They clearly are, they are earlier Christians than you. wink

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yes, exactly.

It is foolish to separate Catholics from the rest of the Christians - Catholics meet all the criteria to be called Christians. What this is, is merely the old "But they aren't doing it right, so they can't be Christians"

There are Mormons who say it about every other Christian group.

There are the Brethren who say it about every other Christian group.

Seven Day Eventists believe they are correctly following it.

Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox - they disagree with each other, and also have a tendency not to say that the others aren't following the Bible right.

They are just the tip of the ice berg. But simply put a Christian is "a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination" - which includes Catholics. It doesn't matter whether someone doesn't like the way they do things, they remain Christian. They remain Christian by historical terms, by literary terms, by theological terms. The only way they would stop being Christian is if they dropped Jesus and a big chunk of the Bible. But ultimately, as long as Jesus and the Bible are part of their Church, they ARE Christian.

* only because they claim to be the first religion ever sprouted and is connected to the early Christians - so, Catholics are Christians?! no, my friends... it's not going to work...

* only because "Jesus" and Bible are part of the Catholic church - they are Christians?! nope, not going to work either...

* ask yourselves, people... you've somehow read the Bible, ask yourselves if the doctrines stated in the Bible were somehow acquired by the Catholics...

* example:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image , nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them : for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,"
Deuteronomy 5:8-9

* the Catholic church is in direct contrary with this verse, they use graven image as an object of worship... coincidentally, that's what Saint Paul said to those people in the Rome as he wrote with his scribe, Tercius, his epistle to the Romans...

"For that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator , who is blessed for ever. Amen."
The Romans 1:25

* but what did Christ preached as to how should a true Christian worship God?

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth ."
John 4:24

* we must worship God in spirit and in truth, and NOT through graven images...

* there are many more doctrines of the Catholic church which is not in accordance with the Bible... please consider reading the Bible as proof that Catholics are really NOT Christians...

* just like what i said on earlier post - "read the Bible, New Testament in particular, if you see any Catholic-esque works of the Christians stated in the Bible, i might reconsider, okay?" wink

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is foolish to separate Catholics from the rest of the Christians - Catholics meet all the criteria to be called Christians. What this is, is merely the old "But they aren't doing it right, so they can't be Christians"

There are Mormons who say it about every other Christian group.

Mormons do not say that anyone is not Christian. I am not sure about the rest of it, but the Mormon religion doesn't claim that anyone is not Christian.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
Mormons do not say that anyone is not Christian. I am not sure about the rest of it, but the Mormon religion doesn't claim that anyone is not Christian.

Not so much that the others aren't Christian, but that they aren't the correct Christians. I have heard them say once that, being the true Church of God (the living Church) that they are thus the true path for Christians to salvation.



You dill. Yes, I am using harsh language, and I stand by it. A Christian is defined by Jesus and the Bible. It doesn't matter how they approach it, ultimately if they have Jesus AND the Bible, they are technically, theologically and literally Christian. It doesn't matter whether they were the first or last. A Christian sect/denomination is defined by having Jesus and the Bible as the focus of their beliefs. Just as a Buddhist sect or denomination relies on Buddha and the like, or Islamic sects professing a belief in the Qur'an. Doesn't matter if they are Sunni or Shi'ite, they are Islamic!



And? Do you really understand Catholic faith? Saints and relics are viewed as essentially emissaries to God. They aren't worshipped as God or Jesus, but rather special individuals blessed to act on God's behalf. Thus they pray that Saint Jude or Saint Boniface hear their need and take it to God. Yes, technicality you might say, but irrelevant none the less. This approach does not stop them being Christian, just because you don't like it. You want to know why? Because they still follow Jesus and the Bible.



I don't need to read the Bible. I have read it enough times to last me a life time. You, and people like you, are deciding on doctrine. The very reason why there are so many sects/denominations. But as I said before? You know what? It doesn't change a thing - Catholics remain Christian. Their Church is based on the Bible. They pray to Jesus. They get baptised and all the other stuff. By definition they ARE Christian. Just because you have a problem with the way they approach their version of Christianity doesn't change a thing. Only two things are needed to make you Christian:

Jesus + Bible = Christian.

Jesus + Bible - Saints/Relics = Christian

Jesus + Bible + Book of Mormon = Christian

Jesus + Bible + Fasting/not seeing doctors/self flagellation = Christian

Why, because nothing else matters in terms of definition. Bible + Jesus is what defines a person as Christian, anything after that is irrelevant. Your problem is that you don't think the Catholics are following the Bible right. Your problem doesn't stop them being any more or less Christian.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not so much that the others aren't Christian, but that they aren't the correct Christians. I have heard them say once that, being the true Church of God (the living Church) that they are thus the true path for Christians to salvation.

I can agree with that. Although, we wouldn't claim that others will not be saved, only that following being saved Heaven is different depending on the law you chose to obey.

peejayd
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You dill. Yes, I am using harsh language, and I stand by it. A Christian is defined by Jesus and the Bible. It doesn't matter how they approach it, ultimately if they have Jesus AND the Bible, they are technically, theologically and literally Christian. It doesn't matter whether they were the first or last. A Christian sect/denomination is defined by having Jesus and the Bible as the focus of their beliefs. Just as a Buddhist sect or denomination relies on Buddha and the like, or Islamic sects professing a belief in the Qur'an. Doesn't matter if they are Sunni or Shi'ite, they are Islamic!

* speaking of the Bible, looky here...

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself ."
John 7:17

* know first the doctrine, if it be of God or not...

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed ."
Galatians 1:8

* as a true Christian, we must know the doctrine if it's of God or not... if it's not of God, we should reject it...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And? Do you really understand Catholic faith? Saints and relics are viewed as essentially emissaries to God. They aren't worshipped as God or Jesus, but rather special individuals blessed to act on God's behalf. Thus they pray that Saint Jude or Saint Boniface hear their need and take it to God. Yes, technicality you might say, but irrelevant none the less. This approach does not stop them being Christian, just because you don't like it.

* it's not because i don't like it... it is because, according to the Bible, God does not like it... read my post -> Deuteronomy 5:8-9...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You want to know why? Because they still follow Jesus and the Bible.

* if they follow Jesus and the Bible as you say, they would follow this:

"After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."
Matthew 6:9

"In nothing be anxious; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God ."
Philippians 4:6


* the manner of praying that Christ and Saint Paul taught, is to pray directly to the Father... not to those they claim "saints"... they are mere dead humans, and what does the Bible say about dead humans?

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten ."
Ecclesiastes 9:5

* if the dead know not anything, how can they hear their need and take it to God?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't need to read the Bible. I have read it enough times to last me a life time.

* i think now, you should...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You, and people like you, are deciding on doctrine.

* i only post what's according to the Bible, not my own opinion... in fact, it is you who's blurting out everything that does not coincide with the Bible... the Bible that you claim, together with Jesus makes a Christian, that's how shallow your understanding of being a Christian...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The very reason why there are so many sects/denominations. But as I said before? You know what? It doesn't change a thing - Catholics remain Christian. Their Church is based on the Bible. They pray to Jesus.

* you just said, they are praying to "saints" and worshipping "relics"...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
They get baptised and all the other stuff. By definition they ARE Christian. Just because you have a problem with the way they approach their version of Christianity doesn't change a thing. Only two things are needed to make you Christian:

Jesus + Bible = Christian.

Jesus + Bible - Saints/Relics = Christian

Jesus + Bible + Book of Mormon = Christian

Jesus + Bible + Fasting/not seeing doctors/self flagellation = Christian

Why, because nothing else matters in terms of definition. Bible + Jesus is what defines a person as Christian, anything after that is irrelevant. Your problem is that you don't think the Catholics are following the Bible right. Your problem doesn't stop them being any more or less Christian.

* it's not my problem... in actuality, you have a big problem of accepting a religious group that claims to be Christian but is in direct contrary of the Christian doctrine...

* yes, my posts won't stop Catholics on claiming themselves as Christians, that's why i'm providing the proofs in the Bible... it's just too hard for you to swallow... your bad... wink

Nellinator
Jesus + Bible - Saints/Relics = Jesus + Bible = Christian
Jesus + Bible + Saints/Relics = Idolatry + Highway to Hell (ACDC forever)
Jesus + Bible + Book of Mormon = Mormon, a type of Christian yes
Jesus + Bible + Fasting/not seeing doctors/self flagellation = idiot..... that is still a Christian

Alliance
Jesus = Messiah = Christian.

Simple smile

debbiejo
Originally posted by peejayd
* ain't it sufficient enough?

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
Mark 6:3

* they know that Jesus is a carpenter,
* they know that Jesus is the son of Mary,
* they know that Jesus is the brother of James, Joses, Juda & Simon,
* they know that Jesus' sisters were offended at Him,
* what else?

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"
Matthew 13:55

* they know that Jesus is the son of Joseph, the carpenter... wink This does not show the missing years of Jesus.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Nellinator
It cannot be proven what Jesus did during that time, but a rational conclusion would be that he continued to study the Word (he had incredible knowledge of it) and learned a trade of some sort for he was not ignorant of the professions that many people in his day had as is shown in his parables.

Alliance
We are extrapolating a 15 year gap in a fictional book. Any opinion goes.

Rationality...hah.

He probably got married and had kids like everyone else.

peejayd
Originally posted by Nellinator
Jesus + Bible - Saints/Relics = Jesus + Bible = Christian
Jesus + Bible + Saints/Relics = Idolatry + Highway to Hell (ACDC forever)
Jesus + Bible + Book of Mormon = Mormon, a type of Christian yes
Jesus + Bible + Fasting/not seeing doctors/self flagellation = idiot..... that is still a Christian

Originally posted by Alliance
Jesus = Messiah = Christian.

Simple smile

* i'm sorry, but i have to disagree with these...

-> idolatry & relics:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image , nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them : for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,"
Deuteronomy 5:8-9

* it is very clear that idolatry is prohibited in the Bible...

* if creating and worshipping graven images are prohibited in the Bible, then moreso in relics, which are only associated with Catholic saints...

-> self-flagellation:

"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you : I am the LORD."
Leviticus 19:28

* self-flagellation is also prohibited...

* so, you see, i believe a Christian group is a group that abides what the Bible tells...

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God , or whether I speak of myself."
John 7:17

* know first if the doctrine they preach is of God... how can we know or distinguish if it is of God or not?

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written ; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other."
I Corinthians 4:6

* we should learn through the apostles not to go beyond the things which are written...

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed ."
Galatians 1:8

* if it is against the Scriptures, we should reject it...

* this is how the Bible says:

-> God & Christ -> Bible -> doctrine of God & Christ -> faith, love & hope -> good works, deeds = Christian... cool

Originally posted by debbiejo
This does not show the missing years of Jesus.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by Nellinator
It cannot be proven what Jesus did during that time, but a rational conclusion would be that he continued to study the Word (he had incredible knowledge of it) and learned a trade of some sort for he was not ignorant of the professions that many people in his day had as is shown in his parables.

* then, let's read it's context...

"And he went out from thence; and he cometh into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands ?"
Mark 6:1-2

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
And coming into his own country he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works ?"
Matthew 13:53-54

* the Jews were astonished to see Christ have great wisdom and can do mighty works and miracles, why were they astonished?

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him."
Mark 6:3

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?"
Matthew 13:55

* because they knew Christ from 13-29 years of His age that He did not study from any kind of school, may be it educational or religious... the Jews just knew Christ as a mere carpenter, a son of a carpenter... the Jews even knew Jesus' brothers and sisters in flesh...

* the Jews were astonished to see Christ have wisdom and perform mighty works, inspite of the fact that they knew Him only as a carpenter... that proves that Jesus' missing years was devoted to carpentry... wink

Alliance
WOW!

Imperial_Samura
peejayd. I am going to try a simpler tact.

You are trying to claim that doctrine defines a person as Christian.

Christian is a universal/umbrella term for the faith which believes in the Bible/Jesus.

Doctrine defines which particular sect/denomination a Christian belongs to.

Your argument is misjudged and based upon false definitions. Quote the Bible, interpret it however you like. The fact is, that in terms of terminology (pun, I know) a Christian only has to believe in Jesus to qualify as Christian.

Thus, trying to claim that Catholic doctrine excludes them from the universal term Christian is erroneous. Catholic doctrine excludes them from being called Protestant or Mormon or Christian Scientist. Catholic doctrine does not stop them being Christian, just as Mormon or Christian Scientist doctrine does not stop them from being Christian. I get the fact you dislike Catholic doctrine, I get the fact you think God doesn't like Catholic doctrine. I get the fact that you think the Bible doesn't like Catholic doctrine. You need to get the fact that is irrelevant. As I said before Jesus/Bible = Christian. Doctrine doesn't enter into it.

But you know what Catholic doctrine does? Exactly what you are doing. They interpret ye old Bible. They think Saints have a place in it. Just as self flagellates believe that. I bet if we looked closely enough at you there would be at least one thing in the Bible (probably old testament) that you don't strictly adhere to, or you reinterpret. Catholics, Orthodox, Church of England do exactly the same. It is the reason there are sooooo many. Because Christians can't decide on the correct doctrine.

peejayd
* so, we have different opinions...

* i understand that in your opinion, Christian is a universal/umbrella term for the faith which believes in the Bible/Jesus... that's fine with me, i respect your opinion...

* however, what i'm saying is - anyone who claims to believe in Jesus/Bible, should also be in accordance with what Jesus commands in the Bible...

* my point is, there are laws in the Bible, particularly of Christ... Christians in the Bible obey these laws... so, if anyone claims to be a Christian, and does NOT obey these laws, they are NOT true Christians... i hope you got my point... wink

* IMO, and according to the Bible, a "Christian" is not just a word or a term, it is the embodiment of people who follow and obey the doctrine of Christ... wink

Alliance
Originally posted by peejayd
* however, what i'm saying is - anyone who claims to believe in Jesus/Bible, should also be in accordance with what Jesus commands in the Bible...

* my point is, there are laws in the Bible, particularly of Christ... Christians in the Bible obey these laws... so, if anyone claims to be a Christian, and does NOT obey these laws, they are NOT true Christians... i hope you got my point... wink

* IMO, and according to the Bible, a "Christian" is not just a word or a term, it is the embodiment of people who follow and obey the doctrine of Christ... wink

The thing is...people have different interpretations of what the bible says. Even if you take the book "literally" it can still say many different things. Catholics just follow a different interpretation, but they dont hold Christ or his teachings in any lower regard than yourself.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
The thing is...people have different interpretations of what the bible says. Even if you take the book "literally" it can still say many different things. Catholics just follow a different interpretation, but they dont hold Christ or his teachings in any lower regard than yourself.

Exactly.



The thing is my opinion isn't based upon my personal interpretation of what the Bible says a Christian is. What I am saying is the view held and presented by the sources that define things such as this. So it is not just my "opinion", it is the same definition that dictrionaries, theological historians, language evolution scholars etc will support. Why? Because Christianity/Islam/Buddhism etc is not defined by approaches to doctrine, but rather to the basis of such doctrines - Jesus/Bible. The Qur'an. And so on.



And they believe they are doing just that. In fact if you ask them some will say that it is you that is not following correctly. And you are concentrating on Catholics. By your definition a mass of Christian sects/denominations aren't Christian because of their doctrinal interpretations.

peejayd
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
The thing is my opinion isn't based upon my personal interpretation of what the Bible says a Christian is. What I am saying is the view held and presented by the sources that define things such as this. So it is not just my "opinion", it is the same definition that dictrionaries, theological historians, language evolution scholars etc will support. Why? Because Christianity/Islam/Buddhism etc is not defined by approaches to doctrine, but rather to the basis of such doctrines - Jesus/Bible. The Qur'an. And so on.

And they believe they are doing just that. In fact if you ask them some will say that it is you that is not following correctly. And you are concentrating on Catholics. By your definition a mass of Christian sects/denominations aren't Christian because of their doctrinal interpretations.

Originally posted by Alliance
The thing is...people have different interpretations of what the bible says. Even if you take the book "literally" it can still say many different things. Catholics just follow a different interpretation, but they dont hold Christ or his teachings in any lower regard than yourself.

* uhmm... okay... i got it... but let me be specific for while...

"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,"
Deuteronomy 5:8-9

* here's a commandment of God, it's supposed to be the 2nd of the Ten Commandments... may i ask you both, how can the Catholics prove that creating and worshipping graven images are alright and not prohibited when it is blatantly written in the Bible?

* i know we differ in interpretations but what kind of interpretation did they do in Deuteronomy 5:8-9? can you say that i'm wrong here in this scenario, and they are right? or we're both wrong? or we're both right? confused

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by peejayd
* uhmm... okay... i got it... but let me be specific for while...

"Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,"
Deuteronomy 5:8-9

* here's a commandment of God, it's supposed to be the 2nd of the Ten Commandments... may i ask you both, how can the Catholics prove that creating and worshipping graven images are alright and not prohibited when it is blatantly written in the Bible?

* i know we differ in interpretations but what kind of interpretation did they do in Deuteronomy 5:8-9? can you say that i'm wrong here in this scenario, and they are right? or we're both wrong? or we're both right? confused

I would empathise again that it is not really about this, but anyway.

Catholics do not believe they are worshipping graven images. If asked they will say "we are not worshipping saints, we only worship God/Jesus." The Catholics do not believe they are breaking the second commandment. They cross themselves before the giant Jesus statue and all that.

However they believe that Saints are special. People chose by God. Chosen to act more closely on his behalf, people who he acts through, the perform miracles and such. The Saints began with the Disciples and continue to today, where the Pope can declare a person a saint if they have a certain number of verified miracles attributed to them. I have heard Saints referred to as "God's soldiers" or "agents of God." Thus a Catholic might pray to Saint Jude about some lost thing, in the belief that Saint Jude is a servant of God, chosen to act on God's behalf. They don't believe Saint Jude IS God/Jesus. They aren't praying to him AS God/Jesus. And they would say "God gives these Saints power should not we respect them."

Once again it comes down to definition - Saints etc are a matter of doctrine. They do not exclude a group from being called Christianity. In fact, as galling as it might seem to you, Christians don't even need to follow the ten commandments to be called Christians. Jesus and the Bible in general are all it takes - rigid adherence to the perceived codes are questions of doctrine. As someone said before - liberal Christians, conservative Christians. Liberal Christians generally are a lot more "loose" with Bible interpretations while conservatives hold views much similar to your own.

Nellinator
"Thou shalt not MAKE unto thee a graven image, nor ANY LIKENESS of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" Deuteronomy 5:8-9.

Its pretty clear that Catholics are wrong. No argument can change what this can possibly mean. As for the VENERATION of Saints it is acceptable to treat a Saint as a role model to be emulated, but the Bible also says to pray in the name of Jesus, never does it say that the name of Saints nor the name of Mary. This is what I call making a religion up on the bases of what they want not what God wants.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
This is what I call making a religion up on the bases of what they want not what God wants.
Sounds like a familiar concept wink

FeceMan
Originally posted by rare_fox
He couldnt be born in december ok it was realy cold out in the winter the sheperds wount be out there from all the coldness ..
I can't tell if I'm supposed to

(a) laugh at the troll attempt,
(b) laugh at the ignorance,
(c) laugh at both, or
(d) log off and go to bed.

I'm thinking I'm going to sigh and pick (d).

Alliance
Good Choice yes

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
"Thou shalt not MAKE unto thee a graven image, nor ANY LIKENESS of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" Deuteronomy 5:8-9.

Its pretty clear that Catholics are wrong. No argument can change what this can possibly mean. As for the VENERATION of Saints it is acceptable to treat a Saint as a role model to be emulated, but the Bible also says to pray in the name of Jesus, never does it say that the name of Saints nor the name of Mary. This is what I call making a religion up on the bases of what they want not what God wants.

As I said then, not only are you declaring Catholics not Christian, but many Christian sects and denominations. But once again for the sake of whatever - interpretation of the Bible is DOCTRINE. What commandment they wish to bend, obey, break is DOCTRINE. Christianity is not defined by DOCTRINE, but belief that Jesus is the Christ. Catholics believe Jesus is the Christ. The fact they make images is a question of DOCTRINE. Ultimately Catholics are not a separate religion. They fall under the banner term Christianity - no matter what objection you have to their DOCTRINE



..... *speechless*



........... *still speechless*



........ Sorry, the part of my brain that deals with irony has just overloaded.

peejayd
* look, buddy... i told you, i got your point, i respect your opinion... i just moved from general to specific to prove my point... okay?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I would empathise again that it is not really about this, but anyway.

Catholics do not believe they are worshipping graven images. If asked they will say "we are not worshipping saints, we only worship God/Jesus." The Catholics do not believe they are breaking the second commandment. They cross themselves before the giant Jesus statue and all that.

* that's the point, my friend... they are clearly blinded by THEIR OWN doctrine which is obviously unbiblical... if you read (not interpret) Deuteronomy 5:8-9, you will see that it is really prohibited by God to create and worship ANY graven images... if the Catholics still insist that they do not violate this commandment, i question their reading comprehension... Deuteronomy 5:8-9 is very blatant, and it is somewhat stupid to interpret it in its direct opposite...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
However they believe that Saints are special. People chose by God. Chosen to act more closely on his behalf, people who he acts through, the perform miracles and such. The Saints began with the Disciples and continue to today, where the Pope can declare a person a saint if they have a certain number of verified miracles attributed to them. I have heard Saints referred to as "God's soldiers" or "agents of God." Thus a Catholic might pray to Saint Jude about some lost thing, in the belief that Saint Jude is a servant of God, chosen to act on God's behalf. They don't believe Saint Jude IS God/Jesus. They aren't praying to him AS God/Jesus. And they would say "God gives these Saints power should not we respect them."

* however, there is no teaching in the Bible for people to pray to another person, how holy that person may be... i might again say that it's a matter of doctrine or interpretation but the Bible supplies whom people should worship and whom people should pray to... the fact that you claim only Jesus & Bible is a reason for being a Christian, then TRUE Christians should follow, obey, abide those that prove their claim to be a Christian which is -> Jesus & Bible...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Once again it comes down to definition - Saints etc are a matter of doctrine. They do not exclude a group from being called Christianity. In fact, as galling as it might seem to you, Christians don't even need to follow the ten commandments to be called Christians. Jesus and the Bible in general are all it takes - rigid adherence to the perceived codes are questions of doctrine. As someone said before - liberal Christians, conservative Christians. Liberal Christians generally are a lot more "loose" with Bible interpretations while conservatives hold views much similar to your own.

* this is where our differences lie... and i am very open about this on earlier posts... yours is: "Christian is a universal/umbrella term for the faith which believes in the Bible/Jesus" while mine is: "Christian is not just a word or a term, it is the embodiment of people who follow and obey the doctrine of Christ"... wink

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.