Re: Re: Re: Re: igot some thing to say jesus
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😉
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.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Give me the verses that state so between the ages of 12 and 30 please... 🙂
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.)
Originally posted by peejaydYou 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.. 🙂
* 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... 😉
Read outside those books they tell you not too.............Put it all together..............that's all...........
Originally posted by debbiejo
Show me this please.... 🙂
* 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... 😉
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.. 🙂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? 😉
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... 😉
Good Points. Except for one fact: Catholics ARE Christian. They predate Protestants. 😉
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. 😉
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Good Points. Except for one fact: Catholics ARE Christian. They predate Protestants. 😉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. 😉
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.
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 [B]ARE
Christian. [/B]
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...
Re: Re: Re: igot some thing to say jesus
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...
Thanks... 🙂 Do u have other links whick talks about lost years of jesus...
Re: Re: Re: Re: igot some thing to say jesus
Originally posted by mahasattva
Thanks... 🙂 Do u have other links whick talks about lost years of jesus...
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Good Points. Except for one fact: Catholics ARE Christian. They predate Protestants. 😉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. 😉
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 [B]ARE
Christian. [/B]
* 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?" 😉
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.
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.
* 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...
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!
* 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...
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.
* 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?"
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.