I don't like to be a christian no more

Originally posted by Devil King
we aren't talking about words. We're talking about intent. And the intent of christianity is nothing revolutionary.

I couldn't disagree more but this discussion will always come down to, you believe this, I believe that....

Originally posted by Devil King
I assure you, there is nothing casual about my stereotyping. And there is none of my stereotyping in your attempt at self-defense.

I'm not sure how to respond to that so I'm gonna go with......ok 🙂

Originally posted by Devil King
You'll never hear me call the Egyptians stupid. Yourself? That is another matter.

Totally agree, the tools and equipment the Egyptians utilised is nothing short of remarkable ✅ Although personally I find the Ancient Roman society much more interesting ✅

It goes way beyond tools. It's their science, medicine, religion, morals, culture, etc. It was "advanced for it's time" -which is a statement I've never quite understood.

I have different view.
In Kabbalah, Adam is considered the Root Phase of human spirituality.
This is why he is called Adam ha Rishon, The First Man.
Adam was the first person to write a Kabbalah book, "The Angel of God's Secret" (Hamalaach Raziel) more than 5767 years ago, a small book that included a few drawings and tables. (Search for "Raziel" on Amazon.com).
It's important to remember,that Kabbalah doesn't stem from ancient texts or rituals: it comes from humankind's natural curiosity and desire to know more about this world and the world beyond.
The language of this book is difficult for us to understand. Adam presented it allegorically, using metaphors. He tells us about entire Upper Existence, but hr could not describe it in a manner we can relate to today. He attained it in his feelings and thus pictured it the best way he could. Adam, who was also the first soul, tells about the evolution and descent of all souls.
If you read this book, it is evident that the author is not uncivilized, uneducated mammoth hunter. He was a Kabbalist of very high degree who discovered the fundamental secrets of creation in his spiritual journey. He studied the Upper World, where our soul roams prior to its descent to Earth when we are born and where the soul returns after ones death.
Adam tels us how these souls will regroup into one soul, in a much higher degree than our own, and build what we call "man", of which we are but fragments.
More years after were coming up all kind of religion.

Originally posted by HULKSTER04
The Pyramids in egypt says that the biblical accounts of the creation was a lie.

Before posting any questions please check out the pyramids first and then we'll discuss this.

*checks out the pyramids*

Check.

Alright then....

....sup?

Don't trust the Pyramids, they lie......

fear

Originally posted by Spearofdestiny

There is an interesting hypothesis about the construction of the pyramids being directed by the Nephilim.

I doubt that they ever existed....or if even the so called "Angels" or God's messengers did intermarry with human females and had children by them.
There was nothing plausible about that book. It was just load of crap and bullshits.

Think about this then: If Lucifer/Satan was indeed a cosmic superpower as the Bible says, he would be destroying planets and galaxies as retalliation against God, and even if God's army was that powerful they wouldn't not be able to stop him just as easily. The effects of their battle would be felt and be evidently destructive throughout the universe...but the universe goes on as it has been from the beginnig with its natural course. Jesus! More of this Nephilim crap...

How do you know Lucifer isn't destroying planets and galaxies? The universe is an unfathomably large place. Maybe he just hasn't gotten to us.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
How do you know Lucifer isn't destroying planets and galaxies? The universe is an unfathomably large place. Maybe he just hasn't gotten to us.

Lucifer is based on the Bible, Torah, and Quran. It clearly states he hates human beings. Earth would have been his first target.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Lucifer is based on the Bible, Torah, and Quran. It clearly states he hates human beings. Earth would have been his first target.

...Bible, Torah, Quran, and many others besides (can't insult the pagan mythologies that lent him to those religions).

Meh, I'd like to think he's just waiting for the second coming, so as to crash the party and ruin us all at God's finest moment. The Bible is nothing without it's epic sense of drama, and since Kelly Clarkson already won Idol (the 2nd most dramatic event in human history) I'm guessing he's waiting.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
...Bible, Torah, Quran, and many others besides (can't insult the pagan mythologies that lent him to those religions).

Meh, I'd like to think he's just waiting for the second coming, so as to crash the party and ruin us all at God's finest moment. The Bible is nothing without it's epic sense of drama, and since Kelly Clarkson already won Idol (the 2nd most dramatic event in human history) I'm guessing he's waiting.

Why would Earth be last ? What's so special about this world that he would savor it last ? We are only on the far edge of the milky way galaxy.

Why isn't Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and the like already destroyed then ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Why would Earth be last ? What's so special about this world that he would savor it last ? We are only on the far edge of the milky way galaxy.

Why isn't Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and the like already destroyed then ?

Are we seriously still having this conversation? It was a joke. You just went and killed it.

😠

😛

*["The Islamic answer to this is so much better than the Christian one

All religions have been started to give glory to Allah, but only Muhammed (pbuh) is the true prophet who's word is akin to that of God.

That way, any similarities, due to the fact that all Abrahamic religions are just a mish mash of other preceding religons and regional superstisions, are proof positive of Allah."]

***There is NO Allah. There is ONLY one God...the God of Israel. Allah is only one of many STONE idols...IT doesn't SEE...IT doesn't HEAR and IT doesn't SPEAK [i.e., it's DUMB].

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
[B]*["The Islamic answer to this is so much better than the Christian one

All religions have been started to give glory to Allah, but only Muhammed (pbuh) is the true prophet who's word is akin to that of God.

That way, any similarities, due to the fact that all Abrahamic religions are just a mish mash of other preceding religons and regional superstisions, are proof positive of Allah."]

***There is NO Allah. There is ONLY one God...the God of Israel. Allah is only one of many STONE idols...IT doesn't SEE...IT doesn't HEAR and IT doesn't SPEAK [i.e., it's DUMB].

Marchello [/B]

Page 1:

*["The New Testament has been changed and mistranslated since it has been copied and recopied throughout history. In other words, the Bible is very unreliable and full of errors because of this."]

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus [325 A.D.] and Codex Sinaiticus [350 A.D.], a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts [Catullus...THREE copies; earliest one is 1,600 years AFTER he wrote; Herodotus...EIGHT copies and 1,300 years].

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued)

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 1:

[B]*["The New Testament has been changed and mistranslated since it has been copied and recopied throughout history. In other words, the Bible is very unreliable and full of errors because of this."]

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus [325 A.D.] and Codex Sinaiticus [350 A.D.], a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts [Catullus...THREE copies; earliest one is 1,600 years AFTER he wrote; Herodotus...EIGHT copies and 1,300 years].

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued) [/B]

Please don't continued with your cut and paste. Anyone can get onto the Christian propaganda web sites. At least show the link instead of making people think you wrote this.

Page 2:

*["The New Testament has been changed and mistranslated since it has been copied and recopied throughout history. In other words, the Bible is very unreliable and full of errors because of this."]

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus [325 A.D.] and Codex Sinaiticus [350 A.D.], a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts [Catullus...THREE copies; earliest one is 1,600 years AFTER he wrote; Herodotus...EIGHT copies and 1,300 years].

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued) [/B]

***The number of copies of the versions is in EXCESS of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the NT text.

Even if we did NOT possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions...the text of the NT could STILL be reproduced within 250 from the composition. How? By the writings of the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote the biblical text...thus giving us another WITNESS to the text of the NT.

John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the NT in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before 325 A.D. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the RELIABILITY of the NT text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.

The evidence points out that (1) the documents were NOT written LONG after the events...but WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY to them, and (2) they were written by people DURING the PERIOD when many WHO were acquainted with the FACTS or were EYEWITNESSES to THEM were STILL LIVING. The inescapable conclusion is that the NT picture of Christ can be TRUSTED.

Marchello

Originally posted by Marchello
Page 2:

[B]*["The New Testament has been changed and mistranslated since it has been copied and recopied throughout history. In other words, the Bible is very unreliable and full of errors because of this."]

***Allegations are NOT proof. WITHOUT proof allegations FALL because they are just that...allegations.

There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the NT text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the NT is translated, and the writings of the church fathers.

The NT was originally composed in the Greek language. Before the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century all books were copied by hand. A handwritten manuscript is known as a manuscript. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the NT. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The NT was written from about 50 A.D. to 90 A.D. The earliest fragment dates about 120 A.D., with about fifty other fragments dating within 150-200 years from the time of composition.

Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus [325 A.D.] and Codex Sinaiticus [350 A.D.], a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This is a MINIMAL time span compared to most ancient works.

The earliest copy of Caesar's "The Gallic Wars" dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the "Odyssey" by Homer 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the NT and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the NT proves to be MUCH closer to the time of the original.

The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts [Catullus...THREE copies; earliest one is 1,600 years AFTER he wrote; Herodotus...EIGHT copies and 1,300 years].

Not only do the NT documents have more manuscript evidence and CLOSE time interval between WRITING and EARLIEST copy...but they were also TRANSLATED into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was RARE in the ancient world...so this is an added PLUS for the NT.

(Continued) [/B]

***The number of copies of the versions is in EXCESS of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the NT text.

Even if we did NOT possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions...the text of the NT could STILL be reproduced within 250 from the composition. How? By the writings of the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote the biblical text...thus giving us another WITNESS to the text of the NT.

John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the NT in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before 325 A.D. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the RELIABILITY of the NT text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.

The evidence points out that (1) the documents were NOT written LONG after the events...but WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY to them, and (2) they were written by people DURING the PERIOD when many WHO were acquainted with the FACTS or were EYEWITNESSES to THEM were STILL LIVING. The inescapable conclusion is that the NT picture of Christ can be TRUSTED.

Marchello [/B]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please don't continued with your cut and paste. Anyone can get onto the Christian propaganda web sites. At least show the link instead of making people think you wrote this.

Marchello is a plagiarist.
http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=368

I don't like anyone who's a hypocrite. It doesn't matter what belief they are.

It's not just about Christ, it has to do with everything and the Bible is basically is loaded with extreme discrepancies that Christians refuse to accept nor will they even investigate it. History is in disagreement with what the Bible says. Some of Christ's teachings may have been corrupted.