Christianity: Conservative or Socialist?

Hanging, i.e. Haman's, is not crucifxion- Also, in Genesis, the hanging from the tree was after the cup bearer was beheaded, again not a crucifixion.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Hanging, i.e. Haman's, is not crucifxion- Also, in Genesis, the hanging from the tree was after the cup bearer was beheaded, again not a crucifixion.
Click to expand...

She was creaming her elastic-waist jeans over using that third biblical citation.

Just call her Flagrant Foggy!

Dope...:palm:
 
Rana said:
I am sorry, I meant Genesis 40:19 and Deuteronomy 21:23, Esther 7:10, too.

It may seem obvious to you, but the Jews would differ with you on your evidence.

There may have been a man named Jesus who was crucified, all mythos is based in some fact.
Click to expand...

lol.....where did you get the idea they were talking about crucifixion?....
 
Rana said:
I am sorry, I meant Genesis 40:19 and Deuteronomy 21:23, Esther 7:10, too.
Click to expand...

Ah. Well, the method of execution described in those verses is a bit different than crucifixion. They were either hanged from a rope or impaled, but not nailed. Haman, for example, was hanged from a rope, as it specifically states in Esther 5:14, 6:4, etc., that a gallows was constructed for hanging.

It may seem obvious to you, but the Jews would differ with you on your evidence.
Click to expand...

So who's correct? You seem convinced that Christianity is incorrect, yet you offer no alternative explanation of how and why were are here.
 
... and each one of you showing the falsity of your beliefs. Arguments, insults, name calling. What a fine example of christians you are!!!

Keep it up girls and boys, keep it up.
 
Lowaicue said:
... and each one of you showing the falsity of your beliefs. Arguments, insults, name calling. What a fine example of christians you are!!!

Keep it up girls and boys, keep it up.
Click to expand...

Where have I insulted anyone? Near as I can tell, Rana and I are engaging in a civil discussion. We're two people who disagree while fully respecting each other's beliefs.
 
Voltaire said:
Where have I insulted anyone? Near as I can tell, Rana and I are engaging in a civil discussion. We're two people who disagree while fully respecting each other's beliefs.
Click to expand...

You need to distinguish beteen the singular and the plural.
You should also understand that the collection of writings compiled into what we now refer to as the Holy Bible contains no discernable primary source documentation and an awful lot of placating language designed to assuage the fears of ignorant peasants.
I have no problem with people who saddle themselves with a faith or a system of beliefs, as long as they accept that what they have is and always will be a faith or belief and will never be accepted as the unbridled truth by any but themselves. Argument/debate is pointless and might as well be centred around the belief in little green men or the works (?) of L. Frank Baum.
But if it makes you happy and answers your own questions then so be it.
 
Voltaire said:
Ah. Well, the method of execution described in those verses is a bit different than crucifixion. They were either hanged from a rope or impaled, but not nailed. Haman, for example, was hanged from a rope, as it specifically states in Esther 5:14, 6:4, etc., that a gallows was constructed for hanging.



So who's correct? You seem convinced that Christianity is incorrect, yet you offer no alternative explanation of how and why were are here.
Click to expand...

There were many forms of what was called crucifixion, impaling was called crucifixion, the Roman form is the crucifixion we are most familiar with, but it was used in Egypt and other countries before it was popularized as a form of torture in Rome. It wasn't always done on the familiar T shaped cross, they were often nailed to a tree or tied to a tree, till they dies of exposure.

The famous lines you refer to in Isaiah, refer to Israel and not Jesus.

I also don't believe that Low was referring to you, but to the others responding on this thread, I ignore the rest of them and discourse with you has always been respectful.

I am not sure how we got here Voltaire, or what our lives lead to, if anything. I choose to leave it a mystery. I do not think after over many years of educating myself on the subject that Christianity has the answers, in fact it creates more question than answers for me. I think that life is a mystery and that no human has the answers at this point that satisfy me.

I was raised Catholic, and do not find comfort in my former religion. I am much happier since I have left organized religion behind. I have great respect and awe for life. I act in accordance with the law and what I call my higher calling, to to what is right for others and myself, and what is done with love.
 
Rana said:
The famous lines you refer to in Isaiah, refer to Israel and not Jesus.
Click to expand...

/boggle....no it doesn't.....where do you come up with this stuff?......or do you just make it up as you go?....

do you have a link to someone, anyone, who claims the Suffering Servant was Israel?.....

even Jews, though they deny Jesus was the Messiah, agree that the Messiah IS the suffering servant....
 
Last edited:
Lowaicue said:
You need to distinguish beteen the singular and the plural.
You should also understand that the collection of writings compiled into what we now refer to as the Holy Bible contains no discernable primary source documentation and an awful lot of placating language designed to assuage the fears of ignorant peasants.
I have no problem with people who saddle themselves with a faith or a system of beliefs, as long as they accept that what they have is and always will be a faith or belief and will never be accepted as the unbridled truth by any but themselves. Argument/debate is pointless and might as well be centred around the belief in little green men or the works (?) of L. Frank Baum.
But if it makes you happy and answers your own questions then so be it.
Click to expand...

I think you'll tend to find that most 2000 year old documents fail to use modern citations...
 
Threedee said:
I think you'll tend to find that most 2000 year old documents fail to use modern citations...
Click to expand...

Primary source means actually written at the time by a witness to an event or as close as possible to such. Nothing in the new testament predates about 50AD.
That is like reading an account of what happened in a small town in Wisconsin in 1960. Would you put your money on the truth of that, particularly if you had no way of knowing whether the writer was sane or insane, for or anti, drunk or sober. No, you would search for more evidence and when you found none you would probably shrug and start recounting by saying: 'Some might say that ....'

OK, some might say that this guy who we think might have been called Jesus or the equivalent in the language or dialect in use at the time, was the son of a god worshipped by a lot of people who had no idea of the physics of the universe or of their place in it.
So far there is not a lot to go on.
Except, of course, for those whose 21st century gullibility is greater and with less cause than their 2000 year old ancestors.
 
Lowaicue said:
Primary source means actually written at the time by a witness to an event or as close as possible to such. Nothing in the new testament predates about 50AD.
That is like reading an account of what happened in a small town in Wisconsin in 1960.
Click to expand...

???....and you think it impossible to find a primary source for what happened in a small town in Wisconsin in 1960?.....because I could tell you for a fact I could be a primary source for what happened in a small town in Iowa only a hundred miles from there, myself.....by that definition all four gospels were primary sources.....
 
Technically only Matthew and John are, as Mark and Luke were not part of the 12. However, Luke personally knew Mary and learned of stuff he wrote about from her. Mark knew Matthew, so he also used primary sources.
 
Threedee said:
Technically only Matthew and John are, as Mark and Luke were not part of the 12. However, Luke personally knew Mary and learned of stuff he wrote about from her. Mark knew Matthew, so he also used primary sources.
Click to expand...

So information from Mark was a secondary source. Nowadays something similar might come from that bloke in the pub!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top