Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Christianity rested on historical event

While Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism which precedes it, Christianity is uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus. This event is the catalyst of the faith and the fundamental belief. It is rare to see religions entire validity based on a historical event. If some event in some other religion is shown to not be true, it would not invalidate the religion. However, Christianity, does make a unique historical claim. As the Apostle Paul put it

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinthians 15:17-19

I believe there is strong evidence that the claims of Jesus death and resurrection are true. The Apostle Paul quoted an early Christian creed in I Corinthians 15 that scholars date to no more than 18 months after the resurrection.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7

The creed says that Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day. It names specific people Jesus appeared to. This creed fits well with the testimonies of Matthew, John, James, and Peter.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;I believe there is strong evidence that the claims of Jesus death and resurrection are true.

You might believe that crap all right but it’s just that your totally deluded and the thing about being deluded is that you don’t know myth from realty and in your case right from wrong which is why you lie so much. The fact is is that there is not one peace of evidence about Jesus and resurrection let a lone strong evidence.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;I believe there is strong evidence that the claims of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
You might believe that crap all right but it’s just that your totally deluded and the thing about being deluded is that you don’t know myth from realty and in your case right from wrong which is why you lie so much. The fact is is that there is not one peace of evidence about Jesus and resurrection let a lone strong evidence.

I believe there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection:

1) There is a very early attestation of the event, no later than 18 months after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-7). That's very early attestation for ancient historical events.

2) Multiple witness accounts - The resurrection is supported by eye witness accounts such as Peter, James, John, Matthew, and secondary evidence from interviews with eye witnesses from Mark, Luke, and Paul. You also have lots of early Christian witnesses who confirm that the initial witnesses did in fact claim that they saw the physical resurrection of Jesus.

3) The historical documents contain embarrassing details which fabricated stories would not have included - such as Jesus' crucifixion and the fact that women were the first witnesses of the resurrection. This gives the testimonies a ring of truth because these kinds of embarrassing details would not have been beneficial to the account.

4) The conversion of Paul. Paul was known as an executioner of Christians for the Sanhedrin. It is hard to explain how someone who was so anti-Christian, became one, if he had not been convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was true.

5) The devoted lives of the eye witnesses, many of which were martyred for their faith. It is hard to explain the transformation of the first witnesses if they did not believe they had seen Jesus.

To claim there is no evidence is simply a false claim.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Barnardot ; You will believe what the Holy Spirit has provided you in the Canon of Scripture and find life in Jesus as your Messiah - or - you'll reject the Words of Life and die in Hell. The choice is yours. Have you read the New Testament for yourself?

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/va/qza8s849lz4x.jpg

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I believe there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection:

That you believe is not evidence.

1) There is a very early attestation of the event, no later than 18 months after the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-7). That's very early attestation for ancient historical events.

The bible says is not an attestation it's a claim. 1 Corinthians was written over 50 years ce and contains claims not proofs. Not evidence. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Corinthians

2) Multiple witness accounts - The resurrection is supported by eye witness accounts such as Peter, James, John, Matthew, and secondary evidence from interviews with eye witnesses from Mark, Luke, and Paul. You also have lots of early Christian witnesses who confirm that the initial witnesses did in fact claim that they saw the physical resurrection of Jesus.

The bible says isn't evidence.

3) The historical documents contain embarrassing details which fabricated stories would not have included - such as Jesus' crucifixion and the fact that women were the first witnesses of the resurrection. This gives the testimonies a ring of truth because these kinds of embarrassing details would not have been beneficial to the account.

Fabrications often are a large part of testimonials whether they helped the outcome of a tale or not. That women discovered an empty tomb is a biblical account and not evidence.

4) The conversion of Paul. Paul was known as an executioner of Christians for the Sanhedrin. It is hard to explain how someone who was so anti-Christian, became one, if he had not been convinced that the resurrection of Jesus was true.

The bible says isn't evidence.

5) The devoted lives of the eye witnesses, many of which were martyred for their faith. It is hard to explain the transformation of the first witnesses if they did not believe they had seen Jesus.

Persecution of a particular religious sect are not an attestation of the claims of said sect...

According to the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, early Christians (second half of the second century and first half of the third century) believed that only Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee, were martyred. The remainder, or even all, of the claims of martyred apostles do not rely upon historical or biblical evidence, but only on late legends

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles_in_the_New_Testament

To claim there is no evidence is simply a false claim.

To claim there is evidence almost entirely based on tradition is simply false.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Barnardot ; You will believe what the Holy Spirit has provided you in the Canon of Scripture and find life in Jesus as your Messiah - or - you'll reject the Words of Life and die in Hell. The choice is yours. Have you read the New Testament for yourself?

The holy spirit is another way of saying you hear voices in your head because the fallacies in scripture isn't convincing alone. Are you on meds?

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum,

YOUR BIBLE STU-PID RUNAWAY QUOTE FROM THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE RELATIVE TO MATTHEW 17:20: " Simply because you're an arrogant, vulgar, rude, atheist and you don't understand Scripture these attributes are no reason to be angry."

Rickey, the membership is WAITING for you to follow through on your alleged bible knowledge, whereas, your grade-school quote above does not answer the pertinent question, whereas you don't understand this simple proposition!

VERSE IN QUESTION: JESUS SAID: " He replied, 'Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matthew 17:20)

Thererfore, you are to prove beyond any doubt with BIBLICAL CITATIONS, and not some insipid apologetic hearsay jabberwockey nonsense that you spew forth ad infinitum when you are wrong, then where in the Bible does it say that when Jesus speaks literally as he did in Matthew 17:20 as shown above, that pseudo-christians like YOU can move mountains literally if you have faith and believe, means something else not relative to moving said mountains in a literal form!

BEGIN:

iF YOU CAN'T "BIBLICALLY PROVE" YOUR NOTION ABOVE, THEN YOU ARE CALLING JESUS A IN MATTHEW 17:20 WHERE GOD CANNOT LIE AS SHOWN IN THE VERSE BELOW:

"So that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.” (Hebrews 6:18)

WE WILL AWAIT YOUR ANSWER TO THE ABOVE BIBLICAL PROPOSITION ABOVE BECAUSE JESUS IS WATCHING YOU (HEBREWS 4:13) IN CALLING HIM A AT THIS POINT UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE BIBLE FOOL, UNDERSTOOD?!

.

just_sayin

@Factfinder

That you believe is not evidence.

Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either. One must examine the veracity of the evidence.

The bible says is not an attestation it's a claim. 1 Corinthians was written over 50 years ce and contains claims not proofs. Not evidence. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Corinthians

The claim is not that the book of Corinthians was written by 35 AD but that the Christian creed that is stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 was. 1 Corinthians was indeed written in the 50's in Ephesians based on Acts details.

The creed predates the writing of the book though. See:

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]
Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]
James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]
Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]
A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

The bible says isn't evidence.

The Bible is a collection of books. Each book in the New Testament is a separate and distinct source of information. Each source must be considered individually. We see eye witness accounts from Matthew, John, James, and Peter. We see secondary confirming eye witness accounts from Mark (who may have also been a witness himself), Luke, and Paul. Luke, records that he wrote what eye witnesses told him. A historian would not disregard them because the sources were in the Bible, but would examine them individually for their content and merit.

Fabrications often are a large part of testimonials whether they helped the outcome of a tale or not. That women discovered an empty tomb is a biblical account and not evidence.

All four gospels mention women as the first witnesses. This means that 4 separate sources mention this detail - plus the numerous other early Christian writings. These sources were written in different places to different audiences. The detail is significant. Jewish tradition did not accept a woman's testimony in a court setting. It would be unlikely for someone to make up a story in that Jewish context and have women as the witnesses, because that issue, would then be used to dismiss the account. The fact that historians believe Mary Magdalene did live and testify to the resurrection is not seriously disputed.

Persecution of a particular religious sect are not an attestation of the claims of said sect...

True. Many will die for something they believe in. But no one dies for a lie they know to be false. Paul claims that James, Peter, and the disciples confirmed Jesus' resurrection to him. Luke records Peter preaching about his seeing the resurrected Christ. It seems odd that Peter would not speak up and say he was wrong or mistaken if he did not believe the resurrection happened.

The earliest evidence is found in John 21:18–19, which was written about 30 years after Peter’s death. atheist Bart Ehrman, in his book Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend, agrees that Peter is being told he will die as a martyr. Other evidence for Peter’s martyrdom can be found in early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian and more. The early, consistent and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.

To claim there is evidence almost entirely based on tradition is simply false.

Eye witness accounts are not just tradition. It is obvious that the tomb was empty. If it weren't then, someone would have produced the body and said 'see, here he is'. No one in antiquity, died that the tomb was empty. None of the eye witnesses changed their story. That seems relevant when you consider the persecution Christians endured under Nero according to non-Christian sources such as Suetonius and Tacitus.

The transformed lives of the apostles is also evidence of the truth of the resurrection. It seems unlikely that they would have left their homes and businesses to go and be persecuted for a story they didn't believe.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTES: "While Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism which precedes it, Christianity is uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus. This event is the catalyst of the faith and the fundamental belief. It is rare to see religions based on a historical event."

Your notion of Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism is laughable, because the Christian faith IS JUDAISM! The alleged "historical event" within your JUDEO-Christian bible regarding the death of your serial killer Jesus as god, and his zombie return from his "tomb nap" 3 days later, only exists in the primitive Bronze and Iron Age JUDEO-Christian bible!

THINK! how can Jesus truly die for your sins, if He remained alive subsequent to His resurrection?! H-E-L-L-O?! Dying for only 3 days in the tomb, and coming back to life, is an embarrassment if one wants to use the notion of "Jesus died for your sins" because Jesus remained alive and not dead after his resurrection! GET IT? Huh?

SO MANY BIBLE FOOLS, SO LITTLE TIME TO SET THEM STRAIGHT!

.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Jesus did not literally mean that faith would move a mountain but that mountainous obstacles in one's life were most properly addressed by prayer and faith.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/w6/is3xyhtuu0gd.jpg

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTES: "While Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism which precedes it, Christianity is uniquely rooted in a historical event - the death and resurrection of Jesus. This event is the catalyst of the faith and the fundamental belief. It is rare to see religions based on a historical event."

Your notion of Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism is laughable, because the Christian faith IS JUDAISM! The alleged "historical event" within your JUDEO-Christian bible regarding the death of your serial killer Jesus as god, and his zombie return from his "tomb nap" 3 days later, only exists in the primitive Bronze and Iron Age JUDEO-Christian bible!

THINK! how can Jesus truly die for your sins, if He remained alive subsequent to His resurrection?! H-E-L-L-O?! Dying for only 3 days in the tomb, and coming back to life, is an embarrassment if one wants to use the notion of "Jesus died for your sins" because Jesus remained alive and not dead after his resurrection! GET IT? Huh?

SO MANY BIBLE FOOLS, SO LITTLE TIME TO SET THEM STRAIGHT!

.

Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism, but it sees itself as the second covenant - distinct from the obligations and practices of the past covenant. I'm sure if you told a Jew that their faith is Christianity, you'd discover that the 2 are different.

God required a sinless sacrifice to shed his blood. Jesus fulfilled this. The fact he arose afterward did not mean that the sacrifice called for was not made. This is not a problem with Christianity, but your understanding of the requirement.

There are many historical witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. Each account is a witness. Further, their testimony is supported by the enemies of Jesus who confirm that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate and that the disciples believed that Jesus had been risen.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either. One must examine the veracity of the evidence.

What little there is that is true. But you bank everything on what the bible says which isn't evidence. You can appeal to scholarly articles and books stating what's believed, Christian tradition, references to the claims of followers, and legend all you want; but it can never be evidence. A book of a collection of mythical writings does not qualify. We can't even be sure the Apostle Paul even existed since we only have the bible's claim he did ...

Biography

Early life

The two main sources of information that give access to the earliest segments of Paul's career are the Acts of the Apostles and the autobiographical elements of Paul's letters to the early Christian communities.[41] Paul was likely born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Available_sources

Which means the bible can't testify to his existence or the creed referenced in "Paul's" writings to the Corinthians. It's just the bible says. Paul, aside from the scriptures isn't mentioned till a century afterwards at the earliest. Using scripture to attest to scripture is never evident of anything but belief.

Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
Ignatius of Antioch's epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians[45] (early 2nd century);
Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiae (early 4th century);
The apocryphal Acts narrating the life of Paul (Acts of Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter and Paul), the apocryphal epistles attributed to him (the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca) and some apocalyptic texts attributed to him (Apocalypse of Paul and Coptic Apocalypse of Paul). These writings are all later, usually dated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

This however is speaking more to the authenticity of the religious claims themselves which this thread isn't really about. It's about how Christianity isn't as unique as people seem to think. As I pointed out with the Sumerians it's not that different. Sure details, settings, and stories are differ but they all share a variety common themes, ideals. The Egyptians had a "King of the Resurrection" long before. Christianity itself draws heavily from Judaism to the point it lays claim to the Tora as part of Christianity (Actually the old testament). Judaism has tales of resurrection and prophets calling on god to bring back the dead and then doing so. 1 Kings 17:17-24 is one instance. So your claim about some presumed event concerning a resurrection being unique to Christianity just isn't so.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Correct, and a person's disbelieve does not alter the evidence either. One must examine the veracity of the evidence.

What little there is that is true. But you bank everything on what the bible says which isn't evidence. You can appeal to scholarly articles and books stating what's believed, Christian tradition, references to the claims of followers, and legend all you want; but it can never be evidence. A book of a collection of mythical writings does not qualify. We can't even be sure the Apostle Paul even existed since we only have the bible's claim he did ...

Biography
Early life
The two main sources of information that give access to the earliest segments of Paul's career are the Acts of the Apostles and the autobiographical elements of Paul's letters to the early Christian communities.[41] Paul was likely born between the years of 5 BC and 5 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Available_sources

Which means the bible can't testify to his existence or the creed referenced in "Paul's" writings to the Corinthians. It's just the bible says. Paul, aside from the scriptures isn't mentioned till a century afterwards at the earliest. Using scripture to attest to scripture is never evident of anything but belief.

Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:
Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
Ignatius of Antioch's epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians[45] (early 2nd century);
Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
Eusebius's Historia Ecclesiae (early 4th century);
The apocryphal Acts narrating the life of Paul (Acts of Paul, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Peter and Paul), the apocryphal epistles attributed to him (the Latin Epistle to the Laodiceans, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, and the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca) and some apocalyptic texts attributed to him (Apocalypse of Paul and Coptic Apocalypse of Paul). These writings are all later, usually dated from the 2nd to the 4th century.

This however is speaking more to the authenticity of the religious claims themselves which this thread isn't really about. It's about how Christianity isn't as unique as people seem to think. As I pointed out with the Sumerians it's not that different. Sure details, settings, and stories are differ but they all share a variety common themes, ideals. The Egyptians had a "King of the Resurrection" long before. Christianity itself draws heavily from Judaism to the point it lays claim to the Tora as part of Christianity (Actually the old testament). Judaism has tales of resurrection and prophets calling on god to bring back the dead and then doing so. 1 Kings 17:17-24 is one instance. So your claim about some presumed event concerning a resurrection being unique to Christianity just isn't so.

Paul is considered to be a historical figure by historians. In fact, I can't think of a single credible one who denies his existence. The claim that we have no evidence for Paul is false. He wrote almost half the New Testament. His letters to the churches he either established or visited are written evidence of his existence. Luke, who accompanied him on his missionary journeys, recorded his 3 missionary trips in the book of Acts. So we have several of Paul's letters and Luke's account in Acts.

Clement of Rome, lived from 35 AD to 99 AD. He met some of the apostles, and knew their apprentices. So, he would have had access to people who knew Paul.

To believe that Paul was not a historical figure, you would have to believe a mighty big conspiracy theory. You'd have to believe that all of Paul's letters were faked. That Luke faked his account, that all of the churches that Paul started lied about who started them, and coordinated with one another over the hundreds and hundreds of miles between them. You would have to believe that all of the early church father's lied about Paul, or that they were all lied to by people who claimed they had met Paul but had not. That's just too big of a conspiracy for me. I just don't have that much faith.

Instead, it seems much more likely Paul was a real person, and more importantly to me, that he wrote about Jesus and the resurrection as actual historical events.

The historical account of Jesus differs greatly from the story of Osiris. Osiris was either slain or drowned by Seth. He was cut in 14 pieces, with all but the phallus being buried. He became the God of the dead. He remains in the land of the dead and doesn't come back from there. There was no physical resurrection of Osiris. That seems like a major difference, since the primary claim of Christianity is that Jesus died and arose from the dead with many witnesses confirming this. However, nowhere in the myth of Osiris, does he leave the realm of the dead. As Britanica explains:

This identification with Osiris, however, did not imply resurrection, for even Osiris did not rise from the dead. Instead, it signified the renewal of life both in the next world and through one’s descendants on Earth.

Let's contrast this with what Paul said about Jesus:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. 4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. 6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles...
But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? 13 For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world.
20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died. - 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 12-20 NLT

As you can see, Paul views Jesus and his resurrection as a historical event.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Nothing you said qualifies as unique and unheard of only through Christianity. Copycat.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

.
RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum, bar none,

YOUR AND DUMB AS*S QUOTE IN TRYING TO GET OUT OF WHAT JESUS "LITERALLY" SAID: "Jesus did not literally mean that faith would move a mountain but that mountainous obstacles in one's life were most properly addressed by prayer and faith.”

As if your quote above isn’t stu-pid enough, then you use Matthew 7:7-8 to try again to weasel out of what Jesus said LITERALLY in Matthew 17:20 relative to pseudo-christians can actually move mountains if they have faith, is not relative, is relative to the verse in question whatsoever, BIBLE FOOL!!! H-E-L-L-O?

YOU HAVE YET TO GIVE A BIBLICAL NARRATIVE OR VERSE THAT WHEN JESUS SPEAKS LITERALLY, HE REALLY DOESN'T MEAN IT!

RICKEY, ARE YOU GOING TO CALL JESUS A "" IN THIS VERSE AS WELL?!!! HUH?

“Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.” When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked. Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. ” (Matthew 21:18-21)

RICKEY, now pay close attention you inept bible fool, Jesus literally said to his disciples that they too could wither a fig tree if they have faith and do not doubt, understood?!!! Simply put for your inept pseudo-christian mind set, there is no mountainous obstacles in a pseudo-christians life relative to withering a fig tree like you comically proposed relative to the mountain! GET IT BIBLE DUMMY?!

Then in the same vein of Jesus speaking as the withered fig tree outcome, Jesus continues to say in context; “but also you can say to this mountain, “go, throw yourself into the sea, and it will be done!” Therefore, both the fig tree and being able to move mountains into the sea "are congruent concepts at the same time "in Jesus talking to his disciples, therefore, Jesus said the disciples, and pseudo-christians like you, can do both the withering of a fig tree, and move mountains into the sea, GET IT?!

AS WE CAN ALL SEE, YOU OVERDOSED ON YOUR “BIBLE STU-PID PILLS®️” AGAIN WHEN TRYING IN VAIN TO SAY THAT WHAT JESUS SAID “LITERALLY,” HE DIDN’T!

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR QUOTE OF BEING BIBLE STU-PID ONCE AGAIN: "Christianity shares many beliefs with Judaism, but it sees itself as the second covenant - distinct from the obligations and practices of the past covenant. I'm sure if you told a Jew that their faith is Christianity, you'd discover that the 2 are different."

Judaism and Christianity are not different, but one and the same bible fool!!!! You read from the primitive Bronze and Iron Age Judeo-Christian Bible, that has the Old and New Testaments in their foundation of both being Hebrew! Therefore, the following biblical JEWISH axioms are to be accepted by Christians IN THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A JEW TO BE A CHRISTIAN! 2+2=4!

1. JEW: : one whose religion is Judaism

2. JESUS IS KING OF THE JEWS: “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” (Matthew 2:2)
"Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews" (John 19:19)

3. CHRISTIAN: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ; of or relating to Christianity

4. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

5. JESUS IS THE ONE GOD: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness OF OUR GOD and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)

6. JESUS ADMITS HE IS THE JEWISH GOD: “"Jesus answered: "Don"t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, Show us the Father?” (John 14:9)

7. JESUS AS GOD ONLY CAME FOR THE JEWS: JESUS SAID: "But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

8. JESUS AS GOD ONLY CHOSE THE JEWS: "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth [Hebrews]; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.” (Amos 3:2)

9. ONLY THE JEWS WERE ENTRUSTED WITH THE ORACLES OF JESUS AS GOD: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

10. BELIEVING IN JESUS WAS FOR THE JEWS: "Because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus." (John 2:11)

JUST_SAYIN, therefore with the said JEWISH biblical axioms shown above explicitly showing you HAVE TO BE A JEW TO BE A FOLLOWER OF JESUS, AKA, CHRISTIAN, then biblically speaking, then what sect of the Jewish Faith within the Bible in Jesus' time do you follow as shown below:

A. Pharisees

B. Sadducees

C. Essenes

D. Zealots

BEGIN:

.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Jesus was speaking in parabolic form and said that prayer could overcome the obstacles in one's life if offered by faith.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/lf/ekos6aah0sxq.jpeg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Jesus was speaking in parabolic form and said that prayer could overcome the obstacles in one's life if offered by faith.

The word you're so desperately looking for here ricky is 'hyperbole'. There was no parables involved in the telling of the moving of a mountain and casting it into the sea. A hyperbole on the other hand is an exaggeration to make a point. Of course exaggerations aren't 100% truthful so if that's going to be your excuse then you just called your god a l*ar. Why wasn't your elf god just truthful without stretching it so much?

RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity is unique among theological endeavors as it is the only Path to life in Eternity and joy and peace in Time. The atheist is a monkey-wrench in the realm of Time, a perverse and wicked of heart individual that is much likened to a metastasizing malignancy in any society seeking sustainable norms, mores, values, holiness, righteousness, life with meaning. How wicked is the atheist, the secular humanist, the progressive, the democrat, that murders babies in the womb and advocates sexual perversion for children...is Hell fitting for these demons? Yes. There is no place in America for those who serve Satan in ignorance or with intent.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity is unique among theological endeavors as it is the only Path to life in Eternity and joy and peace in Time. The atheist is a monkey-wrench in the realm of Time, a perverse and wicked of heart individual that is much likened to a metastasizing malignancy in any society seeking sustainable norms, mores, values, holiness, righteousness, life with meaning. How wicked is the atheist, the secular humanist, the progressive, the democrat, that murders babies in the womb and advocates sexual perversion for children...is Hell fitting for these demons? Yes. There is no place in America for those who serve Satan in ignorance or with intent.

Christianity is unique as it's the surest path to stupidity as you prove ricky. Your weak fairy god who turns out bad cops and molesters can hide behind you so it won't kick good honest Americans out, so who's going to do it? Not cowards who hide behind a badge like you. I'd love for you to try and arrest me, punk.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity offers humanity the ONLY Path to life in Eternity through the atonement, forgiveness of sin.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

Christianity is unique as it's the surest path to stupidity as you prove ricky. Your weak fairy god who turns out bad cops and molesters can hide behind you so it won't kick good honest Americans out, so who's going to do it? Not cowards who hide behind a badge like you. I'd love for you to try and arrest me, punk.

I have a theory on this. If you talk to most Christians in your everyday life, they will come across as very reasonable people, and while they will have some strange beliefs about the nature of reality, for the most part you will be able to have an intelligent discussion with them. On the other hand, all Christians here have consistently been incredibly dense, or dishonest, or both.

Similarly, if you talk to most people in real life about politics, their opinions will be quite calm and weighted - but come here, and you will find very interesting characters, from full-on communists to full-on national-bolsheviks.

Why is that?

I think that it is because people who are somewhat into something, but it is not a major part of their identity, will not feel the drive to go somewhere and argue about it with others. On the other hand, people who are absolutely crazy about religion, or politics, or something else will both be inclined to have very edgy opinions on these, and want to express those opinions in public. So the most deranged people will come here and create a false impression that all Christians, or all Democrats, or all whatever are crazy.

Among my friends are Christians, Muslims, Hindus and, I suspect, one Buddhist (she will never admit it though

). They are nothing like the weirdos we see around here. The idea, for example, that the only thing stopping humanity from descending into endless rape and murder is "god's command" they would find to be inane.

The latter is an interesting idea, is it not? I can almost see the empires preceding Christianity and Judaism darkened by rivers of blood and cries of raped women. The central square of Babylon was surely red at all times!

Except, it did not happen. But let us not stop facts from melting our fantasies, right?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; You can't see, May...you're a blind, arrogant, foolish, ignorant, atheist...it's not possible you know or see or do anything concerning truth...you're dying in your sin...this is your free will choice....

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

That's a good theory. Usually the only reason I know someone is Christian is because they invite you at some point to a service or church function but other than that they act like normal decent intelligent people. Family excluded of course.

At the same time most don't know who is and who isn't atheist when dealing with everyday people. And you're right I believe, with most Christians the interest is nominal, more of a tradition than a way of life; and atheists? For them I've realized it doesn't come up much in life at all except on debate forums. Because religion has no role in our lives but still the compulsion to reject outright fantasy when exposed to it on platforms such as this it too great to ignore indefinitely. Especially when the ones asserting myths as truths do so in disrespectful and combative ways.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You can't see, May...you're a blind, arrogant, foolish, ignorant, atheist...it's not possible you know or see or do anything concerning truth...you're dying in your sin...this is your free will choice....

I don't recall May asking to be brought into existence just for the purpose of deciding between an eternity praising a self absorbed master forever or an eternity in eternal fire/hell for exercising his "freewill" not to. That's coercion , not freewill choice.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Yes, to most non-religious people someone's religion is much like their fashion style, or their manner of speech: just one attribute of no particular importance. Looking at my statements criticizing religion here, one might think that, every time I encounter religion in the real world, I immediately roll my eyes - and nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, when I struggled financially over a decade ago, a couple of Baptist churches really helped me out, and religion was not discussed at all in those interactions. While I think that logically religion makes no sense, as a community builder and a cultural phenomenon it is actually quite nice. It would be nicer if the people acknowledged that it is just that and not a literal truth, but hey, I will take what I can. Different regions being dominated by different religions adds diversity to the world and makes it more interesting. Going to Thailand and being exposed to completely different religious symbolism adds a lot to the travel experience.

Then, of course, there are also militant atheists who do roll their eyes every time they run across a religious person. Those guys who see a Christian table on campus, with two smiley girls handing out brochures with passages from the Bible, and start arguing with them about how their beliefs are wrong and they should leave the campus. I absolutely do not approve of such behavior.

But when people make silly claims such as "either you derive your morals from god, or you have no basis for morals", or "something cannot come from nothing, so the Universe must have been created"... Well, pushing back against that is the only sensible thing to do - other than ignoring it and moving on. Do not mix your fantasy with my reality: I will not accept that.

I went to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum a week ago and had a blast: as a space junkie, I think I read every single written sentence on the second floor of that museum. Looking at the full scale replica of the Curiosity rover and reading about its controls - that makes my skin crawl (in a good way).

You try to take it away from me by saying that Mars is made up and NASA is lying about everything - you get a hard push back.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

Yes, to most non-religious people someone's religion is much like their fashion style, or their manner of speech: just one attribute of no particular importance. Looking at my statements criticizing religion here, one might think that, every time I encounter religion in the real world, I immediately roll my eyes - and nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, when I struggled financially over a decade ago, a couple of Baptist churches really helped me out, and religion was not discussed at all in those interactions. While I think that logically religion makes no sense, as a community builder and a cultural phenomenon it is actually quite nice. It would be nicer if the people acknowledged that it is just that and not a literal truth, but hey, I will take what I can. Different regions being dominated by different religions adds diversity to the world and makes it more interesting. Going to Thailand and being exposed to completely different religious symbolism adds a lot to the travel experience.

Then, of course, there are also militant atheists who do roll their eyes every time they run across a religious person. Those guys who see a Christian table on campus, with two smiley girls handing out brochures with passages from the Bible, and start arguing with them about how their beliefs are wrong and they should leave the campus. I absolutely do not approve of such behavior.

But when people make silly claims such as "either you derive your morals from god, or you have no basis for morals", or "something cannot come from nothing, so the Universe must have been created"... Well, pushing back against that is the only sensible thing to do - other than ignoring it and moving on. Do not mix your fantasy with my reality: I will not accept that.

I went to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum a week ago and had a blast: as a space junkie, I think I read every single written sentence on the second floor of that museum. Looking at the full scale replica of the Curiosity rover and reading about its controls - that makes my skin crawl (in a good way).
You try to take it away from me by saying that Mars is made up and NASA is lying about everything - you get a hard push back.

All true aspects of the reality we find ourselves in for sure.

Me personally? If I saw two smiley faced girls handing out pamphlets my first reaction wouldn't be to roll my eyes, maybe whistle softly to myself. lol Then hear them out without deceiving them though. Just let them know I'm not a believer but interested in knowing why they are in their own words and ask if they'd like to discuss it sometime.

The silly claims is what I don't understand where Christians on forums such as this are concerned. Well not totally anyway. When I was Christian I tried my darndest to explain my faith in my own words as I knew even then "the bible says" was meaningless without the proper wisdom of being able to explain why the bible says and why I believed. Here we do not see that attempt being made. Sure some try to use a lack of knowledge as an appeal to ignorance to believe but that has no wisdom or rationale behind it. Then when ultimately their bible/faith is rejected because it's based on contradiction and fallacy we get accused of being arrogant and prideful when they are the ones trying to convince us of something not evident in reality. Seems the rejection bruises their egos therefore putting their hubris on display and in play. How else does one call atheists 'turds deserving hell' when one does not know who is and who isn't atheist unless that information is volunteered?

RickeyHoltsclaw

There is no other Way for a man or woman to find life, purpose, meaning, substance, in this World or in the World to come lest they humble them self before the Father and trust in Jesus as Messiah for the atonement of sin, the receiving of the Holy Spirit and His guidance through the anointing. Only Christianity offers life.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/mg/ia2afwa4t007.jpg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

There is no other Way for a man or woman to find life, purpose, meaning, substance, in this World or in the World to come lest they humble them self before the Father and trust in Jesus as Messiah for the atonement of sin, the receiving of the Holy Spirit and His guidance through the anointing. Only Christianity offers life.

Case in point @MayCaesar. No rationale as to why they believe. Just the bible says and he wants to go to heaven. Not matter the absurdity of the fantasy.

RickeyHoltsclaw

There is no other Path to life in Eternity but through Jesus as one's Messiah.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/cw/r31ud1w6kiy7.jpg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

There is no other Path to life in Eternity but through Jesus as one's Messiah.

Belief in religious doctrine isn't unique to Christianity when it comes to getting into eternity.

Afterlife, continued existence in some form after physiological death. The belief that some aspect of an individual survives after death—usually, the individual’s soul—is common to the great majority of the world’s religions. Of those religions that include belief in an afterlife, almost all subscribe to one of two versions: reincarnation (a continuous cycle of death and rebirth in new bodies or forms), or an eternal life, which will occur in either a heaven or a hell, depending on the individual in question.

In ancient Egypt, especially in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, the moral community between the living and the dead was an important part of society. It was thought that the world hereafter might be located near the tomb of the deceased (and thus near the living), in the celestial domain of the sun god, or in the underworld realm of Osiris. The modern Western idea of eternal life can be traced back to the ancient Mesopotamians, who conceived of a netherworld known sometimes as Arallû, Ganzer, or Irkalla, among other names. Just as the heavens were thought to physically exist high above believers’ heads, it was believed that this netherworld existed below the earth’s surface. The land of the dead was neither a happy nor a fearful place; it was the spiritual antithesis of the heavens and a gloomy version of life on earth. Nevertheless, all mortals were bound for it, regardless of their actions while alive.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/samsara

RickeyHoltsclaw

The Scriptures define for you the purpose for life in Time and Eternity and Jesus is the divine Answer to all of those related questions; therefore, the one who trusts in Jesus is endowed with knowledge and purpose that extends beyond the constraints and limitations of Time and physics.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/5u/t3cqai7fstl0.jpg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The Scriptures define for you the purpose for life in Time and Eternity and Jesus is the divine Answer to all of those related questions; therefore, the one who trusts in Jesus is endowed with knowledge and purpose that extends beyond the constraints and limitations of Time and physics.

Indoctrinated views pledging the way is what their dogma dictates isn't unique to Christianity. Egyptian, Greek, Hindu are just a few that spin tales of seeking a superior plain of existence to the current reality we now enjoy by following and believing in the mythical characters imagined and/or by following certain doctrines. Try again.

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum, bar none,

YOUR RUNAWAY WIMPY QUOTE AGAIN WHERE JESUS IS SPEAKING "LITERALLY" AND WAS NOT "PARABOLIC" YOU DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN!!!!: "Jesus was speaking in parabolic form and said that prayer could overcome the obstacles in one's life if offered by faith."

THE VERSE IN QUESTION AGAIN AT YOUR EMBARRASSMENT: “Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.” When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked. Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. ” (Matthew 21:18-21)

Using your AND embarrassing quote above; the Matthew scenario above IS NOT A PARABLE regarding the Fig Tree being withered by Jesus, AND, that he said the disciples could wither the fig tree if they have faith and do not doubt! GET IT BIBLE FOOL? Nowhere is it listed that the Fig Tree withering in Matthew by Jesus is a parable!

Then to embarrass yourself even further, you give a James 5:16 relative to prayer, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Fig Tree scenario! HELLO?

Factdenier, was correct in you calling Jesus in Matthew 21:18-21 when he said this towards you: "Of course exaggerations aren't 100% truthful so if that's going to be your excuse then you just called your god a l*ar."

RICKEY, therefore, we want you to take a video of you going out and finding a tree with fruit upon it, and in the name of Jesus, lets see if you truly have faith, and without doubt if you do, you can "wither" said fruit tree and prove your faith! If you cannot perform this simple act, then YOU LOSE your argument upon this topic, understood?

BEGIN:

IS THERE ANY PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN AS BIBLE STU-PID THAN RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, NOT!!!!!!

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast

The cursed fig tree is parabolic and analogous to the fallen state of Israel's children and their failure to produce fruit that honors the Father and also eschatological concerning the Church that would fall away in the last days...

John 15:8;

The account of Jesus cursing the barren fig tree is found in two different gospel accounts. First, it is seen in Matthew 21:18-22, and then also in Mark 11:12-14. While there are slight differences between the two accounts, they are easily reconciled by studying the passages. Like all Scripture, the key to understanding this passage comes from understanding the context in which it happened. In order to properly understand this passage, we must first look at the chronological and geographical setting. For example, when did this occur, what was the setting, and where did it happen? Also, in order to fully understand this passage, we need to have an understanding of the importance of the fig tree as it relates to the nation of Israel and understand how the fig tree is often used in the Scriptures to symbolically represent Israel. Finally, we must have a basic understanding of the fig tree itself, its growing seasons, etc.

First, in looking at the general chronological setting of the passage, we see that it happened during the week before His crucifixion. Jesus had entered Jerusalem a day earlier amid the praise and worship of the Jewish people who were looking to Him as the King/Messiah who was going to deliver them from Roman occupation (Mark 21; Mark 11)). Now, the next day, Jesus is again on His way to Jerusalem from where He was staying in Bethany. On His way, both Matthew and Mark record that He was hungry and saw a fig tree in the distance that had leaves on it (Mark 11). Upon coming to the tree expecting to find something to eat, Jesus instead discovered that the fig tree had no fruit on it and cursed the tree saying, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” (Matthew 21; Mark 11). Matthew records the cursing and the withering of the fig tree all in one account and includes it after the account of Jesus cleansing the Temple of the money-changers. Mark explains that it actually took place over two days, with Jesus cursing the fig tree the first day on the way to cleanse the Temple, and the disciples seeing the tree withered on the second day when they were again going to Jerusalem from Bethany (Mark 11). Of course, upon seeing the tree “withered from the roots up,” the disciples were amazed, as that would have normally taken several weeks.

Having reviewed the general chronological setting of the story, we can begin to answer some of many questions that are often asked of it. First of all is the question, Why did Jesus curse the fig tree if it was not the right season for figs? The answer to this question can be determined by studying the characteristics of fig trees. The fruit of the fig tree generally appears before the leaves, and, because the fruit is green it blends in with the leaves right up until it is almost ripe. Therefore, when Jesus and His disciples saw from a distance that the tree had leaves, they would have expected it to also have fruit on it even though it was earlier in the season than what would be normal for a fig tree to be bearing fruit. Also, each tree would often produce two to three crops of figs each season. There would be an early crop in the spring followed by one or two later crops. In some parts of Israel, depending on climate and conditions, it was also possible that a tree might produce fruit ten out of twelve months. This also explains why Jesus and His disciples would be looking for fruit on the fig tree even if it was not in the main growing season. The fact that the tree already had leaves on it even though it was at a higher elevation around Jerusalem, and therefore would have been outside the normal season for figs, would have seemed to be a good indication that there would also be fruit on it.

As to the significance of this passage and what it means, the answer to that is again found in the chronological setting and in understanding how a fig tree is often used symbolically to represent Israel in the Scriptures. First of all, chronologically, Jesus had just arrived at Jerusalem amid great fanfare and great expectations, but then proceeds to cleanse the Temple and curse the barren fig tree. Both had significance as to the spiritual condition of Israel. With His cleansing of the Temple and His criticism of the worship that was going on there (Matthew 21: Mark 11), Jesus was effectively denouncing Israel’s worship of God. With the cursing of the fig tree, He was symbolically denouncing Israel as a nation and, in a sense, even denouncing unfruitful “Christians” (that is, people who profess to be Christian but have no evidence of a relationship with Christ).

The presence of a fruitful fig tree was considered to be a symbol of blessing and prosperity for the nation of Israel. Likewise, the absence or death of a fig tree would symbolize judgment and rejection. Symbolically, the fig tree represented the spiritual deadness of Israel, who while very religious outwardly with all the sacrifices and ceremonies, were spiritually barren because of their sins. By cleansing the Temple and cursing the fig tree, causing it to wither and die, Jesus was pronouncing His coming judgment of Israel and demonstrating His power to carry it out. It also teaches the principle that religious profession and observance are not enough to guarantee salvation, unless there is the fruit of genuine salvation evidenced in the life of the person. James would later echo this truth when he wrote that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). The lesson of the fig tree is that we should bear spiritual fruit (Galatians 5), not just give an appearance of religiosity. God judges fruitlessness, and expects that those who have a relationship with Him will “bear much fruit” (John 15). "Got Questions"???

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum, bar none,

YOUR QUOTE ONCE AGAIN WHERE YOUR BIBLE STU-PIDITY SHOWS ITSELF IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP!: "There is no other Path to life in Eternity but through Jesus as one's Messiah."

How many times do I have to easily "school you" in front of the membership, where I will do it again at your embarrassment, WHERE JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH, PERIOD!

JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH FOR DUMMIES; LIKE RICKEY HOLTSCLAW ………

According to the prophecies within the JUDEO-Christian bible, the Messiah of the Christian faith must be a descendant of King David “through the flesh,” aka, sexual relations“ whereas Paul substantiates this biblical axiom herewith: “Jesus the Messiah, our Lord, who was descended from David according to the flesh.” (Romans 1:3).

"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;" (Acts 2:30)

Barring the FACT that Jesus never was raised up to sit on David’s throne, the following biblical facts are presented in Jesus NOT BEING THE MESSIAH because he was not born "through the flesh" of King David, period!

1. Luke claims that Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth, who he says was a descendant of Aaron, the high priest: “In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.” (Luke 1:5-7). This passage directly places Mary in the tribe of LEVI because Aaron was a Levite, therefore Elizabeth, a cousin of Mary, was a Levite through family relations, MAKING MARY A LEVITE TOO! (Exodus 4:14-15)

2. Therefore, Mary's incestuous celestial impregnation by her own son Jesus, as being Yahweh god incarnate, though his spirit, is moot because Jesus IS NOT from the “fruit of the loins” from the House of David as a requirement for Jesus to be the Messiah! 2+2=4! GET IT?

3. Deduced to its irreducible primary, Mary was NOT from the line of David, but from the line of LEVI, and Joseph being from the line of David was not the paternal father of Jesus impregnating Mary “through the fruit of the loins “ of David,” as required for the Messiah, THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT THE MESSIAH, PERIOD!!!

RICKEY, If you want to be more bible STU-PID than you are now, mention that Luke 3:28-38 is Mary’s tribal affiliation, and I will BIBLE SLAP YOU SILLY®️ AGAIN, understood?! YES?!

WE HAVE TO ASK, DOES RICKDYHOLTSCLAW "GET OFF" ON BEING SO GOD-DAMNED BIBLE STU-PID, AND IS THE REASON HE LIKES TO BE SO BIBLE DUMB TO BE CORRECTED?!

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

HAS ANYONE SEEN "JUST_SAYIN" SUBSEQUENT TO ME BIBLE SLAPPING HIM SILLY®️ AGAIN IN THE POST LINK HEREWITH?:
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/180361/#Comment_180361

.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

The cursed fig tree is parabolic and analogous to the fallen state of Israel's children and their failure to produce fruit that honors the Father and also eschatological concerning the Church that would fall away in the last days.

Wrong. Jesus said in John 10:38 "But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Then he does works like this in John 11:43&44: 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Then he went on to say this in John 1412-14: 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

No parables, no analogies, he dictating to his disciples (supposedly you're one?) the works they will be able to do that will be greater than raising the dead. Literally the stuff of fairytales unless you prove the scriptures right and record yourself raising the dead.

Don't worry, nothing unique about your religions failure to back up resurrection claims as I've proven to you already.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Humanity has no hope but in Jesus who died to provide sinful humanity a Path to righteousness (a right standing) with the Father.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/2r/n7hnegh7t4ig.jpg

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Humanity has no hope but in Jesus who died to provide sinful humanity a Path to righteousness (a right standing) with the Father.

Useless filthy irrelevant spam.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Jesus created David and entered Time through David's seed via Mary.

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

23 Jesus, hwhen he began his ministry, was about ithirty years of age, being jthe son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, kthe son of Zerubbabel, the son lof Shealtiel,5 the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of mNathan, the son of David, 32 nthe son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 othe son of Jacob, pthe son of Isaac, qthe son of Abraham, rthe son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@21CenturyIconoclast ; Jesus created David and entered Time through David's seed via Mary.

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

23 Jesus, hwhen he began his ministry, was about ithirty years of age, being jthe son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, kthe son of Zerubbabel, the son lof Shealtiel,5 the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of mNathan, the son of David, 32 nthe son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 othe son of Jacob, pthe son of Isaac, qthe son of Abraham, rthe son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

More worthless garbage. Joseph didn't father Jesus according to your own link and bible. Another errant part of scriptures. Common theme all religions have, fallacies under the pretense of truths.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity offers humanity the Gospel of Peace which was ordained "before Time began"....no one, no religion, no sect or cult offers the World what Christianity offers through Jesus.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

All true aspects of the reality we find ourselves in for sure.

Me personally? If I saw two smiley faced girls handing out pamphlets my first reaction wouldn't be to roll my eyes, maybe whistle softly to myself. lol Then hear them out without deceiving them though. Just let them know I'm not a believer but interested in knowing why they are in their own words and ask if they'd like to discuss it sometime.

The silly claims is what I don't understand where Christians on forums such as this are concerned. Well not totally anyway. When I was Christian I tried my darndest to explain my faith in my own words as I knew even then "the bible says" was meaningless without the proper wisdom of being able to explain why the bible says and why I believed. Here we do not see that attempt being made. Sure some try to use a lack of knowledge as an appeal to ignorance to believe but that has no wisdom or rationale behind it. Then when ultimately their bible/faith is rejected because it's based on contradiction and fallacy we get accused of being arrogant and prideful when they are the ones trying to convince us of something not evident in reality. Seems the rejection bruises their egos therefore putting their hubris on display and in play. How else does one call atheists 'turds deserving hell' when one does not know who is and who isn't atheist unless that information is volunteered?

It might be just fear of thinking independently. I have never quite understood it - independent thinking was something I loved to engage in when I was even a little kid as that was the greatest way for me to feel powerful and in control, allowed to think about anything without my parents or peers telling me to think differently - but, apparently, many people are afraid of their own thoughts. Maybe they do not trust themselves to come up with good ideas and decisions, maybe they have grown overly comfortable relying on others' thinking, or maybe for some reason they genuinely have not developed this skill... Whatever the case, the idea of honestly exploring criticisms of their positions and potentially finding them to be valid terrifies them.

I mentioned it somewhere else: I have a couple of really good friends with whom I can run my ideas and who will give me unfiltered criticism, often destroying them in the most humiliating ways. I love it when they do that: someone chopping the head off my erroneous idea relieves me of the potential to live with that idea for the rest of my life, making countless mistakes.

Never understood people who prefer to be surrounded by yes-men and echo-chamber buddies validating their beliefs. That is what they have in churches they frequent, is it not?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; You know nothing about Church or faith or love of Elohim...you're an atheist...an irrelevant sty in a society struggling to survive.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ; You know nothing about Church or faith or love of Elohim...you're an atheist...an irrelevant sty in a society struggling to survive.

You know nothing, period. Worthless embarrassment to your family, pathetically sad. And you're going to hell for not believing in the one true god. Same as all the other religions.

RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity copies nothing but the will of the Father through the Holy Spirit.

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity copies nothing but the will of the Father through the Holy Spirit.

Christianity copies a lot of other religions despite what the voices in your head tell you. You do have voices in your head, right? I proved Christianity copied others. Deal with it.

Got Voices in Your Head Do You Know Who Youre Listening To Two Rivers Church

Got Voices in Your Head Do You Know Who Youre Listening To Two Rivers Church

RickeyHoltsclaw

Christianity is the only Path to life in the Kingdom of Elohim; therefore, trust fully in Jesus...confess Jesus openly as your Messiah, receive the indwelling Holy Spirit and LIVE!

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/67/lyir99wxxbsh.jpg

21CenturyIconoclast

@RickeyHoltsclaw

RICKEYHOLTSCLAW, the number one BIBLE FOOL of this Religion Forum, bar none,

ONE OF YOUR MOST BIBLE STU-PID QUOTES YOU HAVE EVER MADE!!!!: “Jesus created David and entered Time through David's seed via Mary.”

HUH? To “try” and support your wrongful position about your quote above, you gave JOSEPHS GENEALOGY IN LUKE 3:28-38 WHICH IS NOT MARYS! DUH!

The Luke passage embarrassingly starts out saying; “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph,” in which Luke is not sure at the onset if Jesus was the son of Joseph, of which he is not because Jesus celestially impregnated his own mother Mary through INCEST of his spirit! (Matthew 1:18-25) LOL! Then Luke lists Josephs father as Heli, and then goes back to Adam, where nowhere in this Luke narrative does it mention Mary within this genealogy whatsoever! GET IT BIBLE FOOL?

Besides, at your embarrassment again in front of the membership, the tribal affiliation of the Jews goes only through the father, and NOT THE MOTHER, as is stipulated in the following passages:

"And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls." Numbers 1:18)

“And these were the ones who came up from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer; but they could not identify their father’s house or their genealogy, whether they were of Israel: 60 the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, and the sons of Nekoda, six hundred and fifty-two;” (Erza 2:59:60 KJV)

Revisiting my post in the link below, what part of my showing your inept pseudo-christian mind set that MARY WAS A LEVITE, and not from the house of David “through the flesh” didn’t you understand? Therefore, Jesus is a LEVITE subsequent to the birth of Jesus through Mary, and she is not from the house of David, UNDERSTOOD BIBLE NUT CASE?!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/180522/#Comment_180522

RICKEY, YOU CAN ONLY HOPE THAT YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN ARE NOT READING THIS THREAD TO SEE HOW BLATANTLY BIBLE STU-PID YOU TRULY ARE!

.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Man seriously injured by grizzly bear while hunting with father

In this Debate

Is Christianity a copy cat religion?

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Biography

Early life

Biography

Early life

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

The Genealogy of Jesus Christ

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch