The Sword of Christ

[Szuchow]

You came here to shit on the carpet like countless trolls before you. You're neither original nor smart or even amusing.

Hatred? Mere dislike of indoctrinated fools but christians love to feel persecuted I guess.

This is not persecution! I can tell you all about true persecution in the name of Christ.

But being on an Atheist forum is not persecution, far from it!

I'm not interested in your fairy tales.

Of course it isn't persecution. Just as it isn't hatred.

[Charlie24]

This is not persecution! I can tell you all about true persecution in the name of Christ.

But being on an Atheist forum is not persecution, far from it!

I'm not interested in your fairy tales.

Of course it isn't persecution. Just as it isn't hatred.

OK

[Theresa_N]

It's amazing to me when xtians visit atheist spaces, where they are asked not to proselytize but they do it anyway. They then act as if they are being persecuted for violating the rules. Just go away troll. We have heard all you have to say before because most of us were xtians.

[Charlie24]

It's amazing to me when xtians visit atheist spaces, where they are asked not to proselytize but they do it anyway.  They then act as if they are being persecuted for violating the rules.  Just go away troll.  We have heard all you have to say before because most of us were xtians.

Why don't you explain your Christian experience?

Obviously it didn't work out for you. Ever wonder why?

You may not want any help with this, and that's fine.

But I am here, at least for the moment, lol.

I can help you understand the why!

[Charlie24]

Well, I can see why you're not aware of it.

What about all those people born in an area of the world that raises them in the scriptures of another god, and they follow that scripture? Are they going to burn in hell? What religion you are raised in depends on where you are born, and you have no power to control that.

I have no control, correct, but He does.

Remember when Christ went out of His way to Samaria, and His disciples talked among themselves, "the Jews have nothing to do with the Samaritans, why are we going there?"

Christ knew there was a Samaritan women there at the well of Jacob drawing water, He knew she would believe. He went out of His way to honor that faith. 

He will do the same all over the world, no exceptions! He will never leave the faith of man unattended, and He knows who every single one of them, and where they are located.

[abaris]

Why don't you explain your Christian experience?

Obviously it didn't work out for you. Ever wonder why?

You may not want any help with this, and that's fine.

But I am here, at least for the moment, lol.

I can help you understand the why!

Don't play the victim. You're here and we're not in the habit of banning just for not liking what is said.

Most of us had their christian experiences, which comes naturally, seeing as most of us are from the Western world. You opened this thread with the sword quote, which kinda tells me, you're from some evangelical church. It also shows, how everyone can bend Jesus as it suits their fancy. You found the sword quote appealing and leave out the give to the poor, the part about following Jesus, where he said to give up all worldly possession and the turn the other cheek part. All of this contradicts the sword part.

So, what Jesus are we talking about. I tell you a secret, the whole bible is a series of contradictions. And that's all I have to say about it, since I had these discussions at nauseam in the past. And, as opposed to you, I'm not a missionary trying to convince anybody.

[Charlie24]

Why don't you explain your Christian experience?

Obviously it didn't work out for you. Ever wonder why?

You may not want any help with this, and that's fine.

But I am here, at least for the moment, lol.

I can help you understand the why!

Don't play the victim. You're here and we're not in the habit of banning just for not liking what is said.

Most of us had their christian experiences, which comes naturally, seeing as most of us are from the Western world. You opened this thread with the sword quote, which kinda tells me, you're from some evangelical church. It also shows, how everyone can bend Jesus as it suits their fancy. You found the sword quote appealing and leave out the give to the poor, the part about following Jesus, where he said to give up all worldly possession and the turn the other cheek part. All of this contradicts the sword part.

So, what Jesus are we talking about. I tell you a secret, the whole bible is a series of contradictions. And that's all I have to say about it, since I had these discussions at nauseam in the past. And, as opposed to you, I'm not a missionary trying to convince anybody.

Seems you have it all figured out! That's good that you take a stand on something!

Which Jesus do you want me to quote? The One that said to the Sanhedrin, "you hypocrites and vipers, how shall you enter into the Kingdom of God?" 

Or do you want the One who said, If you believe not I am Him, you shall die in your sins."

We have to get past the unbelief here to present the One who said, "but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

I suppose you want the dessert before the meal.

[no one]

jebus' daddy loves to swallow swords.

[Dom]

Don't play the victim. You're here and we're not in the habit of banning just for not liking what is said.

Most of us had their christian experiences, which comes naturally, seeing as most of us are from the Western world. You opened this thread with the sword quote, which kinda tells me, you're from some evangelical church. It also shows, how everyone can bend Jesus as it suits their fancy. You found the sword quote appealing and leave out the give to the poor, the part about following Jesus, where he said to give up all worldly possession and the turn the other cheek part. All of this contradicts the sword part.

So, what Jesus are we talking about. I tell you a secret, the whole bible is a series of contradictions. And that's all I have to say about it, since I had these discussions at nauseam in the past. And, as opposed to you, I'm not a missionary trying to convince anybody.

Seems you have it all figured out! That's good that you take a stand on something!

Which Jesus do you want me to quote? The One that said to the Sanhedrin, "you hypocrites and vipers, how shall you enter into the Kingdom of God?" 

Or do you want the One who said, If you believe not I am Him, you shall die in your sins."

We have to get past the unbelief here to present the One who said, "but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

I suppose you want the dessert before the meal.

And you think scare tactics are the way to convert a bunch of atheists?

[Charlie24]

Seems you have it all figured out! That's good that you take a stand on something!

Which Jesus do you want me to quote? The One that said to the Sanhedrin, "you hypocrites and vipers, how shall you enter into the Kingdom of God?" 

Or do you want the One who said, If you believe not I am Him, you shall die in your sins."

We have to get past the unbelief here to present the One who said, "but I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

I suppose you want the dessert before the meal.

And you think scare tactics are the way to convert a bunch of atheists?

I didn't see it as scare tactics. but obviously you did.

If I did mean it that way I would say so.

But I can see how you came to that conclusion.

[Charlie24]

Another example of the walk by faith vs the walk by sight. In this passage the walk by sight is represented in "flesh and blood."

Matthew 16:13-17

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

It wasn't by sight (flesh and blood) that Peter knew who Christ was, but by the Father in Heaven, spiritually working through Peter's faith.

[Dom]

Another example of the walk by faith vs the walk by sight. In this passage the walk by sight is represented in "flesh and blood."

Matthew 16:13-17

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

It wasn't by sight (flesh and blood) that Peter knew who Christ was, but by the Father in Heaven, spiritually working through Peter's faith.

You know, you are really just proselytizing, throwing scriptures out there without having been prompted by questions. Discussions are fine here, proselytizing is not. You can be a follower of any religion here, you can discuss and voice opinions, you don't have to be popular or liked, but you cannot preach.

[Charlie24]

Another example of the walk by faith vs the walk by sight. In this passage the walk by sight is represented in "flesh and blood."

Matthew 16:13-17

"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

It wasn't by sight (flesh and blood) that Peter knew who Christ was, but by the Father in Heaven, spiritually working through Peter's faith.

You know, you are really just proselytizing, throwing scriptures out there without having been prompted by questions. Discussions are fine here, proselytizing is not. You can be a follower of any religion here, you can discuss and voice opinions, you don't have to be popular or liked, but you cannot preach.

I guess quoting Scripture is now proselytizing/preaching.

It looks like there is no way around our differences in definition.

But that is yet another difference in the walk by faith vs the walk by sight.

[Dancefortwo]

Okie-dokie.  Here we go.

You DO realize that the gospels were written by anonymous writers who never met Jesus?   Apparently you've been told otherwise.  

Those four text were written 40 to 90 years after Jesus died and are not eyewitness accounts.  They don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. They are written in third person, in a distant voice.  The names were attached to the anonymous text by Irenaeus in around 170 CE.  He chose 4 out of around 30 other Jesus stories because they were the most popularly read in the houses of Christians....at least by someone who could actually read...and because to Irenaeus they represented the "four winds that blow and the four corners of the earth".   He didn't know who wrote them either.   Anyway,  that's why there are four and not 7 or 8 or 15 Jesus stories.  

Neither Peter nor John could have written what was later attributed to them because they were both illiterate fisherman and the text is written in an aristocratic style of Greek that only highly educated Greeks would have been able to compose.  They couldn't have dictated it either because the Galilee area,  where they were both from, was a monolingual area that only spoke a common type of Aramaic.    By the way, illiteracy was around 97% in the Palestenian area in the 1st century.

The first gospel written, later called "Mark", did not contain a post-resurrected Jesus in it. The last 8 lines of Mark were written and added by church officials (probably by Eusibius in the 4th century CE)  so it would match the other three gospels.  So the first gospel written closest to the death of Jesus does not have him being seen by anyone after he's put in the tomb.  Let that sink in. 

Matthew and Luke copied word for word around 76% of their text from Mark.   And it's not just the Jesus sayings, it's many passages that they copy.  Why the hell would an eyewitness copy word for word from someone elses papers.  They would compose their version which would be different from the other text.  The vast majority of scholars realize whoever wrote these stories are not eyewitnesses. 

It's 12 midnight here so I'll continue this tomorrow morning.   Later! 

it's posts like this that cause the Atheists to be virtually illiterates Biblically speaking.

Most will never read it for themselves but will believe this junk you pass for truth.

The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture regardless of who was chosen by God to actually write it down.

God have mercy on us!

Then the holy spirit is full of shit because he forgot to include the ending of Mark.   The first time it shows up is after 350 CE.

Here is the oldest complete copy of the gospels dating from 350 CE.    Mark ends at 16:8.    The rest of it was written by church officials and added in the 4th century.  This is also why the style of composition doesn't match the rest of the text.  There are also two different endings that were written.   One is called the "short ending" and the other is called, duh, the "long ending".  It depends on which Bible you have as to which one you have.



You can scroll through it.  It's written in Greek but has the common numbering system used in other Bibles.

https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_03

Btw, "Kata"  at the end translates to "according to".   "According to" does not mean "written by" or "authored by".  It was a term used when the early church did not know who wrote the text.   

Studies show most atheists know the far more about the bible than theists.   You're delusional, Chucky.

[Charlie24]

it's posts like this that cause the Atheists to be virtually illiterates Biblically speaking.

Most will never read it for themselves but will believe this junk you pass for truth.

The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture regardless of who was chosen by God to actually write it down.

God have mercy on us!

Then the holy spirit is full of shit because he forgot to include the ending of Mark.   The first time it shows up is after 350 CE.

Here is the oldest complete copy of the gospels dating from 350 CE.    Mark ends at 16:8.    The rest of it was written by church officials and added in the 4th century.  This is also why the style of composition doesn't match the rest of the text.  There are also two different endings that were written.   One is called the "short ending" and the other is called, duh, the "long ending".  It depends on which Bible you have as to which one you have.



You can scroll through it.  It's written in Greek but has the common numbering system used in other Bibles.

https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_03

Btw, "Kata"  at the end translates to "according to".   "According to" does not mean "written by" or "authored by".  It was a term used when the early church did not know who wrote the text.   

Studies show most atheists know the far more about the bible than theists.   You're delusional, Chucky.

I don't have your problem with Scripture. I use the Authorized KJV. It eliminates all your problems.

[Dancefortwo]

I guess quoting Scripture is now proselytizing/preaching.

It looks like there is no way around our differences in definition.

But that is yet another difference in the walk by faith vs the walk by sight.

(bolding is mine)

Yup, it sure is.  But you Christians are so used to listening to this drivel in church every Sunday that you don't think of it as proselytizing.  To you it's part of normal conversation.  Well honey, it's big time preaching. 

If you were really interested in discussing religion you'd have included quotes from the Islamic and Hindu religions.  You might discuss the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism which greatly influenced Christianity.   

But no. That's not what you did.  Instead you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH and came here with the intention of trying to convert a bunch of atheists.

Lying for Jesus is still lying, sweetie pie.

[Charlie24]

I guess quoting Scripture is now proselytizing/preaching.

It looks like there is no way around our differences in definition.

But that is yet another difference in the walk by faith vs the walk by sight.

(bolding is mine)

Yup, it sure is.  But you Christians are so used to listening to this drivel in church every Sunday that you don't think of it as proselytizing.  To you it's part of normal conversation.  Well honey, it's big time preaching. 

If you were really interested in discussing religion you'd have included quotes from the Islamic and Hindu religions.  You might discuss the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism which greatly influenced Christianity.   

But no. That's not what you did.  Instead you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH and came here with the intention of trying to convert a bunch of atheists.

Lying for Jesus is still lying, sweetie pie.

Do you actually believe that God the Father, who has placed His Word above His name, would actually allow His Word to say that against His will? That He hasn't preserved His Words perfectly in tact for all generations?

Psalm 138:2

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

[airportkid]

It appears a cockatoo has found its way onto this thread

[Minimalist]

Okie-dokie.  Here we go.

You DO realize that the gospels were written by anonymous writers who never met Jesus?   Apparently you've been told otherwise.  

Those four text were written 40 to 90 years after Jesus died and are not eyewitness accounts.  They don't even claim to be eyewitness accounts. They are written in third person, in a distant voice.  The names were attached to the anonymous text by Irenaeus in around 170 CE.  He chose 4 out of around 30 other Jesus stories because they were the most popularly read in the houses of Christians....at least by someone who could actually read...and because to Irenaeus they represented the "four winds that blow and the four corners of the earth".   He didn't know who wrote them either.   Anyway,  that's why there are four and not 7 or 8 or 15 Jesus stories.  

Neither Peter nor John could have written what was later attributed to them because they were both illiterate fisherman and the text is written in an aristocratic style of Greek that only highly educated Greeks would have been able to compose.  They couldn't have dictated it either because the Galilee area,  where they were both from, was a monolingual area that only spoke a common type of Aramaic.    By the way, illiteracy was around 97% in the Palestenian area in the 1st century.

The first gospel written, later called "Mark", did not contain a post-resurrected Jesus in it. The last 8 lines of Mark were written and added by church officials (probably by Eusibius in the 4th century CE)  so it would match the other three gospels.  So the first gospel written closest to the death of Jesus does not have him being seen by anyone after he's put in the tomb.  Let that sink in. 

Matthew and Luke copied word for word around 76% of their text from Mark.   And it's not just the Jesus sayings, it's many passages that they copy.  Why the hell would an eyewitness copy word for word from someone elses papers.  They would compose their version which would be different from the other text.  The vast majority of scholars realize whoever wrote these stories are not eyewitnesses. 

It's 12 midnight here so I'll continue this tomorrow morning.   Later! 

it's posts like this that cause the Atheists to be virtually illiterates Biblically speaking.

Most will never read it for themselves but will believe this junk you pass for truth.

The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture regardless of who was chosen by God to actually write it down.

God have mercy on us!

And it is posts like yours that convinced me that you and others of your ilk are happy living in a fantasy world and are scared shitless of reality.  That reality being, you are all alone son.  You have no invisible friend watching over you.

[Charlie24]

it's posts like this that cause the Atheists to be virtually illiterates Biblically speaking.

Most will never read it for themselves but will believe this junk you pass for truth.

The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture regardless of who was chosen by God to actually write it down.

God have mercy on us!

And it is posts like yours that convinced me that you and others of your ilk are happy living in a fantasy world and are scared shitless of reality.  That reality being, you are all alone son.  You have no invisible friend watching over you.

Everyone has a right to express their opinion.

[Dānu]

And it is posts like yours that convinced me that you and others of your ilk are happy living in a fantasy world and are scared shitless of reality.  That reality being, you are all alone son.  You have no invisible friend watching over you.

Everyone has a right to express their opinion.

[Charlie24]

I guess quoting Scripture is now proselytizing/preaching.

It looks like there is no way around our differences in definition.

But that is yet another difference in the walk by faith vs the walk by sight.

(bolding is mine)

Yup, it sure is.  But you Christians are so used to listening to this drivel in church every Sunday that you don't think of it as proselytizing.  To you it's part of normal conversation.  Well honey, it's big time preaching. 

If you were really interested in discussing religion you'd have included quotes from the Islamic and Hindu religions.  You might discuss the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism which greatly influenced Christianity.   

But no. That's not what you did.  Instead you LIED THROUGH YOUR TEETH and came here with the intention of trying to convert a bunch of atheists.

Lying for Jesus is still lying, sweetie pie.

If you have a grievance that severe against me, then report it to your Mods.

Isn't that protocol? I think the members here would go insane if I were to really start preaching.

[skyking]

Here is a pro tip: if you want to engender some conversation, go with that. We all know where to go if we want to hear what you have posted. There are these buildings all over the place that folks gather to talk about that.

[Dancefortwo]

Then the holy spirit is full of shit because he forgot to include the ending of Mark.   The first time it shows up is after 350 CE.

Here is the oldest complete copy of the gospels dating from 350 CE.    Mark ends at 16:8.    The rest of it was written by church officials and added in the 4th century.  This is also why the style of composition doesn't match the rest of the text.  There are also two different endings that were written.   One is called the "short ending" and the other is called, duh, the "long ending".  It depends on which Bible you have as to which one you have.



You can scroll through it.  It's written in Greek but has the common numbering system used in other Bibles.

https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_03

Btw, "Kata"  at the end translates to "according to".   "According to" does not mean "written by" or "authored by".  It was a term used when the early church did not know who wrote the text.  

Studies show most atheists know the far more about the bible than theists.   You're delusional, Chucky.

I don't have your problem with Scripture. I use the Authorized KJV. It eliminates all your problems.

HAHAHAHA!  So you refuse to go to the ancient source of your religion which is closest to the beginnings of your religion. That certainly tells me a lot.  Instead you're relying on the KJV which has severe translation errors in it.  The history of the many translation of the Bible is rife with errors.  


Here, learn a few things.

The Septuagint (LXX)  which was is a Greek translation of the first five books of the Talmud, was a commission by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Cleopatra's 4th or 5th  great grandfather) in the 3rd century BCE.  Ptolemy II used seventy-two Hebrew translators (six from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel) for his Library of Alexandria.  This happened during the golden ages of the Greek Ptolemy family's rule in Alexanderia, Egypt when money was flowing like water.  So the translators were very well paid and did a pretty good job.

The rest of the Talmud was translated 100 or so years later when the Ptolemy family was on the wane and money was very tight so the translators of the rest of the Talmud was low quality.  This results in the rest of the Bible being badly translated and this is most likely why the Isaiah 7:14 is not really about a "virgin" and has other anomalies in the translation.

The Library of Alexandria and most of the books were eventually burned, ironically when Julius Caesar, Cleopatra's boyfriend at the time, was putting down an uprising and threw flames at some boats in the harbor which caught fire and spread to the Library of Alexandria near the water and burned much of it down.  A couple centuries later Christians burned the rest of it down.  

So the Septuagint that your Bible is translated from went through several phases which were effected by war, politics, money, fire and human error.   And I'm not even including all the translation errors in the New Testament.  

What you're spouting is religious dogma, tenets, doctrine and credos which have nothing to do with reality.  The Bible is so chocked full of historical errors it's difficult to know where to start.   The Old Testament is basically a tribal book written in the form of a national foundation myth for it's people.  National foundation myths were common among other cultures. Akkadian Empire also wrote a foundation myth, so did the Hindus.

You didn't come here to learn or converse. You came here to preach. You disingenous liar, you.

[Astreja]

Which Jesus do you want me to quote? The One that said to the Sanhedrin, "you hypocrites and vipers, how shall you enter into the Kingdom of God?" 

Or do you want the One who said, If you believe not I am Him, you shall die in your sins."

It's a moot point.  I believe that sin is an imaginary crime against an imaginary victim.  I also believe that "the Kingdom of God" is fictional, and that there is no possibility whatsoever of eternal life.  You might as well be quoting from a Batman comic.