Just a thought...

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Catholicism is just another word for the church so don't be twisting my words. Nice try though. Again, the Catholic church and Catholicism couldn't be further away from Christianity at this stage, and their getting worse.

I would say 99% of the Catholics I know use contraception, have sex before marriage, don't go to mass, use the lords name in vein, commit adultery, steal, lie, the list goes on... So most Catholics I know are not practicing Catholics, that was all I said in my post, I never said they were not Catholic.

Whether or not Catholicism is miles away from Christianity is irrelevant - You just defended beliefs and surely you are not denying Catholicism is a belief . At this stage you are even contradictiing yourself with your constants attacks on catholicism .

So why is ok for you to indulge in a bit of catholic bashing and not others ?

It seems it is fair game with you to attack some beliefs but not others - bit hypocritical of you to berate others- no ?

I am still waiting on an answer on the Islamic cartoons question plese

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think if the interpretation of that commandment were as simple as that, then everyone, absolutely everyone would be in hell. Jesus would be there (he got angry at least once in the bible and threw a table over), the pope (Ratzinger must have thought bad thoughts at this stage), everyone. Were all F**KED!!!

You may say I'm taking quite a simple interpretation of the bible there but a) there are many Christians out there who this so it is not an unusual interpretation (creationists for example, you must consider then loony no?) and b) once you start picking and choosing what parts of the bible one interprets literately which parts figuratively etc. with absolutely no basis for choosing then you get into a whole other heap of nonsense as you can see from earlier in the thread with the debate of whatsup vs everyone.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Going by historical records, we have a good idea that a man called Jesus was indeed Crucified, and that he was considered important by some of the Jews in the area.
There are no records (outside of the Bible) that reference anything else about him.

But we also have historical records relating to Mohammed and Buddha. So I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.

Not meaning to split hairs here but there is some conflicting evidence regarding Jesus. His existence fine, but his death is a different story.

There is some evidence from both biblical and non-biblical sources that Jesus was not crucified but rather stoned to death and his body hung on a tree.

As much as we might be led to believe that the order of the books in the new testament is some kind of chronological sequence, modern textual scholarship tells us that this isn't the case. Putting the books in order of when they were composed sheds new light on how Jesus died.

The earliest book of the new testament according to scholarly consensus is Thessalonians which doesn't mention Jesus being crucified at all. This is an uncontroversial idea since people who may have been reading this book may have been witnesses of Jesus' death. However as we move through the new testament things begin to change.

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."
1 Peter 2:24

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.""
Galatians 3:13

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead - whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree."
Act 5:30

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree."
Acts 10:39

"When they had carried out all that they had written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb."
Acts 13:29

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover! Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says: “Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'"
Sanhedrin 43a


Now from a linguistic perspective it is possible to argue for either crucifixion or hanging but when we take into consideration the other evidence from the bible we see that a literal interpretation of hanging on a tree fits the available evidence better than crucifixion and it answers more questions than it raises.


The first question we have to ask is why would Jesus have been hung on a tree anyway?


The answer to this lies in the passage from Galatians above when it speaks of being cursed.



"If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is hung on a tree, you must not leave the body hanging on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse."
Deuteronomy 21:22-23


What capital offense could Jesus therefore be guilty of? Well the Sanhedrin quote above mentions two charges against Jesus, sorcery and blasphemy (enticement to apostacy). When we examine the bible we can see that there is evidence to support both charges.


Sorcery


Sorcery is a capital offense as detailed in Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:27.



The evidence for a sorcery charge comes from the gospel of Luke. Luke 11 depicts Jesus performing an exorcism on a mute man:


"Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, “By Beelzebul, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebul. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder. “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.” As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here."
Luke 11:14-31


When we look at the story we see Jesus being accused of conspiring with Satan to exorcise the demons from the mute man. Jesus manages to talk the crowd around but then at the end of the passage he makes a cryptic final remark making reference to "The Queen of the South" and Solomon. The Queen of the South is a reference to the Queen of Sheba and the connection made with Solomon is a reference to a passage in 1 Kings 10:


"When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relationship to the Lord, she came to test Solomon with hard questions. Arriving at Jerusalem with a very great caravan —with camels carrying spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stones—she came to Solomon and talked with him about all that she had on her mind. Solomon answered all her questions; nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her. When the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon and the palace he had built, the food on his table, the seating of his officials, the attending servants in their robes, his cupbearers, and the burnt offerings he made at the temple of the Lord, she was overwhelmed. She said to the king, “The report I heard in my own country about your achievements and your wisdom is true. But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half was told me; in wisdom and wealth you have far exceeded the report I heard. How happy your people must be! How happy your officials, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom! Praise be to the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and placed you on the throne of Israel. Because of the Lord’s eternal love for Israel, he has made you king to maintain justice and righteousness.” And she gave the king 120 talents of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious stones. Never again were so many spices brought in as those the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon. (Hiram’s ships brought gold from Ophir; and from there they brought great cargoes of almugwood and precious stones. The king used the almugwood to make supports for the temple of the Lord and for the royal palace, and to make harps and lyres for the musicians. So much almugwood has never been imported or seen since that day.) King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba all she desired and asked for, besides what he had given her out of his royal bounty. Then she left and returned with her retinue to her own country."
1 Kings 10:1-13


Now here is where it gets interesting. Firstly, throughout Jewish literature like the Zohar and Talmud there are references to the Queen of Sheba as a sorceress. There are references to her as a djinn and even comparisons to the demon Lilith. Secondly, we also know from Jewish literature that Solomon possessed power over demons and may have even used demons to build the first temple. This power comes from the Seal of Solomon described in legend. Now while the literal translation of the passage above depicts the Queen of Sheba testing Solomon with hard questions, there has been some suggestion that this encounter was actually a contest between two sorcerers with Solomon achieving the mastery. In light of the passage from Luke above this makes sense. Jesus who has just cast out a demon closes his speech to the crowd by saying that "one greater than Solomon is here." Any witness to this event may have rightly or wrongly come away with the impression that Jesus was a sorcerer.




Blasphemy


The blasphemy charge is of course self-evident with direct reference being made to it in the gospels like Mark 14:64


"Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death."


However going beyond the direct references to blasphemy we can see a strong case against Jesus for blasphemy and enticement to apostacy.


Among the examples of this are:


Jesus violating the Sabbath


"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Matthew 12:1-8




Jesus violating the dietary laws


" “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"

Mark 7:18-19




Both of these charges, supported by biblical evidence as they are, are supported by the extra-biblical evidence from the Sanhedrin (which also mentions the execution taking place on Passover eve just as the synoptic gospels do).


As I said earlier, the narrative of Jesus being hung on a tree fits the available evidence better than the traditional crucifixion account because it leaves less unanswered questions. I'll deal with some of those below.


Firstly, when Jesus's body is taken down, it is placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This raises the question of why. Why would Joseph hand over the use of his tomb to bury Jesus. In Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea is seen asking for Jesus' body:


"Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body."


The passage describes Joseph as a member of the Council (Sanhedrin). Why would such a person commit such a good deed after condemning Jesus to death. Mark 16:55 describes how the whole of the Sanhedrin tried in vain to find witnesses against Jesus.


"Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not."


(It's also interesting to note how the fruitless search for witnesses in Mark's gospel is diametrically opposed to the description in Sanhedrin 43a).


Using the crucifixion narrative the actions of Joseph make little sense but when we consider the hanging story we get a more coherent explanation:


"If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is hung on a tree, you must not leave the body hanging on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse."
Deuteronomy 21:22-23


A member of the Sanhedrin who would have been concerned with obeying the commandments and the law would have been sure to follow every ritual detail to the letter. Furthermore, the hanging story goes some way to offering an explanation for the empty tomb. Having fulfilled his obligation to the law it is reasonable to suggest that Joseph simply had his servants remove Jesus' body once the Sabbath was over and rebury the body somewhere else.



Another question which is answered by the hanging narrative is why would Jesus even have been crucified by the Romans in the first place? Firstly, the Sanhedrin were opposed to Roman rule so why would the Romans have done them any favours and executed a thorn in their side. Secondly, the charge levelled against Jesus in the gospels of blasphemy carries a sentence of death by stoning:


"Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death."
Leviticus 24:13-16


Why didn't the Sanhedrin just stone Jesus on the spot? Blasphemy was hardly a crime punishable by Roman standards and the Sanhedrin are mentioned in the Bible as having stoned blasphemers to death at that time. In Acts 6, we see see the death of Stephen at the hands of the Sanhedrin on charges of blasphemy just a year after Jesus had died.


In conclusion, I think there is a solid case to be made that the account of Jesus' death as traditionally portrayed may be a later invention and that Jesus was actually stoned to death for teaching and acting contrary to the teachings of the old testament.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Pedophilia is deserving of ridicule, it harms people. Catholicism is deserving of ridicule, it harms people. Christianity is harmless so please don't ridicule it.

Presumably though anyone who defines themselves as Christian believes in the teachings of Christ which include a belief in hell. Being believers in hell, they must then surely not want their children to go to hell. Seeing as they believe in the Christian version of hell and what one must do to avoid going there, they would presumably instruct their children in the teachings of Jesus because if you don't accept Jesus into your heart, then you're going to hell. So children are brought up believing in this notion which is not only a severe case of indoctrination, but logically speaking, implies to children that for example if they have any friends who are non-Christian, they are going to burn in eternal hell after they die, even if they live a completely good life otherwise.

Want to tell us again how Christianity is harmless?