Comments
1,653
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Badges
Xcaliber
Recent Posts
First,debunked because Hitler did not practice the teachings of Jesus, therefore he was not a Christian. Secondly, by his own words. He admitted that he hated Christianity. GET OVER IT! And Stalin is still an atheist murderer! (16 hrs ago | post #817)
a Question for Christians about Immorality
Why are you coming into this Christian forum where we non-Jehovah's Witnesses are all unsaved according to Jehovah's witnesses? Why would you be interested in our advice? (16 hrs ago | post #31)
Hitler's been debunked as a Christian numerous times. Remember Stalin's atheism was responsible for him murdering an estimated 60 million people. Again, Hitler's private conversations make it clear that his public proclamations were nothing but propaganda. He really hated Christianity. GET OVER IT! (Saturday | post #806)
This dating is based on some scholars who try to decipher Zoroastrian writings in order to place a date as to when written. However, "direct Zoroastrian tradition, as well as contemporary scholars, place him between 660 and 583 B.C., and describes him as a reformer who sought to change the religion of Bactria, in southwest Asia, which appears to have been primarily a worship of the forces of nature." Today, the Parsi community, which is the larger of the two major Zoroastrian communities still maintain that he lived between 660 and 583 B.C. So, putting him (assuming he existed) between 1500 and 1000 BCE is certainly a claim that is not uniformly accepted and certainly can be considered speculative revisionist dating. (Friday | post #28)
Palestinian Christians issue theological call for an end to Isr...
Any of you Jew-hating Christian-phobics who put the clueless bulbs next to my above post want to tell men where I'm wrong. If there was a country or territory called Palestine when Jesus was born or at anytime in history, please provide a link so you can educate me. Otherwise, I will just consider those who don't want to accept the historical fact that there has never been a Palestine to be Jew-haters and/or Christian-phobics. That is, it's usually the Jew-haters that don't want to recognize the fact that there was never a nation of Palestine since it undermines the phony Arab claims that so-called Palestinians are entitled to Israeli land, including Gaza and the West Bank. By the way, the so-called Palestinians of today (really phony Arabs) never wanted to be called Palestinians until Yasser Arafat suddenly accepted the term "Palestinian " after he finally realized that Arabs would never defeat Israel by force. Thereafter is when he suddenly became a "Palestinian ". lol! What a fraud!! There is no such thing as "PALESTINIAN CHRISTIANS"! The are ARAB CHRISTIANS at most! (Friday | post #551)
Palestinian Christians issue theological call for an end to Isr...
There was no such thing as "Palestinian Sheperds" when Jesus was born since there was no Palestine. The name "Palestine " is rooted in the renaming of Israel by the Roman Emperor Hadrian in about 135 A.D. (Friday Dec 18 | post #545)
No one knows for sure when Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) lived. Some say 500-600 B.C. others claim 1500 to 1200 B.C. One thing for sure, we know very little about Zoroaster and what he taught. What we are told today about what he taught is nothing but conjecture in the form of modern Zoroastrianism since The only source for Zarathustra’s teachings is the Avesta, and "the oldest copies we have of the Avesta date from the 13th Century AD." Accordingly, Christians can argue the there is no historical support that Zoroaster taught pre-Christian-like theology. What I also find interesting is that anti-Christian skeptics will cite Zoroaster as evidence that Christianity borrowed from other religions, however, they fail to recognize the lack of historical support and the fact that the only Zoroastrianism writings came well after both the Hebrew scriptures and New Testament were written. So, the claims concerning Zoroastrianism are obviously unsubstantiated claims, which is precisely the same thing that anti-Christians contend about Christianity. LOL! (Friday Dec 18 | post #22)
(continued from aboveThe problem is that you want to expand our discussion beyond Christian theology. Your initial question which started our discussion was a challenge for me to show you where Jesus said, “I am the Christ”—Right? However, as I point out above, you have deceptively attempted to bring into focus other irrelevant arguments that are not germane to your initial challenge, including the Jewish view (as in Judaism) as to who the Messiah will/would be—Right? And obviously, you continue along the same lines here. LOL! (Wednesday Dec 16 | post #676)
(continued from aboveWOW! The NT writers did NOT redefine the word “Messiah”. The main thrust of the NT writers’ message is the gospel of Jesus and to spread the good news that He is the Messiah. Just because you don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah doesn’t mean the NT writers redefined what Messiah means. lol! You’re grasping at straws! Clearly, your redefined the word “Messiah” argument is based solely on your agenda to undermine the NT writers’ testimony that Jesus is the Hebrew Messiah. You have gone from asking where Jesus said, “I am the Christ”, to attacking the word “Christ” as not being synonymous with the word Messiah. In other words, you went from believing the word “Christ” is synonymous with “Messiah” to claiming it’s not in one felt swoop. For if you didn’t believe the word “Christ” means Messiah from the beginning then you would not have asked me to show you where Jesus said, “I am the Christ”—Right? Once you realized that I successfully pointed out where Jesus claimed to be both the Messiah and the “Christ” in John 4:25-26, you responded by stating that since the word Christ is in parenthesis, it only means it was added. I agreed, and then pointed out that the word Christ is also stated in John 4:29, thus showing that both words Messiah and Christ are mentioned only 4 verses apart because they mean the same thing and refer to Jesus. This is when you started with your charade of disputing what the word “Christ” means, which entailed claiming that the Hebrew lexicon doesn’t contain the word Christ, therefore, it can’t be synonymous with Messiah. When I disputed the lexicon claim resorted to arguing that the Hebrews don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah because He didn’t fulfil all prophecy that it is believed he Messiah would fulfill. You also made general assertions that the “Hebrew word Messiah meant something different to the Hebrews, i.e., “a human being, rather than a God-man”. However, I then pointed out that the word “Christ” is only a 17th English rendering of the Greek word “Khristos”, meaning the “anointed one”, which is a translation of the Hebrew word “Messiah”. However, you glossed right over this fact and instead chose to try to undermine “Christ” by asserting the Hebrews/Jewish position concerning who the Messiah would be. So you have shifted your focus more than once in order to expand your attacks against Jesus and the New Testament’s testimony that He is the Christ/MessiahAre you are claiming that Jesus warned His disciples about people who would come and falsely claim that He is the Christ? (smile) (Wednesday Dec 16 | post #675)
AGAIN, for the third or fourth time, what the Hebrew Messiah means to Hebrews/Jews (as in Judaism) is a totally different topic—Right? Again, you’re trying to derail the main topics at hand, which is what Jesus said in Matthew 24:5, as well as His claim to be the Messiah. Again, it’s not up to YOU to define (or re-define) New Testament words. It’s not about the NT writers trying to redefine the word “Christ”, rather, it’s about YOU who are trying to use red herring arguments in order to try to redefine what the word Messiah means. If you were truly interested in truthful discussion concerning the NT, you would not be making bogus arguments, such as the word “Christ” does mean the same thing as Messiah. Obviously, this argument is meant to expand the discussion beyond the NT—Right? (smileYou bring the Hebrew lexicon into the discussion in order to make a bogus claim that the word “Christ” doesn’t refer to the Hebrew Messiah and you claim I’m putting words into your mouth. LOL! (Wednesday Dec 16 | post #674)
Foremost, as I have stated, Jesus would have used the word “Messiah” not Christ since “Christ” is a 17th century word—Yes? The words “Christ” and “Messiah” are absolutely synonymous since the word “Christ” is simply a rendering of the word Messiah in a different language. The meaning of the word is not determined by you, rather it’s determined by what the word is referring and its given definition. So, you obviously don’t accept the word “Christ” as Messiah because you are obviously will not accept the meaning that the writers/translator s assigned to the word. Also, you’re giving perspective? I thought your only interest is to read what the Bible says—Right? If such is truly the case, then why are you ignoring John 1:41, which makes it clear the word Messiah is being translated as “Christ”? John 1:41 (New International VersionJohn 1:41 (English Standard VersionObviously, your “perspective” demands that you ignore what the Bible actually says so as to put your own spin on what you’re reading. To this end, as you can see the translators of the English Version of the New Testament substituted the word “Christ” for the word “christos” and Messiah or Messias, however, you ignore this glaring fact! (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #661)
(continued from aboveWhat remarks are you taking aboutAgain, in order to accept your interpretation of Matthew 24:5, you would have to contend that Jesus did not declare that He was the Messiah in John 4:25. Your claim that Jesus was warning others to not accept any claim that He is the Christ is what’s bogus here. LOL! Since the word Christ means Messiah and Jesus declared to the Samaritan woman that He is the Messiah in John 4:25, your contention that Jesus was warning other to not be deceived by those who would come in the future claim that He is the Christ is nonsense. Again, is it your contention that Jesus was not telling the truth when he claimed to be the Messiah in John 4:25? (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #659)
Yes, the word “Christ” means the same thing as the Hebrew word “Messiah” because it’s simply the English rendering of Messiah. The word Christ in Matthew 24:5 is an English rendering of the word Messiah—just as the word “christos” is a Greek rendering of the word Messiah. Accordingly, to disavow “Christ” simply because you don’t want to recognize that the writers of the New Testament used “christos” instead of Messiah is ridiculous. Further, to drag the Hebrew lexicon into this discussion shows that you’re not interested in giving New Testament words such as “Christ” their intended meanings. Why? Obviously, your agenda is to dispute that Jesus could have been the Hebrew Messiah even from the standpoint of Christian theology. Obviously, if you were truly interested in reading the New Testament and accepting the intended meanings of its words, we wouldn’t be having this discussion—RightNo t to be deceived about WHATJohn 1:41 (English Standard VersionObviously, your “perspective” demands that you ignore what the Bible actually says so as to put your own spin on what you’re reading. To this end, as you can see the translators of the English Version of the New Testament substituted the word “Christ” for the word “christos” and Messiah or Messias, however, you ignore this glaring fact! (Tuesday Dec 15 | post #658)
(continued from aboveIf your claim was really based on what the scriptures actually say then you would admit that your interpretation of Matthew 24:5 is a contradiction of John 4:25-26, where Jesus claims to be the Messiah—-which you admit! So again, is it your contention that Jesus contradicted himself according to your interpretation of Matthew 24:5, where you claim Jesus warned others to not believe anyone who claims that He is the Messiah? In other words, in John 4:25-26, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, however, according to you, in Matthew 24:5, Jesus warned other to not believe anyone who claims He is the Messiah—A contradiction—Righ t?! Again, your interpretation of Matthew 24:5 is obviously nonsense. NEXTWell, your claim regarding Matthew 24:5 is obviously bogus. Anyone with even basic Bible knowledge can see right through your ridiculous nonsense. You think you’re so clever! lol! Your claim is that in Matthew 24:5, Jesus warned His disciples to not believe the others who would come in His name claiming that JESUS is the Christ—RightGee! More game playing by YOU! Here, in this post of yours, you simply repeat Matthew 24:5 as though your only argument is that Matthew 24:5 says, Jesus warned His disciple not to be deceived, because many would come in His name, claiming that He was the Christ, and deceive many.” However, you failed to also say that based on your reading of Matthew 24:5, Jesus warned His disciples to not believe other who come claiming that He (Jesus) is the Messiah—Right? So try to finish your story instead of trying to razzle-dazzle the audience with what you think is clever debating tactics. lol! Your tactics are nothing but deceptive attempts to win brownie points, though you know your are wrong. NEXT! (Monday Dec 14 | post #650)
Looking for more people on Topix? Browse the Family Album and see who's saying what!|
Reach local customers. Engage a specific demographic. Maximize business-to-business opportunities. Topix can deliver your message.
|
Copyright ©2009 Topix LLC
