Part 27 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Warren quote.

Bishop James Pike called the virgin birth of Christ a “primitive myth” and said that Joseph was probably Jesus’ real father

“The whole scheme of a supernatural being coming down from heaven to ‘save’ mankind from sin ... is frankly incredible to man ‘come of age.’” Bishop John Robinson

In 1986, Anglican Bishop David Jenkins got a standing ovation from the general synod of the Church of England when he defended his doubts about the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ (Associated Press, July 7, 1986). Jenkins called the God of the Bible “a cultic idol” (Ecumenical Press Service, July 16-21, 1986).

In 1985, the Jesus Seminar was founded with the help of Episcopalians, including Marcus Borg of Oregon State University. The Seminar claims that Jesus spoke only about 20% of the things attributed to him in the New Testament and that the Jesus described in the Bible is largely a fiction. They claim he wasn’t born of a virgin, didn’t walk on the water, didn’t rise bodily from the dead, and had no intention of starting a new Christian religion. They also claim that there was no Jewish trial of Jesus before the crucifixion and the Jewish crowd did not participate in his condemnation.

In 1994, it was reported by the Sunday Times (July 31) in London that at least 100 Anglican priests are atheists who do not believe in “an external, supernatural God.”

Well done WarRen for your contribution.

 

Perhaps you can explain his contention better. Have at it. I thought I did address it. He seemed to be trying to make a theory, something that it wasn't.

 

Like how rubbing pigeon blood on someone will cure them of leprosy?

Oh wait, that doesn't work at all.

 

Good comeback point treworw! Thanks for your contributions into making this pathetic thread almost tolerable!

 

Quote Originally Posted by WanRen View Post

Great. You admit thart God revealed to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians about circumcision long before the Hebrews were around.

 

No excuses thanks to the Holy Bible people now understood the medical and hygienic aspects of circumcision for others it will always be about perversion.

 

That is why the JW were wrong just like Muslims were wrong to claim that it was a look a like of Jesus that was crucified and certain individuals who claim that Jesus was not crucified on a cross. The fact and reality is that Jesus was crucified on a cross not a straight beam, a single pole or a fig tree.

 

We know it was a cross because it is mention in the Bible and there were several eye witnesses during that time and we know what a cross looks like. I am surprise that you don't know what a cross looks like.

 

That is what they used to do until Christianity introduced modern medicine by separating witchcraft medicine from modern medicine.

 

That is what your God's supposed word says is supposed to cure leprosy. Nice you to admit that your God was wrong.

 

Priests that are atheist? Well that says one of a few different things. Such as:
It is an oxymoron;
It is true that Atheists are religious and do practice religion;
it is shown that the Anglican religion is not a religion that worships God;
it is shown that the news media cannot be trusted with their opinionated writings;
and the list can probably go on and on.

 

Show me where the cross is described as you say? It isn't. Cross is 'crux' in Latin - meaning 'a frame for execution'. No particular shape. You use the modern definition, not the original. The Romans used 5 diferent 'frames' as described in my previous post.

 

Our God Jesus Christ was right leprosy is a curable disease and that people inflicted with it should not be neglected and outcast.

 

I already did John 19: 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
Are you saying that ancient Rome use the word cross not knowing what it is?
Romans use different type of crucifixion either in beams, in poles, T shape, X shape or the cross shape.
To say cross mean what it is an upright beam or pole with a transverse beam across
Show me where in history that describe the cross as not a cross?

 

Oh for heavens sake. I gave you the Roman definition of cross 2000 years ago. A frame for execution. I've even shown you the shapes of the frames use. One is a simple stake on which criminals were crucified. This would give you the wounds as described in the Bible. Use your Brain.

From Wiki
The word cross was introduced to English in the tenth century as the term for the instrument of the torturous execution of Christ (gr. stauros', xy'lon), gradually replacing rood, ultimately from Latin crux, via Old Irish cros. Originally, both "rood" and "crux" referred simply to any "pole," the later shape associated with the term being based in church tradition, rather than etymology. The word can nowadays refer to the geometrical shape unrelated to its Christian significance from the fifteenth century. "Crux" in Latin means cross, and it was a Roman device of torture on which they nailed a person to a wooden cross, an act called crucifying, and let the person die of asphyxiation while hanging from the cross.

As the Romans 'coined' the word crux, translated cross as stated above, they certainly knew what they were talking about.

Unlike you. You have again repeated what I have told you as though you knew it. Pathetic.

 

I am very sure that the early Romans have enough brains and are not pathetic to know what is and what is not a cross.
It is a good thing that everything factual has been recorded as part of true history.

“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

the definition you cited is the common english definition, not the scientific definition. According to a scientific definition, evolution is a law, but we no longer use the term law anymore, so we call it a theorem. But from an evidential standpoint, it is as strong as any law.

 

In the Babylonian Talmud the Jews boast that they killed Jesus using five different methods. They really wanted him dead. They don't say anything about the Romans crucifying Jesus.

 

Well technically you got it half right, John does believe that Jesus Christ existed and he does buy into the darwinism theory.

Let me tell you a little about John here, he is viewed as a liberal Christian. He is not just a liberal but he is an atheist in disguise, one who hides behind a collar. This doesn't mean he will say he doesn't believe in God, he does. But it is a god of his own image, in fact he is reinventing Christianity.

John's writings and teachings are not apologetic for the Christian faith, they criticize the faith, all of it and so they are anti-biblical and antichrist.

It would be safe to say that John is not a true Christian, he is essentially a rebel of the Christian faith, an "impostor" of the faith. His actions are rebellious from the faith.

He is a fraudulent Christian, in other words he is not a true Christian.

Why do you resort to personal attacks? What's the reason behind it?

 

But he was a Bishop. Those I quoted were ordained. So WarRen has an answer to his request.

Why do you keep supporting WarRen with his lying and distortions?

He even claims to know the type of cross on which Jesus was crucified. The Bible tells us nothing.

 

Absolutely pathetic post. Crux (cross) comes from the Roman.They 'invented the word' to mean a device on which execution could take place. That was a stake. Sometimes it had crosspieces, sometimes not.


Now that is written in History, whether you like it or not. I've given you the 5 various crosses - which include the single stake. Now tell me where in the Bible it says what cross was used - or shut up.

 

3 peas in a pod.
PF's version of a trinity.

 

Do you recognize that the creative god of the Bible is the force behind the ever unfolding Reality which frame by frame, defines Existence for us?
Do you see the son-of-Reality as Truth,... imaged exactly like the Reality and defining it for mankind, who is the only life form capable of understand and accepting this holy state of Truth???

 

The only explainable trinity idea defines god as the creator of Reality moment to moment, which has a son-like quality called Truth,... a thing which men can grasp and define god by such means.

 

Reality would be key then.............