Would you, or not, consider saying this prayer with me?

it's said when he comes again he will be much different ....

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 19:11-16&version=KJV

-------------
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
-------------

all hail Jesus, the compassionate God

.

 

The author of Matt was not a disciple ? Neither was the Author of John.

Mark is the earliest story of Jesus and the only Gospel with a quazi legitimate connection to any of the disciples. The author was reputed to have been a student of Peter. All the other Gospels that come later use Mark as a source document. Mark is written roughly 65-80 AD 3-5 centuries after the death of Jesus.

The author of Matt is writing later (80-100 AD). Christianity is evolving and so are the stories. In Mark Jesus is deified at his Baptism. The author of Matt adds a "virgin birth" to the story. The divinity of Jesus is evolving.

In Mark there is no "Smoking Gun". The story ends with an empty tomb and the reader is left to wonder what happened to Jesus and whether or not the promise of the resurrection is real. There is no - Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death- defacto proof of resurrection. The author of Matt gives the smoking gun by adding the "Physical resurrection" stories. Matt also adds the genealogy back to David which serves to have Jesus fit into the Jewish Messianic tradition which existed at the time.

"Pope" Clement 1 95- 100 AD has no knowledge of any physical resurrection stories of Jesus. 1) either he had never heard of Matt, 2) The physical resurrection was not in Matt at the time, or 3) Matt was not yet written.

When we get to the gospel of John (written decades after Matt 100-120 AD) the divinity of Jesus evolves even further (pre-existence) but that is another story.

Religious adherents at the time of Jesus regularly engaged in pious fraud.

What about "Christian" religious adherents? Where they immune to pious fraud ? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia at least one was not.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm The link is long. To find the parts I am quoting go to: "Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St Luke" section.

So what does Matt omit ?

There are more phrases omitted by the author of Matt if you want to read further. This rational for use of artistic licence (aka pious fraud) is that Christianity is evolving along with this evolution so are the stories of Jesus and his divinity.

In Mark Jesus is depicted more man and less God. As the dogma about Jesus evolves, Jesus (the savior) is put on a more divine pedestal. The stories depicting Jesus with negative human attributes conflict with this dogma and so the author of Matt conveniently omits them from the new and revised gospel he is creating.

The rational of religious leaders at the time was (if it brings more people into the Church - the ends justify the means). The author of Matt was clearly not immune from such thinking.

 

You did not demonstrate that what I said was false. Just because you SAY it doesn't mean it's true.

Actually I agree....Because secular humanists tailor their moral code to fit their wants and desires. It's called moral relativity. It's easy to adhere to a lose moral code that is changeable.

No...MANY believers act morally and SOME act immorally. Amoral actions are done by those WITHOUT any kind of moral code which is another discussion.

 

I wasn't asking myself questions. I didn't 'tout' anything.

 

1- True Christians don't do fakery and fraud..-
"Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain.." (1 Peter 5:2-3)

2- it therefore follows that Mark wrote (or dictated) his gospel before he died and it wasn't written by somebody centuries later pretending to be him.
By coincidence the article below has just appeared in the Sunday Express newspaper; an old associate of the Beatles tells the reporter of the times he shared with them 50 years ago.
Just like Mark recounted his experiences with Jesus in his younger days..

 

All he needs to do is accept he's a sinner, seek God for forgiveness, accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and done. There is no works for you to do as all of our works are as filthy rags.

- - - Updated - - -

Hardly any fundamental Christian rejects science.

 

Wow! We actually agree on something...twice! It's one of those Bigfoot moments.

 

You did not give any support for your claim. There is no need to demonstrate that a naked claim is false.

Just because I claim the moon circling Pluto is made of green cheese ... does not make it true.

The principles on which the US was founded were derived from ideas which came out of the enlightenment - classical liberalism among other things (Social Contract, legitimacy of authority and so on). Such theories describe a secular basis for morals.

.

Perhaps some do but certainly not all as you presume. The idea that all secular humanists adhere to a loose moral code that is changeable and/or moral relativism is simply not true.

Who are these people you talking about who have no moral code ? Almost everyone (except serial killer types who have serious mental issues) .. has a moral code ??

 

Not sure what your point is here other than claiming the author of Matt was not a true Christian ?! You cherry picked one sentence out of my post and said something so void of meaning relative to my post ? Is this some kind of denial response ?

I have notice that when some religious adherents come across info that contradicts with belief it is like their minds kind of shut down and they start sputtering nonsense.

You are committing a logical fallacy. All that is said by the early Church fathers about the author of Mark was that he was a disciple of Peter.

We have this from Eusebius commenting about what Papias had written

So Mark is not recounting "his" experiences. At least not according to the early Church Fathers.

In any case. It was not the author of Mark who is shown to be guilty of Pious Fraud by the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was the author of Matt.

Seems like you misread my post.

 

I shall pray to no man - fictional or not - who condones slavery and applauds the master:

Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue.” And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.
Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2

 

This is what YOU wrote: "There are also many that act amorally" So...Why don't you answer your own question?

 

Sorry mate, I assumed you were just having fun with us by presenting us with a tangled furball of outrageous conspiracy theories for a joke, I like your sense of humour..

 

I was talking about religious people that act amorally as a talking point. Your claim was that without religion there is no morals. You have given no support for this claim.

and 2) This claim is demonstrably false.

 

Nice strawman ?! That Matt committed "pious fraud" came from Catholic Encyclopedia. (so it is not "my" theory) Strange that you conclude the Church is conspiring to shoot itself in the foot.

I like your cat pic and fur-ball analogy ! When fundamentalist religious adherents come across information and ideas that contradicts with belief it is like their minds shut down and they start sputtering nonsense as their mind's attempt to reject that idea like a fur-ball.

 

Personally I don't give a rat's ass what the Catholic church says because I don't need them or any other organised religion to do my thinking for me, and neither should anybody else..
Jesus said-"You have one teacher, me" (Matt 23:10)

 

Fair enough. I do not have much use for Christian religious dogma either as it does not much reflect the teachings of Jesus.

So what then is the primary teaching of Jesus ? ... The rock on which the foundation of his teachings rest.

Jesus calls it "The rule that sums up the law and the prophets". (Matt 7) James (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Church after his death) referred this rule as "The Royal Law". James 2

 

Yes, "Love thy neighbour" is a good starting point, but shouldn't be taken blindly and literally.
For example somebody asked Jesus "Who is my neighbour?" and he replied "everybody who does God's will".
which brings us to the question "What is God's will?", and there are a whole bunch of different opinions and interpretations which each of us has to decide for ourselves-
"Work out your own salvation.." (Philip 2:12 KJV) because running with the herds of organised religion and cults won't do us any good if they're all going up the spout.

Personally I think the key is that we have to like Jesus enough to want to bond/connect/mindmeld with him to get him inside our heads; it's easy enough because there's nothing to dislike about him, he was one tough cookie..

"On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20)


Christians are therefore "part-Jesus" and are generally cool, calm, goodnatured and fearless..

"My Christian faith has been such a backbone through so many difficult times. For me Christianity is about being strengthened"- SAS trooper Bear Grylls

 

"Love thy neighbor"- which expresses a general - have compassion for others - is a restatement of "Do unto others as you would have done to you" This the rule that Jesus says sums up the entire law and the prophets.

Jesus gives a couple of other examples "Ye who is without sin cast first stone" "Judge not lest you be judged". These give more better context than the simple "love neighbor as self".

This rule "do unto others" is far deeper than most people realize. It is the basis of the "Social Contract" and underlies Classical Liberalism (not to be confused with the modern term "liberal) which was the basis of the principles which underlie the Constitution and every other western democracy.

Inherent in this rule is the idea that individual rights and freedoms should not be accepted as something that Gov't should be allowed to mess with/ make laws against.

The basis of the social contract is that the people limit Gov't authority. Jefferson summed up "The legitimate power of Gov't extends "only" to acts which are injurious to others.

Here we have a meeting between Jesus and Classical liberalism (secular rational for law). The basis for law is the same.

Acts which are directly injurious to others (Murder, Rape, Theft and so on) are different from acts which are not (Adultery, Prostitution, Drugs, Sodomy and so on)

Applying the "Golden Rule" then goes to ways. 1) If you do not want someone killing you or your family, raping your wife or stealing your stuff" then do not do the same to others.

Conversely 2) If you do not want someone using force to have you worship a certain God, determine you what you can drink or eat or smoke, who you can lie with, then do not do the same to others.

We all agree on 1. That one is easy. Where Christians (and in particular Muslims) most often fail is not understanding 2). It is this lack of respect for individual rights and freedoms that is responsible for a tremendous amount of evil in the world.

 

Are you in grade school?

 

It's obviously safe to say, you have no idea what your even talking about.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

I'm sure with your reply, it will also be obvious, your wisdom has yet to see it's beginning. For I am sure your reply will give zero understanding, on the words thereof.

 

No need for such a prayer. This dude called JC came and told humanity what each of us need to do. And he was very clear on it, if you listen to what the taught. First, die to the psychological entity that is committing all of these sins, the ego, the self, and seek the kingdom which is within man's consciousness. Then love other people as you love yourself. Unconditional love. This, if followed by humanity, would end all poverty, end all wars and bring peace to this earth. Such a simple solution, that the ego of man will not allow to happen, but in a scant few human beings.

IF you want to attack JC for teaching this, then go and do it. But your alternative has never worked, and cannot work. For unless man changes, unless man is not ruled over and driven by a selfish ego, there will always be poverty, harm done to others out of personal selfishness, and perpetual war.

When JC was asked how or what to pray, he gave a very simple prayer. The first part of it prayed that God's will be done on earth as in heaven. God's will is done through human beings, that is how it is done on this earth. God's will is to love one another. People who love do not kill other human beings or hurt them out of selfishness.

And yet people will distort what JC was about, as the author of the OP did here. But he does not want to understand what this is really about. For he loves his ego, he loves his self image, he loves this thing he calls self. And he will not die to it, not ascend it, not kill it. For it is the core of his gratification. But unless that happens, he will never know peace, and only know suffering, if he lives long enough. And he will continue to contribute to what creates war on earth, hatred, greed, envy, for he is a part of that. And obviously he, and others love that. It is all that they know.

JC tried to teach people the way out. And the way out, is inwardly, not outwardly. But it is really far too gratifying to hate instead to love. That is what the ego creates and what the ego is about. That which arose in mythical eden and has been both a curse and the creator of technology, the ego, the ability to separate yourself apart from the universe and conceptually stand outside it, has created this brutal world, and only transcending this entity will ever save man and humanity. JC told man how, and it is up to the each of us to either do it, or live as we have lived since we climbed down from the trees and saw self consciousness arise. Your choice, so stop trying to blame someone else for your own stubbornness.

 

Interesting interpretation and assumptions.
Unfortunately I am well aware of that impotent threat having been raised Catholic, in a Catholic school and read the Bible several times as required.
And, I have complete understanding of "what I'm talking about" and even what you are.....I simply do not agree with it.

I feel no need to insult your dogmatic persona as you do my lack of one.......but hey, go ahead as you obviously think it is the Christian thing to do.

 

You was tricked!!! The Pope is the enemy. The Pope claims to be Jesus Christ hidden under a veil of flesh. He also claims to have the power to forgive sins. He also claims to be able to change, and interpret the word of God, as he sees fit.

 

I see....so instead we should default to YOU as the spokesman for this particular God?

Do you also have this direct link to any of the other ones, or are they all fake?

 

Not me, the Bible!