neocortex:
Watch out ,the children of holy spirit will soon descend on you.
It is obvious that christianity owe its existence to paul, a dubious
but smart character who saw the potential of using christianity to
swindle the gentiles.

johnydon22:
Paul was a smart mouth though i give him that. . . . He didn't know anybody called Jesus but was quick to attack the people who does verbally. . .Disagreed with peter and John most times even though John and peter were more or less the closest to the Jesus and should know him better.

The smart mouth even gave two contradicting accounts of his alleged arrest by a spirity Jesus on two different occasions.

Always reports himself as an apostle (This is an exclusive title for the 12) which was a big lie, Paul was never an apostle even after the death of Judas he was replaced by Mathias.

He had contradiction and conflicting ideas with the apostles. . . Paul really made a mess of the newly emerged Jewish Sect Jesus apostles started

johnydon22:
Paul was a smart mouth though i give him that. . . . He didn't know anybody called Jesus but was quick to attack the people who does verbally. . .Disagreed with peter and John most times even though John and peter were more or less the closest to the Jesus and should know him better.

The smart mouth even gave two contradicting accounts of his alleged arrest by a spirity Jesus on two different occasions.

Always reports himself as an apostle (This is an exclusive title for the 12) which was a big lie, Paul was never an apostle even after the death of Judas he was replaced by Mathias.

He had contradiction and conflicting ideas with the apostles. . . Paul really made a mess of the newly emerged Jewish Sect Jesus apostles started

bytemeister:



had a heated argument wif an aggressive theist today, dude got me rili vexd,cudnt talk or reason outsyd d box widou endn accordn to d Bible, got to a point I wished u were dere to butres my points cos waheva Bible verse I read I don't cram d chapter,asked if dere was any proof apart from d Bible of Jesus' existence and he kept rantn nonsense and he asked if I understand d word God and I told him plainly it's a supreme being based on any religion belief and he went lyk "even litlle kids in d church wil tel u God is word" I Lafd rili hard and told him das wah dey are bin fed and argument went on and on til I eventually got tired of his nonsense

bytemeister:


my bad

allowe introduce myself....
am a Muslim born agnostic(bin agnostic even b4 I got to learn of d word)

...as a child I had issues wif authority do technically iand Jesus Neva got along cos I'd always wonder y evry church has a mysterious white bearded man in posters

...I was brought up wif tho I Neva blivd any of d stories (wudnt stop askn my Arabic teachers question lyk "does muh'd has any family left on earth?,aw did people learn to cal god "God" and all kiddish questions lyk dat)

bt I must so scared of hell as a child,so scared I shed tears wen teachers tel me if I kip askn questions lyk DAT God'll throw me in hell and I Neva ask dose questions again out of fear and it rili affected me I lit matches to burn masf literally so as to knw aw hel wil feel lyk thus making me kip wateva tot I av in me and today I find it hard expresn masf(even in ma native tongue).....

love ur posts/topics and trust me av always want to say sumtn bt lyk I sed I find it hard expresn masf...adios bro

johnydon22:


Please i am sorry once again for giving you the impression that i left your post unanswered, that wasn't my intent.

The truth is you don't really need to cram the bible verses to buttress your point to him, as a religionist it is a normal thing for someone to discard every other source of knowledge deduction in order to uphold their religious dogmas.

Some even go as far as rejecting scientific postulations.

Obviously you had a running with a fanatic who from your post don't even know the meaning of a theistic God concept.

My advice is that for the fact that you are the quiet type, just don't engage people out there.

Belief deals with emotion and so people tend to get emotional unsettled when you reject or refute their beliefs.

This emotional tilt makes them potential harm to you who reject or ridicule their beliefs. . So brother i think you should just let them pass.

johnydon22:
Lmao. . here cracked me up but it so true. . most people become agnostics without even knowing there is a word for their stance.

Agnosticism is more like untold atheism...But it is an open minded position and that is why i always prize myself to be Agnostic too



It is only a shame when humans cannot stand up against authority when it goes against a societal good.

Most renowned men in history never conformed to the dictates of authority...



Like you must have seen in many of my posts religions thrives on a canoe paddled by ignorance of the masses.

They encourage incuriosity, discourage questions and applaud blind faith and belief and these are dangerous to the intellectual growth of our species.

Have you ever heard someone say "Knowledge is power?"

That is true, Knowledge is power and take this power from the masses and you will have the power to control them, give it to the masses and you loose your control.

Religions use this means to bolt adherents in sheepish ignorance and so conforms to their dictates.

That is why religions are mostly against absolute knowledge or independent approximations or curiosity because if you take the knowledge back from the authority they loose their hold on you..

This has been one of the major disturbing aspects of religions.

Threat of violence and torture to ensure submission and conformity. . . This disturbing cankerwormous idea has eaten deep into our society and has instilled unwarranted fear in our young one.

Has helped kill the intellectual curiosity of the young ones and as such is a societal vice that should be refuted.

One of the most disturbing ideas of such religions is that it presents a wrathful, vengeful angry, judgemental, egoistic, narcissistic, grudge bearing, childish, sadistic and barbaric God that would burn billions because they went against it's command or wounded his ego or did not believe in it (Either cus of lack of evidence or believes in a different concept)

It makes people to be okay with such ideas that people tend to find this type of egoistic sadism and chronic barbarism as a good trait to possess..



Thank you bro. .

Please like i said earlier i never ignored this post..

Have a good one

PRINCESSO2:
2 Peter 3 15And account that the. longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Sarassin:

In the Christian NT there is a concerted effort to minimise and downplay the Jewish antecedents of Yeshua ben Yosef or Jesus of Nazareth and the religious movement he inspired. A non-Christian studying the NT for the first time would be hard pressed to discern the Jewish cultural backgrounds and influences that must have informed Jesus the man.

Jesus is presented in the Hellenized NT as an androgynous anodyne creation devoid of earthly influence only ever speaking in heavenly aphorisms. The facts that he had a mother, father, brothers and sisters, kept Jewish laws, would have had a Bar-Mitzveh, and like a good god-fearing Jew probably married e.t.c., are all earthly nuances that have been largely written out or under-developed to preserve the Hellenistic illusion and vision of a worldly messiah. The Gospel of John quite happily makes the far-fetched inference that Jesus simply pre-existed. The entire life and death of Jesus including his religious movement is cast in an aspect far removed from the reality of a first century Palestinian Jew. Why?

In real terms we know next to nothing about what Jesus actually taught, possibly the only authentic teaching of Jesus was the “Sermon on the Mount” what is left is a disparate litany of quotes and miracles attributed to Jesus, mostly long after his death and certainly not enough to form a religion. How is it that in the immediate aftermath of the death of Jesus the NT is thrust into the Pauline corpus? What happened to the early religious movement that Jesus founded that was subsequently led (upon election) by James his brother?

There is no dispute that James was the blood brother of Jesus, biblical as well as historical sources attest this (although Eusebius tries to obfuscate the matter) similarly Simeon Clophas was a cousin and these two as well as Peter were the guardians of the teachings of Jesus, more to the point, the aforementioned two were family!

Paul, author of the Pauline corpus on the other hand was entirely unknown in religious circles, he was a distant member of the Herodian family a Sadducee henchman (enforcer) a persecutor of followers of Jesus by his own admission. He claimed to have studied under the renowned Gamaliel in Jerusalem, it was a lie.

How is it that the doctrine of Saul or Paul as he later came to be known, a proven liar and an avowed enemy of James the brother of Jesus came to take precedence in the Christian canons over that of the people who were closest to Jesus, James in particular?

The story of the stoning of the Martyr Stephen as it appears in the Book of Acts is misleading, it is a parallel story mirroring another. We are told Saul is present at the stoning of Stephen but Acts does not tell the full story. Historical accounts by Josephus attest that in actual fact it was James brother of Jesus who is attacked by Saul and his henchmen. We know also that Paul attacks James on another occasion wounding him severely in the legs (Peter comes to his aid) and James retreats to Qumran to recover. It is more instructive that these attacks take place long after Paul’s supposed and incredibly cynical conversion on the road to Damascus! The enmity of Paul towards James culminates in the arrest, detention and eventual killing of James.

The killing of James at the instigation of Paul is the singular catalyst for the Jerusalem uprising by the Jews for which Paul is eventually summoned to Rome by Nero.

What we see in the NT is a body of work systematically devoid of the writings of those closest to Jesus during his lifetime particularly those who would know his true thoughts and beliefs. The Gospels are pseudonymous, The Book of James as well as Peter are forgeries, written by apologists long after the demise of James and Peter

By a curious twist of fate, the only authentic writings in the NT are those of the very one who saw to it that the authentic teachings of Jesus would be lost forever.

■ The bible recorded it that herod was responsible for the death of James, Saul had 'converted' as at that time, so what's your proof that Paul was responsible for the death of James(brother of Jesus)