If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

What the Catholic church claims is based on what Jesus is reported to have said about Peter being the rock on which he will build his church. The truth is Paul is the one who 'founded' the church.

Have you ever considered that without the Tanakh Christianity may never have come into being. It is Christian claims that the Tanakh prophecies foretell the coming of Jesus. Without those claims Jesus would have come and no-one would have recognised him.
Paul adapted a Jewish feast and instituted the Christian communion service. Jesus celebrated a Jewish festival, at a Jewish Festival time, with Jews - no Gentiles allowed. Jesus life was given in trying to bring the Jews back to their god.


Where would Christianity be without those false interpretations?

The truth is that Christianity relies on the Tanakh. Quotes from the Tanakh which obviously refer to the Jews are taken by Christianity to mean Jesus, etc. Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 are quoted and I've already commented on these on another thread. If the Tanakh/Judaism did not exist Christianity, at least in its present form, would not exist. There would be no Bible, no 'Promised Messiah', no Abraham, Moses etc., no 10 commandments, the destruction of Jericho would be down to an earthquake (as it may have been). Jesus would have nothing to quote from. Nothing to 'preach'.

 

My reading comprehension is aparently better than yours since your own post
contradicts what you said. You've brought nothing to the discussion except
your usual belittling and demeaning remarks that don't provide any part of
a desire to have an honest intelligent discussion.

Read your own links before posting.

My claim came from your own posts. You've provided the links in hopes that
they agree with you but they don't.

Once again, read your own links before posting.

Look in the mirror. You're not contributing anything that supports your
claims.

 

True about Peter, false about Paul. Jesus founded the Church. Paul preached
the Gospel and what Jesus taught him.

This is true and quite different from what you said previously. Christianity
didn't evolve from Judaism, which is what was strongly implied by your post.

Thank goodness there were no false interpretations in the Old Testament.

 

Jesus didn't found any church... Simons name was changed to Simon Peter because of the word Petra.. meaning rock. There was NO church at the time of Jesus.

 

I am tired of your B.S ... If you are going to accuse me of contradicting myself then show where I have done so or shut up.

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you attributing quotes to me that I did not make ?

 

Read your own posts with the urls. I used your own posts to show you to
be wrong.

I'm not. You made the claims, read your own posts. You were wrong. Why
can't you accept you made a mistake?

You're a classic case of Maslow, Jung and Freud. Acceptance of being wrong
isn't an option.

A post of denial in 3...2...1...

 

Jesus founded no Church. He came to the Jews, preached to the Jews, quoted the Jewish scriptures. When he sent his disciples out they went to the Jews, on specific orders. Forget Marks great commission. It was a later addition.

The references quoted in the Tanakh that are supposed to refer to Jesus are simply references to events and people in Tanakh times and Jewish history. Psalm 22 is about Davids experiences when pursued by Saul, and later his own son Absalom. Isaiah is all about the Hebrews. Do an in depth study of David and the background conditions on which the story is written. Ditto Isaiah.

Christianity depends on the Tanakh as I have already said. Christian interpretations are for their own benefit.
JW's, Mormons, Islam have all taken and used the Tanakh for their own purposes. But then the Hebrews have used earlier religions and myths in their beliefs.

Your interpretation

 

I'm an Atheist, but I don't go for any of that "look at me I'm an Atheist" nonsense. I used to read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc - but they come across as so preachy now.

Anyway, his inability to demonstrate where life came from is not a point for your side. Claims like that are not a zero-sum game - our failure is not your success and vice-versa. Each claim must be evaluated on its merits alone.

[hr][/hr]

Maybe I'll die tomorrow and go to Heaven/Hell, maybe I'll die tomorrow and be annihilated. Nobody will ever know their fate. While someone who was not annihilated will certainly know, nobody back on Earth will. For the time being at least, questions concerning religion are inherently subjective.

So let's all get along now and argue once we're dead

 

Jesus never taught Paul a single thing. Paul was a self appointed apostle, and therefore a fake, and served to create a religion that could be used by the roman empire. In order to accept Paul, one would have to believe erroneously that God was incapable of giving man what was needed, via the Teachings, and then later on needed Paul, instead of his original apostles, to spread the right and correct teachings. And that is absurd, sheer nonsense.

Christ was complete, and gave humanity the information that up until that time, it did not have. Paul corrupted it, and created the foundation for a religion suitable for an empire, an evil empire, the roman empire.

Christ taught clearly that one must repent, be baptized, and then to seek the Kingdom of God that was within man. And upon finding that Kingdom, consciousness would be reborn, with the old ego consciousness dropping away. The people who went through this experience would be His Church. Yet Paul, being a jew, reverted to the jewish idea of a blood sacrifice, continuing on the tradition of sacrifice except the final sacrifice was the killing of a human body, and this magically saved man. It's rubbish. And it insured that man would not find the kingdom, not be reborn, and not enter into the kingdom. This explains how the church that arose from paul, and became the church of an empire could commit so much evil in the name of god for 2000 years. That tree produced bad fruit, and Christ told humanity how to determine if a tree was a good tree or a bad one, by the fruits it produced.

People who believe Paul was not an imposter can never be saved, for they do not follow Christ, but believe in the false doctrine of paul. Satan is very clever and loves to sell you fire insurance, which is what Pauline Christianity is. Now you know how so called Christians can hate queers, and wage war, and try to force their false beliefs upon others.

 

History is a nightmare of injustice from which I am trying to awaken James Joyce (Ulysses)

 

We (gentiles) have never been under the Law. As long as Gentiles obey the 7 Noahide Laws they are saved.

 

You did not show where I was wrong. All you have done is stand on a stump and shout out "your wrong your wrong"

You put a quote under my name that I did not make ... Go back and click on the post I refer to and you will see that what you have posted underneath my name is not in the post that is linked to.

 

Did you know that the Congress Critters made the US a Noahide Law nation?

 

Yes I did. Provided a link in hopes that it said that Matthew, John, Jude and Peter
weren't the disciples who wrote the Gospels and some Epistles. Your link showed
otherwise.

As for the gnostics, they are not a trustworthy
source.

 

Correct. I'm very vocal about that fact. Jesus fulfilled the law and

No they aren't. They are only saved by accepting Jesus as Savior and
nothing else.

 

To quote Dawkins again, there is no sensible limit to what people are capable of believing.

 

Technically, yes. But He is the reason for the Church. His teachings
alone are Christianity. Nothing is added or taken away from what He
said.

Christianity doesn't rely upon the Old Testament for doctrine. I suggest
that you do an in depth study of Christianity.

 

No, how life was created is very important. Whether or not it's a point is irrelevant.
What is relevant is science has failed to provide anything tangible as to how it began.
The same goes for the beginning of the universe. We have hypothesis after hypothesis
and they are nothing more than stories.

 

My point is - the deficiency of a scientific explanation is not a verification of a religious one. They must be considered independently on their merits.

I am not a 'science botherer', I very much despise those who demand you submit to the consensus.

 

That, of course, is your Christian indoctrination. Without the Tanakh there would be no Christian interpretation of Jewish teaching. Jesus himself quoted Tanakh scriptures. Matthew uses Tanakh scriptures in his attempt to make Jesus the Jewish messiah. Paul wrongly uses the Passover supper to institute the Lords supper.
Perhaps you should study the Tanakh. The writers to the Hebrews use the entire Torah to convince their readers that Jesus was above any person, angel, archangel etc.

In Christianity Jesus suffering is wrongly taken from Isaiah 53. The suffering servant in Isaiah - and in the Tanakh - is used for the Jews. Jesus cry from the cross - is taken from Psalm 22 - (and wrongly translated).

Christian doctrine relies heavily on ITS translation of the Tanakh teachings.

Even the Jewish practice of holding up the Scroll before reading is followed by churches holding aloft the Bible and parading it.

As an ex christian, now agnostic, I spent many years studying and preaching. I think I know something about Christianity.

 

Evolution is but one(1) of the many things that make the idea of a divine zombie walking on water impossible.

 

Interesting. I'm from the UK and you Americans are so muddled up about religious beliefs, laws which seem to differ depending on which State your in, I get confused.

 

I don't think he would recognise what goes under his name these days. He might be a bit at home in the RC with all their ritual, ceremony, incense.

Jesus was a Jew through and through. A teacher of great repute.

 

You do not provide a link to show someone is wrong ? What kind of response is this?

You are wrong ... look at this link. Go find out where you are wrong for yourself.

You are beaten and in denial... that is what is wrong.

You make all these claims without providing support = (here is why I think my claim is true "verbiage giving reasons " or a quote from a link that you think is reliable)

You then post the link to show the source of your info.

 

You put up the link, not I. You put up a link that said Matthew the disciple wrote
the Gospel of Matthew while you were trying, and failing, to show he wasn't.
Do you now know your own links? Certainly you saved it.

Maybe you did look at the link and found egg on your face and can't deal with
being wrong. That certainly makes sense since you won't even read what
you post.

Good grief.

- - - Updated - - -

Who's trying to make this a religious one? Certainly not I.