|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:50 am
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden xxEternallyBluexx I'm in no way saying she was. By 'they' I meant those who don't believe in the Bible. And no, it doesn't, but pagan isn't a term that should be applied to Christianity. As far as I know, pagan doesn't hold it's origins in Isreal. It is not a term unique to their religion. Since it's not, they can't change the definition to fit their own purposes. It's not like gentile which does refer to anyone not of Jewish descent. Considering that the Trinity is a soft polytheistic symbol, I believe it should be called pagan or accurately labeled as soft polytheism. It is not true Monotheism. Thats a trifle dishonest of you, after all if you consider it to mean different aspects of the one god, then Christianity remains monotheistic; if you consider it to in anyway imply multiple gods then it is not Christianity. Its a very disingenous term, but suffice to say that regardless of whether the term contains the word polytheism, it is by the definition that we judge it not by the nomenclature. Chrsitianity is Monotheistic. The TRINITY is not. It's intellectually dishonest and quite ignorant to believe otherwise. neutral Proof? Beyond your own assertion please smile Already did. Where?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:51 am
Semiremis In Medias Res IV The NT is FULL of anti-semitism so to tell me that Christianity has its roots in Judaism is a lie. If the NT is FULL of anti-semitism then so is the Tanakh. That would mean that the OT was written by Gentiles when it wasn't. The Tanakh was written by Jews, whereas the NT was written by Gentiles, people who were either born non-Jewish, or gave up their Jewishness in favor of Jesus. The reason why IMR is saying the NT is anti-Semitic, is because the NT portrays the Jews in a more negative light than in the Tanakh. Of course this is a theory of mine..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:52 am
dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 Thats a trifle dishonest of you, after all if you consider it to mean different aspects of the one god, then Christianity remains monotheistic; if you consider it to in anyway imply multiple gods then it is not Christianity. Its a very disingenous term, but suffice to say that regardless of whether the term contains the word polytheism, it is by the definition that we judge it not by the nomenclature. Chrsitianity is Monotheistic. The TRINITY is not. It's intellectually dishonest and quite ignorant to believe otherwise. neutral Proof? Beyond your own assertion please smile Already did. Where? Read a few posts back. I listed 3 sources already. I'm not having this dance with you. talk2hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:49 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 Thats a trifle dishonest of you, after all if you consider it to mean different aspects of the one god, then Christianity remains monotheistic; if you consider it to in anyway imply multiple gods then it is not Christianity. Its a very disingenous term, but suffice to say that regardless of whether the term contains the word polytheism, it is by the definition that we judge it not by the nomenclature. Chrsitianity is Monotheistic. The TRINITY is not. It's intellectually dishonest and quite ignorant to believe otherwise. neutral Proof? Beyond your own assertion please smile Already did. Where? Read a few posts back. I listed 3 sources already. I'm not having this dance with you. talk2hand Im not dancing, i'm calling for proof and an argument that logcially follows. You've given neither.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:51 pm
dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 Thats a trifle dishonest of you, after all if you consider it to mean different aspects of the one god, then Christianity remains monotheistic; if you consider it to in anyway imply multiple gods then it is not Christianity. Its a very disingenous term, but suffice to say that regardless of whether the term contains the word polytheism, it is by the definition that we judge it not by the nomenclature. Chrsitianity is Monotheistic. The TRINITY is not. It's intellectually dishonest and quite ignorant to believe otherwise. neutral Proof? Beyond your own assertion please smile Already did. Where?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:39 pm
Shadows-shine dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 Thats a trifle dishonest of you, after all if you consider it to mean different aspects of the one god, then Christianity remains monotheistic; if you consider it to in anyway imply multiple gods then it is not Christianity. Its a very disingenous term, but suffice to say that regardless of whether the term contains the word polytheism, it is by the definition that we judge it not by the nomenclature. Chrsitianity is Monotheistic. The TRINITY is not. It's intellectually dishonest and quite ignorant to believe otherwise. neutral Proof? Beyond your own assertion please smile Already did. Where? Thanks I'll try and muster myself to read it at some point seeing as its to much for Moon Maiden to restate it in a more concise format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:12 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis In Medias Res IV The NT is FULL of anti-semitism so to tell me that Christianity has its roots in Judaism is a lie. If the NT is FULL of anti-semitism then so is the Tanakh. That would mean that the OT was written by Gentiles when it wasn't. The Tanakh was written by Jews, whereas the NT was written by Gentiles, people who were either born non-Jewish, or gave up their Jewishness in favor of Jesus. The reason why IMR is saying the NT is anti-Semitic, is because the NT portrays the Jews in a more negative light than in the Tanakh. Of course this is a theory of mine.. The Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were semitic, so were many of those in the mosaic literature who worshiped Golden calf's and angered God, they weren't exactly appraised. I'd say it's more then a stretch to call any of them anti-semitic, but if you want to we can. We can call the Jews anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those Jews who believed the messiah had come and we can switch that around and call the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those who did not believe the messiah had come.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:37 pm
dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden dio777 Proof? Beyond your own assertion please smile Already did. Where? Read a few posts back. I listed 3 sources already. I'm not having this dance with you. talk2hand Im not dancing, i'm calling for proof and an argument that logcially follows. You've given neither. I have given proof. It's not hard to go back to the last page or two to find my post that quoted Set, and showed a few links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:40 pm
Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis In Medias Res IV The NT is FULL of anti-semitism so to tell me that Christianity has its roots in Judaism is a lie. If the NT is FULL of anti-semitism then so is the Tanakh. That would mean that the OT was written by Gentiles when it wasn't. The Tanakh was written by Jews, whereas the NT was written by Gentiles, people who were either born non-Jewish, or gave up their Jewishness in favor of Jesus. The reason why IMR is saying the NT is anti-Semitic, is because the NT portrays the Jews in a more negative light than in the Tanakh. Of course this is a theory of mine.. The Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were semitic, so were many of those in the mosaic literature who worshiped Golden calf's and angered God, they weren't exactly appraised. I'd say it's more then a stretch to call any of them anti-semitic, but if you want to we can. We can call the Jews anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those Jews who believed the messiah had come and we can switch that around and call the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those who did not believe the messiah had come. Except not many of them did. There were still those who did support the Pharisees. To some those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, could be considered Gentiles, because it looked like they were giving up their Jewishness, and giving up on God. However being the Messiah to the Jews does not mean he was the divine Son of God as many Christians believe, but he was to get rid of the Roman army and save Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:09 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden In other words, You're a Christian, IMR is a Naodchide, neither you or her are Jewish. You and Set haven't brought up evidence either. That's the pot calling the kettle black. Let's see... IMR isn't Jewish? And what is a Naodchide? And Also, PrometheanSet Then please present evidence of the distinction between the First Five books of the Old testament and the Torah. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numerology, and Deuteronomy are the English words for those first five books of the bible; they are the Pentateuch, a word which is used synonymously with the Torah. I believe illustrating that the contents are the same is evidence. -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden, your assertion of the Christian God as a Pagan deity cannot hold water with the definition of "pagan" which has been stated in this thread, regardless of Monolatry. While the concept of one God in several different elements may be considered somewhat polytheistic, it is an interesting compromise between monotheism and polytheism. (Oh gods, not this again...) Either way, I resent the word pagan being used as a slur. Especially when it comes from a bigot who likes to wave the tolerance flag. And I agree with EternallyBlue - since this isn't a Hebrew word, I vehemently disagree with such an already loaded word, because of it's definition within the Christian realm, be recast in the name of adding that same stigma to Christianity. Just because IMR is from this group of people who believe one way, doesn't mean we should tolerate hateful words at the expense of all others. Stop the name calling. I said the Trinity not YHVH is pagan. Try reading a little more closer. IMR said that Jesus is pagan deity according to Jews. http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/trinity.html http://mikeblume.com/pagantr.htm http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11365967/The-Case-Against-The-Trinity (go to page 20) http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1151&Itemid=19 Now Christianity may have concepts borrowed from Pagans and Jews alike, it would make a lot of sense, especially within Catholicism, (many people deem Catholics to be more pagan and idolaters) Monotheism by definition is the worship of One and only One God. However, belief in the Trinity is defined as soft polytheism or pantheism as it would be more aptly defined (Advanced Dictionary Double Day Edition circa 1970's.). In fact in the times of the Council of Nicea, there were Christians that believed that the Trinity is Pagan and should not be taught. I sincerely doubt that they used the word "pagan". You keep using that word as though it meant "polytheistic", while it means something else. Haven't we been over this? confused And while I agreed that the trinity is not purely monotheistic, you seem to want to read something else in my post. Congrats. Because it appears in other religions like Hinduism and the Celtic Mythos, that are labeled pagan. Typically, most of the religions that are dubbed pagan, can be considered polytheistic because adherents worship 3 or more Gods. However there's a difference between what's known as soft and hard polytheism. I'm offended on behalf of Ganesha that you call Hinduism "Pagan". You'd be hard pressed to find a Hindu that will agree with you on that. You'll find more Buddhists who call themselves Atheists. Both are Eastern religions that need no further definition from the word "Pagan", and to do so is offensive. And what credentials or expertise come from "No Mans Zone"? While I admit that it's as thought out a case as possible, making such a case only serves to inflame public rage about calling their self-proclaimed monotheistic practice as "polytheistic", and ostracize people who have done nothing wrong. Thank you "In-Group/Out-Group" Dynamic! Regardless of this being monotheistic or any form of softened polytheism, "God the Father" from that trinity is seen as the deity of Abraham. Monotheistic or Not, this still traces a lineage from Judaism to Christianity, which is more relevant to the debate at hand. -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Except not many of them did. There were still those who did support the Pharisees. To some those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, could be considered Gentiles, because it looked like they were giving up their Jewishness, and giving up on God. However being the Messiah to the Jews does not mean he was the divine Son of God as many Christians believe, but he was to get rid of the Roman army and save Israel. That's just the point - by his death, in a round-about way, Jesus may be viewed as having done just that. When Constantine converted to Christianity, his sect became the official religion of Rome. The Roman Papacy is the fulfillment of that contract. No, it wasn't instant - I guess you wanted Muhammad instead. However, this is how God chose to let the situation unfold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:16 pm
PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden PrometheanSet -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden PrometheanSet Let's see... IMR isn't Jewish? And what is a Naodchide? And Also, I believe illustrating that the contents are the same is evidence. -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden, your assertion of the Christian God as a Pagan deity cannot hold water with the definition of "pagan" which has been stated in this thread, regardless of Monolatry. While the concept of one God in several different elements may be considered somewhat polytheistic, it is an interesting compromise between monotheism and polytheism. (Oh gods, not this again...) Either way, I resent the word pagan being used as a slur. Especially when it comes from a bigot who likes to wave the tolerance flag. And I agree with EternallyBlue - since this isn't a Hebrew word, I vehemently disagree with such an already loaded word, because of it's definition within the Christian realm, be recast in the name of adding that same stigma to Christianity. Just because IMR is from this group of people who believe one way, doesn't mean we should tolerate hateful words at the expense of all others. Stop the name calling. I said the Trinity not YHVH is pagan. Try reading a little more closer. IMR said that Jesus is pagan deity according to Jews. http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/trinity.html http://mikeblume.com/pagantr.htm http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11365967/The-Case-Against-The-Trinity (go to page 20) http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1151&Itemid=19 Now Christianity may have concepts borrowed from Pagans and Jews alike, it would make a lot of sense, especially within Catholicism, (many people deem Catholics to be more pagan and idolaters) Monotheism by definition is the worship of One and only One God. However, belief in the Trinity is defined as soft polytheism or pantheism as it would be more aptly defined (Advanced Dictionary Double Day Edition circa 1970's.). In fact in the times of the Council of Nicea, there were Christians that believed that the Trinity is Pagan and should not be taught. I sincerely doubt that they used the word "pagan". You keep using that word as though it meant "polytheistic", while it means something else. Haven't we been over this? confused And while I agreed that the trinity is not purely monotheistic, you seem to want to read something else in my post. Congrats. Because it appears in other religions like Hinduism and the Celtic Mythos, that are labeled pagan. Typically, most of the religions that are dubbed pagan, can be considered polytheistic because adherents worship 3 or more Gods. However there's a difference between what's known as soft and hard polytheism. I'm offended on behalf of Ganesha that you call Hinduism "Pagan". You'd be hard pressed to find a Hindu that will agree with you on that. You'll find more Buddhists who call themselves Atheists. Both are Eastern religions that need no further definition from the word "Pagan", and to do so is offensive. And what credentials or expertise come from "No Mans Zone"? While I admit that it's as thought out a case as possible, making such a case only serves to inflame public rage about calling their self-proclaimed monotheistic practice as "polytheistic", and ostracize people who have done nothing wrong. Thank you "In-Group/Out-Group" Dynamic! Regardless of this being monotheistic or any form of softened polytheism, "God the Father" from that trinity is seen as the deity of Abraham. Monotheistic or Not, this still traces a lineage from Judaism to Christianity, which is more relevant to the debate at hand. -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Except not many of them did. There were still those who did support the Pharisees. To some those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, could be considered Gentiles, because it looked like they were giving up their Jewishness, and giving up on God. However being the Messiah to the Jews does not mean he was the divine Son of God as many Christians believe, but he was to get rid of the Roman army and save Israel. That's just the point - by his death, in a round-about way, Jesus may be viewed as having done just that. When Constantine converted to Christianity, his sect became the official religion of Rome. The Roman Papacy is the fulfillment of that contract. No, it wasn't instant - I guess you wanted Muhammad instead. However, this is how God chose to let the situation unfold. Pagan by definition is someone who is not Christian, Jew, and Islam. Be that as it may, Hinduism is neither Christian, Jewish or Muslim therefore it's Pagan, as is Satanism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:22 pm
PrometheanSet That's just the point - by his death, in a round-about way, Jesus may be viewed as having done just that. When Constantine converted to Christianity, his sect became the official religion of Rome. The Roman Papacy is the fulfillment of that contract. No, it wasn't instant - I guess you wanted Muhammad instead. However, this is how God chose to let the situation unfold. Well not necessarily. Constantine was an Arian. He believed that Jesus was a fully Divine being but not God incarnate. The council of Nicene in 325 declared this a heresy, though the goal of this council was to get the Christian community to agree about something.. Constantine's role in Christianity was to get them to "get their ******** act together." Since this religion really was not as organized as Tradition would like you to think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:43 pm
rmcdra PrometheanSet That's just the point - by his death, in a round-about way, Jesus may be viewed as having done just that. When Constantine converted to Christianity, his sect became the official religion of Rome. The Roman Papacy is the fulfillment of that contract. No, it wasn't instant - I guess you wanted Muhammad instead. However, this is how God chose to let the situation unfold. Well not necessarily. Constantine was an Arian. He believed that Jesus was a fully Divine being but not God incarnate. The council of Nicene in 325 declared this a heresy, though the goal of this council was to get the Christian community to agree about something.. Constantine's role in Christianity was to get them to "get their ******** act together." Since this religion really was not as organized as Tradition would like you to think. Again, minor details compared with the larger effect, in the context of this discussion of Christianity's role (or that of the christ) relative to Judaism and the Roman Empire. It had to come together some time in order to propagate itself, and Constantine's Nicaea was it, even if Constantine's concept of Jesus as below God the Father was struck down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:52 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis In Medias Res IV The NT is FULL of anti-semitism so to tell me that Christianity has its roots in Judaism is a lie. If the NT is FULL of anti-semitism then so is the Tanakh. That would mean that the OT was written by Gentiles when it wasn't. The Tanakh was written by Jews, whereas the NT was written by Gentiles, people who were either born non-Jewish, or gave up their Jewishness in favor of Jesus. The reason why IMR is saying the NT is anti-Semitic, is because the NT portrays the Jews in a more negative light than in the Tanakh. Of course this is a theory of mine.. The Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were semitic, so were many of those in the mosaic literature who worshiped Golden calf's and angered God, they weren't exactly appraised. I'd say it's more then a stretch to call any of them anti-semitic, but if you want to we can. We can call the Jews anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those Jews who believed the messiah had come and we can switch that around and call the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those who did not believe the messiah had come. Except not many of them did. There were still those who did support the Pharisees. To some those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, could be considered Gentiles, because it looked like they were giving up their Jewishness, and giving up on God. However being the Messiah to the Jews does not mean he was the divine Son of God as many Christians believe, but he was to get rid of the Roman army and save Israel. There were many more Jewish sects then just the Pharisees, those who were looking for the messiah at that particular time and those who found him (their opinion) were only some, like you said. That doesn't negate the fact that they were Semites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:22 pm
Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis In Medias Res IV The NT is FULL of anti-semitism so to tell me that Christianity has its roots in Judaism is a lie. If the NT is FULL of anti-semitism then so is the Tanakh. That would mean that the OT was written by Gentiles when it wasn't. The Tanakh was written by Jews, whereas the NT was written by Gentiles, people who were either born non-Jewish, or gave up their Jewishness in favor of Jesus. The reason why IMR is saying the NT is anti-Semitic, is because the NT portrays the Jews in a more negative light than in the Tanakh. Of course this is a theory of mine.. The Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah were semitic, so were many of those in the mosaic literature who worshiped Golden calf's and angered God, they weren't exactly appraised. I'd say it's more then a stretch to call any of them anti-semitic, but if you want to we can. We can call the Jews anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those Jews who believed the messiah had come and we can switch that around and call the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah anti-semitic for their less then amiable attitude towards those who did not believe the messiah had come. Except not many of them did. There were still those who did support the Pharisees. To some those who claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, could be considered Gentiles, because it looked like they were giving up their Jewishness, and giving up on God. However being the Messiah to the Jews does not mean he was the divine Son of God as many Christians believe, but he was to get rid of the Roman army and save Israel. There were many more Jewish sects then just the Pharisees, those who were looking for the messiah at that particular time and those who found him (their opinion) were only some, like you said. That doesn't negate the fact that they were Semites. Semite =/ Jewish Arabs are semitic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
