Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,376]

1 hour ago, MefiX19 said:

How will everyone see Jesus coming from heaven if earth is round?

Technology... Internet, TV. That was not possible in the past. 

So when Jesus said that 2000 years ago most people wonder how that was possible. 

Today it is because of satellite TV, Internet, cell phones etc etc 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

9 hours ago, Fernando said:

From heaven, every person on earth will know, it will not be a secret, like lightning seen in heaven. 

Now when is this supposed to happen?Well according to what is written in the Bible and not some other book this will happen 3 and a half years after a particular event. 

That event is called "the abomination of desolation". What that means is that sometime in the future a world leader will go into the Jewish temple, will stop the sacrifices that are going on and declared to be God. That world leader will set up an image on the temple and declared that he is God. The Bible clearly expressed that then Jesus will come back 3 and a half years after this event. 

That being said we can see some things here first, a Jewish temple in the temple mount. First of all this things does not exist right now, so such event can't happen. Second that world leader is not here so this event can't happen right now. 

However the stage is being set for this. If you noticed Jerusalem is starting to become a great problem. It's a tough situation to handle for any country at the moment. How do we achieve peace in the middle east? 

The UN with all the resolution can't bring about anything done. Israel and Palestinian authorities cannot agree on anything. United States can't do it. But that world leader that is to come will. He will be the only one able to do, what no one else was able to do. Achieve peace and allow the Jews to build their temple. 

How is that going to be I don't know but this is what the Bible says about this event. Oh and the agreement will be for 7 years. Why 7 years in particular? I don't know that is what it said. 

So at the middle of that 7 year peace treaty is when this world leader will go into that Jewish temple, abolish the sacrifice the Jews are making and declared to be God. From that moment on this world leader will have power over all the world and will demand that he be worship or else be killed. 

That just a few stuff that is written in the Bible about the return of Jesus, what will happen before he is closed to being returned. 

So anyone that tells you Jesus is here right now, they are being fooled. Because according to the Bible certain things must happen first before he will come again. 

There is a widely held academic belief that the entire Christ story as portrayed in the Gospels was written at the behest of Rome's Flavian emperors. This, it is argued, was done partly to legitimise their usurpation of power from the Julio-Claudians, and partly to encourage pacifistic attitudes in the Judaean territory following the recent bloody uprising.

In this line of thought the "god" who overturns the temple, and whose image is to be worshipped, is Vespasian's son, Titus. As you know, Titus led the Roman armies which put down the Jewish "rebellion" and, having done so, then destroyed the temple. The argument runs that many of these so-called prophecies were moulded specifically so that they would fit with the events of Titus's campaign. The intention clearly being that the population would see Titus as the fulfilment of the prophecies.

It can't be appropriate for me to  attempt to lay out the full argument here but if it is true then the events "foretold" in the Bible have already come to pass. In that case, any re-interpretation for the modern world would be  based on nothing more than Roman propaganda and would be fanciful . Clearly people of faith will not accept this version of events. It is a reasonably cogent case however; one that benefits from a number of supporting facets which can be claimed to be verified historically. Those who find biblical matters interesting might enjoy informing themselves about this if they are not already familiar with it.

Meanwhile, it would be a good start in the search for Middle Eastern peace if mankind were to give up it's contradictory and divisive superstitions. Superstitions which, though held deeply and fervently by billions, are no more than superstitions, and harmful ones to boot. Harmful in the sense that they continue to damage the prospects of understanding and harmony between human beings everywhere.

Of course we all know the superstitions will not be given up  easily, or quickly. Quite the opposite will be the case. People will fight, literally if need be, to hold onto them. In addition therefore to all the other things humans argue with one another about, we will still labour under the burden of this additional excuse for war and strife. I'm an optimist however. I believe that, if we can survive long enough, we will one day rid ourselves of these things.  If the human race lives on into the far future I can't believe we will carry these relics of bronze age thinking with us.

IMPORTANT: I have made significant changes to this post since it was "liked" by @Fernando. I think it is quite likely he would  want to withdraw that like when he sees those additions. I have pm'd him to apologise for this and I'm sure his like will disappear in due course. In the meantime it's my fault not his but I made those changes before I was aware he had liked the post.

[Fernando 6,376]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There is a widely held academic belief that the entire Christ story as portrayed in the Gospels was written at the behest of Rome's Flavian emperors. This, it is argued, was done partly to legitimise their usurpation of power from the Julio-Claudians, and partly to encourage pacifistic attitudes in the Judaean territory following the recent bloody uprising.

In this line of thought the "god" who overturns the temple, and whose image is to be worshipped, is Vespasian's son, Titus. As you know, Titus led the Roman armies which put down the Jewish "rebellion" and, having done so, then destroyed the temple. The argument runs that many of these so-called prophecies were moulded specifically so that they would fit with the events of Titus's campaign. The intention clearly being that the population would see Titus as the fulfilment of the prophecies.

It can't be appropriate for me to  attempt to lay out the full argument here but if it is true then the events "foretold" in the Bible have already come to pass. In that case, any re-interpretation for the modern world would be  based on nothing more than Roman propaganda and would be fanciful . Clearly people of faith will not accept this version of events. It is a reasonably cogent case however; one that benefits from a number of supporting facets which can be claimed to be verified historically. Those who find biblical matters interesting might enjoy informing themselves about this if they are not already familiar with it.

Meanwhile, it would be a good start in the search for Middle Eastern peace if mankind were to give up it's contradictory and divisive superstitions. Superstitions which, though fervently and deeply held by billions, are no more than superstitions, and harmful ones to boot. Harmful in the sense that they continue to damage the prospects of understanding and harmony between human beings everywhere.

Of course we all know the superstitions will not be given up. Quite the opposite will be the case. People will fight, literally if need be, to hold onto them. In addition therefore to all the other things humans argue with one another about, we will still labour under the burden of this additional excuse for war and strife. I'm an optimist however. I believe that, if we can survive long enough, we will one day rid ourselves of these things.  If the human race lives on into the far future I can't believe we will carry these relics of bronze age thinking with us.

IMPORTANT: I have made significant changes to this post since it was "liked" by @Fernando. I think it is quite likely he would  want to withdraw that like when he sees those additions. I have pm'd him to apologise for this and I'm sure his like will disappear in due course. In the meantime it's my fault not his but I made those changes before I was aware he had liked the post.

No i liked your honest answer. 

This is not the first time I heard of something similar about the Gospel. 

But they forget one thing most of those coming with all these theory. Anything that is recorded in the gospel, 90% of it is nothing new. In fact majority of these things was written long before the gospel or Jesus appeared. They was written in the Torah and prophets. Which today we would called the old testament. The old testament "prophesied" about the coming time of Jesus and his works. 

Many of the writings of the old testament go way beyond the Roman empire ever existed. In fact the "prophecy" I mentioned about Jesus second coming, majority of it as well come from the old testament. Jesus quotes even from the book of Daniel an old Testament prophecy. 

So that's one mistake they don't realize. 

Second after the Roman empire disbursed the Jewish nation, many people believed that God had forsaken their people the Jews. In fact that's when "replacement theology" emerge. That the "church" had replaced Israel and that god no longer cared about the Jewish people. That belief was very strong till say 1948 when Israel was formed as a nation in one day. Then this theory had to be discarded because it was clear that god was not done with the Jews, and in fact the old testament had many prophecies of this event that was a mystery for many people. 

And thirdly the life of Jesus and crucifixion is attested by many historians, not just in the gospel. Flavius Josephus a famous Jewish historian makes reference of Jesus the man. Mind you the Jews don't believe in Jesus, and they have no reason to report anything about him. There's other like Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian and much more. 

That being said history does shows that Jesus existed. Now the debated point is not that he existed or was crucified, but did he actually rose from the dead as the gospel mentions? Well that is for another talk. 

[kiwi1691 255]

9 hours ago, MefiX19 said:

How will everyone see Jesus coming from heaven if earth is round?

1. Your invisible friend "Jesus" is complete fiction

 

2. The earth is not round

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

No i liked your honest answer. 

This is not the first time I heard of something similar about the Gospel. 

But they forget one thing most of those coming with all these theory. Anything that is recorded in the gospel, 90% of it is nothing new. In fact majority of these things was written long before the gospel or Jesus appeared. They was written in the Torah and prophets. Which today we would called the old testament. The old testament "prophesied" about the coming time of Jesus and his works. 

Many of the writings of the old testament go way beyond the Roman empire ever existed. In fact the "prophecy" I mentioned about Jesus second coming, majority of it as well come from the old testament. Jesus quotes even from the book of Daniel an old Testament prophecy. 

So that's one mistake they don't realize. 

Second after the Roman empire disbursed the Jewish nation, many people believed that God had forsaken their people the Jews. In fact that's when "replacement theology" emerge. That the "church" had replaced Israel and that god no longer cared about the Jewish people. That belief was very strong till say 1948 when Israel was formed as a nation in one day. Then this theory had to be discarded because it was clear that god was not done with the Jews, and in fact the old testament had many prophecies of this event that was a mystery for many people. 

And thirdly the life of Jesus and crucifixion is attested by many historians, not just in the gospel. Flavius Josephus a famous Jewish historian makes reference of Jesus the man. Mind you the Jews don't believe in Jesus, and they have no reason to report anything about him. There's other like Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian and much more. 

That being said history does shows that Jesus existed. Now the debated point is not that he existed or was crucified, but did he actually rose from the dead as the gospel mentions? Well that is for another talk. 

Ah, OK. Thank you.

 An interesting reply.

In fact the "Titus" argument takes full account of the old Testament. If you are fully conversant with it I won't waste your time, but, if you would find it useful, I will post a link to a YouTube video in which the argument is set out in detail. Let me know.

I dispute your claim that there is historical proof for the existence of Jesus. There is not, but never mind my viewpoint. The claim would also be disputed by many academics. For example Josephus is not a good source. Some of his supposed writing concerning Jesus, and there isn't much of it, is almost universally accepted to have been forged. In any case he has no original sources to rely on and merely reports what he has been told by third parties. His writing contains no independent corroboration and no attempt at any.  Tacitus is better in that he seems to be writing more independently and with an undeniable belief in the truth of what he relates particularly with reference to the crucifixion. He makes mistakes which lay him open to the question however and, given that he was writing about 70 years after the events and focusing his attention on period roughly 30 years after the events, he has that same problem with sources. No historical records exist, none, which can unquestionably be said to prove that Jesus is an historical figure.

That said, I personally do believe that Jesus lived. Although, I repeat, this is not because I accept any so-called historical evidence. Rather I infer it from what has grown out of his life. The argument goes that there is not likely to have been all this fuss had there not been a real man to base it on. I therefore accept that a rabbi called Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent) once taught in Palestine. That's about it however in regards to what I believe about Jesus. :-)

[Spike 12,049]

I like how we live in bizarro post-Obama parallel-timeline and my proof is David Duke supporting Keith Ellison.

[Spike 12,049]

12 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

His dad christened him Jesus Christ Allin, thought he'd be the messiah

http://www.theladbible.com/now/weird-gg-allin-the-man-shat-himself-on-stage-and-smeared-it-on-his-face-20170213

I guess his infamy didn't really reach the UK. He is pretty famous stateside.

[Fernando 6,376]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Ah, OK. Thank you.

 An interesting reply.

In fact the "Titus" argument takes full account of the old Testament. If you are fully conversant with it I won't waste your time, but, if you would find it useful, I will post a link to a YouTube video in which the argument is set out in detail. Let me know.

I dispute your claim that there is historical proof for the existence of Jesus. There is not, but never mind my viewpoint. The claim would also be disputed by many academics. For example Josephus is not a good source. Some of his supposed writing concerning Jesus, and there isn't much of it, is almost universally accepted to have been forged. In any case he has no original sources to rely on and merely reports what he has been told by third parties. His writing contains no independent corroboration and no attempt at any.  Tacitus is better in that he seems to be writing more independently and with an undeniable belief in the truth of what he relates particularly with reference to the crucifixion. He makes mistakes which lay him open to the question however and, given that he was writing about 70 years after the events and focusing his attention on period roughly 30 years after the events, he has that same problem with sources. No historical records exist, none, which can unquestionably be said to prove that Jesus is an historical figure.

That said, I personally do believe that Jesus lived. Although, I repeat, this is not because I accept any so-called historical evidence. Rather I infer it from what has grown out of his life. The argument goes that there is not likely to have been all this fuss had there not been a real man to base it on. I therefore accept that a rabbi called Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent) once taught in Palestine. That's about it however in regards to what I believe about Jesus. :-)

Please do share. I want to see what they are talking about in detail. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

4 hours ago, Fernando said:

Please do share. I want to see what they are talking about in detail. 

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-)

I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-)

The link:-

 

[Fernando 6,376]

4 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-)

I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-)

The link:-

 

Okay I'll get back to you tomorrow. Because I will watch this after work. 

And there is material but I need to see first what is that they are trying to say so I can know what to give you. 

So let me see what is this about. 

Thanks 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

16 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Okay I'll get back to you tomorrow. Because I will watch this after work. 

And there is material but I need to see first what is that they are trying to say so I can know what to give you. 

So let me see what is this about. 

Thanks 

Great plan, thank you.

Good news: In order to prepare myself so that I might be able make informed comment on any observations you'll have, I re watched the linked programme earlier and was reminded of something I had forgotten. The posted video repeats the same content, so in fact there is less than 90 minutes worth that you'll need to view.

[Fernando 6,376]

5 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Great plan, thank you.

Good news: In order to prepare myself so that I might be able make informed comment on any observations you'll have, I re watched the linked programme earlier and was reminded of something I had forgotten. The posted video repeats the same content, so in fact there is less than 90 minutes worth that you'll need to view.

Actually there is a program I can share with you. Is a christian apologetic show. They talk about all these issues with top professional. 

Since I realize the talk about is the validity of the bible, if what we have written is true and all that stuff. 

Well you can start here: They are programs of 30 minutes each. So it's more like 25 minutes each since they have a couple of minutes of info about books and such.

 

 

 

[KevinAshburner 1,270]

here is a website on is DJT is still President.

IS DONALD TRUMP STILL PRESIDENT?

http://www.isdonaldtrumpstillpresident.com/

[Fernando 6,376]

19 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-)

I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-)

The link:-

 

I think it's very superficial. They make a lot of mistakes. 

First they refused to acknowledge the testimony of the apostles. The video I sent you already covered this. How the apostle Paul gives us a great witness. Paul was a persecutor of the church of christ but he was converted and end up giving his life for that he persecuted. As the video also mentioned the gospel have women as the first eye witness of Jesus resurrection. This would be nonsense since in that day women voice was not taken into consideration. So someone making up a story would not go this way. 

Second as the video I sent you that the apostle had a consistent core theology that was preached during Jesus ministry all the way to the last book of the revelation. Furthermore you have the church fathers that was the disciples of the disciples. Examples the disciples of John, Peter etc etc. They also had a common core theology until a certain time. 

Now that certain time is the important thing where your video mix everything. It is known that in church father history everything was common. The ideas was the same of those of the apostles of Jesus Christ, what we have in the new testaments. This time is known as the "ante nicene fathers". It's roughly from the time of christ death till like 300 and change ad. After this period of time things changed, and the councils that met started to distort the core theology.

It's from this turn of events that the rise of what would be Roman Catholicism emerge. Roman catholicism is the merging of Christianity with paganism. This is where you get things like Easter, Christmas and all that. Holidays which originally was not Christian. So this is the event that they screw up by mixing from what the apostles wrote to what Roman Empire later did. 

And last their take on the old testament is very poor indeed. Because they are mixing testament with gnostic Gospel. And this was a very important point I made originally. During Jesus time and during the time of the apostles there was no new testament! All that they had to rely on was what the old testament said. In fact you couldn't come up with a new testament that totally contradict the old testament. That's a big clue into why many gnostic Gospel where not used. Paul couldn't contradict what was written in the old testament. If it said in the beginning God created the heaven in the earth then that is what we would start with. You couldn't come up with a gospel that said "in the beginning Sophia created everything and made lesser beings to be god". You would be considered a heretic. So they failed to realize that Christianity is Jewish in nature. Messiah was Jewish, the first apostles and converts was Jewish. It is a very Jewish narrative and we the non Jewish have been grafted in to this old Jewish family under Jesus. 

 

[Spike 12,049]

On 2/11/2017 at 5:09 PM, Fulham Broadway said:

Jim Jefferies telling Piers Morgan to fuck off

 

That was horrible, mate. Jim Jeffries is only popular over seas. It's like giving the mic to the first cockney cunt you run into on the streets of London. No talent bogan and makes me ashamed of Australians. Not only that he is full of shit. He old routine used to tear fucking strips off Muslims.

Piers Morgan is a cunt but he is right and I hate myself for saying that.

[kmk108 1,186]

I think Jim Jeffries is one of the best comedians around.

Comedians will say things on stage that are meant to get a rise out of people. They don't always believe in it. He even had a whole bit in his last special about being called out for making Cosby jokes.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

3 hours ago, Spike said:

That was horrible, mate. Jim Jeffries is only popular over seas. It's like giving the mic to the first cockney cunt you run into on the streets of London. No talent bogan and makes me ashamed of Australians. Not only that he is full of shit. He old routine used to tear fucking strips off Muslims.

Piers Morgan is a cunt but he is right and I hate myself for saying that.

How is Jim Jeffries funny? If he says what he says on stage in an American accent he'd probably be thrown in a mental institute.....

[Fulham Broadway 16,392]

Never heard of Jim Jefferies but telling phone hacker Morgan to fuck off is superb. I don't like Jeremy Clarkson but hats off to him he actually punched Arsenal fan Morgan.