Why do Christians claim to get their morals from the bible?

[Grave_n_idle]

There are prophecies about Jesus. ...they still prophesied that the Messiah was coming.

There are prophecies about Messiah. Not about Jesus.

"All of this took place to bring about what the Lord said through the prophet, "The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called "Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Immanuel means "God with us""

Isaiah wasn't making a prophecy about messiah - go back and read the context.

Not only that - the 'she' in question was a 'young woman', not a 'virgin' (read it in Hebrew), and was a person present at the time the prophecy was made.

Micah prophesied about the Messiah being born in the town of Bethlehem, his father (his earthly one that is) would be descended from David, the great King of Israel. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he was born in a manger, and his earthly father, Joseph, was a descendant of King David, a very appropriate bloodline for Jesus to be born into.

There are several problems with the Micah reference - not the least being that Bethlehem-Ephrathah can be immediately identified as referring to a person called Bethlehem, descended from Ephrathah. Also, of course, I'm sure you're aware that there is strong contention that only the first three chapters of Micah are actually the work of the prophet, and that the remainder of the book was added later by another author?

Most importantly - the context of Micah 5 strongly suggests that this is not a prohecy of THE messiah, merely an anointed king.

As for the connection to David - this has already been addressed. Jesus is not eligible for the bloodline of David. He is not related to the bloodline through his father, because he has no father, and he is not eligible through his mother through the curse of Jeconiah.

Fail, my Bible has the words, 'A Ruler Will Come From Bethlehem', and about that 'young woman' thing, are you sure it's not a politically correct edition which has erased reference to Mary as a virgin to appease the Femi-Nazis. I have a New International Reader's Edition, with no PC spin here. And he does have a father, God is his spiritual father, and Joseph is his physical form's earthly father. And Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus, she became pregnant with the spirit of God, meaning she still remained a virgin, because if she was impregnated by Joseph, she would've lost her virginity. Plus, David was born in Bethlehem, Joseph was a descendant of David, he was born in Bethlehem, and finally, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, you make the connection. And besides, Jesus is figuratively the King of Men, he is the spiritual son of God.

Wait... what?

Are you serious?

The prophecy of Isaiah doesn't refer to a virgin. Read it in Hebrew.

That's nothing to do with Mary, and whether or not she was a virgin - it's to do with the fact that the PROPHECY you're talking about is NOT a prophecy of messiah, and DOESN'T say 'virgin'.

A ruler will come out of Bethlehem-Ephratah - ruler (literally, to rule or have dominion, from the Hebrew) - again, that doesn't say it's a prohecy of THE messiah. Read the book of Micah - actually read the context.

David WAS born in Bethlehem, this is true. But irrelevant.

Also - Jesus is cut off from David in both his mother's AND father's bloodlines. Matthew's lineage mentions Jeconiah by name, which Luke's doesn't - but Luke's lineage DOES mention Jesus as being descended from Jeconiah's son and grandson. In other words - Jesus cannot sit on the throne of David, because of the curse of Jeconiah, and that is true on both the matrilineal AND patrilineal sides.

[Muravyets]

Murayets, the Founding Fathers built the USA around the teachings of God and Jesus Christ. They were inspired by the example of Athens to found a Democracy, but they also put the ideas of Christianity and God into the system and built a great nation founded on the principles of one of the greatest religions in World History. And look where how far we have gotten, our nation has done so well and it's freer than any other nation on Earth, it's almost perfect, and it was based on the principle of God.

No, they did not. They built the USA around English Common Law and a strict separation of church and state, i.e. a secular government that did not align itself in any way to the religious beliefs of the citizenry, who were to be completely free in their worship practices.

EDIT: But as I have been saying to New Azura, US history is not related to this topic.

[New Azura]

Surprise, surprise in the book written after Yeshua died they have recorded prophecies that for which he fits the bill...
This means nothing, I could write prophecies showing Richard Nixon to be the second coming of christ.
GnI's point is that Yeshua is (according to christians) supposed to be the messiah prophesized in the OT, but he does not meet the requirements.

Sounds similar to those guys who used Darwin's theories to extrapolate a multilateral theory of the origin of life on the planet, adding to the premise to suit the needs of the theory. But no, I'm sure the Theory of Evolution is on the moral high ground and stuff... We would argue that Christ fulfills Messianic prophecy, you would argue that he does not. We've been around the block on this one; you have your interpretation, we have ours. You've challenged us, we've answered, you've challenged those answers, we've defended those answers, wash, rinse, repeat.

Except you haven't defended it, you have done nothing to show that GnI is wrong. The only "defense" that has been mounted is essentially "But in the NT it says he is despite the fact that he doesn't meet any of the requirements in the OT.

[]

Note: By the way, on the evolution debate, I believe in the absolute legitimacy of microevolution. The Bible even gives validity to this, referring to the growing "variances within" species in Genesis. It is the overall concept of macroevolution which forms the basis of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis that I disagree with. Yet we've already done that argument in another thread three times now it seems, so can we pick a new subject to discuss, perhaps?

The only difference between mirco-evolution and macro-evolution is the time scale involved. Deal with it, evolution is a fact. The only question is the method, i.e. is it by natural selection or not.

[/]

I again must point out the nature of all statements using this attack (vis-a-vis "The only "defense" that has been mounted is essentially "But in the NT it says he is"). You guys are arguing out of a presupposed idea - the fallacious nature of the New Testament - as a means to defeat the answers I provided to the challenges laid out by G 'n' L. G 'n' L has already admitted his lack of belief in the Greek text, meaning the New Testament. It is only through the New Testament that the prophecies of the Messiah are expounded upon, at least in the context of Christ Jesus. So if you throw out the entirety of the Greek scripture, then basically you've neutered any chance of defending our point. Someone in this thread used the "written down centuries after the fact" line to shoot down the New Testament. While that idea is archaeologically proven false, it also fails to account for the same facets encompassing the Old Testament as well. Why use this to attack the New Testament, but not the Old Testament? I would argue that you cannot use this to attack *either*.

And Evolution is not a fact. It's a Theory, and Science backs that up.

[Grave_n_idle]

We would argue that Christ fulfills Messianic prophecy, you would argue that he does not. We've been around the block on this one; you have your interpretation, we have ours.

And that's where you fall down.

I haven't offered an interpretation - I've offered the strict requirements for Messiah, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures.

You have offered interpretations as to why you don't think those things count, or how they can be twisted to make it work.

YOU have offered interpretations, I have offered scripture.

Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of messiah. End of story.

[Grave_n_idle]

I again must point out the nature of all statements using this attack (vis-a-vis "The only "defense" that has been mounted is essentially "But in the NT it says he is"). You guys are arguing out of a presupposed idea - the fallacious nature of the New Testament - as a means to defeat the answers I provided to the challenges laid out by G 'n' L. G 'n' L has already admitted his lack of belief in the Greek text, meaning the New Testament. It is only through the New Testament that the prophecies of the Messiah are expounded upon, at least in the context of Christ Jesus. So if you throw out the entirety of the Greek scripture, then basically you've neutered any chance of defending our point.

That's an admission of revisionism, right there.

You just admitted that you KNOW that Jesus can't be fitted into the mould of messiah, unless you include the greek scripture - which is NOT prophecy, and - indeed - rewrites prophecy to meet it's own needs.

If Jesus was messiah, you should be able to defend it using ONLY the Hebrew prophecies of messiah. You admit you can't. Case closed.

[Kharsus]

"Though shalt not kill" may be the worst commandment of all. If someone is willing to kill you and is going to, I think god should overlook the fact that you are taking another life, cause it's either you, or whoever's holding the knife that's gonna have to die, and personally, i'd prefer it to be the latter.

[New Azura]

Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,”(1) which being interpreted is, “God with us.”

Our translation of "Virgin" is derived from the wording used in the original Hebrew text, "alma". The Hebrew word "alma" contains several possible meanings depending on the context: girl, young woman, virgin, and damsel. Several different translations of the Bible use the term "maiden" and "virgin" dependent on the view of the translators. Therefore, it may not be imperative that Christ be born of a virgin to some, yet there is certainly a case to be made that the prophet Isaiah does foretell of a virgin birth, and Jesus of Nazareth fulfills this prophecy.

[New Azura]

I again must point out the nature of all statements using this attack (vis-a-vis "The only "defense" that has been mounted is essentially "But in the NT it says he is"). You guys are arguing out of a presupposed idea - the fallacious nature of the New Testament - as a means to defeat the answers I provided to the challenges laid out by G 'n' L. G 'n' L has already admitted his lack of belief in the Greek text, meaning the New Testament. It is only through the New Testament that the prophecies of the Messiah are expounded upon, at least in the context of Christ Jesus. So if you throw out the entirety of the Greek scripture, then basically you've neutered any chance of defending our point.

That's an admission of revisionism, right there.

You just admitted that you KNOW that Jesus can't be fitted into the mould of messiah, unless you include the greek scripture - which is NOT prophecy, and - indeed - rewrites prophecy to meet it's own needs.

If Jesus was messiah, you should be able to defend it using ONLY the Hebrew prophecies of messiah. You admit you can't. Case closed.

Moronic is all I can add to that statement. The New Testament tells of Christ's FULFILLMENT of Old Testament prophecies. If you take away the evidence that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, then how can you defend that he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies? You argue that the New Testament is worthless based on faulty logic.

Case closed, sir. You lose.

Edit #1: That's like telling someone in court "You are accused of murder. Now, we're going to throw out the testimony of the people who can prove your alibi. Now, defend yourself!"

[New Azura]

"Though shalt not kill" may be the worst commandment of all. If someone is willing to kill you and is going to, I think god should overlook the fact that you are taking another life, cause it's either you, or whoever's holding the knife that's gonna have to die, and personally, i'd prefer it to be the latter.

The actual translation is closer to "Thou shalt not commit murder", not "kill". The act of murder implies a desire to do so, which would be sin, while kill can carry the connotation of defense, which would not be a sin.

[New Azura]

We would argue that Christ fulfills Messianic prophecy, you would argue that he does not. We've been around the block on this one; you have your interpretation, we have ours.

And that's where you fall down.

I haven't offered an interpretation - I've offered the strict requirements for Messiah, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures.

You have offered interpretations as to why you don't think those things count, or how they can be twisted to make it work.

YOU have offered interpretations, I have offered scripture.

Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of messiah. End of story.

I have offered scriptural references that show Christ Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, not making them up on the fly. You have refused to accept these answers based on your interpretation of Old Testament Scripture, for no where does it say in the Old Testament scripture that "Grave n Idle has the final say on scriptural translation". To accuse me of the same thing is fallacious and erroneous, and yet you cling to your system while falsely accusing me of the same. Your refutation of New Testament Scripture is illogical and baseless, lest you portray the same for Old Testament scripture which you seem to defend. Christ Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah, and is the Messiah. He is the way, the truth, and is the Lamb of God. He loves you, just as He loves all His children. He died for you, just as He died for me. Christ is the way.

Edit #1: I love these debates.

[Grave_n_idle]

Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,”(1) which being interpreted is, “God with us.”

Our translation of "Virgin" is derived from the wording used in the original Hebrew text, "alma". The Hebrew word "alma" contains several possible meanings depending on the context: girl, young woman, virgin, and damsel. Several different translations of the Bible use the term "maiden" and "virgin" dependent on the view of the translators. Therefore, it may not be imperative that Christ be born of a virgin to some, yet there is certainly a case to be made that the prophet Isaiah does foretell of a virgin birth, and Jesus of Nazareth fulfills this prophecy.

Rubbish.

Isaiah uses 'alma' only one time in his testimony, but he talks about actual virgins on 5 other occassions, and uses 'betulah' (which specifically means 'a virgin') on every other occassion.

So - he uses a word that means 'young woman', one time, to talk about someone who is already pregnant, and you try to argue it means 'virgin' against the evidence that he specifically states 'virgin' EVERY other time?

Even outside of Isaiah - look at the other uses of 'alma' - for example, in Proverbs, it refers to a woman who has fornicated with a man.

Outside of the confines of the scripture, in Hebrew 'alma' usually refers to a young mother. Clearly, there is NO link in Hebrew, between 'alma' and 'virgin'.


You're making an argument for revisionism, again.

Also - I have to point out, though you keep ignoring it - the Isaiah verse is NOT a prophecy of messiah.

[Grave_n_idle]

I again must point out the nature of all statements using this attack (vis-a-vis "The only "defense" that has been mounted is essentially "But in the NT it says he is"). You guys are arguing out of a presupposed idea - the fallacious nature of the New Testament - as a means to defeat the answers I provided to the challenges laid out by G 'n' L. G 'n' L has already admitted his lack of belief in the Greek text, meaning the New Testament. It is only through the New Testament that the prophecies of the Messiah are expounded upon, at least in the context of Christ Jesus. So if you throw out the entirety of the Greek scripture, then basically you've neutered any chance of defending our point.

That's an admission of revisionism, right there.

You just admitted that you KNOW that Jesus can't be fitted into the mould of messiah, unless you include the greek scripture - which is NOT prophecy, and - indeed - rewrites prophecy to meet it's own needs.

If Jesus was messiah, you should be able to defend it using ONLY the Hebrew prophecies of messiah. You admit you can't. Case closed.

Moronic is all I can add to that statement. The New Testament tells of Christ's FULFILLMENT of Old Testament prophecies. If you take away the evidence that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, then how can you defend that he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies? You argue that the New Testament is worthless based on faulty logic.

Case closed, sir. You lose.

Edit #1: That's like telling someone in court "You are accused of murder. Now, we're going to throw out the testimony of the people who can prove your alibi. Now, defend yourself!"

On the contrary - if you can prove that the claims made about Jesus fulfill the actual requirements of messiah, according to the Hebrew scripture - which is where the prophecies ARE - without resorting to justifications from the Greek scripture (like that whole 'fulfillment of the law' nonsense), then you win.

You haven't. You can't.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have offered scriptural references that show Christ Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies, not making them up on the fly.

No, you haven't. You've presented distortions of the Hebrew scripture by the writers of the Greek scripture. You've presented circular logic, and self-fulfilling prophecy.

You have refused to accept these answers based on your interpretation of Old Testament Scripture,

No, I've refused to accept those answers based on what is explicitly written in the Old Testament scripture.

Reading the prophecies as they are written is not 'an interpretation'.

...you cling to your system while falsely accusing me of the same.

MY 'system' is reading the actual text.

Yours isn't.

There is no parallel between our approaches.

Your refutation of New Testament Scripture is illogical and baseless,

Not at all - if the New Testament claims to be the culmination of the Old Testament, and it makes that claim based on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, it had better do so.

Christ Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the Messiah, and is the Messiah.

Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies. Stating it over and over won't make it so.

He is the way, the truth, and is the Lamb of God. He loves you, just as He loves all His children. He died for you, just as He died for me. Christ is the way.

You're welcome to believe that. If you can find a way to justify it without claiming a connection to the Hebrew prophecies, I won't even have a complaint.

But you DO claim the Hebrew prophecies... and then you fail to meet them.

[Dyakovo]

We would argue that Christ fulfills Messianic prophecy, you would argue that he does not. We've been around the block on this one; you have your interpretation, we have ours.

And that's where you fall down.

I haven't offered an interpretation - I've offered the strict requirements for Messiah, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures.

You have offered interpretations as to why you don't think those things count, or how they can be twisted to make it work.

YOU have offered interpretations, I have offered scripture.

Jesus doesn't fulfill the prophecies of messiah. End of story.

Blah, blah, blah, I've got nothing to show how Yeshua meets the criteria of the messiah as defined in the OT, blah, blah,blah

Fixed

[New Azura]

Hey, if you guys don't care to see the evidence, that's your problem, not mine. I fail to see how the writings of the New Testament, which show Christ fulfilling Messianic Prophecy, and further show Christ's teachings and what is to come through the End Times. Circular reasoning? Please, that's rubbish. The Greek scripture (New Testament) is a valid display of Messianic Prophecies fulfilled. I will give a more expanded list of Old Testament Messianic Prophecies, but them I am done with this thread. Someone much smarter than I will have to come in and figure how to prove Jesus is the Messiah without using the PROOF. There's no discernible reason to reject the Greek scripture based on the notion, "Well, it's not the Old Testament!" After all, Isaiah writes that the Messiah would be rejected of his own people, yet would be embraced by the gentile nations of the world. The Roman Empire used Greek as their language, and the many Epistles from the Roman Citizen Paul were sent to Churches in Roman provinces to the northwest, like Corinth and Thessalonica. Isaiah says that the Messiah must die himself, which negates the need for Daniel saying the same, since you don't care what he says, either. And another thing: to whomever said the Messiah was not to die for the sins of the people, may I direct you to Isaiah 53:10...

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." -Isaiah 53:10

Rereading verses 1-12 that we may receive a fuller picture:

"Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." -Isaiah 53:1-12

If the New Testament is to be ignored, then the final calling card for the validity of Christ Jesus is the empirical evidence based upon undertaking an actual relationship with Him. Such a move is dangerous to begin with, for we "walk by faith, not by sight". But those who do start a relationship can attest to the physical nature of that relationship, vis-a-vis the spiritual gifts and the power of prayer. Those that would argue for chemical reactions in the brain, so be it. Yet in denying what the brave few souls on here have tried to express, I'd ask that you take up these matters with someone more apt to seek the evidence that you require. If they say the same thing that we have, then oh well, I guess. I will pray for everyone here, that however you may come to it, all would have peace in all things.

A descendant of Abraham: Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18;
Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16
Of the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10;
Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14
Of the house of David: 2 Samuel 7:12-16;
Matthew 1:1
Born in Bethlehem: Micah 5:2;
Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7
Taken to Egypt: Hosea 11:1;
Matthew 2:14-15
Herod´s killing of the infants: Jeremiah 31:15;
Matthew 2:16-18
Anointed by the Holy Spirit: Isaiah 11:2;
Matthew 3:16-17
Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist): Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1;
Matthew 3:1-3
Would perform miracles: Isaiah 35:5-6;
Matthew 9:35
Would preach good news: Isaiah 61:1;
Luke 4:14-21
Would minister in Galilee: Isaiah 9:1;
Matthew 4:12-16
Would cleanse the Temple: Malachi 3:1;
Matthew 21:12-13
Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem: Daniel 9:25;
Matthew 21:4-11
Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9;
Matthew 21:4-9
Would be rejected by Jews: Psalm 118:22;
I Peter 2:7
Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving...
Rejection: Isaiah 53:3;
John 1:10-11; 7:5,48
betrayal by a friend: Psalm 41:9;
Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18
sold for 30 pieces of silver: Zechariah 11:12;
Matthew 26:14-15
silence before His accusers: Isaiah 53:7;
Matthew 27:12-14
being mocked: Psalm 22:7-8;
Matthew 27:31
beaten: Isaiah 52:14;
Matthew 27:26
spit upon: Isaiah 50:6;
Matthew 27:30
piercing His hands and feet: Psalm 22:16;
Matthew 27:31
being crucified with thieves: Isaiah 53:12;
Matthew 27:38
praying for His persecutors: Isaiah 53:12;
Luke 23:34
piercing His side: Zechariah 12:10;
John 19:34
given gall and vinegar to drink: Psalm 69:21;
Matthew 27:34; Luke 23:36
no broken bones: Psalm 34:20;
John 19:32-36
buried in a rich man's tomb: Isaiah 53:9;
Matthew 27:57-60
casting lots for His garments: Psalm 22:18;
John 19:23-24
Would rise from the dead: Psalm 16:10;
Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31
Ascend into Heaven: Psalm 68:18;
Acts 1:9
Would sit down at the right hand of God: Psalm 110:1;
Hebrews 1:3

Note to Dyakovo: That was kind of a childish response, no? That crap may work on NationStates, where 75-80% of people either agree with your views or don't care one way or another, but please don't think that "blah blah blah I (person you're debating) have no proof and am therefore wrong blah blah blah" will work in other forums. Otherwise, happy hunting mates!

[Kobrania]

It is you that doesn't care about the evidence presented to you.

You force interpretation where it isn't needed, for the original texts are quite clear, and it is clear that Jesus didn't meet them fully.

[Dyakovo]

<SNIP>

Do you consider Yeshua to be the Christ (i.e. the messiah foretold in the OT)?

[Grave_n_idle]

Hey, if you guys don't care to see the evidence, that's your problem, not mine.

I want to see the evidence. I've asked you for evidence. But you can't deliver it, and that's because it simply doesn't exist.

I fail to see how the writings of the New Testament, which show Christ fulfilling Messianic Prophecy,

They don't. They just CLAIM that.

Circular reasoning? Please, that's rubbish. The Greek scripture (New Testament) is a valid display of Messianic Prophecies fulfilled.

No, they aren't. The Greek scripture claims to fulfill the prophecies of messiah, but they really don't. What they 'fulfill' are, 9 times out of 10, not messianic prophecy at all.

I will give a more expanded list of Old Testament Messianic Prophecies,

Irrelevant.

There are core requirements of messiah, that Jesus failed to fulfill.

You can CLAIM as many 'extra' prophecies as you like - but that won't make them legitimate. For example - the claim that Jesus 'fulfills' the 'prophecy' that messiah will be born of a virgin - which ISN'T a messianic prophecy, and DIDN'T even actually mention virgins.

Someone much smarter than I will have to come in and figure how to prove Jesus is the Messiah without using the PROOF.

No, someone will have to show how Jesus fulfilled the actual prophecies. Which he didn't.

Isaiah says that the Messiah must die himself, which negates the need for Daniel saying the same, since you don't care what he says, either. And another thing: to whomever said the Messiah was not to die for the sins of the people, may I direct you to Isaiah 53:10...

Isaiah 53 is discussing the nation of ISRAEL, it is not discussing messiah. Another example of Christian revisionism to try to make Jesus fulfill the prophecies, by claiming prophecies that aren't even messianic.

[Cradled Squads]

Christianity rose to power on the blood and lives of people who didn't agree with them: I'm solid pagan and have no use for them. NONE.

[Tekania]

Christianity rose to power on the blood and lives of people who didn't agree with them: I'm solid pagan and have no use for them. NONE.

Actually, rode to power on the back of a self-professed convert (Constantine)... prior to that Christians were used to keep the roman streets well lit...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And Evolution is not a fact. It's a Theory, and Science backs that up.

Please don't use the word theory when you don't know what it means. I don't want to have to correct yet another creationist on this for the billionth time.

[Blouman Empire]

Please don't gravedig.

[Cradled Squads]

BRB Starting turkey

[Blouman Empire]

BRB Starting turkey

Yeah time to send this thread back to the grave.

[Cradled Squads]

Christianity rose to power on the blood and lives of people who didn't agree with them: I'm solid pagan and have no use for them. NONE.

Actually, rode to power on the back of a self-professed convert (Constantine)... prior to that Christians were used to keep the roman streets well lit...

For people who claim to have such moral superiority, you idiots sure are responsible for a lot wholesale murders, aren't you?