FSTDT Forums
Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on July 26, 2018, 02:24:55 pm
-
It is said that the Popes are the successors to St. Peter the Apostle as the Vicar of Christ. If you look on the wikipedia article on the List of Popes, you will see that the succession is historically traced back to Peter proving that Peter was truly the first Pope.
-
So how does this involve your second cousin's shapely ass in jeans?
-
Jacob: Oiiiink oink oink oink oink oink!
-
You're gonna win conveŕts by boring people?
"Stop blathering about the pontiffs potty chamber FFS and the royal rituals for cleaning it. I'll eat the damned wafer!"
This may be your most potent tactic yet. Nobody can say you don't bore effectively!
-
You're gonna win conveŕts by boring people?
"Stop blathering about the pontiffs potty chamber FFS and the royal rituals for cleaning it. I'll eat the damned wafer!"
This may be your most potent tactic yet. Nobody can say you don't bore effectively!
No, I gave proof that the line of Popes is traced all the way back to St Peter. It baffles me how non Catholics don’t understand this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
-
Hey, dumbfuck. Got a direct question for you. If the Popes can be genetically traced back to St. Peter the Closeted, why are they elected?
-
You're gonna win conveŕts by boring people?
"Stop blathering about the pontiffs potty chamber FFS and the royal rituals for cleaning it. I'll eat the damned wafer!"
This may be your most potent tactic yet. Nobody can say you don't bore effectively!
No, I gave proof that the line of Popes is traced all the way back to St Peter. It baffles me how non Catholics don’t understand this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
You didn't bore me with your list of pretentious, pompous pedos in stupid hats? Really? Explain to me how I'm not bored, Jacob!
-
WHO
GIVES
A
SHIT
Seriously, this does not IN ANY WAY prove that Catholicism is true.
-
WHO
GIVES
A
SHIT
Seriously, this does not IN ANY WAY prove that Catholicism is true.
It proves that there has been a Catholic Church under a papacy going back to the time of Christ which validates Christianity and specifically Catholicism.
-
WHO
GIVES
A
SHIT
Seriously, this does not IN ANY WAY prove that Catholicism is true.
It proves that there has been a Catholic Church under a papacy going back to the time of Christ which validates Christianity and specifically Catholicism.
...that doesn't prove Jesus existed, never mind that any of the supernatural claims are true. Without that, you have absolutely nothing--and you haven't proved it anywhere else, either.
-
Jacob are you ignoring my direct question you little toad sniffer?
Ironbite-are you?
-
WHO
GIVES
A
SHIT
Seriously, this does not IN ANY WAY prove that Catholicism is true.
It proves that there has been a Catholic Church under a papacy going back to the time of Christ which validates Christianity and specifically Catholicism.
Yes, and the rich beneficiaries of a centuries old pyramid scheme are going to be honest about their rackets history. Jacob, more fetishes and mad schemes and less thuddingly dull psuedo-historical lists, please. Your Borat persona has jumped the shark. Say "oink" a few more times and you might get our attention.
-
Yeah he should make a sequel to the Oink video where he rolls around in some mud.
-
Yeah he should make a sequel to the Oink video where he rolls around in some mud.
Shall we promise to convert? I promise to make the promise!
-
Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus was God.
However Jesus did not think he was God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hwuLi_0qxw
Therefore either christianity is wrong, or Jesus was.
-
Jacob are you ignoring my direct question you little toad sniffer?
Ironbite-are you?
I am not referring to genetic lineage, I am referring to succession.
-
Oh you little toad sniffer. How does a bunch of elected officials actually prove an organization was around back then? It doesn't. You've got no proof.
Ironbite-go back to fucking your second cousin.
-
Oh you little toad sniffer. How does a bunch of elected officials actually prove an organization was around back then? It doesn't. You've got no proof.
Ironbite-go back to fucking your second cousin.
Because the list of Popes goes back to the time of Jesus.
-
Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus was God.
However Jesus did not think he was God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hwuLi_0qxw
Therefore either christianity is wrong, or Jesus was.
Um Mathew, Mark, and Luke keep referring to Jesus as the Son of God.
-
(https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/b/b6/Fractal-wrongness.jpg)
-
Oh you little toad sniffer. How does a bunch of elected officials actually prove an organization was around back then? It doesn't. You've got no proof.
Ironbite-go back to fucking your second cousin.
Because the list of Popes goes back to the time of Jesus.
And I trust the early Catholic church to tell the truth as much as I do the current mob of dirty, dodgy old creeps with the same sullied brand name!
-
Oh you little toad sniffer. How does a bunch of elected officials actually prove an organization was around back then? It doesn't. You've got no proof.
Ironbite-go back to fucking your second cousin.
Because the list of Popes goes back to the time of Jesus.
And I trust the early Catholic church to tell the truth as much as I do the current mob of dirty, dodgy old creeps with the same sullied brand name!
It’s not the Catholic Church I am citing. I am citing Wikipedia which provides the list.
Besides, if Peter was not the first Pope, then I challenge you to name who was and explain how the Catholic Church came into existence.
-
You're "citing" Wikiledia? Well that was a slow burn Mr Borat, that is nearly as funny as "oink!"
Not your best work but, getting there kid!
-
He's citing Wikipedia. Oh well guys I'm convinced.
Ironbite-not like anyone and their goldfish can edit Wikipedia.
-
He's citing Wikipedia. Oh well guys I'm convinced.
Ironbite-not like anyone and their goldfish can edit Wikipedia.
Bad edits can get corrected.
-
As I said before, if Peter was not the first Pope, then I challenge you to name who was and how the papacy came into existence
-
He's citing Wikipedia. Oh well guys I'm convinced.
Ironbite-not like anyone and their goldfish can edit Wikipedia.
Bad edits can get corrected.
And anything contra the Catholic party line sure as shit is gonna get "corrected" on any article about the early Catholic church, you bet.
-
Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus was God.
However Jesus did not think he was God
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hwuLi_0qxw
Therefore either christianity is wrong, or Jesus was.
Um Mathew, Mark, and Luke keep referring to Jesus as the Son of God.
So what? I'm my dad's son, that doesn't mean I'm my dad.
The story here is actually very interesting. See early Christians were actual very diverse in their interpretations of who Jesus was. From reconstructing the Gospels and letters of Paul in their original form along with the picture gained from other sources (mostly Christians writing stuff about how other Christians were heretics) Historians have learned that the first Christians like St Paul and the author of Mark were Jews who believed that Jesus was the messiah (as in a regular human God choose for an important task) who was God's adopted son. Later in Matthew and Luke Jesus becomes not just the adopted son of God but his biological son like Heracles is to Zeus. It isn't until even later in John that Jesus is believed to be God himself.
Since the idea that Jesus was God was a later development in Christianity, we can assume that the original beliefs were closest the Jesus's own. So yeah Jesus would have thought of himself as the Jewish messiah, a new King David or Moses, but the idea that he was God he would have seen as blasphemous.
(For my sources, check out Dr Bart Ehrman's books, which this post is a highly oversimplified version of.)
-
The authors of the Gospels wrote about different specific parts of Jesus’s life and different specific information about Jesus’s life. It was a division of tasks.
-
The authors of the Gospels wrote about different specific parts of Jesus’s life and different specific information about Jesus’s life. It was a division of tasks.
You have no idea how many years intervened between the authorship of the various books in the NT, do you?
-
The authors of the Gospels wrote about different specific parts of Jesus’s life and different specific information about Jesus’s life. It was a division of tasks.
You have no idea how many years intervened between the authorship of the various books in the NT, do you?
It was within a century
-
The authors of the Gospels wrote about different specific parts of Jesus’s life and different specific information about Jesus’s life. It was a division of tasks.
You have no idea how many years intervened between the authorship of the various books in the NT, do you?
It was within a century
More than enough time in a pre mass communications age for all sorts of crap to be claimed about someone's life that aint necessarily so and Paul wrote. Given that the authors of the gospels were anonymous and that Paul didn't send writings to his Christian communities until the first century, precise dates for the gospels is uncertain at best.
-
The authors of the Gospels wrote about different specific parts of Jesus’s life and different specific information about Jesus’s life. It was a division of tasks.
That has nothing to do with my point. The gospels still have very different ideas of who Jesus was, growing more divine over time. Working backwards from that we find that the original Christians believed Jesus was not God.
-
The authors of the Gospels wrote about different specific parts of Jesus’s life and different specific information about Jesus’s life. It was a division of tasks.
That has nothing to do with my point. The gospels still have very different ideas of who Jesus was, growing more divine over time. Working backwards from that we find that the original Christians believed Jesus was not God.
They were not different ideas, they were just different pieces of information. Just because the other authors wrote son of God, does not mean that they didn’t believe that he was also God, they just used son of God as a phrase knowing that the readers already knew that Jesus is God.
-
Earlier Gospels, "I'm not God." Later Gospels "I'm totally God guize!" Jacob, "2+2=5."
Always fascinating to watch how fundies deal with cognitive dissonance and logical impossibilities.
-
Well to be fair it's not so much that they say he isn't God as they never say he was, but that's an awfully big thing not to mention. And the idea that they were giving different information is nonsense since Matthew and Luke quote Mark verbatim for much of their content and tell a lot of the same stories, probably but not certainly from a lost earlier source called Q.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Synoptic_problem_two_source_colored.png)
Although obviously there are no contemporary accounts of who the historical Jesus was, Historians can say a lot of about who he was and what he believed from reconstructing the original versions of the gospels and Paul letters, accounts of the great diversity in the early Christian movement and non-christian records of cultural context of the time.
Jesus was member of the Fourth philosophy movement, an apocalyptic duelist Jew. Traditional Judaism is strictly monotheistic, but influence from Zoroastrianism gave rise to the duelist movement that saw the universe as a battle between a good god (yahweh) and an evil god (various minor figures from Jewish folklore were inflated to this role eventually settling on a bit player in the book of Job). From that came apocalyptists who believed that a final showdown between God and Satan was imminent. This final battle would be lead by a special messiah, an ordinary Human that God would choose ala Moses or David. Jesus was one of the various cult leaders of the time who claimed this title, and worked as a travelling faith healer and magician who preached a message of resistance to Roman rule and the cuckservative Jewish religious leaders, a proto-marxist working class revolution that saw poor Jews as the ones who truely followed God and that people should abandon all material pursuits and even their families if need be to focus on spiritual purity and the coming end of history.
Everything else about Christianity: That Jesus was God, that his followers don't need to follow kosher dietary laws or get circumcised, that his moral message is meant for anyone but Jews or that the world isn't going to end in the first century CE, is a blasphemy later added onto his message.
-
There's also the fact Satan and Lucifer were never the same entity.
Benefits of playing SMT - you learn this.
Satan was basically God's prosecuting attorney - God presented the arguments that the individual was good, Satan presented the argument the individual was bad, and did stuff like the Book of Job and other such things to test Man's piety; if they failed, Satan used that against them in court so to speak (this is as abjectly unfair as it sounds). Satan was the "Prince of Darkness" in a different way than how Lucifer is often presented. Basically from all the early sources he was the dirty jobs guy on top of the other stuff. This comes into play in SMT in that Satan NEVER outright presents himself AS Satan. He's always subdivided up, hidden, or out of plain sight.
There's also the...odd...Angel Samael. No two accounts on this serpentine customer can agree if he's Fallen or in YHVH's good graces. He shows up in a vision of Heaven Moses has...and causes the poor guy to flip out. His Angel guide then says basically "don't you worry - you won't EVER have to deal with this fucker." (Going by the art I do not blame Moses for his reaction https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/megamitensei/images/5/59/Samael.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110611102937). Reason I bring him up is because he's often conflated with the snake of Eden, associated with Satan...and occasionally Lucifer, fueling the "whose side is this guy on anyways?" theological fun.
Lucifer is more like a celestial gadfly. He's always up to no good - with his more prominent position largely springing from the book "Paradise Lost" by one John Milton and then exploding from there. Even prior, Early Church leaders knew they needed to make evil diabolical but also seductive to try and prop up their side as more righteous - so Lucifer became a cunning, plotting figure. His characterization as a sort of "Demon Lord" also likely springs from Milton, where he commands the likes of Beelzebub, Belial, Lucifuge, and other assorted figures. (note from this that could be somewhat amusing; Hell has apparently had multiple "Presidents". From all I gathered, it seems they have a split executive branch where Lucifer is a Prime Minister / President for Life, with various Presidents such as Ose, Lucifuge, and others. Y'know, kind of like Russia, where Putin seems to be in charge forever and rotating other people around as one position or the other.)
As for why I bring this up, well, I figured this was as good a thread as any for a bit of a myth history lesson, and I do adore mythology. And I figured this all might just melt Jacob's brain down. Let's see him try to turn the Satan =/= Lucifer into a whole massive argument...
-
I love how it's basically polytheism, all these different gods running around making trouble. Just like the Celts, Romans and Norse.
-
Well to be fair it's not so much that they say he isn't God as they never say he was, but that's an awfully big thing not to mention. And the idea that they were giving different information is nonsense since Matthew and Luke quote Mark verbatim for much of their content and tell a lot of the same stories, probably but not certainly from a lost earlier source called Q.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Synoptic_problem_two_source_colored.png)
Although obviously there are no contemporary accounts of who the historical Jesus was, Historians can say a lot of about who he was and what he believed from reconstructing the original versions of the gospels and Paul letters, accounts of the great diversity in the early Christian movement and non-christian records of cultural context of the time.
Jesus was member of the Fourth philosophy movement, an apocalyptic duelist Jew. Traditional Judaism is strictly monotheistic, but influence from Zoroastrianism gave rise to the duelist movement that saw the universe as a battle between a good god (yahweh) and an evil god (various minor figures from Jewish folklore were inflated to this role eventually settling on a bit player in the book of Job). From that came apocalyptists who believed that a final showdown between God and Satan was imminent. This final battle would be lead by a special messiah, an ordinary Human that God would choose ala Moses or David. Jesus was one of the various cult leaders of the time who claimed this title, and worked as a travelling faith healer and magician who preached a message of resistance to Roman rule and the cuckservative Jewish religious leaders, a proto-marxist working class revolution that saw poor Jews as the ones who truely followed God and that people should abandon all material pursuits and even their families if need be to focus on spiritual purity and the coming end of history.
Everything else about Christianity: That Jesus was God, that his followers don't need to follow kosher dietary laws or get circumcised, that his moral message is meant for anyone but Jews or that the world isn't going to end in the first century CE, is a blasphemy later added onto his message.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
-
There's also the fact Satan and Lucifer were never the same entity.
Benefits of playing SMT - you learn this.
Satan was basically God's prosecuting attorney - God presented the arguments that the individual was good, Satan presented the argument the individual was bad, and did stuff like the Book of Job and other such things to test Man's piety; if they failed, Satan used that against them in court so to speak (this is as abjectly unfair as it sounds). Satan was the "Prince of Darkness" in a different way than how Lucifer is often presented. Basically from all the early sources he was the dirty jobs guy on top of the other stuff. This comes into play in SMT in that Satan NEVER outright presents himself AS Satan. He's always subdivided up, hidden, or out of plain sight.
There's also the...odd...Angel Samael. No two accounts on this serpentine customer can agree if he's Fallen or in YHVH's good graces. He shows up in a vision of Heaven Moses has...and causes the poor guy to flip out. His Angel guide then says basically "don't you worry - you won't EVER have to deal with this fucker." (Going by the art I do not blame Moses for his reaction https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/megamitensei/images/5/59/Samael.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110611102937). Reason I bring him up is because he's often conflated with the snake of Eden, associated with Satan...and occasionally Lucifer, fueling the "whose side is this guy on anyways?" theological fun.
Lucifer is more like a celestial gadfly. He's always up to no good - with his more prominent position largely springing from the book "Paradise Lost" by one John Milton and then exploding from there. Even prior, Early Church leaders knew they needed to make evil diabolical but also seductive to try and prop up their side as more righteous - so Lucifer became a cunning, plotting figure. His characterization as a sort of "Demon Lord" also likely springs from Milton, where he commands the likes of Beelzebub, Belial, Lucifuge, and other assorted figures. (note from this that could be somewhat amusing; Hell has apparently had multiple "Presidents". From all I gathered, it seems they have a split executive branch where Lucifer is a Prime Minister / President for Life, with various Presidents such as Ose, Lucifuge, and others. Y'know, kind of like Russia, where Putin seems to be in charge forever and rotating other people around as one position or the other.)
As for why I bring this up, well, I figured this was as good a thread as any for a bit of a myth history lesson, and I do adore mythology. And I figured this all might just melt Jacob's brain down. Let's see him try to turn the Satan =/= Lucifer into a whole massive argument...
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
-
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
Nope. Read Genesis. It's just "the serpent". Who was punished by being forced to slither around on his belly for the rest of his and his offspring's existence. In other words, just a regular old snake, albeit the first of his kind. Satan is a completely different character.
-
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
Nope. Read Genesis. It's just "the serpent". Who was punished by being forced to slither around on his belly for the rest of his and his offspring's existence. In other words, just a regular old snake, albeit the first of his kind. Satan is a completely different character.
That reminds me: How did the serpent originally move? This question is the source of much heated religious debate and at least one overturned table and a shout of "THE DEVIL WAS NOT A GODDAMN POGO-STICK!"
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs/ (Regardless of how you feel about the source they do list a lot of notable people and their opinions on this.)
-
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
Nope. Read Genesis. It's just "the serpent". Who was punished by being forced to slither around on his belly for the rest of his and his offspring's existence. In other words, just a regular old snake, albeit the first of his kind. Satan is a completely different character.
The New Testament refers to the serpent as Satan or the Prince of Darkness.
-
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
Nope. Read Genesis. It's just "the serpent". Who was punished by being forced to slither around on his belly for the rest of his and his offspring's existence. In other words, just a regular old snake, albeit the first of his kind. Satan is a completely different character.
The New Testament refers to the serpent as Satan or the Prince of Darkness.
No, it refers to Satan as Satan. I.e. the angel (read: Not a snake) who rebelled against God's rule and was banished from heaven as a result (this happened after the events of Genesis, by the by). Again, two completely different and unrelated characters.
-
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
Nope. Read Genesis. It's just "the serpent". Who was punished by being forced to slither around on his belly for the rest of his and his offspring's existence. In other words, just a regular old snake, albeit the first of his kind. Satan is a completely different character.
That reminds me: How did the serpent originally move? This question is the source of much heated religious debate and at least one overturned table and a shout of "THE DEVIL WAS NOT A GODDAMN POGO-STICK!"
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/garden-of-eden/did-the-serpent-originally-have-legs/ (Regardless of how you feel about the source they do list a lot of notable people and their opinions on this.)
Heh. It's like watching Trekkies argue over whether or not the transporter actually teleports a person from A to B, or straight up kills them and simultaneously generates a perfect copy at the other end.
-
I think there is an episode of TNG where it is revealed that years ago when Riker used a teleporter it malfunctioned and as a result it beamed him out of a space station that was being evacuated but also left/created another one of him back on the station due to [technobabble] when the device malfunctioned.
...
After checking the Wiki it really does appear that the teleporters make copies of people. Otherwise this beam-up-mix-up would have been impossible: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Second_Chances_(episode)
-
Satan was shown to be rebellious against God from the beginning since he tempted Eve to sin. And where did you get that Lucifer is not Satan. The Bible makes it clear that they are the same.
Nope. Read Genesis. It's just "the serpent". Who was punished by being forced to slither around on his belly for the rest of his and his offspring's existence. In other words, just a regular old snake, albeit the first of his kind. Satan is a completely different character.
The New Testament refers to the serpent as Satan or the Prince of Darkness.
No, it refers to Satan as Satan. I.e. the angel (read: Not a snake) who rebelled against God's rule and was banished from heaven as a result (this happened after the events of Genesis, by the by). Again, two completely different and unrelated characters.
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
-
Jesus was member of the Fourth philosophy movement, an apocalyptic duelist Jew. Traditional Judaism is strictly monotheistic, but influence from Zoroastrianism gave rise to the duelist movement that saw the universe as a battle between a good god (yahweh) and an evil god (various minor figures from Jewish folklore were inflated to this role eventually settling on a bit player in the book of Job). From that came apocalyptists who believed that a final showdown between God and Satan was imminent. This final battle would be lead by a special messiah, an ordinary Human that God would choose ala Moses or David. Jesus was one of the various cult leaders of the time who claimed this title, and worked as a travelling faith healer and magician who preached a message of resistance to Roman rule and the cuckservative Jewish religious leaders, a proto-marxist working class revolution that saw poor Jews as the ones who truely followed God and that people should abandon all material pursuits and even their families if need be to focus on spiritual purity and the coming end of history.
I hate to nitpick you, but every time someone says Duelist when they mean Dualist, it gives me Yu-Gi-Oh flashbacks.
-
A few more points:
Lucifer is another name for the planet Venus, the "morning star".
Jesus did not claim to be God.
Renaissance art depicting the seduction of Eve shows the serpent as being female (hm, I wonder if all that Biblical misogyny had something to do with that). You can see this, for instance, on the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
The verse from Revelations does not say that the serpent being referenced there was the one that tempted Adam and Eve.
This is all, of course, pointless, since it's a religion, and religion is what we call a mythology that sufficiently many people still believe to be true.
-
A few more points:
Lucifer is another name for the planet Venus, the "morning star".
Jesus did not claim to be God.
Renaissance art depicting the seduction of Eve shows the serpent as being female (hm, I wonder if all that Biblical misogyny had something to do with that). You can see this, for instance, on the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
The verse from Revelations does not say that the serpent being referenced there was the one that tempted Adam and Eve.
This is all, of course, pointless, since it's a religion, and religion is what we call a mythology that sufficiently many people still believe to be true.
1. Because Venus outshines the other Stars, it was used as a metaphor to describe Satan because he is more significant than the other angels because he invented evil and rebelled against God.
2. “I and the Father are one. ” John 10:30
3. It was based on the myth that Adam had a first wife called Lilith who took the form of the serpent.
-
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Sure revelations says that, but genesis doesn't. The authors of genesis did not believe in any such figure as Satan, just like modern Jews don't.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
Except that's not true, we know from sources written by Christians that there were many different forms of Christianity in the early days, from Gnostics to Marcionism to Jews who thought he was the Messiah but only God's adopted son. And the evidence is overwhelming that the last of those groups were the first Christians. If the Gospel writers thought Jesus was God, why didn't they tell the Christians who didn't believe that?
-
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Sure revelations says that, but genesis doesn't. The authors of genesis did not believe in any such figure as Satan, just like modern Jews don't.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
Except that's not true, we know from sources written by Christians that there were many different forms of Christianity in the early days, from Gnostics to Marcionism to Jews who thought he was the Messiah but only God's adopted son. And the evidence is overwhelming that the last of those groups were the first Christians. If the Gospel writers thought Jesus was God, why didn't they tell the Christians who didn't believe that?
1. Because Judaism is a false religion that does not contain the New Testament that explains that Jesus came to save the world from Satan who invented sin.
2. The other groups were declared heretics by the Orthodoxy.
-
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Sure revelations says that, but genesis doesn't. The authors of genesis did not believe in any such figure as Satan, just like modern Jews don't.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
Except that's not true, we know from sources written by Christians that there were many different forms of Christianity in the early days, from Gnostics to Marcionism to Jews who thought he was the Messiah but only God's adopted son. And the evidence is overwhelming that the last of those groups were the first Christians. If the Gospel writers thought Jesus was God, why didn't they tell the Christians who didn't believe that?
1. Because Judaism is a false religion that does not contain the New Testament that explains that Jesus came to save the world from Satan who invented sin.
2. The other groups were declared heretics by the Orthodoxy.
1. Your religion is Judaism with more insane bullshit on top.
2. And how do we know the "Orthodoxy" was true (or closer to the truth than any other group)?
And Marcian was probably the wisest of the early Christians, he pointed out that it'd be best to just ditch the entire Old Testament. Would that they had followed his path...
-
1. Because Judaism is a false religion that does not contain the New Testament that explains that Jesus came to save the world from Satan who invented sin.
So what? The authors of genesis still didn't think the snake was the devil.
2. The other groups were declared heretics by the Orthodoxy.
So what? They still existed, were quit numerous at the time and were still first. If the authors of the Synoptic gospels thought Jesus was God why didn't they try to correct this heresy?
-
As a related note, while Marcian was quite right that the Christianity should have ditched the Old Testament, it's not like the New Testament is all that great, either (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94GlsIUj7A8).
-
Also, keeping the "tempting mortals to test their piety" thing in mind, wouldn't tempting Eve to sin just be...Satan doing his job, which he did again in the Book of Job?
Satan charged that Job was only faithful because his life was full of blessings, a fair enough point to make - can you count on the faithfulness of a guy when he's only known success and you haven't seen how he is in the midst of failure?
Satan then received God's approval to go ahead with his duties - test Job's piety.
It is in the Book of Job we see Satan as an Angel. He freely circulates in Heaven, and converses directly with God.
This Christian source I found says that Lucifer =/= Satan. http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1091
-
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Sure revelations says that, but genesis doesn't. The authors of genesis did not believe in any such figure as Satan, just like modern Jews don't.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
Except that's not true, we know from sources written by Christians that there were many different forms of Christianity in the early days, from Gnostics to Marcionism to Jews who thought he was the Messiah but only God's adopted son. And the evidence is overwhelming that the last of those groups were the first Christians. If the Gospel writers thought Jesus was God, why didn't they tell the Christians who didn't believe that?
1. Because Judaism is a false religion that does not contain the New Testament that explains that Jesus came to save the world from Satan who invented sin.
2. The other groups were declared heretics by the Orthodoxy.
So you worship a guy who followed a false religion? Because Jesus was jewish, really jewish.
-
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Sure revelations says that, but genesis doesn't. The authors of genesis did not believe in any such figure as Satan, just like modern Jews don't.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
Except that's not true, we know from sources written by Christians that there were many different forms of Christianity in the early days, from Gnostics to Marcionism to Jews who thought he was the Messiah but only God's adopted son. And the evidence is overwhelming that the last of those groups were the first Christians. If the Gospel writers thought Jesus was God, why didn't they tell the Christians who didn't believe that?
1. Because Judaism is a false religion that does not contain the New Testament that explains that Jesus came to save the world from Satan who invented sin.
2. The other groups were declared heretics by the Orthodoxy.
1. Your religion is Judaism with more insane bullshit on top.
2. And how do we know the "Orthodoxy" was true (or closer to the truth than any other group)?
And Marcian was probably the wisest of the early Christians, he pointed out that it'd be best to just ditch the entire Old Testament. Would that they had followed his path...
1. But Christianity is far superior because it says that the messiah came.
2. Well first of all, because the Orthodoxy stayed true to worshipping the God of the Old Testament in accordance with the Gospels, while the Gnostics and Marcionians went against him. Second because Marcion was a second century theologian who came after the time the Gospels and Epistles were written making his writings less orthodox.
The true Orthodoxy knew that Jesus was God.
-
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Apocalypse/Revelation 12:9 Douay-Rheims Bible(English translation of the Latin Vulgate)
Sure revelations says that, but genesis doesn't. The authors of genesis did not believe in any such figure as Satan, just like modern Jews don't.
It was not mentioned because the readers already knew that he is God
Except that's not true, we know from sources written by Christians that there were many different forms of Christianity in the early days, from Gnostics to Marcionism to Jews who thought he was the Messiah but only God's adopted son. And the evidence is overwhelming that the last of those groups were the first Christians. If the Gospel writers thought Jesus was God, why didn't they tell the Christians who didn't believe that?
1. Because Judaism is a false religion that does not contain the New Testament that explains that Jesus came to save the world from Satan who invented sin.
2. The other groups were declared heretics by the Orthodoxy.
So you worship a guy who followed a false religion? Because Jesus was jewish, really jewish.
I am not refering to pre Christian Judaism, I am referring to post Christian Judaism that does not acknowledge Jesus as the messiah.
-
Maybe because Jesus didn't satisfy the prophecies of the Messiah.
-
Also, keeping the "tempting mortals to test their piety" thing in mind, wouldn't tempting Eve to sin just be...Satan doing his job, which he did again in the Book of Job?
Satan charged that Job was only faithful because his life was full of blessings, a fair enough point to make - can you count on the faithfulness of a guy when he's only known success and you haven't seen how he is in the midst of failure?
Satan then received God's approval to go ahead with his duties - test Job's piety.
It is in the Book of Job we see Satan as an Angel. He freely circulates in Heaven, and converses directly with God.
This Christian source I found says that Lucifer =/= Satan. http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1091
But God punished the serpent by cursing him above the wild livestock.
It’s true that Lucifer is a term that means morning Star because Jesus himself calls himself the morning star. In Isiah Satan was also called a morning Star, so the term Lucifer is a term to both. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/who-or-what-was-lucifer
-
As I said, Satan is identified with the serpent, not as it. Some allege the Serpent is Lilith, who became a Demon. Never in the Genesis story is Satan explicitly said to be the serpent.
And in your own statement you just said multiple individuals are associated with the term Morning Star. Lucifer however has the most associations with it.
haSatan is the exact term used for this specific entity. It carries connotations of prosecution and opposition in the court sense.
Whereas Lucifer was identified pre-fall as Helel, or Shining One.
-
This is what happens when someone is brought up to trust the scriptures of their religion to a third party rather than reading the bloody things!
-
As I said, Satan is identified with the serpent, not as it. Some allege the Serpent is Lilith, who became a Demon. Never in the Genesis story is Satan explicitly said to be the serpent.
And in your own statement you just said multiple individuals are associated with the term Morning Star. Lucifer however has the most associations with it.
haSatan is the exact term used for this specific entity. It carries connotations of prosecution and opposition in the court sense.
Whereas Lucifer was identified pre-fall as Helel, or Shining One.
The serpent is either Lilith or Satan.
-
As I said, Satan is identified with the serpent, not as it. Some allege the Serpent is Lilith, who became a Demon. Never in the Genesis story is Satan explicitly said to be the serpent.
And in your own statement you just said multiple individuals are associated with the term Morning Star. Lucifer however has the most associations with it.
haSatan is the exact term used for this specific entity. It carries connotations of prosecution and opposition in the court sense.
Whereas Lucifer was identified pre-fall as Helel, or Shining One.
The serpent is either Lilith or Satan.
So which one is it, O Wise Scripture-Knowing Orthodox Catholic? Please, do enlighten us poor, stupid atheists and skeptics.
-
...AND ONE MYTHOLOGY BUFF!
Alright, Jacob, if you are so knowledgeable about Biblical Myth and such, tell me what meaning there is behind the Angel Samael's title as "the Poison of God". Without going to Wikipedia or such.
-
As I said, Satan is identified with the serpent, not as it. Some allege the Serpent is Lilith, who became a Demon. Never in the Genesis story is Satan explicitly said to be the serpent.
And in your own statement you just said multiple individuals are associated with the term Morning Star. Lucifer however has the most associations with it.
haSatan is the exact term used for this specific entity. It carries connotations of prosecution and opposition in the court sense.
Whereas Lucifer was identified pre-fall as Helel, or Shining One.
The serpent is either Lilith or Satan.
So which one is it, O Wise Scripture-Knowing Orthodox Catholic? Please, do enlighten us poor, stupid atheists and skeptics.
I don’t know all the answers. If you are curious to find out, you should convert to Cathplicism so that you can find out in heaven.
-
...AND ONE MYTHOLOGY BUFF!
Alright, Jacob, if you are so knowledgeable about Biblical Myth and such, tell me what meaning there is behind the Angel Samael's title as "the Poison of God". Without going to Wikipedia or such.
Samael is called the Poison of God in the false religion of Judaism not Christianity. He is based on the real Satan.
-
And you Johnny-come-lately's who kept rewriting and re editing your books for centuries are the more reliable source of information? Oh please!
-
And the particularly Orthodox Jews would say you adhere to the false religion of Catholicism, whereas they have the oldest texts and closest materials to the original word of YHVH.
-
And the particularly Orthodox Jews would say you adhere to the false religion of Catholicism, whereas they have the oldest texts and closest materials to the original word of YHVH.
Christians has the Old Testament as well. Modern Judaism also hasn’t the Talmud which was written after Christianity, so Christianity does have older texts.
-
You know what? I think Jacob may have been right all along. It's still too early to say, but I think this could be a serious game changer.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9197470976/hF41CA0E2/)