A rabbi cross examines Christianity

Spotlite

Resident Homesteader
You are going to have to step up here and post the verse, tell us what the verse says, and then back it up by using your apologists talent.


I'll cut to the chase though because scripture doesn't tell you that the Jews use the father's side to trace lineage. NOT the mother's. You would have to use Mary's lineage to try to make the connection.

Prophesy #1 cannot be fulfilled therefore the quest ends right there.
I understand your reasoning.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
I understand your reasoning.

I stand corrected.
The Bible does say that the lineage comes from the father's side.
Numbers 1:18 & Jeremiah 33:17
 

Israel

BANNED
All moves by appointment.
It's a Rube Goldberg contraption if we are trapped in it. Point and counter point. Then counter counter point.

"Only what can happen does happen."


I have no argument against that. But it must include then the "even of"

Everything is happening, and all at once.

This happens. Is, what is happening.

Take time out of the Rube Goldberg contraption. Replace it with patience.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
All moves by appointment.
It's a Rube Goldberg contraption if we are trapped in it. Point and counter point. Then counter counter point.

"Only what can happen does happen."


I have no argument against that. But it must include then the "even of"

Everything is happening, and all at once.

This happens. Is, what is happening.

Take time out of the Rube Goldberg contraption. Replace it with patience.
I have been patiently waiting for you to ditch the Rube Goldberg Machine style of writing.
 

Israel

BANNED
I have been patiently waiting for you to ditch the Rube Goldberg Machine style of writing.
That's wonderful!

But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
That's wonderful!

But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

Sorry, I'm not an Axle Rose fan, or James.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Its kind of interesting -
All the historical/outside of the Bible evidence etc. that we as man can find/has found supports the Jewish view of Jesus -

Not coincidently, the above is pretty much exactly what I believe about the existence of "Jesus".
Of course, Christianity took it from there and went with it....
This is my next topic to research:
The First Council of Nicaea and the "missing records"

Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was "held in a hall in Osius's palace" (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, "Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing" (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as "a set of gibbering idiots" (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also,CensoredTheological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, "On Councils" entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that "the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronised the vilest abominations" (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are "strangely absent from the canons" (Catholic Encyclopedia,CensoredFarley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius "occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. "Seventy Eastern bishops" represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 "bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists" gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of "wild texts" (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, "Gospel and Gospels") circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God's Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolised either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as "the Divine Julius". The word "Saviour" was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being "one who sows the seed", i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as "God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life", and his successor Augustus was called the "ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race" (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalised on his coins as the "Saviour of mankind" (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and "Father of the Empire" was considered "God" among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters' texts, but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. "As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter... For one year and five months the balloting lasted..." (God's Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire's translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and "officially" ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion; and because there was no letter "J" in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into "Jesus Christ".
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
This is my next topic to research:
If even only partially historically accurate (and we know some of it is) it paints quite a picture......
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
If even only partially historically accurate (and we know some of it is) it paints quite a picture......

Yes. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
The process for electing a Pope is another good one. They lock themsleves in a room until God tells them who to vote for.
Never a unanimous outcome!!!

Hmmmm..
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
Yes. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.
Anywhere even close to "somewhere in the middle" puts quite a monkey wrench in the Christian claims.
For example -
Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion.
Even if you were to allow for writer opinion or having an axe to grind or wanting to present this information in a way that is negative to Christianity, there's really only one or two things that need to be historically accurate in here to blow the lid off.
And we know the council of Nicaea did actually take place.
 
Top