• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Religio

Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

What part of "yes" did you not understand?



Because we are not Christ. Christ also never lied. So this is a good example of the "pot calling the kettle black."



You have failed miserably so far.



"RELIGION, n.f. is a borrowed word (Nca 1085) to latin religio, whose etymology has been controversial since Antiquity. After Lactance, from Tertullien, the christian authors liked to link religio to the verb religare "to link, to unite", from re- (>re-) with an intensive value, and ligare, (>to link).

Religion having as object relationships with Divinity, the word would mean properly "link, tie" or "dependance", the meaning's variations being similar to "tied up, tied" [rattachement et attachement]; showing simultaneously the affective tie and the effective tie. Another origin was given by Ciceron and is sustained by his authority: religio would came from either legere (to pick, to gather) (> to read) with addition of the prefix re- (>re-) disclosing intensity or the look-back, flash-back; either from religere, "to gather, collect", verb attested only from a participle. From Emile Benveniste, it meant, abstractly, "to come back on what one did, re-understand by thought or reflection, redouble one's attention and application", a development similar to the recolligere' development (>to gather, to 'recolliger' - [in o.f., recolliger]).
" - sectes, scientologie, cults, scientology, THE HISTORY OF THE WORD RELIGION.

I love how you added "to hold back" and "to keep down." :spin:



Probably around 20 years ago. That was the last time I went to any kind of church.



It looks to me like you are being vague because you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your outlandish claims. :2wave:

The only thing at stake here is your credibility. And it is dropping fast.



OK that is a huge jump. Who said anything about an enemy?

You are making claims that are lies. It makes you untrustworthy, not an enemy.

This is an Internet forum, it's not that serious.



Not really, but I doubt God cares all that much in the grand scheme of things.



The paragraph is your friend.


i will respectfully decline to engage this convo. not because of any disagreements, because i welcome those; but i realize that we don't have the same intent. when dealing with issues such as religion, politics, race its important to be diplomatic as possible. i fully understand your skeptiscm, what i have a hard time understanding about ones like yourself is the defiant tone that is usually over-the-top sarcasm and condescending messages are only used in your on-line interactions but rarely in your face to face dealings with people. i don't know you or claim to, just making an observation. i humbly invite ANYONE ELSE who'd like to engage in a MATURE, PRODUCTIVE, and RESPECTFUL conversation on the topic at hand. best wishes.
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

i will respectfully decline to engage this convo. not because of any disagreements, because i welcome those; but i realize that we don't have the same intent.

Then what is your intent?

My intent is or was to prove your statements were false. I have shown this beyond a reasonable doubt.

when dealing with issues such as religion, politics, race its important to be diplomatic as possible. i fully understand your skeptiscm, what i have a hard time understanding about ones like yourself is the defiant tone that is usually over-the-top sarcasm and condescending messages are only used in your on-line interactions but rarely in your face to face dealings with people. i don't know you or claim to, just making an observation.

You are absolutely correct.

This does not however change the fact that your information is wrong, and you refused to post any evidence to support your position at all, nothing.

i humbly invite ANYONE ELSE who'd like to engage in a MATURE, PRODUCTIVE, and RESPECTFUL conversation on the topic at hand. best wishes.

Suits me fine.

But just to be clear...

I asked you for evidence and you produced statements which were not true. No evidence.

I called you out on it and you went furtherer and told more lies or half truths. Again with no evidence on your part.

I did not get sarcastic until you tried to blow smoke up my butt. :2wave:
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

Then what is your intent?

My intent is or was to prove your statements were false. I have shown this beyond a reasonable doubt.



You are absolutely correct.

This does not however change the fact that your information is wrong, and you refused to post any evidence to support your position at all, nothing.



Suits me fine.

But just to be clear...

I asked you for evidence and you produced statements which were not true. No evidence.

I called you out on it and you went furtherer and told more lies or half truths. Again with no evidence on your part.

I did not get sarcastic until you tried to blow smoke up my butt. :2wave:

you are a trouble little boy hiding behind a keyboard. if your intent really was to "prove" my statements false and you supposedly did this, then what is your intent now for further negative dialogue. that fact of of the matter is you haven't proven anything. like i said before, i will not reveal anything to a guy who's disrespectful, immature, and rude. i will only deal with a certain caliber of person. again, not that we have to agree, but there has to be basic rules of engagement, otherwise there is no common ground or reason for us to speak. if your whole purpose is to take what i say, do a google search on an adverse position, then paste it here and call me a liar based on your crack research, what chance do i have? i certainly won't join you in this foolishness. let's be clear. a lot of the mysteries surrounding the origins of the "christian" church have yet to be exposed. as an Israelite, my faith is a source of strength. i know this is troubling for some but this is what God asks of us. if he showed and had to prove everything why would we need faith. look its okay. let's just disagree and leave it there. you've already "proven your point", right?
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

you are a trouble little boy hiding behind a keyboard.

No I am a grown man dealing with vague insinuations and lack of evidence on your part.

if your intent really was to "prove" my statements false and you supposedly did this, then what is your intent now for further negative dialogue. that fact of of the matter is you haven't proven anything.

Oh I beg to differ...

"There is no Jesus Christ. That was another one of the fraudulent "Apostle" Paul's (who was really Saul) lies. His true name was Yahshua, who was a Nazarene. - kevvvo247

I asked for evidence to back up this statement.

You replied with...

"Jesus Christ is not even a Hebrew name. The letter J was introduced about 500 years ago. its better if you come to your own realization. look it up anywhere, but all you really need is a aramaic bible. the KJV was penned by Sir Francis Bacon (Shakespere), a known homosexual." - kevvvo247

So lets do a check list...

#1 Was Paul a fraudulent apostle?

No conclusive evidence to support your accusation was posted.

#2 Jesus is not a Hebrew name.

I proved it was as it was translated more than 3 times from the original pronunciation and 2 dead languages.

#3 The KJV was penned by Sir Francis Bacon (Shakespeare).

False. It was done by many translators from various locations.

#4 Was Sir Francis Bacon a homosexual?

Who cares as it has nothing to do with my coment or your post. It was little more than hyperbol.

like i said before, i will not reveal anything to a guy who's disrespectful, immature, and rude. i will only deal with a certain caliber of person. again, not that we have to agree, but there has to be basic rules of engagement, otherwise there is no common ground or reason for us to speak.

Lets be honest here. You did not give me anything when I did ask respectfully. You gave lip service backed up by nothing.

Sorry. That is not much to debate on is it?

if your whole purpose is to take what i say, do a google search on an adverse position, then paste it here and call me a liar based on your crack research, what chance do i have?

Plenty. Post something of value backed up by evidence. Amazing how that can work in a debate.

i certainly won't join you in this foolishness. let's be clear. a lot of the mysteries surrounding the origins of the "christian" church have yet to be exposed. as an Israelite, my faith is a source of strength.

So what? We were not arguing faith as a source of strength. Thats good and I am glad your faith is strong, but back up your claims. If you do this we can have a reasonable discourse.

i know this is troubling for some but this is what God asks of us. if he showed and had to prove everything why would we need faith. look its okay. let's just disagree and leave it there. you've already "proven your point", right?

This is not about faith, faith I have plenty of. But don't come around stating opinion as fact with no evidence and expect people to take it at face value.

It would be like me coming on here and saying...

The Torah is false doctrine and the Jewish faith is based on Satan worship.

Then to back up that statement I say: Do your own research.

Now how would you have a reasonable discourse?

I made the statement so the burden of proof is on me, not you to research it. That is how a debate is supposed to work.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

No I am a grown man dealing with vague insinuations and lack of evidence on your part.



Oh I beg to differ...

"There is no Jesus Christ. That was another one of the fraudulent "Apostle" Paul's (who was really Saul) lies. His true name was Yahshua, who was a Nazarene. - kevvvo247

I asked for evidence to back up this statement.

You replied with...

"Jesus Christ is not even a Hebrew name. The letter J was introduced about 500 years ago. its better if you come to your own realization. look it up anywhere, but all you really need is a aramaic bible. the KJV was penned by Sir Francis Bacon (Shakespere), a known homosexual." - kevvvo247

So lets do a check list...

#1 Was Paul a fraudulent apostle?

No conclusive evidence to support your accusation was posted.

#2 Jesus is not a Hebrew name.

I proved it was as it was translated more than 3 times from the original pronunciation and 2 dead languages.

#3 The KJV was penned by Sir Francis Bacon (Shakespeare).

False. It was done by many translators from various locations.

#4 Was Sir Francis Bacon a homosexual?

Who cares as it has nothing to do with my coment or your post. It was little more than hyperbol.



Lets be honest here. You did not give me anything when I did ask respectfully. You gave lip service backed up by nothing.

Sorry. That is not much to debate on is it?



Plenty. Post something of value backed up by evidence. Amazing how that can work in a debate.



So what? We were not arguing faith as a source of strength. Thats good and I am glad your faith is strong, but back up your claims. If you do this we can have a reasonable discourse.



This is not about faith, faith I have plenty of. But don't come around stating opinion as fact with no evidence and expect people to take it at face value.

It would be like me coming on here and saying...

The Torah is false doctrine and the Jewish faith is based on Satan worship.

Then to back up that statement I say: Do your own research.

Now how would you have a reasonable discourse?

I made the statement so the burden of proof is on me, not you to research it. That is how a debate is supposed to work.



hey. nobody else in here? oh well. i'm probably gonna be jumping around here, but i'm sure you're game. you're right, this is a forum and no matter how disrespectful a person is, the question remains valid. that's the law. i'm definitely not a guy who moves away from challenges as an ex-leatherneck, but that's the thing; when i feel myself being pulled into negativity on the subject of The Most High, i cannot and will not. it's not His Way.

now, the pharisee we know as saul was a well known and feared zealot bent on arresting or killing every follower of Yahshua. read the NT for verification, he wrote most of it. paul was a very rich, powerful, influential guy with the "it" factor. he had the ability to "make" people believe. anyway, there are some very important facts that must be acknowledged: whenever Yahshua commissioned any of his apostles, there where numerous witnesses present. this isn't news (NT). even when judas was replaced by mattathias (or matthias in english), people were there to account. so it's established that this is The Way. sometimes we think of things in such a western way. meaning we don't/ can't realize how much tradition we are talking about here. then we have john the baptist, who was very strong in The Most High, Yahweh, so much so that he was able to convert bill collectors. when john the baptist washed Yahshua, that was the "tradition", the ceremony. it symbolized the passing of the torch. the real event or gift was secret, that again was The Way. the eastern teacher/ apprentice relationship is much different than it is here in america. okay later Yahshua feels the heat and KEEPING THE TRADITION, performed the ceremony with his apostles (recorded) and gave them the real gift (secret), following The Way. skeptics say, "why would Jesus keep a secret so valuable from us like that?" understandable, the reason is for the same reason you play that game where a group of people sit in a circle and pass 1 usually random phrase or message around it's nothing like how it began. a gift so valuable had to be done perfectly. that's YWH's WAY. the keepers of the gift had to be specially trained. i'm still in the NT. Yahshua then CHOOSES who will carry the ball to the gentiles. he chooses the rock, peter (Mat. 16:18-19). but some would have you think he made a mistake. The Way is always perfect, The Word, perfect.

let's hold that thought. most christians will have you think memorizing the bible is a great thing. Yahshua rarely preached the old testament. no, people weren't walking around with scrolls and scrolls of bibles scripture. the scrolls were usually in the place of worship. most people could couldn't read the language. Yahshua preached The Kingdom of Heaven, mostly. Yahshua even gave us a tip for the gift in Mat. 6:33. He said seek FIRST, the Kingdom of Heaven, but the way He describes it, sounds way different than what christians today talk about. HE BASICALLY TELLS US TO CHILL OUT. don't judge people, don't stress tomorrow, live life free and happy, don't let people hold power over your mind, that leads to evil. all there in the NT. He also said BROAD IS THE WAY THAT LEADETH TO DESTRUCTION. i mean, that pretty much says it all. NARROW IS THE WAY THAT LEADETH TO LIFE. read Mat. 7:15 and let's go forward.

so saul is on his way to damascus to lock up more followers of Yahshua they're multiplying because of the apostles loyalty and genius and its becoming a huge problem for the bigwigs. then, whalla! paul is "stunned by a light" and falls off his horse. the light calls out to him, he asks who it is, the voice tells him.....Jesus, right? no, of course not, that wasn't his name. the voice tells him that its Yahshua, then it gets fuzzy. in Acts 9:3-8, saul says the guys he was riding with heard a voice but saw nothing. hmmm. okay, no big deal but then in Acts 22:6-9, he says the men saw the light but didn't hear a voice. this is not THE WAY. never has been, never will be. we see how the tradition was kept, even among the most trying times of Yahshua's life. saul would have you believe this is how he became the apostle paul. in Acts 9:26, he tried to join the real apostles and they feared him and didn't believe his act. finally, he convinces the respected barnabas to introduce him to the guys. he does, and just think (palpatine). he gains the knowledge of most of the safe dwellings of those trying to worship Yahweh and be free through the teachings of Yahshua. then, as we all know "paul" gains control of the new christian church. but for a follower of Yahshua, he sure preached an awkward gospel, in comparison. paul made NO RECORDED REFERENCES TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. also going back a bit, all the OT prophets received their call directly from YWH. we know paul's account though. again, not THE WAY, noticing a disturbing pattern. this guy was like the polar opposite to Yahshua. Yahshua ate herbs and fish. paul referred to vegetarians as "weak" (Rom. 14:2). Yahshua preached that all man had to do to be forgiven for sins, was repent. ah, that word repent. when interpreted correctly simply means "to turn" as in, to turn away from sin. that's it. when the mob was gonna stone the woman, Yahshua simply told her to repent, and sin no more. it's really not about the guilt trip that certain folks make it out to be. but also, there was a "ceremony" for this as well, you got it, sack cloth and ashes. again these are the traditions that were used. totally different than our way of life. but nevertheless, we are given direct instructions on how things were to be done. this cannot be denied. paul preached a philosophy of lawlessness. "as long as you have faith in Jesus Christ and believe that He died for your sins, you'll be forgiven for any sins you commit". why the difference? Yahshua NEVER preached that. Read Yashua's Parable of the Sower, then read how Paul slithers the reference into his own twisted power grab in II Cor. 9:5-7. if one would just see for ones' self, it's not such a hidden, mysterious thing. for more insight as to the kind of character "apostle paul" had, refer to Rom. 3:7, Eph. 3:8, ITim. 1:5, IICor. 11:8, among many other timeless gems by this monster.

i think i'll stop here, ther's plenty more but i'm hungry.
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

hey. nobody else in here? oh well. i'm probably gonna be jumping around here, but i'm sure you're game. you're right, this is a forum and no matter how disrespectful a person is, the question remains valid. that's the law. i'm definitely not a guy who moves away from challenges as an ex-leatherneck, but that's the thing; when i feel myself being pulled into negativity on the subject of The Most High, i cannot and will not. it's not His Way.

It looks more like you don't want to support claims you have made. It seems to me if I do, it is "disrespectful?"

Forgive me if I cannot take your claims about "Jesus" name and "Shakespeare" as serious.

now, the pharisee we know as saul was a well known and feared zealot bent on arresting or killing every follower of Yahshua. read the NT for verification, he wrote most of it. paul was a very rich, powerful, influential guy with the "it" factor. he had the ability to "make" people believe. anyway, there are some very important facts that must be acknowledged: whenever Yahshua commissioned any of his apostles, there where numerous witnesses present. this isn't news (NT). even when judas was replaced by mattathias (or matthias in english), people were there to account. so it's established that this is The Way. sometimes we think of things in such a western way. meaning we don't/ can't realize how much tradition we are talking about here. then we have john the baptist, who was very strong in The Most High, Yahweh, so much so that he was able to convert bill collectors. when john the baptist washed Yahshua, that was the "tradition", the ceremony. it symbolized the passing of the torch. the real event or gift was secret, that again was The Way. the eastern teacher/ apprentice relationship is much different than it is here in america. okay later Yahshua feels the heat and KEEPING THE TRADITION, performed the ceremony with his apostles (recorded) Where? got a verse? and gave them the real gift (secret), following The Way. skeptics say, "why would Jesus keep a secret so valuable from us like that?" understandable, the reason is for the same reason you play that game where a group of people sit in a circle and pass 1 usually random phrase or message around it's nothing like how it began. a gift so valuable had to be done perfectly. that's YWH's WAY. the keepers of the gift had to be specially trained. i'm still in the NT. Yahshua then CHOOSES who will carry the ball to the gentiles. he chooses the rock, peter (Mat. 16:18-19). but some would have you think he made a mistake. The Way is always perfect, The Word, perfect.

let's hold that thought. most christians will have you think memorizing the bible is a great thing. Yahshua rarely preached the old testament. no, people weren't walking around with scrolls and scrolls of bibles scripture. the scrolls were usually in the place of worship. most people could couldn't read the language.Now tell me something I don't know, lol Yahshua preached The Kingdom of Heaven, mostly. Yahshua even gave us a tip for the gift in Mat. 6:33. He said seek FIRST, the Kingdom of Heaven, but the way He describes it, sounds way different than what christians today talk about. HE BASICALLY TELLS US TO CHILL OUT. don't judge people, don't stress tomorrow, live life free and happy, don't let people hold power over your mind, that leads to evil. all there in the NT. Again nothing new as I have stated this myself He also said BROAD IS THE WAY THAT LEADETH TO DESTRUCTION. i mean, that pretty much says it all. NARROW IS THE WAY THAT LEADETH TO LIFE. read Mat. 7:15 and let's go forward.

so saul is on his way to damascus to lock up more followers of Yahshua they're multiplying because of the apostles loyalty and genius and its becoming a huge problem for the bigwigs. then, whalla! paul is "stunned by a light" and falls off his horse. the light calls out to him, he asks who it is, the voice tells him.....Jesus, right? no, of course not, that wasn't his name. That is our translation, so yes it is his name in English the voice tells him that its Yahshua, then it gets fuzzy. in Acts 9:3-8, saul says the guys he was riding with heard a voice but saw nothing. hmmm. okay, no big deal but then in Acts 22:6-9, he says the men saw the light but didn't hear a voice. this is not THE WAY. This is also a possible mistake by the writer as we cannot verify if Paul even wrote any of this first hand. Most biblical scholars agree he did not. Considering most of the NT was not written till long after Jesus was gone we have no way to tell. Again this is still speculation, although you have peaked my interest from a biblical standpoint. never has been, never will be. we see how the tradition was kept, even among the most trying times of Yahshua's life. saul would have you believe this is how he became the apostle paul. in Acts 9:26, he tried to join the real apostles and they feared him and didn't believe his act. finally, he convinces the respected barnabas to introduce him to the guys. I don't think your version is correct. Read Acts 9:26-28 as it says nothing about convincing Barnabas of anything. It says he took him in. he does, and just think (palpatine). he gains the knowledge of most of the safe dwellings of those trying to worship Yahweh and be free through the teachings of Yahshua. then, as we all know "paul" gains control of the new christian church. but for a follower of Yahshua, he sure preached an awkward gospel, in comparison. I don't agree, it makes perfect sense. paul made NO RECORDED REFERENCES TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.But he did reference going to be with Christ and Christ having his rewards. also going back a bit, all the OT prophets received their call directly from YWH. we know paul's account though. again, not THE WAY, noticing a disturbing pattern. this guy was like the polar opposite to Yahshua. Yahshua ate herbs and fish. paul referred to vegetarians as "weak" (Rom. 14:2). That is not true at all "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs" He is saying one who believes he can eat all things perceives an eater of herbs as weak. You are losing me man. Yahshua preached that all man had to do to be forgiven for sins, was repent. ah, that word repent. when interpreted correctly simply means "to turn" as in, to turn away from sin. that's it. when the mob was gonna stone the woman, Yahshua simply told her to repent, and sin no more. it's really not about the guilt trip that certain folks make it out to be. but also, there was a "ceremony" for this as well, you got it, sack cloth and ashes. What tradition in the NT calls for sack cloth and ashes? again these are the traditions that were used. totally different than our way of life. but nevertheless, we are given direct instructions on how things were to be done. this cannot be denied. paul preached a philosophy of lawlessness. "as long as you have faith in Jesus Christ and believe that He died for your sins, you'll be forgiven for any sins you commit". why the difference? I don't believe there was a difference "John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Yahshua NEVER preached that. Read Yashua's Parable of the Sower, then read how Paul slithers the reference into his own twisted power grab in II Cor. 9:5-7. OK you lost me. What Paul was speaking of was exactly what Jesus preached. Luke 21:1-4 if one would just see for ones' self, it's not such a hidden, mysterious thing. for more insight as to the kind of character "apostle paul" had, refer to Rom. 3:7, Eph. 3:8, ITim. 1:5, IICor. 11:8, among many other timeless gems by this monster. Well I can see how some of what you stated was off course or complelty wrong as to it's meaning. So in the end I can honestly say I do not agree at all.

i think i'll stop here, ther's plenty more but i'm hungry.

If you get time later please continue. Even though I do not agree with much of what you say, biblically speaking it is interesting to see such a differing view point.
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

It looks more like you don't want to support claims you have made. It seems to me if I do, it is "disrespectful?"

Forgive me if I cannot take your claims about "Jesus" name and "Shakespeare" as serious.





If you get time later please continue. Even though I do not agree with much of what you say, biblically speaking it is interesting to see such a differing view point.



i guess now could be a good time for you to prove that paul is at least an apostle, then we can move on. i really would love to see that. i clearly gave example after example of broken traditions, manipulated words, and blatant disrespect. if you checked those scriptures, you'd know that he admitted to lying (Rom3:7), preaching a mystery gospel- not Yahshua's gospel (Eph3:8), being a monster (ITim1:15), and basically robbing churches (IICor11:8). and sorry, but john 3:16 doesn't explain everything away. please share which one of Yahshua's apostles saw "paul" as one of them.

they say, the greatest form of disrespect is to take over a movement/ organization belonging to another, and twist it from its true intent. christianity of today is absolutely nothing like what YHW followers through Yahshua worshiped. okay, are you a sabbath keeper? if not, it's probably because "Jesus did away with the old law!" nonsense, Yahshua came to uphold the law. he took the pharisees to task for their exploitation, greed, and overall sinister ways. please don't ask me anything like (where is this info???) that basically shows me that you haven't studied Yahshua at all. it's common. it's funny, you ask most mainstream christians about what you should study if "you're beginning to read the NT"; they'll tell you paul, paul, paul. romans, corinthians, hebrews (who wrote this mysterious book, anyway). but then you say, "if its called 'christianity' shouldn't i concentrate on Jesus, Christ?" THEN THEY WILL SAY, "no, no, no, you have to read Jesus' gospel in context. hogwash. says who? "paul" the apostle? who's disgusting and blood loving ways turned Yahshua's peaceful Way into a necrophiliacs paradise. when Yahshua spoke of ANYTHING seemingly tangible, he was speaking in a spiritual sense ONLY. HE GAVE NO PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO WORLDLY BONDS. that's right, father, mother, brother, sister. these were all bonds that we shouldn't confine ourselves to. i'm sure you know about the instance when His disciples were trying to get His attention by telling Him that his mother and siblings were waiting for him. He quickly clarified that THEY WERE HIS BROTHERS. which is also why the davinci code angle is simply a diversion from the truth. Yahshua never gave any extra value to "blood". that way is of the devil. The Most High, Yahweh sees all of us as His children AND EQUALS. i say all that as a qualifier for my next point: YAHSHUA'S PURPOSE WAS NOT 'MERELY TO COME TO DIE FOR OUR SINS. HE CAME TO SAVE US BY GIVING US THE "KEY" OF REACHING 'ONENESS' WITH THE MOST HIGH, YAHWEH (i AM). go back and read the Gospels. it's a simple philosophy, there is no one better to learn about Yahshua, than the source. if you were studying sun tzu, what would you do first? would you go to the library and read about what other peolpe said about his teachings? or, would you go and get "the art of war"? and see what he ha to say for himself? if we agree that YWH doesn't change, IS PERFECT, and is infallible; his word and gospel would NEVER change, and if it "appeared" to, it's because man changed it. for now, i will hold off on the reasons that "man" would do this, or in particular, the characters involved (paul, constatine, lucifer) as its another 3 days worth of argument. in fact, there can be nothing else to be said regarding "apostle paul" and his legitimacy or lack thereof, as a true apostle and follower of Yahshua. if you really can't see any of what i'm saying, then as i said before, there would be no need to go further. please read the NT. Yahshua's words aren't vague at all. He spoke very directly. the only "context" that needs to be kept is putting yourself in the region AT THAT TIME, along with the known facts of Yahshua's background (from palestine). i'm aware of the christian church's disdain for the east, but Yahshua was from that region, period. with that came, the region's traditions. john the baptist said one greater would come bringing fire (hence the ash for repentance). if christians are going to take words literally and not do the proper research, and not REALLY get to know YWH; and wait for the "rapture", that's very sad. YWH doesn't want us to have the "blind faith" that christianity promotes so proudly. i said earlier, Yahshua didn't preach the bible a lot. He preached LIFE. INTELLIGENCE. LOVE. KNOWLEDGE AND(gasp!) SHARING! HOW TO LIVE AND BE HAPPY WITH THE LIVING LIGHT OF THE MOST HIGH, YAHWEH WITHIN YOU.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

this will get you started on sir francis bacon, Francis Bacon and the KJV Part 1

many skeptics to the truth also attempt to justify things by sarcastically saying things like. "so they made up ALL THESE LIES SUPPOSEDLY FOR WHAT?" well. let's see... the roman empire became the "holy" roman empire. there was no way constantine would've attempted to convert his men to Yahshua's True Way. he was a military leader to needed to win wars. paul's message of blood sacrifices and forgiveness by faith fit perfectly for what the caesar needed to take to his men. ah, and he could still worship the sun on THE SUN'S DAY. guess what day that is. this was something that he would not waiver on. everyone would worship on the sun's day.

so what are we talking about here? it sounds like everything got turned upside down when Yahshua was killed. this singular event could be described as spiritual, political, social, as well as supernatural. man has even tinkered with time as an indirect result of Yahshua's life. the romans had to sell the story of Yahshua dying for our sins to justify their actions. "if we didn't kill him, you would damned under the old law!" what a wicked lie. Yahshua CLEARLY pointed out what is necessary to reach The Kingdom of Heaven, which should be our FIRST goal. Yahshua was doing what he came to do, that's why he was physically assassinated. if his only purpose was to just come to us and die on a "cross" for us, why would he have been performing THE CEREMONY with all his apostles and disciples? that was the gift, the only way to be forgiven for sins is to forgive others for their sins against you. Yahweh clearly tells us that this and repenting (turning) is all we have to do. isn't the burden that much lighter now? this is gonna be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of westerners, but narrow is the way that leads to life. Yahshua taught that we should be wanderers (not physically) but in a spiritual sense. you know, not being a slave to some job or master. live free of all forms of exploitation, learning and appreciating Yahweh's creations, with no material expectations for tomorrow. he wasn't a rebel for nothing, this was the elite's worst nightmare. they can't just have people...NOT WORKING!!!! Yahshua taught that if your brother (any man) should come to you in need, you should give to him whatever he needs. that is THE WAY of YWH. he said, we shouldn't call ANY man father, only Yahweh. here today, we have religious leaders with that exact title, "father". amazing. we are all born of our birth parents, then upon entering the world as children, we spend our time learning that Yahweh is our True Father. once this is realized, the path to Oneness is begun. selfishness, inflated need for vanity, jealousy, fear, gluttony, judging, among other dark traits lead to evil. WE CAN BE PERFECT, LET NO ONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

this will get you started on sir francis bacon, Francis Bacon and the KJV Part 1

many skeptics to the truth also attempt to justify things by sarcastically saying things like. "so they made up ALL THESE LIES SUPPOSEDLY FOR WHAT?" well. let's see... the roman empire became the "holy" roman empire. there was no way constantine would've attempted to convert his men to Yahshua's True Way. he was a military leader to needed to win wars. paul's message of blood sacrifices and forgiveness by faith fit perfectly for what the caesar needed to take to his men. ah, and he could still worship the sun on THE SUN'S DAY. guess what day that is. this was something that he would not waiver on. everyone would worship on the sun's day.

so what are we talking about here? it sounds like everything got turned upside down when Yahshua was killed. this singular event could be described as spiritual, political, social, as well as supernatural. man has even tinkered with time as an indirect result of Yahshua's life. the romans had to sell the story of Yahshua dying for our sins to justify their actions. "if we didn't kill him, you would damned under the old law!" what a wicked lie. Yahshua CLEARLY pointed out what is necessary to reach The Kingdom of Heaven, which should be our FIRST goal. Yahshua was doing what he came to do, that's why he was physically assassinated. if his only purpose was to just come to us and die on a "cross" for us, why would he have been performing THE CEREMONY with all his apostles and disciples? that was the gift, the only way to be forgiven for sins is to forgive others for their sins against you. Yahweh clearly tells us that this and repenting (turning) is all we have to do. isn't the burden that much lighter now? this is gonna be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of westerners, but narrow is the way that leads to life. Yahshua taught that we should be wanderers (not physically) but in a spiritual sense. you know, not being a slave to some job or master. live free of all forms of exploitation, learning and appreciating Yahweh's creations, with no material expectations for tomorrow. he wasn't a rebel for nothing, this was the elite's worst nightmare. they can't just have people...NOT WORKING!!!! Yahshua taught that if your brother (any man) should come to you in need, you should give to him whatever he needs. that is THE WAY of YWH. he said, we shouldn't call ANY man father, only Yahweh. here today, we have religious leaders with that exact title, "father". amazing. we are all born of our birth parents, then upon entering the world as children, we spend our time learning that Yahweh is our True Father. once this is realized, the path to Oneness is begun. selfishness, inflated need for vanity, jealousy, fear, gluttony, judging, among other dark traits lead to evil. WE CAN BE PERFECT, LET NO ONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE.

I read the first line in your link and I knew I had called it...

Francis Bacon and the KJV

April 19, 2006 Transcript of radio program by Barbara Aho Watch Unto Prayer Watch Unto Prayer Audio Programs

"We've all been puns in this conspiracy at one time or another it is so complex and so sophisticated and the men who have put this together are directed by that super intelligent Lucifer. .." - Francis Bacon and the KJV Part 1

How can you even take someone seriously who thinks that...

"These little known facts of history explain why the Great Seal of the United States is a highly symbolic representation of America’s designated role as a new Jewish homeland, with the original 13 colonies representing the 13 tribes of Israel. The high incidence of “13’s” in the Great Seal is detailed on the website of the Philosophical Research Society founded by Manly P. Hall, Masonic author of The Secret Destiny of America.

The significance of the mystical number 13, which frequently appears upon the Great Seal of the United States, is not limited to the number of the original colonies. The sacred emblem of the ancient initiates, here composed of 13 stars, also appears above the head of the ‘eagle.’ The motto, E Pluribus Unum, contains 13 letters, as does also the inscription, Annuit Coeptis. The ‘eagle’ clutches in its right talon a branch bearing 13 leaves and 13 berries and in its left a sheaf of 13 arrows. The face of the pyramid, exclusive of the panel containing the date, consists of 72 stones arranged in 13 rows.
” - MYSTERY BABYLON 3

More conspiracy theory stuff...

MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT: CATHOLIC OR JEWISH It's the Jews!

Barbara Aho is an anti-Semitic nut case.

Your message is good, your evidence (If you want to call it that) is completely without merit, I mean none.

So God bless and stay strong in your faith.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

I read the first line in your link and I knew I had called it...

Francis Bacon and the KJV

April 19, 2006 Transcript of radio program by Barbara Aho Watch Unto Prayer Watch Unto Prayer Audio Programs

"We've all been puns in this conspiracy at one time or another it is so complex and so sophisticated and the men who have put this together are directed by that super intelligent Lucifer. .." - Francis Bacon and the KJV Part 1

How can you even take someone seriously who thinks that...

"These little known facts of history explain why the Great Seal of the United States is a highly symbolic representation of America’s designated role as a new Jewish homeland, with the original 13 colonies representing the 13 tribes of Israel. The high incidence of “13’s” in the Great Seal is detailed on the website of the Philosophical Research Society founded by Manly P. Hall, Masonic author of The Secret Destiny of America.

The significance of the mystical number 13, which frequently appears upon the Great Seal of the United States, is not limited to the number of the original colonies. The sacred emblem of the ancient initiates, here composed of 13 stars, also appears above the head of the ‘eagle.’ The motto, E Pluribus Unum, contains 13 letters, as does also the inscription, Annuit Coeptis. The ‘eagle’ clutches in its right talon a branch bearing 13 leaves and 13 berries and in its left a sheaf of 13 arrows. The face of the pyramid, exclusive of the panel containing the date, consists of 72 stones arranged in 13 rows.
” - MYSTERY BABYLON 3

More conspiracy theory stuff...

MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT: CATHOLIC OR JEWISH It's the Jews!

Barbara Aho is an anti-Semitic nut case.

Your message is good, your evidence (If you want to call it that) is completely without merit, I mean none.

So God bless and stay strong in your faith.

THANK YOU AND MAY THE MOST HIGH SHINE HIS LIGHT UPON YOU AS WELL, BROTHER. don't hate "the jews" as you call them. as i have told you, i'm Israelite myself, but i know the faction, that you're referring to. hatred and judgement will lead only to destruction. to reach THE KINGDOM, we must let go of all negativity and live in total acceptance of THE WAY. peace.
 
Last edited:
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

THANK YOU AND MAY THE MOST HIGH SHINE HIS LIGHT UPON YOU AS WELL, BROTHER. don't hate "the jews" as you call them. as i have told you, i'm Israelite myself, but i know the faction, that you're referring to. hatred and judgement will lead only to destruction. to reach THE KINGDOM, we must let go of all negativity and live in total acceptance of THE WAY. peace.

Thanks. I don't hate the Jewish people at all. I figure it is detrimental to hate anyone, including God's chosen. :cool:

Like I said earlier, your opinion is interesting, but I just can't get passed the "conspiracy" sounding parts of it.

As for your faith in God, well that is a very good thing indeed, and I am happy to see it.

Again stay strong in your faith, and God bless you for all of your days.
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

Thanks. I don't hate the Jewish people at all. I figure it is detrimental to hate anyone, including God's chosen. :cool:

Like I said earlier, your opinion is interesting, but I just can't get passed the "conspiracy" sounding parts of it.

As for your faith in God, well that is a very good thing indeed, and I am happy to see it.

Again stay strong in your faith, and God bless you for all of your days.
We need more Christians like you. You obviously disagree with his stance, yet you wish no ill will upon him. Instead you offer your heart and love. Quite beautiful.
 
Re: Why a Hindu accepts Christ and rejects Christianity: Churchianity vs the true Rel

We need more Christians like you. You obviously disagree with his stance, yet you wish no ill will upon him. Instead you offer your heart and love. Quite beautiful.

Thanks, I mean it.

Oh know I come off harsh, but in reality it is just the fun of the debate. I wish no one here any ill will whether I agree with them or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom