who created christianity

[dqualk]

Please cite chapter and verse from the OT where the Jews had a concept of Hell.

I, in turn, can direct you to Josh 23:14, Job chapter 14, Psalms 6:5, 88:5, 115:17, Eccl 3:19, 9:5, 9:10, Is 38:18

Daniel 12:2 proclaims "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt

Isaiah 33:14 - "Who of us can dwell in the everlasting fire?" This is a reference to hell which is forever.

Isaiah 66:24 - their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched. We cannot fathom the pain of this eternal separation from God.

Jer. 15:14 - in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn forever. Hell is the proper compliment to the eternal bliss of heaven.

Judith 16:17 - in the day of judgment the Lord will take vengeance on the wicked and they shall weep in pain forever. Hell is a place that sinners have prepared for themselves by rejecting God, who desires all people to be saved in His Son Jesus Christ. God sends no one to hell.

There are more references to the hades or sheol.

Please cite me chapter and verse in the Gospels where Mary is called "queen of Heaven".

Revelation 12:1 Shows Mary's coronation. Luke says Hail Mary full of Grace, all generations shall call you blessed, and a few other noble statements about Mary.

Yes, within the lifetime of the Disciples. Oops! See Matthew 23:36.

I did not bother to look this verse up because I'm sure it is the one that says the Kingdom of God will come before the apoastles die or something like this, the Kingdom of God is the Church. The Church has always referred to herself as the Kingdom of God.

Macabees? Isn't this an apocryphal book?

Christians until Martin Luther had always accepted it as authortative, as it was part of the first official canon formed in the 4th century by the Council of Hippo and affirmed in teh 8th at the Council of Nicea II. Also, some Jews used Maccabees as official scripture until the Christians came about and they desired to root out anything of Greek influence, and becuase there was no Maccabees around in Hebrew they kicked it into their apochrapha. But the Septuagint, writeen by Jews 100 years before Christ, included, and Jews still consider it to be a very important book, and it certainly demonstrates what Jews around the year 200 bc- 100 AD.

You just agreed with everything I said about Christmas.

Well you said like I was supposed to be like OH NO!!!! Pagans celebrated the winter equinox too!!!! NOOOOOO! I'm an atheist now lol. I'm jk. I just wanted to demonstrate that Christmas being formed later on December 25 is not a problem for Christians, its actually a solution

Chapter and verse please! [/quite]

http://scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html This has a decent list of verese which suggest Christ's Divinity.

[quote] He contradicts himself. Yes. And not just on the point of his divinity but also with his teachings. Sometimes he say "put away the sword" and sometimes "buy a sword". Sometimes he says we must be charitable and other worldly, giving all to the poor. Sometimes he says "screw the poor, live it up while I'm here." Sometimes he preaches peace. Sometimes he preaches war. It depends on which Jesus you're reading about.

See my video "The Flip Flopping Jesus".

lol chapter and verse on the "screw the poor live it up while I'm here" please . Christ to an Orthodox Christian does not contradict Himself as we have come up with explanations that are at least satisfactory to many, and I imagine you can see that they are satisfactory on some level, even if you think that the more logical conclusion is to just assume that he was inconsistent.

There are explanations for each of what you have listed, you may not find them satisfactory but I do. My favorite explanation for Christ telling the apostles to bring swords is becasue He wanted to show to the world, and give Peter the oppurtunity, to show their love and willingness to fight for Christ, but Christ knew that it was His destiny to die for you and me.

FAIL! Isaiah 7:14 states that a woman who lived within his lifetime would bear a son and his name shall be called "Emmanuel". This would be the sign to the King Ahaz that he would be triumphant against the Syrians because God is with us. Reading this book in context reveals that Isaiah was speaking of events of his lifetime and NOT the future birth of a Lamb of God for all of humanity.

I am not talking about Isaiah 7.

Isaiah 9
6For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Also, prophesy will often point out something in the present time while simultaneously talking about something in the future.

There is also the reference of Melchezedek to the sacrifice of bread and wine,

? Chapter and verse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

FAIL!
Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Personally I agree with you that Isaiah was not slain the brought back. But my jewish friend pointed out that it says that you did not fail to withold your son, suggesting that he actually did the deed, and then God told him from that point on not to lay a hand on him. Once more I agree with you I don't think he did slay him, I think he was about to and God stopped him.

Also, there is also the prophecy of the suffering messiah that of whose stripes we would be healed, but how does one man heal the stripes of all?

Need to look up chapter and verse. [quote]

Isaiah 53

[quote]
FAIL! The god of the OT was anthropomorphic, who walked, talked, ate lunch with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, gave a speech to Judea and showed off his loins to Ezekiel. [quote]

I know this but some claim that perhaps it is not simply an anthropomorphic poetic, but that it is Christ wrestleing and so on. That is an incarnated person of God, i.e. Christ.

[quote] And these alternate Christianities were powerful until then.

No they were not. Not according to current historical evidence. Each of the early heresies were short lived, the only one to really take on a life of its own and last for a long time was Aryanism, which didnt come around till the 4th century.

Not according to what I've read. I'd ask you to read "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman.

Hmm I'll check it out. I've read part of misquoting Jesus and all of Jesus interrupted. I think it is interesting that Bart would claim flourishing heresies before the 4th century as at Nicea they did not give the early heresies the time of day because tehy were soundly rooted out. Marcionism was short lived, montanism was regional and short lived, docetism I suppose was a stronger Christian heresy, but it didnt acquire any influence until after teh 4th century with monophysite etc arguements. None of these groups who were before the 4th century were very influential or far spread, this is why we hardly have any writings by them or mentions of them in history. Or that would be my arguement anyway.

Well, that's the typical apologist interpretation but they have nothing to base that on. Regardless, even if it were a reference to the Docetics, the same problem applies. Why did those who lived within the lifetime of Jesus think he was just an illusion? Did Jesus not have a family? Some nephews, nieces or neighbors that could have testified he was born, grew up and was physical? Why does John appeal to faith and denounce them as "antichrists" as opposed to just saying they're crazy?

Many who lived during the time of Jesus testified to His historicity, like Matthew, Peter, John, Paul et al. Maybe that is why Docetics ultimately died out, and left little trace of their presence.

No. We're able to tell the difference between Hercules and Caesar. Only Christian mythology is offered the special treatment of being taken seriously.

Of course we are able to tell the difference between the two. We can also tell the difference between Jesus and Hercules. This is why Jesus is one of the most studied people of all history, and the works concering Jesus are the most analyzed pieces of writing on earth. It is funny how hard people have studied Christ with hopes of finding some proof that he was not real, and they have failed. In fact they have strengthened many of the claims of Christianity. Did you know people used to claim that the Gospels had to be products of the 2nd century because they were so full of Jesus being God and his resurrection and so on, and they studied the ef out of them in hopes of proving this, and they end up proving it did belong to the first century haha.

Most scholars are willing to assume Jesus lived and side-step the controversy.

I'm willing to assume Jesus lived and still we can't know anything about this hypothetical rabbi.

I could say the same about Caesar, that he was just a made up person. At some point it just becomes rediculous. And why would we truth Roman historians more than a bunch of poor people who had nothing to gain from rewriting history, except a terrible death being eaten by lions or something? It was the Roman historians job to skew history to make the Empire better. What did the apostles gain from supposedly rewriting history? A violent death and a life of poverty.

---

Last I read, there was an acceptance that the very early Hebrews had a god AND goddess. The name Asherah pops up occasionally.

It is an acceptable theory from what I understand too.