(May 11, 2016 at 3:45 am)Love333 Wrote:(May 11, 2016 at 3:21 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Actually, no, Joshua was the real name, in English, or Yeshua in Hebrew. Jesus is a Greek name, and since most of the New Testament was written in Greek, he got called that.
You are quick to disagree. Yet so slow to agree with others. Would it make any difference if the last Christ was known as Joshua, John, Jesus, or Job?
They are all collections of the same story yet they are incomplete.
No way, bub. You made a simply inaccurate statement. I corrected it. It's not a matter of disagreeing; you were wrong. It strikes me as more than a little bit odd that a person claiming to be Jesus the Annointed One (Messiah) wouldn't know as much as atheists do about the difference between John and Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus.
Instead, you now try to pull a bit of psychology on me by accusing me of being "quick to disagree", as if this is a character flaw. Yes, when you make factually incorrect statements, I will disagree with you, and anyone else who does the same.
Tell you what... if you make a factually accurate statement, I'll be just as quick to agree with you. But if you expect me to stand idly by and give a pass while you make ridiculous and demonstrably false statements, here, you're going to have a very hard time. I'm among the more pleasant members, here, as I'm sure the others will readily attest... wait 'till our ACTUALLY disagreeable members get to you!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
