Was Hitler a Christian?

[Nik]

Originally posted by: preslove
So, you deny the many times the new testament blames the jews for the crucifixion?

Uh...

Matthew 27:25 in which Jews prompt Jesus' crucifixion and say "His blood be on us, and on our children".

You're talking straight out your ass, dude.

The New Testament isn't a being. It's a collection of works by beings. The only beings in those books to blame the Jews for his death are ONE or TWO of the Jews themselves who felt guilty for the murder. That hardly qualifies as the whole of the new testament, basically most of the major apostles and prophets, blaming the Jews for anything.

Do yourself a favor and pay attention in class.

Ask any first year seminary student and they'll tell you that you're a freaking moron.

 

[Crono]

The Gospels are not anti-semitic, none of the New Testament is anti-semitic, and the Bible is not anti-semitic. The New Testament references to "the Jews" being responsible for Jesus' death are speaking of the leaders, namely of the scribes and Pharisees (and not even all of them), who conspired to have Jesus killed. Jesus was a Jew. The 12 disciples were Jewish. Most of the early converts were Jewish. The Old Testament lineage leading to Christ is Jewish. NT ends with the Jewish people being redeemed. The Bible pronounces a blessing upon those who bless Israel (the people descended from Jacob, i.e. the Jews). True Christians cannot be anti-semitic.

Anyone who claims the NT is anti-semitic is ignorant of what it actually says. If anyone is to blame for Christ's death, it is the people who He willingly died for: His people. And by His people, I mean the Jews and Gentiles who accept Him as Lord.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
lol - a christian, suuure

I've always heard he was hardcore atheist. It's common for atheists to place little to no value on human life and some will love death.

Anyone claiming Hitler was christian have GOT to have an agenda because the facts don't support it. Might want to background check them for their views on Christianity in general.

Wow, I don't know where you get that. Every atheist I know is kind and value life greatly, since we do not have a magical kingdom to go to after we die we have to value this life that much more. Many doctors are atheists.

Personally it is all the theists that don't value life. How can you when you believe that dieing is the goal? Your beliefs regulate all of life to a waiting room that must be endured until your name is called. Hard to imagine you valuing a life that you believe would be better off dead.

If theists thought dying was the goal, they'd off their children before they could sin. They'd be saving the child's eternal soul, right? :roll:

Theists believe that you need to qualify your eternal ticket to heaven by leading a certain kind of life. Death isn't the goal, life is very much the goal.

Not that it matters, since religion is all a farce anyway

Still makes death the goal. I don't qualify for a race just for the heck of it. I qualify for a race because I want to run the race.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
wall of text

Christ is responsible for his sacrifice. Nobody else. To believe otherwise destroys the concept of Christ being God.

Jesus Christ was god? I thought he was the son of god.

The "god head" is comprised (not only of expensive hookers), but of 3 parts: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The "holy spirit" part being an entity of God isn't actually stated in the Bible outright, but there are several passages that strongly suggest that God is a 3-part entity. Even seminary doctorates argue this between each other to this day.

Christ was "all God and all man."

The only way his death on the cross could offer forgiveness of sin to the whole of mankind was through Christ's divinity.

Holy shit. Either you're trolling or you're stuptarded

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
So, you deny the many times the new testament blames the jews for the crucifixion?

Uh...

Matthew 27:25 in which Jews prompt Jesus' crucifixion and say "His blood be on us, and on our children".

You're talking straight out your ass, dude.

The New Testament isn't a being. It's a collection of works by beings. The only beings in those books to blame the Jews for his death are ONE or TWO of the Jews themselves who felt guilty for the murder. That hardly qualifies as the whole of the new testament, basically most of the major apostles and prophets, blaming the Jews for anything.

Do yourself a favor and pay attention in class.

Ask any first year seminary student and they'll tell you that you're a freaking moron.

Yes, because I should ask someone who wants to become a christian cleric about the historical accuracy of, the political foces involved in shaping, and the threads of antisemitism threaded throughout the new testament.

Perhaps you should cast your net beyond christian sources...

Ask any historical jesus scholar and he'll tell you that you're you're a freaking moron.

And yes, the gospel of john collectively blames "the jews" for the crucifiction of jesus.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
wall of text

Christ is responsible for his sacrifice. Nobody else. To believe otherwise destroys the concept of Christ being God.

Jesus Christ was god? I thought he was the son of god.

The "god head" is comprised (not only of expensive hookers), but of 3 parts: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The "holy spirit" part being an entity of God isn't actually stated in the Bible outright, but there are several passages that strongly suggest that God is a 3-part entity. Even seminary doctorates argue this between each other to this day.

Christ was "all God and all man."

The only way his death on the cross could offer forgiveness of sin to the whole of mankind was through Christ's divinity.

Holy shit. Either you're trolling or you're stuptarded

Nik, you have a good grasp of the doctrines of the Bible for someone who isn't a Christian. More so than many on this board who claim to be Christian.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Still makes death the goal. I don't qualify for a race just for the heck of it. I qualify for a race because I want to run the race.

Death isn't the goal. Christ taught that death is temporary and has "no power" over the saved. Death isn't and shouldn't be a bullet point on a Christian's outline of faith and lifestyle.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Still makes death the goal. I don't qualify for a race just for the heck of it. I qualify for a race because I want to run the race.

Death isn't the goal. Christ taught that death is temporary and has "no power" over the saved. Death isn't and shouldn't be a bullet point on a Christian's outline of faith and lifestyle.

So we are just pretending that death isn't the goal because they decide to name it something diffrent?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: preslove
Christianity has been anti-semitic since the gospel of John.

Beg pardon? What is there in John that can be rationally considered to be anti-semitic?

ZV

Uh... the whole thing about "the jews" convincing Pontius Pilate to crucify jesus. This was basically made up in order to blame the jews for the jewish-roman wars. The idea that a roman official would need to be convinced to crucify a rebellious subject of a particularly rebellious region is patently absurd. It is pretty well established that John's depiction of the crucifiction was fabricated in order to attack the jews, and the source of the idiotic and evil idea that the jews killed jesus:

Text

[edit] Gospel of John
The Gospel of John is the only one that collectively describes the enemies of Jesus as "the Jews." In none of the other gospels do "the Jews" demand, en masse, the death of Jesus. In the other three gospels the plot to arrest Jesus and put him to death is always presented as coming from a small group of priests and rulers, the Sadducees. Whoever was the author of John's Gospel, one thing has become clear: the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus became fixed in the Christian mind. Successive generations of Christians read in the gospels the collective guilt of the Jews in the death of Christ

Now, if only that wikipedia article listed any sources at all. There aren't even any chapter or verse citations. Do you have any sources that don't require the invocation of confirmation bias for their legitimacy?

Any scholarly reading of John will clearly see that any references to "the Jews" in the crucifixion story are merely shorthand for a small group of leaders; the same Pharisees and Sadducees that are mentioned negatively in the other gospels as well. It would take someone who was actively looking for a means to pervert the gospel to claim any form of collective guilt in what is obviously nothing more than phraseological shorthand.

There is no argument for anti-semitism in the gospels that bears any scholarly weight.

ZV

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Crono
Nik, you have a good grasp of the doctrines of the Bible for someone who isn't a Christian. More so than many on this board who claim to be Christian.

I grew up in the church. Part of my private high school included bits and pieces from seminary. I'm very well versed, but have chosen to leave the faith because of circumstances in my own life.

I'll still defend it against those who ignorantly point fingers, but it's not much more than knowing a nursery rhyme better than others

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Still makes death the goal. I don't qualify for a race just for the heck of it. I qualify for a race because I want to run the race.

Death isn't the goal. Christ taught that death is temporary and has "no power" over the saved. Death isn't and shouldn't be a bullet point on a Christian's outline of faith and lifestyle.

So we are just pretending that death isn't the goal because they decide to name it something diffrent?

The goal of Christians is to glorify God. Because death has no power over us, it means we have nothing to fear from persecution, and we can serve God by obeying His commandments and proclaiming the good news of salvation. Death isn't the goal, it is a medium between temporal life and eternal life. What we do here on earth directly affects that eternal life. People that are saved here and follow Christ will be able to see each other in the eternal kingdom, in which there will be no pain and suffering, and all things will be made perfect.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Still makes death the goal. I don't qualify for a race just for the heck of it. I qualify for a race because I want to run the race.

Death isn't the goal. Christ taught that death is temporary and has "no power" over the saved. Death isn't and shouldn't be a bullet point on a Christian's outline of faith and lifestyle.

So we are just pretending that death isn't the goal because they decide to name it something diffrent?

You're missing the point entirely, but I can't say it's not expected.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
wall of text

Christ is responsible for his sacrifice. Nobody else. To believe otherwise destroys the concept of Christ being God.

Jesus Christ was god? I thought he was the son of god.

The "god head" is comprised (not only of expensive hookers), but of 3 parts: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The "holy spirit" part being an entity of God isn't actually stated in the Bible outright, but there are several passages that strongly suggest that God is a 3-part entity. Even seminary doctorates argue this between each other to this day.

Christ was "all God and all man."

The only way his death on the cross could offer forgiveness of sin to the whole of mankind was through Christ's divinity.

Holy shit. Either you're trolling or you're stuptarded

Nik, you have a good grasp of the doctrines of the Bible for someone who isn't a Christian. More so than many on this board who claim to be Christian.

BS . In the begiining the word was with him and resided in him . Christ was the WORD

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
BS . In the begiining the word was with him and resided in him . Christ was the WORD

If my dog resides in my house, is the dog really a house?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: preslove
Yes, because I should ask someone who wants to become a christian cleric about the historical accuracy of, the political foces involved in shaping, and the threads of antisemitism threaded throughout the new testament.

Perhaps you should cast your net beyond christian sources...

Ask any historical jesus scholar and he'll tell you that you're you're a freaking moron.

And yes, the gospel of john collectively blames "the jews" for the crucifiction of jesus.

Seminary is more than just bible waving fanatics. It's a very intensive, logical, historical study of the times, the culture, semantics, etc.

It's like the Cardinals of the Catholic church. If you want to know something about Catholicism, why not ask someone at the top of the food chain? Ohhhh, you can't! Because they're Catholics! Heaven forbid they know anything about it.

The gospel of John collectively blames the Jews? Please start quoting passages from the book.

/pulls up a lawnchair

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
BS . In the begiining the word was with him and resided in him . Christ was the WORD

If my dog resides in my house, is the dog really a house?

Haha, totally :laugh:

That passage is talking about how Christ was the action, the spoken word, of God. Kinda like God the Father going "let there be light!" and Christ going "voila here you go!"

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Crono
Nik, you have a good grasp of the doctrines of the Bible for someone who isn't a Christian. More so than many on this board who claim to be Christian.

BS . In the begiining the word was with him and resided in him . Christ was the WORD

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. " -John 1:1-2

You're right, Christ is the Word of God. I fail to see what the relevance is to my post, unless you msitakenly quoted me.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: preslove
Christianity has been anti-semitic since the gospel of John.

Beg pardon? What is there in John that can be rationally considered to be anti-semitic?

ZV

Uh... the whole thing about "the jews" convincing Pontius Pilate to crucify jesus. This was basically made up in order to blame the jews for the jewish-roman wars. The idea that a roman official would need to be convinced to crucify a rebellious subject of a particularly rebellious region is patently absurd. It is pretty well established that John's depiction of the crucifiction was fabricated in order to attack the jews, and the source of the idiotic and evil idea that the jews killed jesus:

Text

[edit] Gospel of John
The Gospel of John is the only one that collectively describes the enemies of Jesus as "the Jews." In none of the other gospels do "the Jews" demand, en masse, the death of Jesus. In the other three gospels the plot to arrest Jesus and put him to death is always presented as coming from a small group of priests and rulers, the Sadducees. Whoever was the author of John's Gospel, one thing has become clear: the image of "the Jews" acting collectively as the enemy of Jesus became fixed in the Christian mind. Successive generations of Christians read in the gospels the collective guilt of the Jews in the death of Christ

Now, if only that wikipedia article listed any sources at all. There aren't even any chapter or verse citations. Do you have any sources that don't require the invocation of confirmation bias for their legitimacy?

Any scholarly reading of John will clearly see that any references to "the Jews" in the crucifixion story are merely shorthand for a small group of leaders; the same Pharisees and Sadducees that are mentioned negatively in the other gospels as well. It would take someone who was actively looking for a means to pervert the gospel to claim any form of collective guilt in what is obviously nothing more than phraseological shorthand.

There is no argument for anti-semitism in the gospels that bears any scholarly weight.

ZV

Tell that to the jews killed in the Passion Play inspired pogroms of medieval europe.

The scholarly reading of john is far more controversial than you claim. Sure, christian scholars claim that John is referring to "a select group" of jews, but the problem is that this is not the actual belief that centuries of christians adhered to. John, and other antisemitic statements throughout the bible inspired centuries of entrenched hatred towards jews, and caused thousands (millions?) of their deaths. To claim that this wasn't a christian belief, or that the millions of christians who believed this belief "weren't christian" is to claim that the majority of medieval christianity was not christian

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
BS . In the begiining the word was with him and resided in him . Christ was the WORD

If my dog resides in my house, is the dog really a house?

Haha, totally :laugh:

That passage is talking about how Christ was the action, the spoken word, of God. Kinda like God the Father going "let there be light!" and Christ going "voila here you go!"

You kinda trivialized it with "voila", but you made a solid point. The Genesis account shows that the Holy Spirit and the Word of God were used in Creation. When God said "let there be light", the power used to create was Jesus, the Word of God. Hebrews 11:3 reinforces this:

"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: her209
Isn't it a sin to judge the Christianess of another?

No, that's not what the passage says. What is almost invariably left out is the clarifying quote that immediately follows it, "For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." (Matt 7:2, NRSV)

The passage is not saying that we are not allowed to judge, but rather saying that we shall ourselves be judged by the same methods we use to judge others. See also the "Lord's prayer" where we are instructed to ask God to, "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." (Matt 6:12, NRSV) In other words, our own debts will only be forgiven to the extent that we forgive the debts of others.

ZV

Yes it is but perfection only Christ attained. Judge not least ye be judged. Also were commanded not to swear yet our court System makes us swear on the Bible to tell whole trueth and nothing but trueth so help me god . When Ya all get it figured out it will be way to late for ya.

Awfully judgmental post coming from someone who seems to think that we shouldn't judge at all. Also, because it annoys me, "truth", not "trueth".

Christ's comments about swearing (Matt 5:33-37) are also analogous to the two verses I cited in the post you quote. The warning is not against swearing per se, but rather against an assumption of power over things that do not belong to us. If I swear on your house that I will do something, it is no promise at all because the thing that is at risk (your house) is not within my power to give up. Similarly, if we swear by the earth or by the heavens, we are not bound to anything as such an oath is empty because we do not have the power to deliver that which we are claiming to risk.

When someone swears on the earth or on the heavens, that person is placing himself above God; saying that he has power over creation. It is this, then, that is what is truly warned against. Swearing in court is not analogous as the person does not state that he or she is swearing "on the Bible" and is merely requesting the assistance of God, not placing himself in a position above God.

ZV

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: TehMac
He was an Occultist. Mainly he was crazy. He was raised a Catholic, but adopted his own ideas that appealed to the neo-paganism of 1930's Germany. Essentially he was an Atheist.

Completely false. Even if he was pagan, thats still an irrational unfounded belief.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Doesn't matter what he claimed.....his life indicates that he was not a Christian. Even if he was baptized as one (and I don't know whether he was or not) that doesn't automatically make you a Christian the rest of your life. You have to walk the walk, and obviously, he did not.

So what's the point?

if someoen believes that jesus christ is the son of god, you are a christian, end of story

What a ridiculous statement.

You aren't a Christian if you don't walk the walk. The very definition of Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ.

No, this is just more of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

yep.

I would argue with the same logic that GWB, Cheney, and their ilk are in no way Christian based on their actions and beliefs.

Many would disagree with me. I know they certainly don't walk the walk, not as Jesus did, and I know I'm right. Doesn't mean a lot of numbskulls out there think that these people are Christians and that Hitler wasn't.
Can't have it both ways.

And since you are judging them, you are not Christian! Can't have it both ways.

The answer of course is that Hitler was indeed a Christian, just not a good one.

Did I say that I consider myself a "true" Christian? Or at least what I believe a true Christian to be?

I'm absolutely judging them It's their method.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Crono
Nik, you have a good grasp of the doctrines of the Bible for someone who isn't a Christian. More so than many on this board who claim to be Christian.

BS . In the begiining the word was with him and resided in him . Christ was the WORD

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. " -John 1:1-2

You're right, Christ is the Word of God. I fail to see what the relevance is to my post, unless you msitakenly quoted me.

Actually the hebrew is inhim . Just like in the book you read . Moses asked God what his name was . God said Iam that I am . Thats incorrect . proper is( I will become what I become) Iam that Am says pretty much what one would exspect . I will become what I become Now it gets interesting and way more believeable.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: preslove
Tell that to the jews killed in the Passion Play inspired pogroms of medieval europe.

The scholarly reading of john is far more controversial than you claim. Sure, christian scholars claim that John is referring to "a select group" of jews, but the problem is that this is not the actual belief that centuries of christians adhered to. John, and other antisemitic statements throughout the bible inspired centuries of entrenched hatred towards jews, and caused thousands (millions?) of their deaths. To claim that this wasn't a christian belief, or that the millions of christians who believed this belief "weren't christian" is to claim that the majority of medieval christianity was not christian

I could manipulate any religious belief, or even a secular or scientific one, to justify the killing of others. The key word there is "manipulate". It doesn't mean it was right to do so, and the underlying motivation for religious wars and massacres is not Christian by any means. The majority of "medieval christianity" was likely not christian. To be Christian is to follow after Christ. How is anti-semtiism Christ-like? It's not.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
Yes, because I should ask someone who wants to become a christian cleric about the historical accuracy of, the political foces involved in shaping, and the threads of antisemitism threaded throughout the new testament.

Perhaps you should cast your net beyond christian sources...

Ask any historical jesus scholar and he'll tell you that you're you're a freaking moron.

And yes, the gospel of john collectively blames "the jews" for the crucifiction of jesus.

Seminary is more than just bible waving fanatics. It's a very intensive, logical, historical study of the times, the culture, semantics, etc.

It's like the Cardinals of the Catholic church. If you want to know something about Catholicism, why not ask someone at the top of the food chain? Ohhhh, you can't! Because they're Catholics! Heaven forbid they know anything about it.

The gospel of John collectively blames the Jews? Please start quoting passages from the book.

/pulls up a lawnchair

Sure, it's intensive, but it still irreversably biased towards "the goodness" of christianity.

Historical jesus scholarship is just as intensive, but it strives to be neutral.