Was Hitler a Christian?

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Crono
The majority of "medieval christianity" was likely not christian.

fail

Ya have a sword at your throat . Than they say do you except Christ Ect ect ect . You gona say NO.

Shut the fuck up already.

You best read more. 200,000,000 put to death as heritics LOL.

By people who weren't Christians LOL.

Oh, and it wasn't 200 million :laugh:

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Christ was the fulfilment of the word the law completed . Unless you follow the word man shall fail . Looks to me the the follloers are gone. Because man failed big time.

Almost as hard as you fail English.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cogman
It really depends on what you categorize a christian as. If you say they are christian because they belong to a christian church, then yes, he was a christian. If you say strictly that a christian is only some that follows the teachings of christ, then he could be arguably not a christian (though, so would most people that claim to be christian). If you want to say that a christian if they are trying to follow the teachings of christ, then it is arguable that he was a christian (and arguable that he isn't a christian).

Its all about perspective, so everyone is right.

If the Bible didn't exist, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, there is a very strong plumbline to judge others by and it starts in Matthew 5.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
Are you really this stupid?

Zenmervolt name dropped an author, who supposedly had never written anything in support for my position, when this very same author WROTE A BOOK supporting my position.

Seriously, do you fail this hard at logic?

I wasn't refuting anything you said. In fact, I even stated that you found someone who agrees with your point of view.

That same author must have written a book about logic that you've read cover to cover. Perhaps you should read a different book before pointing fingers.

I found the guy who Zenmervolt name dropped... which is how I pwned him, and why he hasn't replied... because I won the argument...

You are the most ignorant person in this thread.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: preslove
I found the guy who Zenmervolt name dropped... which is how I pwned him, and why he hasn't replied... because I won the argument...

You are the most ignorant person in this thread.

I don't know anything about the authors you two are talking about. I simply pointed out that you're willing to listen to Dude #1's flawed, fallible opinion while rejecting Dude #2's biblical opinion simply because it doesn't match up with your own point of view.

As far as being the most ignorant person in this thread, almost every one of your posts has been refuted and absolutely crushed by several people in this thread. I'm still waiting for you to post passages from John showing that Jews were responsible for Christ's death.

 

[MotF Bane]

We should put ICRS and Nemesis 1 in a thread together, they'd make such a pair.

 

[randay]

need pohl

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Nik
If the Bible didn't exist, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, there is a very strong plumbline to judge others by and it starts in Matthew 5.

Strange, I don't read anything in there about being called a christian. I see words about following christ and how you are to treat your fellow man (This is one of my favorite chapters BTW), but nothing about being qualified as a christian.

Check out the last verse. If that is our measurement for being a christian then nobody truly is.

The term christian was one that was coined after the death of christ, not by him, and it is mentioned once in the bible I believe (acts something or other). So what I said stands, Whether someone can be called a christian depends completely on who's definition of christian we are going by.

If, by you definition, A christian is someone who follows the teachings in Math. 5, then nobody except for christ was or is a christian (again, check out the commandment in vs. 48). So yes, by that definition Hitler was not christian.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: 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.

But don't you get his logic? All Atheists are evil. Hitler was evil. Therefor Hitler was an Atheist! His logic is impeccable.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Nik
If the Bible didn't exist, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, there is a very strong plumbline to judge others by and it starts in Matthew 5.

Strange, I don't read anything in there about being called a christian. I see words about following christ and how you are to treat your fellow man (This is one of my favorite chapters BTW), but nothing about being qualified as a christian.

Check out the last verse. If that is our measurement for being a christian then nobody truly is.

The term christian was one that was coined after the death of christ, not by him, and it is mentioned once in the bible I believe (acts something or other). So what I said stands, Whether someone can be called a christian depends completely on who's definition of christian we are going by.

If, by you definition, A christian is someone who follows the teachings in Math. 5, then nobody except for christ was or is a christian (again, check out the commandment in vs. 48). So yes, by that definition Hitler was not christian.

This goes back to a previous post of mine. I'll quote it for you.

"bears fruit"

Nobody says a Christian can't make mistakes. However, there's a difference between giving the middle finger to Christ's teachings like Hitler did and actually making an effort.

A Christian's testimony doesn't have anything to do with standing in front of people telling them about their life. A Christian's testimony is 100% how they live their life. Setting an example.

The question here is whether Hitler tried to follow Christ's teachings--whether he stumbled or not is irrelevant. Everyone does. Trying to conquer the world and murdering million's of God's Chosen is not Christian-like.

Basically, if you aren't even trying, you're not a Christian. If you truly are trying, you will show signs of becoming more and more Christ-like. Being a Christian isn't something you accomplish and move on from, it's a life-long struggle.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: preslove
I found the guy who Zenmervolt name dropped... which is how I pwned him, and why he hasn't replied... because I won the argument...

You are the most ignorant person in this thread.

I don't know anything about the authors you two are talking about. I simply pointed out that you're willing to listen to Dude #1's flawed, fallible opinion while rejecting Dude #2's biblical opinion simply because it doesn't match up with your own point of view.

uh... I used the author ZENMERVOLT brought up. Get it? Understand?

As far as being the most ignorant person in this thread, almost every one of your posts has been refuted and absolutely crushed by several people in this thread. I'm still waiting for you to post passages from John showing that Jews were responsible for Christ's death.

Hardly. Their only argument is that I quote wikipedia and that christians have challenged the wikipedia page.

Scholarship is on my side. Blind belief and ignorance is on theirs.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: preslove
uh... I used the author ZENMERVOLT brought up. Get it? Understand?

How does that disprove anything I've said or prove anything you've said?

Hardly. Their only argument is that I quote wikipedia and that christians have challenged the wikipedia page.

Scholarship is on my side. Blind belief and ignorance is on theirs.

I'm still waiting for you to quote from John where the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ.

You can beat around the bush all you want. It's not getting you anywhere and you're not fooling anyone.

 

[DangerAardvark]

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

Please, as if the very idea of the Trinity isn't retarded enough all by itself? There is one God, but three separate entities, but they're all one being. The amount of doublethink required to believe this tripe is staggering.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Come on with who was responsiable for Christ death. The Jews were given A choice they choose against GOD . Pilot represented Rome . But the Jews choose between 2 Christ won . So Jews infact are responsible . What the Hell do ya think A Rothschild is.

 

[rudeguy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Come on with who was responsiable for Christ death. The Jews were given A choice they choose against GOD . Pilot represented Rome . But the Jews choose between 2 Christ won . So Jews infact are responsible . What the Hell do ya think A Rothschild is.

But if Jesus' death fulfilled a prophecy, how are the Jews to blame?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

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

Please, as if the very idea of the Trinity isn't retarded enough all by itself? There is one God, but three separate entities, but they're all one being. The amount of doublethink required to believe this tripe is staggering.

I'm not making the argument that Christianity is true or not. I'm simply stating what's in the Bible. As I've stated earlier in this thread, Christianity is bullshit.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: preslove
Historical jesus scholarship is just as intensive, but it strives to be neutral.

I have read Barth, Bultmann, Schweitzer, Borg, E.P Sanders, and John Dominic Crossan rather extensively. I would absolutely love to see you try to pull support for anti-semitism in the New Testament from the works of the Jesus Scholars; it would be a most amusingly futile effort on your part.

None of these "neutral" scholars offer support for your positions.

Of course, you'd know that if you read anything other than wikipedia articles.

ZV

I have listened to ~70 lectures of this guy,Bart D. Ehrman. He claims that the gospel of john was biased towards blaming jews for the death of jesus because of the jewish-roman wars.

This is well established position.

Oh, it's funny that you mention John Dominic Crossan, because he wrote this book: Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus From the publisher review:

In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material.

I believe that the correct word for this is pwned. This author specifically wrote a book claiming that the new testament is the origin of anti-semitism.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to this discipline...

A copywriter's boilerplate is not the book. You offer no citations from Crossan himself, only a layman's interpretation of the book. This serves only to support my assertion that you have done no research into this matter on your own. The only "pwned" here is how you have managed to prove that you've never actually read these scholarly works and instead rely only on secondhand descriptions.

You further show a disturbing inability to differentiate between something being taken out of context and perverted by anti-semites and something having a legitimately anti-semitic nature. The book does not "claim that the new testament is the origin of anti-semitism". Rather, the book cites examples where anti-semites have perverted what was written and taken it out of context. In fact, the book explicitly argues that it is incorrect to use the text to encourage anti-semitism.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: preslove
I found the guy who Zenmervolt name dropped... which is how I pwned him, and why he hasn't replied... because I won the argument...

Or, you know, because I have other things to do and don't check this thread every 30 seconds.

ZV

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: timosyy
Does anyone really think death was Christ's passion?

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. "

"The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. "

Also as far as antisemitism goes...

"As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

Christ was a Jew, all the early leaders of the church were Jews (including Paul, who wrote the quote directly above), the entire Old Testament proclaims Israel as the chosen people... I find it very hard to argue for antisemitism in the Christian religion (which is not to say the followers are the same).

Edit: most religion threads on ATOT (or anywhere really) just confirm my belief that comparative religions should be mandatory in high school or something. It'd lead to a lot less ignorance/strife/hatred all around.

"The Passion" refers to an explicit event, popularized in the Middle Ages as a "Passion Play" which directly chronicles Christ's time in Jerusalem during his interrogation and crucifixion.

When we say "the passion" in reference to Jesus, it refers to this event. The term has nothing to do with who he is or what his figurative passions were.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Come on with who was responsiable for Christ death. The Jews were given A choice they choose against GOD . Pilot represented Rome . But the Jews choose between 2 Christ won . So Jews infact are responsible . What the Hell do ya think A Rothschild is.

Actually, the Jews didn't choose God. They chose their own law instead. That's why the Jews reject Christ's divinity. Jews do not believe that the saviour has come.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
We should put ICRS and Nemesis 1 in a thread together, they'd make such a pair.

:laugh:

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: TehMac
Essentially he was an Atheist.

This. He was also a Darwinist, which would also make him an Atheist.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Please, as if the very idea of the Trinity isn't retarded enough all by itself? There is one God, but three separate entities, but they're all one being. The amount of doublethink required to believe this tripe is staggering.

Your body is composed of a trillion or so cells, and yet you have one body. A triangle is one shape, and yet it has 3 sides.

The concept of unity is a pervasive one. God has 3 aspects in His revelation of Himself to us, and yet He is one God.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: Nik
If the Bible didn't exist, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, there is a very strong plumbline to judge others by and it starts in Matthew 5.

Strange, I don't read anything in there about being called a christian. I see words about following christ and how you are to treat your fellow man (This is one of my favorite chapters BTW), but nothing about being qualified as a christian.

Check out the last verse. If that is our measurement for being a christian then nobody truly is.

The term christian was one that was coined after the death of christ, not by him, and it is mentioned once in the bible I believe (acts something or other). So what I said stands, Whether someone can be called a christian depends completely on who's definition of christian we are going by.

If, by you definition, A christian is someone who follows the teachings in Math. 5, then nobody except for christ was or is a christian (again, check out the commandment in vs. 48). So yes, by that definition Hitler was not christian.

You take verse 48 out of the context of that passage and the rest of scripture. The standard Jesus gave is perfection. Does that mean anyone will attain perfection in this life? No. What He was doing when He gave that standard in verse 48 is stating something contrary to the laws and teachings of many of the rabbis and the Pharisees at that time. They had a system of superficial faith in which the standard by which you measured your righteousness against was other people. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector illustrates this perfectly: the Pharisee exalted himself in comparison to to tax collector, while the tax collector looked downwardly in shame and humility at his own sinfulness.

Righteousness isn't about being better or holier than other people, it is being righteous in the eyes of God. Man cannot achieve righteousness by his own actions, though, because we are corrupt by nature and cannot do good. How then do we attain righteousness? Only by the imputed righteousness (it is a gift; grace) which comes from the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on the cross for our sin.

So yes, we cannot attain perfection on this earth, but that is what we have as our goal, to become like Christ. We can become like Him fully only when He returns and His eternal kingdom comes to fruition, for then we shall see Him as He is, and we will become like perfect mirrors of His glory.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: preslove
Historical jesus scholarship is just as intensive, but it strives to be neutral.

I have read Barth, Bultmann, Schweitzer, Borg, E.P Sanders, and John Dominic Crossan rather extensively. I would absolutely love to see you try to pull support for anti-semitism in the New Testament from the works of the Jesus Scholars; it would be a most amusingly futile effort on your part.

None of these "neutral" scholars offer support for your positions.

Of course, you'd know that if you read anything other than wikipedia articles.

ZV

I have listened to ~70 lectures of this guy,Bart D. Ehrman. He claims that the gospel of john was biased towards blaming jews for the death of jesus because of the jewish-roman wars.

This is well established position.

Oh, it's funny that you mention John Dominic Crossan, because he wrote this book: Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus From the publisher review:

In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material.

I believe that the correct word for this is pwned. This author specifically wrote a book claiming that the new testament is the origin of anti-semitism.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to this discipline...

A copywriter's boilerplate is not the book. You offer no citations from Crossan himself, only a layman's interpretation of the book. This serves only to support my assertion that you have done no research into this matter on your own. The only "pwned" here is how you have managed to prove that you've never actually read these scholarly works and instead rely only on secondhand descriptions.

You further show a disturbing inability to differentiate between something being taken out of context and perverted by anti-semites and something having a legitimately anti-semitic nature. The book does not "claim that the new testament is the origin of anti-semitism". Rather, the book cites examples where anti-semites have perverted what was written and taken it out of context. In fact, the book explicitly argues that it is incorrect to use the text to encourage anti-semitism.

ZV

Pot meets kettle. You haven't posted a single source to back up your assertions.


The later gospels were written after the the jewish-roman wars, and they reflect the rift between the jews and christians, which is why "the jews" killed jesus in John. The gospels were written by people with agendas, which are laid by by any critical reading of them. It just so happens that the agenda of the writer of John conflicted with the jews who didn't believe in jesus. So he essentially blamed all the jews' problems on their killing of their supposed savior.

I learned this while listening to over 30 hours of lectures by Bart Ehrman: Historical Jesus & Lost Christianities and From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity .

Let's look at the title of the book again:

Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus

Unless the publisher misrepresented the content of the book with the title. I feel confident that the book will confirm what I learned about the creation of the new testament from Ehrman.

Sure, "christianity" might not be antisemitic (depending on your definition of it) but there ARE antisemitic passages in the bible. It's really absurd to claim that Historical Jesus scholarship does not back this up.