was hitler deluded? how many people followed hitler? how many people still agree with hitler?
one need not be sane to have followers. one can be insane and even have multitudes of followers. surely you do not suggest that mohammed was sane? (knowing your opinion of muslims)(okay, that's almost, if not, a cheap shot at them, so just note--I don't have a problem with the religion, just some certain people in charge of a few certain countries)
you're right, a better person would be Stalin or Mao. still, people will follow other people, and those leaders may or may not be crazy.
so to say that the reason that jesus is followed by so many was because he was sane is a touch presumptous. He may have been infact sane. But you know, even Lincoln had his mental problems--disease begins with an m, can't remember, oh, duh--marfan's syndrome (how it sounds, spelling is wrong). and many people followed lincoln and today still think he was a good leader.
point put shortly--people follow crazies as much as they do sanies.
And since I don't belief a fall happened, since I don't believe that we're a lost cause without christ (and apparently there are many religions that agree with me as to the latter), what need do I have of someone to get me out of a situation I'm nt in.
Christ is about as worthwhile as a detective at a scene in which no crime happened.
He teaches some good stuff, but he's not needed to find the way out of this nonexistant failure that mankind is in.
their truth is different from my truth, just as yours is different from jars. and that's why I hate those people who try to tell me that I'm damned for all eternity if I don't convert and belief in Christ.
I'm not damned. I don't think there's an afterlife.
I'd say that protestantism and roman catholicism are much closer to each other than christianity is to judaism.
romans considered them a sect of judaism, yes. Do you?
If so, how do you feel being the son of an inept father? inept--your view that they screw up in not recognizing jesus as the messiah
wouldn't you want to distance yourself from such a figure?
but apparently by your definition of christian, well, you're still following a jew. if this is the standard definition, how do you feel about the history of blaming other jews for the death of this jew you follow?
I still think the NT is christian. even by your definition--followers of the jewish messiah, it was written by those, which makes it technically "christian". not jewish.
which technically makes them christian--your definition christian--those who follow the jewish messiah Jesus
hence, your "fathers" who followed christ were christians--jews followed either judaism or chritianity, as you claim.
saying the NT is jewish then would leave it open to being either that of the christians or that of the pharisees.
But the NT is not of the pharisees, it is of the christians. again, the NT is christian.
(really funny--you were admonishing Archer for using Yeshua (he wanted to be more accurate) because the translation remaings accurate. here, I am being accurate, and you are again admonishing it. is there something you have against accuracy?;))
no. it's not really that important. just a tiny nitpick I was wondering about--initially thinking you had mistyped, and meant to say that the OT (not the off-topic:D) was jewish. and then considered the possibilty you had meant to say that, asking questions why.