[revat619]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

There is only one criteria for being a Christian. The belief that Jesus Christ died for your salvation and was resurrected three days later. That it it. There is no valid argument around this. Anything you claim is bigotry on your own part.

This is not the only criterion. The word Christian literally means "to be christ like or a disciple of Christ" Like i told you before, the term Christian was originally given to people who not only believed in his death and resurrection for salvation BUT ALSO actually followed his teachings. If a group believes in him for salvation, but does not follow his teachings, then by the original definition of the word, they are not Christian, but something else. This is a valid argument. Look up the origin of the word Christian and where it was first used historically.

No. Just no.
The gospel written the closest so Jesus was something like 80 years AFTER his death, at best. The rest are in the area of 300 years later. That is historical fact. I need no faith believe that. Nothing you say will change these facts.

I didn't say they were written while he was alive. They are a record of eye witness accounts recorded by historians and one disciple (John). I never said anything about faith either. Where did that come from?

This is just a load of shit. There is no historical evidence for any of that. If you would like we can really get into why Jesus could never have been the messiah. I can start with this, the kingly bloodline is passed down through the FATHER'S lineage. Whether you think his father was a god or a carpenter it doesn't matter because neither had the blood of king David. Being the son of god is not in any way shape or form a criteria for being the Messiah.

Actually the blood line from Abraham to David to Joseph is recorded entirely through the father's lineage. I wont type out every name unless you'd like me to, but it's a total of 72 generations. As for the son of god being a criterion for the Messiah, you're right, however where Judiasm and Christianity split is the belief that Jesus was in fact that person. The arguments then arise over what the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah were referring too

The bible gives instructions on how JEWS are to live their life. One of these rules is that any person claiming to have new or different rules from god should be killed on sight because there will be no new rules.

This is why you have to read both the old and new testament. I wont get into all the stuff about being under a "new covenant" and no longer living under "the law" and what that all means, but basically in the new testament Christ's death and resurrection do a way with the differentiation between jews and gentiles (non jews) and it becomes those who believe and those who don't and how "believers aka followers of christ, should conduct themselves.

Your actions and words are jiving here buddy.

What are you talking about? Not once have a talked about faith or said anything remotely close to trying to convert someone in anyway shape or form. Hell, i haven't even mentioned my personal religious beliefs. My point this whole time is that the term Christian nowadays is an umbrella term and saying that you can't tolerate them is vague and a huge generalization because the term includes mulitple groups of people with glaring fundamental differences. If you don't like Catholics, ok. If you don't like mormons, ok. If you don't like protestants, and so on so forth, ok. But be specific. They're all entirely different, they do not conduct themselves the same, they don't practice all of the same things and despite what you think, they don't all have the same requirements for salvation.