Schneb:  Did Constantine's vision of a bloody cross come from Jesus or a false god?
115409
Constantine was a pagan - all his life. (But he was baptized on his death bed, for whatever good that did, God knows.)\n\nHe decreed that all in his empire must desecrate the Sabbath & rest/worship on Lord Mithra's day, "Sunday, the venerable day of the sun god."\n\nHe & his cronies set up the pagan holidays Christmas as Dec 25 because it was the fabled birthday of Lord Mithra & Easter based on the vernal equinox in honor of the fertility goddess Ashtar/Ishtar (where the word "Easter" is derived) as "Christian."\n\nConstantine co-opted the terms "Christian" & "Christianity" for the benefit of his empire & his mammon. Pope Sylvester was his puppet & rubber-stamped all of Constantine's heresies.\n\nA while back, I asked the Q: "What good did Constantine ever do? i.e. what did he ever do for the glory of God in a way which is pleasing to God - not the pagan abominations which Constantine is best known for?!" He was an abomination. It is clear that he never was a believer; he was an opportunistic user.\n\nThere is no reason to believe that there was one exception that his initial cross vision was Godly. On the contrary, it is more likely that it was demon inspired - for all his heresies that the Catholics, Protestants & non-denominationals follow rather than following the Torah-observant Messiah - and that the Latin cross is the Mark of the Beast.
1115563
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and\nthe writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal\nthat they were constantly forced by the pagan\nintelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other\nChristians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and\nfabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever\nhaving taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says,\n"And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never\ninterrupted succession, but never so strongly and\nemphatically as in the most primitive times, was the\nexistence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5\nEmperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the\nfanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine,\nreturned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone\nshould wish to know the truth with respect to you\nChristians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly\nof the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and\nconfusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together\nnot the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."
893848
Ah, you're asking about the eucharistic miracle at Lanciano I think. The host that actually turned to flesh and blood.\n\nIt's not in Rome. But it is in Italy.\n\nYes, it's true and it's been examined by scientists. See the link below.\n\nOr do you mean "the incorruptibles?" They are all over! See the other link below.
549053
YES!!! Finally someone that agrees with me!\n\nALso note in Hebrews how Paul keep changing his "VISION OF CHRIST" story! 3 TIMES!\nIf Jesus appered to me in a vision, I DEFNITLY remember.\n\nALSO note his obsession which finding salvation through the "BLOOD OF CHRIST". Why is he so interested in SACRIFICE?\n\nOh and Jesus said become as children (humble, trusting, submitting to the Lord) in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (See Matthew 18:3.) There is no mention here of Him (christ) dying and ressurecting as basis for salvation.\n\nIf i am not mistaken he also say that "THE BLOOD/SACRIFICE of Jesus smelt good to GOD!\n\nPaul liked to profess that he is a Jew yet he INSULTED Jews at every hook and turn!\n\nThe dude had issues!!!
355184
First of all, I think all this hype at Easter time about a supposedly hidden gospel, written by a major player in the crucifixion story is a little suspect....imagine......... television trying to get ratings...lol.\n\nOn the other hand, if it is an actual document recorded by people who had Judas' story handed down to them (like the four big gospels), I've always wondered if Judas actually imagined to the point of belief that HE was the center of bringing about the new government.  \n\nHe may have actually thought that Jesus was giving him some kind of signals to carry out the dirty work. He certainly hasn't been the last person to believe he was getting divine direction to commit a crime in the name of God. Especially if money was involved.\n\nAnd before anyone tries to defend Judas' actions or say that what Judas did was "God's will" and "part of The Plan", don't forget the Sanhedrin was determined to do away with Christ. They didn't have to have Judas.
1167982
Believed to have been written in the 3rd or 4th century due to the testimonies of the early church fathers, this is a story of Jesus’s trial, execution and brief descent into Hell.\n\nHell in this book is a place where everyone is destined to go and Jesus ventures there to free many of the early church patriarchs and martyrs.\n\nMany scholars, as well as early church leaders, feel it’s a forgery to gain converts by impressing upon an individual the Savior’s power over Satan. Others see it as a redundant compilation of all other stories previously written. Finally, many of the early church fathers deemed its description of the underworld as too speculative because they viewed Hell as a state of mind and not a physical place.\n\nAlthough banned, it is noteworthy that it was a very popular book that was in circulation as recently as the 1500s. Martin Luther and other early Protestant leaders forbade their followers to read it.\n\nThe first half of the book is purported to be an eyewitness account of His trial and execution and it’s the only place where it’s mentioned that Jesus saw his mother while proceeding to his crucifixion. Some scholars feel this text was a catalyst for the Catholic Stations of the Cross processional.
862954
Mainstream Christianity is not true Christianity. Unlike early Christianity, so-called Christians celebrate pagan festivals like Halloween, Christmas, and Easter. They go to war, although Jesus taught his first disciples to love their enemies. False Christians are taught that Jesus is God when Jesus CLEARLY called himself the Son of God. (John 10:36) False Christians use the cross in their worship, even though it is common knowledge that the cross is a pagan symbol that pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years. They are involved in politics, although Jesus taught his followers to be no part of the world. (John 15:19)\n\nMainstream Christianity is indeed far removed from 1st-century Christianity.
249293
:{\nThat “Jesus did not die on the cross”  is an Islamic teaching. It will be part of the great delusion in the last days during the tribulation.\nISA, (the Islamic Jesus)(and the Christian false prophet) will come and declare that he is Jesus and that he is not the son of God and did not die on the cross. Islam even predicts that he will break the cross and that he will kill the leader and protector of the forces that believe that Jesus is the Son of God.\n\nHe will also tell people to believe in the Islamic Messiah, Mahdi (The Christian anti-Christ)\n\nAnyway that's how I interperet the Islamic Hadifs and the Bible  Just my opinion
991169
To address each of your individual questions:\n\n1) Jesus was not a mortal, he was sent to earth in the form of a mortal.\n\n2) There is proof of Jesus physical existence, there are lots of historical accounts of this.  It would be harder to prove that he didn't exist.  Historians/Critics don't question Jesus's existence; they question whether Jesus was actually God or not.\n\n3) There are no "codes" in the Bible; this is a fiction created by man.\n\n4) Refer to #3\n\n5-6) Its called "faith" not "seeing is believing". /  John 20:29 "...Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."\n\n7) The men who wrote the various books of the Bible lived in different places and different times.  The miracle is that they all communicated the same information (which came from God) without having seen each others works.\n\n8)  We follow God because he has shown his love for us in the greatest possible way - by sending his son to die so that we could have eternal life instead of being punished to an eterinity in hell.  We obey him out of love and appreciation.  Why wouldn't you love and respect someone who has done something this great for you?
593914
I appreciate drshorty's honest but it only proves that Momonism is not biblical Christianity. The true Jesus who came to die and save us from our sins is the only begotten Son of God (John 1:1-4,14 3:16). He is not one of many spirit children but the ONLY begotten Son of God. Lucifer is an angel (not begotten son of God but a created being) who did rebel against God. So Momonism is false because they deny the foundation of Christianity. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Begotten meaning of the same substance. Jesus is God (Titus 2:13) the second member of the Trinity (Matthew 3:16-17). Angels are created as are humans. Angels serve God (sometimes referred to as the sons of God but not begotten sons only Jesus is begotten) and humans when they accept the true Jesus become adopted children of God but not spirit children and not begotten children. satan is not God and is not begotten of God and is not Jesus brother. Jesus is God.
408847
Good question.\nThe late, great Bill Hicks asked the same question - "if Jesus comes back, do you think he ever wants to see another cross? Would you go up to Jackie Kennedy wearing a rifle pendant?"\nI'm being flippant (before everyone starts having a go....) but it is interesting. From an athiests pov (and I admit, I'm probably not best placed to answer this) I would say it is remembering his death, which was fundamental to christian religion. I'm not sure what symbol you could use to represent Jesus's life.
489884
The Trinity comes from Constantine 400+ years after the supposed death of Jesus.
1388
The fact that a man named Jesus, from Nazareth was crucified under a Roman ruler named Pontius Pilot is one of the best attested to facts in ancient history.  \n\nReligious historians - such as Luke, the doctor, who's testment can be read in any commonly circulated version of the Christian Bible (The Gospel of Luke) -- as well as secular historians like the Roman historian Tactitus all agree on this fact.  They differ in how they choose to understand Jesus' death on the cross -- where a religous historian like Luke would say that Jesus was the "messiah" (the Christ, of Jewish Prophesy) and the son of God, Tacitus, refers to him simply as a nussaince and the originator of a "mischevious superstition".  \n\nSee below for more info.
763096
According to Roman Catholics, a very tall and physically challenged Roman man named Reprobus, referred to as a giant by those who knew him, vowed to serve Jews and became a Christian. He sought out a Christian hermit to inquire as to how he could better serve Jesus. The hermit directed him to a dangerous ford in a swift river, and suggested that the giant's great size and strength made him a good candidate to assist people in crossing.  Reprobus began ferrying people across the river on his broad back.\n\nOne day, a small child approached the river and asked to be carried across.  The giant began to comply, only to learn that the small boy was far heavier than any other passenger he had taken.  The child revealed that he was in fact Jesus Christ, and that his unusual weight was due to the fact that he bore the sins of the world.  The boy then baptised the giant in the river, and he acquired his new name Christopher, Greek for "Christ-carrier" (christo-phoros).\n\nWe can guess that the river in question is the Jordan River.  Jesus cleansed this water and people went to these waters to cleanse themselves of their sins.
578767
A white cross with the drop of blood in the middle was supposed to represent Jesus's blood, as in Jesus sacrificing himself for the White Aryan race. (How they deal with the fact that he was Jewish is a great mystery.) They see themselves are God's chosen people.
356879
Your argument doesn't hold water. For it to be a good argument all the facts need to be true and provable. Jesus wasn't even killed on a cross he was hung.And almost nothing else you said is provable.
282587
Carnut is on the right track here.\n\nDuring the O.T. times, we had to spill blood in order for the blood to "wash away our sins".  \n\nThe symbolism here is:  only the life portion of God's creation can wash away our sins.  \n\nThe pilosophy here is:  a lower form of existence can help save our souls thanks to the original sin of Adam and Eve.\n\nIn the N.T., Jesus became a coverall; kind of like an umbrella.  His blood replaces the blood of tiny animals.  And it is considered the ultimate sacrafice that humans could do (killing the son of God).\n\nTo argue the other side of the fence:  even with worshipping the devil, we have to shed blood of small animals in order to be closer to the sin of satan.\n\nAnd if we do shed blood in the name of satan, it is considered to be entering the ranks of satan, and there is no salvation that can follow once this happens.  Because once you do, you are foever considered in God's eyes to be evil and on the side of satan.  He will never let you enter heaven if you have gone this far.\n\nI hope you can see that religious zealists felt that blood was the ultime source of life.  And that by shedding God's life source, it must have some sort of deep meaning.  Therefore, we harbor the phrase when someone kills another..."His blood is on your hands".\n\nI had to add stuff here.  GRAVATOL is wrong.  Don't you remember in the N.T. that even though Jesus didn't want to die on the cross, he knew he had to because he had to fulfil God's plan?  The plan was so that we did not have to go through the measures of killing animals to be forgiven of our sins.  It also was a way so that we don't have to go through any other man.  This means that the Catholics who think that they have to confess are wrong.  Jesus put an end to that.  We are not supposed to confess our sins to any man.\n\nRead the O.T., you will find many sacrafices.  The profets did not admonish it.  Only Jesus's deciples did because they knew what the new law was going to be.  BTW, I guess when Able's shrine where he sacraficed animals wasn't too bad, because if it were so terrible, then his brother Cain wouldn't have killed him over it.