I agree.

That is also why we are given commandments, to judge those things that please the Lord from those which dont,, and they arent dependent upon whether or not I am doing them or someone else

Well of course making a "judgement" is not sinful. We do that all day, to decide what to eat for dinner, we "judge" what sounds good. We are talking about making a judgement on a person in this specific discussion though. Making a judgement on a person is what is sinful, thinking less of them cause they may be a thief, could be a murderer, could be a liar, ect ect. When one thinks less of a person they are putting themselves higher then that person. That's where it becomes hypocritical. Cause you're judging this person for being in the wrong for doing such and such, when you're over here doing this or that, ect.

then we agree..lol

I Believe we are all imperfectly human and all fall short (sometimes). That is why I can seperate what people do and say from 'who' people are.

We aren't told that though. We are told to love EVERYONE, regardless if they are thieves, liars, or any possible type of person. We aren't to treat them any different then we would a preacher, a priest, a fellow brother/sister in Christ, ect. We are not to hold it against them for again we have done other sins and again all sin is equal except denying the Lord thy God.

Again, we agree. WE can love everyone and still judge right and wrong.

Although, Im not quite going to treat everyone exactly the same, regardless of their 'sins' because everyone has differences, react to different things differently, need different things,,,etc,,,

You should never judge anyone for what they have done. Everyone is capable of anything.

Well yeah, of course. We are all different people and are then treated differently. But ment differently as in a foul way. We aren't to look down or less of a person for what they have done. But yeah, we are basically saying the same things lol. So I'll just shut up bout now and go to my corner before I stick my foot in my mouth lol >.<.

lol,,, its all good,,

Great response, thank you.

I was totally expecting someone to pick up on that error, believe me I thought the same thing before posting. It just seemed like a catchier title

I wasn't talking about that kind of "judgment" Cowboy.

If there exists a judgmental God who passes final judgments on the fate of human souls, then only that God could make such judgments. No human would have that authority no matter how arrogant they might be.

So that's not the kind of "judgment" that I'm talking about.

I'm simply talking about religious people passing personal (and social) "judgments" on other people's spirituality simply because they refuse to accept Christian dogma.

That's the only kind of "judgment" that I'm concerned with here.

Clearly this religion does indeed have you passing this sort of "judgment" on others. You hold out that Jesus is the only way to God and that anything short of accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior would be the same as "rejecting God".

So therefore you are "passing judgment" on other people based on your religious beliefs. You aren't judging whether or not they will go to heaven or hell. That's ridiculous. I don't think you need to worry about anyone believing that you could even make such a judgment. But you are clearly "judging" them to have rejected the religion, and thus to have "rejected" the "Word of God" as you believe it to be.

So this has absolutely nothing to do with you "knowing" whether someone would go to heaven or hell. You're way off in dreamland if you think anyone would think that you could have such authority.

I'm taking about judging other people's character in general. The problem with people believing that Jesus was "The Christ" and that they are somehow aligned with that, is that this very notion tends to make them "judge others" (in a social sense) to be "without Christ", or "Without God", or "Rejecting God", if they don't also acknowledge and believe that Jesus was "The Christ".

This religious belief becomes fodder for social judgments.

Judging others to be "Not of Christ", or "Not in harmony with God" is a very derogatory and unhealthy judgment right there, IMHO.

That is the kind of "judgment" I'm talking about Cowboy.

Judgments that mortal men can and do indeed make.

You're talking about judging the eternal fate of individual souls. That's something entirely different. Forget about thinking that people are worried about you deciding, or even knowing, whether or not they are going to heaven or hell. I'm sure that no one is about to give you that kind of power.

Yeah really.

You can talk about Jesus without Christianity. But it's pointless to speak about Christ without Christianity.

Christianity is not about Jesus. Christianity is about using Jesus to support a much larger dogma and superstitious view, IMHO.

I have no problem with Jesus. But I have huge problems with Christianity.

Kind of like Mahatma Gandhi, "I like your Christ, but I don't care much for your Christians".

Even that was a slip of the tongue on Gandhi's behalf. He should have said, ""I like your Jesus, but I don't care much for your Christians".

Because to even refer to Jesus as "Christ" implies that this is what he was.

~~~~~

On a very interesting historical note, does anyone even know what Jesus' real last name was?

Mary and Joesph who?

Is the last name of Jesus even known?

In the Bible they claim that Jesus was a decedent of King David and they cite a whole bloodline from King David down to Joseph. But are any last names even mentioned?

Also, if Joseph wasn't Jesus' blood father then why would his bloodline even matter?

Only Mary would need to be a descendant of King David. So why even mention the bloodline of Joseph?

Not true. Still no judgement made. You for example, you specifically have stated it many of times that the bible is just hearsay rumors, unimportant, ect. So no judgement made on weather you reject the bible or not, for you have already told us that you do.

When someone specifically says they do no believe in the "Christian" God, there is no need for any "judgement" for they specifically have said it. What are you talking about Abra? You're not making sense.

Oh but you can't. Jesus is Christianity. Jesus is our Christ, notice the root word of "Christianity". The term "Christianity" in-tells that person trying to be "Christ" like. To be "Christ" like, you would have to obey what the "Christ" says or what "Jesus" says and or does.

my understanding has always been that customs in biblical times did not include 'last names' as we have them today

but instead, people were labeled by their region, as in Jesus of Nazareth,

or their occupation, as in Jesus the Christ

or even their parents name, as in Mary, mother of christ

I dont think they used the same name system(for lack of a better term) as we use in modern times,,,

I'm talking about religious divisiveness and religious bigotries.

Clearly you are on an entirely different page altogether.



No Jesus is not Christianity. Christianity is basically based on a belief that the hearsay rumors about Jesus in the New Testament are to be taken as the "Gospel Truth".

Once that ideal is rejected, the historical man named Jesus still remains.

And "Christ" was not Jesus' name.

Everyone refers to "Jesus Christ", but that's just laziness over the centuries. It's really "Jesus THE Christ".

Christ is not Jesus' name.

The term "Christ" comes from a belief that Jesus was a demigod, born of a virgin woman. It's a religious "belief".

You can indeed separate Jesus from this religion very easily.

You say, "Jesus is our Christ". Well, you're speaking as someone who believes that. But for someone who doesn't believe that, Jesus becomes a mere mortal man in a historical context.

I certainly don't believe that Jesus was "The Christ". I don't believe there is any such things as "A Christ".

I don't believe in the Old Testament either.

So for me Jesus was just a man, not unlike Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, etc. The existence of Jesus does not support Christianity in any way, IMHO. Especially once the New Testament stories have been rejected as nothing more than superstitious exaggerations, or potentially even religious propaganda created expressly for the purpose of trying to hold Jesus up as a demigod.

Demigods were popular back in those times and people believed in those kinds of things quite easily.

I don't believe in demigods. I also don't believe in any gods that deal in blood sacrifices.

So for me, removing Jesus from Christianity is trivial.

Christianity is the mistaken "fable", IMHO.

And that's all there is to that.

Jesus was no more, or less "divine" than anyone else. What he might have been was a very wise mystic who tried to teach his community better morals than they had been taught by the Torah. Unfortunately he seems to have failed miserably in that attempt, and even at the cost of his very own life in a very brutal way.

It's a sad story even historically speaking.

Well, if that's true, then their claim to know the lineage of Joseph clear back to King David would become highly questionable. How would they keep track of bloodlines that closely if they weren't even using family names, etc?

The lineage to King David is fiction. King David, in my opinion, is fiction. This is my opinion, so I have no need to go into length about any of the mythical details.

The "Christ" is a state of consciousness. The rest of the story about saviors of mankind and virgin births .... all myth.

(So sayeth the Lord.) <---------

David was a real person.

The crown rights of Jesus were inherited from his mother Mary who was of the royal seed of king David. Jesus was not the biological seed of Joseph and so inherited nothing from him in regard to the throne of David.

Jesus was born King of Israel in Bethlehem. Only queens birth kings! Other kings of Israel might have been appointed (Saul and David), but after David, his heirs ruled by birthright and not by appointment. Thus, Solomon followed David to the throne because his mother Bathsheba at his birth was David's Queen wife. Bathsheba birthed a prince when Solomon was born. When David died the prince ascended to the throne and by birth right of his mother's queenship he became King of Israel. Kingship and Queenship determine the inherited rights of a son to ascend to the throne of Israel.

Joseph was indeed of the house of David:

"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 1:20).

About 2,000 year ago a Jewish historian by the name of Josephus witnessed and recorded the war between the Roman Army and the Jewish people. The major part of the battle occurred in and around Jerusalem. The account by Josephus is almost an echo of the predictions of Jesus, as recorded in the 24th chapter of the Book of Matthew and the 21st chapter of the Book of Luke. The war began in 67 A.D. and ended in 70 A.D. On August 10, 70 A.D., Jerusalem was stormed and what followed was a universal massacre of the Jewish people—1,100,000 perished, and 100,000 survivors were sold into slavery.

just as I can keep track of my ancestors through the knowledge of my family and their knowledge,, it can be passed on like any other information



perhaps I dont understand the question....


I know my ancestry because it was told to me by my parents who had it passed to them by their parents, and so on and so forth,,, last names were not really required to do so

as to how OTHERS would know, it depends upon the others we speak of,, other people might know through being told or having it explained to them

the authors of the bible may know because of inspiration or cultural word of mouth, or both