How do you know hes misinterpreted it?

Only a handful of people to my knowledge have ever understood Jesus's message.

I know a "Christian" who thinks signing a certificate allowing Jesus in his heart will guarantee he gets into heaven. This isn't faith; it is a business deal with a narcissist.

Jesus talks a lot about true faith. But you have to read between the lines. His way of speaking is meant to confuse and make you think.

Christianity (literally, following the words of Jesus) is not a scam. The organization of the religion in its current form is a scam. And the people who believe it are knowingly scamming the system: they want God to give them something for cheap. They don't want to behave like good people. They just want a free pass into heaven.

I think St. Paul was a charlatan

I think his crucifixion is important to the story of Christianity but wasn't a 'world-changing' event. Plenty of people died on crosses, what was different about this particular death was people's attitude toward the victim, an attitude that could only have existed because it formed throughout his life, it was the result of the sum of all his actions. And, I would even say that it was actually the resurrection that was the world-changing event, if pressed to try to reduce it all to a particular moment. That, or his birth.

What did his crucifixion change? We can't know that he wouldn't have gone on to become the leader of a religion, rather than just a cult, had he lived. But perhaps that wouldn't have happened without the resurrection.

Yes, and God told me the same thing, but you'll just have to take my word for it. He told me that Jesus was a slightly mad opportunist that he created to amuse himself and kick start Christianity, having become a bit fed up with the Jews, and not actually his son, but had he been, he would have sent him back ages ago. Have faith in me Zit.

So all you have is more claims?

My view is that Christianity (and every other religion) is a scam.


More claims.

If Paul was a charlatan, what does your NT look like?

Well, since the resurrection, unlike the crucifixion, most likely didn't happen, I'm not going to consider it a world-changing event.

As for the importance of the crucifixion in Christianity - again read the gospels, the Passion story of Jesus is the central event of the books, the climax towards which they are directed. As for what was different, obviously it was the fact that the Romans killed Jesus that was different. Jesus' death led to the formation of a new Jewish cult among his followers, one that eventually became the biggest religion in the world.

Finally, yes, it is possible that in the possible world where Jesus wasn't killed that he still goes on to found a major world religion. However, I think it is very unlikely. The prior probability of Jesus being the inspiration/founder of a major world religion is very low, so if you take away any one of the contingent factors that contributed to it actually happening and roll the dice again it most likely wouldn't have happened.

Okay.

You are wrong because false gods neither "see nor hear nor eat nor smell." They have no power. But Satan is the prince of the air and the "deceiver of the whole world."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html

Most agree with me that this verse refers to Satan.

So you agree that god and jesus are an invention and Christianity is a scam based on these inventions?

Light bulbs were invented, seeing at night is a scam.

No.

Okay.

Whether it happened, or didn't happen, it's the belief that it did which was what changed everything because it supports what followed and that Jesus was the son of god. Does Christianity work at all without the resurrection story? So I think the truth of it is immaterial, although it isn't and really couldn't be questioned within the religion that it probably caused. Without the resurrection myth, Jesus gets crucified and possibly that's the end of Christianity despite the best effort of the disciples (whose existence was being called into question in an article I was reading earlier).

That the gospels focus on it isn't what supports it's contribution to what Christianity became, that could have been a retrospective focus on an event that actually played a minor part to the resurrection but which it suited the authors of the gospels to focus on because of the support it offers for various divine theories like Jesus having 'died for our sins'. The crucifixion can be portrayed as having been hugely important, it could be portrayed really in anyway they saw fit, but I would say that logically, it couldn't have been as important as the resurrection because dying on the cross isn't what made him the son of god. Religions have foundered with the killing of their main 'character', why is this one different? Isn't it because he claimed, and was proven by the resurrection, to be the son of god?

I don't know of other religions in which the founder was executed unless we are talking of the mystery centers in which the would be initiate was placed into a trance state, not unlike death, only to be resurrected as a new man.

Christ Jesus, in his life of 3 years since the baptism by John, went through the mystery center initiation in a reality, not in secret, but within the eyes of the whole world in which he actually went through death .

You're right about one thing of the utmost importance, which is the matter of the resurrection. Somewhere in the works relating to Paul he states "if He has not risen we are lost".

Without the resurrection, Christianity would be a different religion, but there is no reason in principle why it couldn't be successful without it. After all, today we have many liberal Christians who reject the claim that the Resurrection is an event of history.

But regardless, my primary point here is not about whether the crucifixion is the most important event relating to Christianity (I don't think it is), but whether it is of sufficient importance that, given the overall historical significance of Christianity, it should itself be regarded as an event of historical significance. For instance, here are a few others:

1) Conversion of Paul and his career and writings as a missionary.
2) Constantine's conversion and the ending of Christian persecution.
3) The Council of Nicea and the creation of Christian orthodoxy.
4) Martin Luther's nailing of the 57 Theses.

My guess is that most reputable general history books covering these eras would talk about these events.

Lot's of people, including contemporaries and near-contemporaries of Jesus, claimed to be of divine origin. Jesus claiming to be the "son of god" is not clearly a claim (as it is often taken to be now) to be the God of Abraham. So I'm not sure that is very special.

Truthfully, my guess is that Christianity became the biggest religion in the world primarily through luck rather than any unique characteristics of its theology or practice.

Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob after being arrested on criminal charges.

OK, sounds good.

well it is, but ur only scamming the night out of its darkness not stupid ppl out of their time/money/freedom.

95 right? The 57 theses were made by Heinz.

Fifty-seven is a good number:

I stick with the words in red.

Martin Luther was a great man.
Not because he created a new branch in a cult full of worthless woo but for the fact that this allmighty skydaddy watched it and did absolutely nothing about it.

Despite numerous claims of having interacted with human beings, allmighty skydaddy did NOT purge the catholic church for acting like a warehouse, skydaddy did NOT say "Well, luther, creating new branches of the church is MY job",
skydaddy did NOT purge both branches, screaming: "HUMANS, LET ME GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ABOUT HOW TO WORSHIP ME!"

he did nothing and let the catholic warehouse branch of woo co-exist (minus the warehouse ofc) with the newer branch of woo.

100% proof that he does not exist. Christianity, no matter which branch, has been and is a scam up to this very day.

It's not a scam to follow a teaching. If the teaching gets you to pay them money, then it can be a scam. But it's possible to be a Christian and not go to church, and not pay the church money. So by definition, it's not a scam.

Now, any time you have a great teacher, like Jesus, people will come to distort his teachings and exploit his teachings. I believe the devil is a metaphor for this kind of lying, among others. Using goodness in the service of evil. Leading the flock away from the true teaching.

LOL, why quote my post when you ignore 100% of it?