PDA

View Full Version : That's not what Jesus said vol DCLXVI



Pages : [1] 2

Lebell
15th May 10, 10:05 AM
my list would say something like the enlightenment, secular government, democracy, capitalism, science, the industrial revolution, agricultural development, etc.

imo, the more secular we become, the better we become. that doesn't mean i'd want to ban religion or something, far from it.

The things you have mentionned all came out of the christian-humanistic mindset.I agree that secualrism is a good idea.
i never bother anyone with religious conversations and never ever tried to convert.
thats just stupid.




correct me if i'm wrong, cos i'd like to learn more about this - the new testament says many times that the old testament should be followed to the letter.

Not really.
Xtians argue about it.
You got Paul of Tarsus who joined the show and made many 'new' rules and additions on the authority that he had received visions of jesus.

Jesus his own words in the new testament (relatively very few) he said: i have not come to explain the law (as in OT) but to fullfill it.
personally i am convinced that this means: he leads by example.
if jesus would have followed all the ot rules he wouldnt have been put on trial and crucified in the first place.

does that make sense?

Lebell
15th May 10, 10:13 AM
Other than the clearly apocalyptic teachings that all his followers should abandon family and land to prepare for the coming armageddon....the one claimed to come within a single lifetime?

no, he did not say that, you got a nt at your place you could read?



Wether or not you personally believe that is irrelevant, reading the NT it is quite clear that Jesus (as portrayed) believed that a rapture would come within his disciples lifetime.

IMPORTANT NEWSFASH!
nowhere in the NT does the 'rapture' get mentionned.
NOWHERE.
it's an american evangelical invention.





This is often overlooked today, for obvious reasons, but it is there in the NT.

okay..what verse?
if its there you can quote it ,right?





I really don't know why they left it in, as it seems difficult to build a religion on; "well, see, we were suppossed to be lifted up to the heavens hundreds of years ago but...well...there seems to have been some form of delay".

see my points above.
the overall teachings/parabels of jesus are about giving up things, material possesions, pride and the ego.
he talks about the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of the father, how it is already here yet we can not see it.
' a camel will go through the eye of the needle easier then a rich man wil enter the kingdom'
you know that story, right?
eye of the needle was a narrow taxgate, every city had em, if camels would come in they needed to be taxed (well, the merchandise they carried) so they used these gates because the camels had to unload and nothing could sneak past the taxdudes.

so its not like some uneducated atheist would yap: lolol look they believe in magic!! lololzomg!' its an allegory for casting off the things that hold you down, that you're attached to.

im willing to explain loads more (the way i see it) but i agree it should have its own thread.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 10:23 AM
correct me if i'm wrong, cos i'd like to learn more about this - the new testament says many times that the old testament should be followed to the letter.

There are strands of Christianity that rejected the Old Testement, Marcionism, Cathars and Paulicianism for example.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 10:27 AM
IMPORTANT NEWSFASH!
nowhere in the NT does the 'rapture' get mentionned.
NOWHERE.
it's an american evangelical invention.


"...and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."

From The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians 4 verse 17

"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Matthew 24 verse 31

Lebell
15th May 10, 10:31 AM
"...and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air."

From The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians

yes....................... PAUL wrote that.
you know Paul ' oh hai 60 years after jesus' death i had this vision and it said im your boss now, hey im going to add some weird crap to the nt now' of tarsus.

no scolar takes that dick serious.

Lebell
15th May 10, 10:35 AM
"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Matthew 24 verse 31

they gather them.
yes.
so?
it doesnt say we shall take em up into heaven.
f you would have want to make your point even seem better i'd suggesttaking verse 40-43.
and you'd still get it wrong.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 10:39 AM
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

John 14, 2-3


" But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Matthew 24, 36-41

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 10:42 AM
The word rapture comes from the latin rapio which means to be caught up and appears in the vulgate versio of the bible.

nifoc
15th May 10, 10:46 AM
I know that the word "rapture" does not appear within the bible, I merely used the term as a commonly understood term describing the deliverence of believers into the grace of god.

In Matthew 10:23 Jesus states to his dsciples that they shall not have gone over all the cities in Israel before the "Son of Man be come". The Son of Man being the Messiah who, according to the tradition of the time, would deliver the people of Israel into the Kingdom of God.

Matthew 24 is largely a description of a coming apocalyopse, and contains the important verse: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Matt 24:34)

Luke 21:24-32:

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;

30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Do you need me to bring up more examples?

I never equated the giving up of worldly possesions in preparation for the coming apocalypse with "lolz magic". You stated that none of Jesus teachings were obsolete, I merely refuted that statement.

I never stated that religion has never had any good influence on society, I merely feel that we in the western, educated, world have moved past the need for fairytales as a moral crutch.

Lebell
15th May 10, 10:53 AM
"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

John 14, 2-3

yes, and?
couldnt it be a personal thing?
could the house be an allegory?
or do you really believe it means god lives in a big house up on a cloud with actual rooms in it?

thats the mistake loads of people make, the fanatics aswell as their critics quote the NT in a literal way to prove their points.
which makes the whole conversation/debates etc hilarious.
neither side really fully understands what they are talking about.

now im not an expert either but at least ive put in some effort by reading what im talking about, attending lectures from theology proffesors and talking to people from different religions.








" But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Matthew 24, 36-41


the last verses are the ones i meant.
clearly it says taken and left behind, right?
wrong.
if you take the whole context which is jesus speaking of the last of things (roughly translated from the dutch title of the verse) you could conclude rather, that the taken and left hints about getting into paradise.
taken ON, passed, accepted.

not literally floated into heaven.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 10:55 AM
I know that the word "rapture" does not appear within the bible, I merely used the term as a commonly understood term describing the deliverence of believers into the grace of god.



The word rapture comes from the latin rapio which means to be caught up and appears in the vulgate versio of the bible.

Lebell
15th May 10, 10:57 AM
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Do you need me to bring up more examples?

I never equated the giving up of worldly possesions in preparation for the coming apocalypse with "lolz magic". You stated that none of Jesus teachings were obsolete, I merely refuted that statement.

I never stated that religion has never had any good influence on society, I merely feel that we in the western, educated, world have moved past the need for fairytales as a moral crutch.

so because you take the word generation for its literal meaning you must be right?
read your own quote: he also talks about jerusalem berthrodded by gentiles until their time is fulfilled aswell.

perhaps a generation could also refer to ' mankind' the time of mankind?
instead of literally the generation at the time of let's say 30-40 AD?

nifoc
15th May 10, 10:57 AM
@Max: I did not know that... Ok then

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 10:59 AM
yes, and?
couldnt it be a personal thing?
could the house be an allegory?
or do you really believe it means god lives in a big house up on a cloud with actual rooms in it?

No I get the poetic nature of the passage.




if you take the whole context which is jesus speaking of the last of things (roughly translated from the dutch title of the verse) you could conclude rather, that the taken and left hints about getting into paradise.
taken ON, passed, accepted.

not literally floated into heaven.

You could conclude that but you dont have to.

Lebell
15th May 10, 11:00 AM
see?
its telling, instead of actually using your brain and study the background of how these documents came to be how they are now, you rather play pseudo intellectual semantic grabass.

' oh it s rapture and it comes from such and so...'

you'd get raped in a theological debate by educated believers.
dawkins is the dan brown of atheists in a way.

Lebell
15th May 10, 11:00 AM
You could conclude that but you dont have to.

on that i agree.
ofcourse you do not have to.
but it would make more sense when you'd look at it that way.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 11:06 AM
see?
its telling, instead of actually using your brain and study the background of how these documents came to be how they are now, you rather play pseudo intellectual semantic grabass.

' oh it s rapture and it comes from such and so...'

you'd get raped in a theological debate by educated believers.
dawkins is the dan brown of atheists in a way.

Eh?

I gave a clear historical explaination of why the word rapture is used. Nothoing pseudo intellectual about it.

What the fuck has Dawkins got to do with the use of the word rapio in the vulgate bible ???

nifoc
15th May 10, 11:07 AM
so because you take the word generation for its literal meaning you must be right?
read your own quote: he also talks about jerusalem berthrodded by gentiles until their time is fulfilled aswell.

perhaps a generation could also refer to ' mankind' the time of mankind?
instead of literally the generation at the time of let's say 30-40 AD?
Hey, you're the one that believes this stuff. It probably means whatever you twist its meaning into.

I notice that you are unable to refute the ACTUAL text of the book you presumably believe in, but would rather reinterpret words to suit your own hopes. And you wonder why atheists find your beliefs irrational...
If you twist the meaning of the word "generation" or any of the other interpretations you have made, only in this thread, what makes you so certain that the concept of "god" is meant to take literally? If any inconvenient part of the bible is either ignored or reinterpreted to suit your modern viewpoint, then what basis do you really have for your beliefs?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th May 10, 11:07 AM
on that i agree.
ofcourse you do not have to.
but it would make more sense when you'd look at it that way.

Not if your an inbred illiterate pig shagger from Mississippi.

nifoc
15th May 10, 11:09 AM
on that i agree.
ofcourse you do not have to.
but it would make more sense when you'd look at it that way.
No, it really doesn't.
NEITHER interpretation makes any real sense. That's the problem.

Lebell
15th May 10, 11:16 AM
Hey, you're the one that believes this stuff. It probably means whatever you twist its meaning into.

yes, and that goes for pretty much any religion or concept.
thats not so strange.


I notice that you are unable to refute the ACTUAL text of the book you presumably believe in, but would rather reinterpret words to suit your own hopes.

what do you know about the ACTUAL text.
translated out of what language?
;-)
I do not interpretate the words to suit my hopes, i interpretate it in the most logical way.



And you wonder why atheists find your beliefs irrational...

i don't, i can understand them.



If you twist the meaning of the word "generation" or any of the other interpretations you have made, only in this thread, what makes you so certain that the concept of "god" is meant to take literally?

Very good question.
i've asked myself the same thing, thats how i got started and it brought me to the beliefs i currently hold.



If any inconvenient part of the bible is either ignored or reinterpreted to suit your modern viewpoint, then what basis do you really have for your beliefs?

it's not about inconvenience, it's about logic and history.
the bible has been tinkered with like there was no tomorrow, the whole book of revelations for example is a hoax.
its common knowledge.

luckily there have also been more recent discoveries like the nag hammadi library which shed new lights on the existing stories.

Lebell
15th May 10, 11:23 AM
No, it really doesn't.
NEITHER interpretation makes any real sense. That's the problem.

you think they don't make sense.
just because you do not understand somethng doesnt make it nonsense.
do you understand the black hole theory, or the evolution theory?
perhaps the relativity theory?

probably not, but that doesnt make em nonsense.
nor 100% correct.

its a constant pot meets kettle discussion between religious people and atheists.
'lolol u believe in magic, u igorant peasant!'
'lolol u believe god in not king, ur gong to burn!'

is the scripture tinkered with throughout the ages? oh yeah.
has science been tinkered with and proven to have had wrong conclusions?
also yes.

but it doesnt make the core idea wrong.

the problems start when people attach their ego and personality to a certain point of view: if this is not right then im nothing, i'd be lost in life!
atheist:'im intelligent and in charge of my own life, im a sentient free being! (lolol go read howard bloom) '

xtian:' jesus lives in my heart and he died for my sins and he flew up to heaven and comes on a cloud! lolol!

muslim: allah is the supreme being, and there will be no crtique on his word and every infadel should be silenced!

(nice loop to the topic eh?)

nifoc
15th May 10, 11:30 AM
yes, and that goes for pretty much any religion or concept.
thats not so strange.
Thats really not helping your case




what do you know about the ACTUAL text.
translated out of what language?
;-)Fair point. What do YOU know of the actual text?


I do not interpretate the words to suit my hopes, i interpretate it in the most logical way.
You interpretation really isn't more logical.
Jesus actually believing the world was soon coming to an end is no more illogical then him being alegorical.




it's not about inconvenience, it's about logic and history.
the bible has been tinkered with like there was no tomorrow, the whole book of revelations for example is a hoax.
its common knowledge.
How come you are so sure your interpretation is the correct one then?


luckily there have also been more recent discoveries like the nag hammadi library which shed new lights on the existing stories.
So the Nag Hammadi scrolls refute the early christian sects belief in an imminent apocalypse? Or what do you mean?

nifoc
15th May 10, 11:39 AM
you think they don't make sense.
just because you do not understand somethng doesnt make it nonsense.
do you understand the black hole theory, or the evolution theory?
perhaps the relativity theory?

The difference here is that those are THEORIES. And, yes, I do have a pretty good understanding of the evolution theory, the other two are shakier (I know more biologists and chemists than physicists).

What I meant by "Neither makes any sense" is just this: Neither "people being lifted up into heaven" nor "people being let into paradise" are logical concepts. Nor do they make sense, since both are predicated upon the existance of god, an entity which is a complete unknown (up to and including his very existance). Therefore neither explanation for the biblical text makes more sense than the other, they are both equally improbable.

Lebell
15th May 10, 11:46 AM
nifoc, i dont have time now to go deeper into it, il do it tomorrow i think, right now gotta run and meet someone,can ou ask in the meanwhile if a mod can cull these posts and make it into a thread of its own?
ill prob post more tomorrow but for sure on monday.

nifoc
15th May 10, 12:40 PM
Sure, we could continue this in a separate thread, I just don't know if we'll get anywhere.

You cannot make logical assumptions regarding religion. Introducing an unknown factor (like the existence of god) into an argument, then basing the entire argument on that existence, invalidates the argument itself.
The most logical conclusions about the apocalyptical message of jesus are:
1) He (or perhaps some editors) actually believed that the apocalyse was just around the corner.
2) He was speaking symbolically.
3) He was full of shit.
4) He never said any of it (or any of the other stuff in the bible) and the whole thing is made up afterwards because it makes for a better story.

The thing is, you can't really make any judgment as to which one of these is more logical, unless you introduce unproven elements (like god). Your claim that your belief is more logical simply fails under any form of scrutiny.

Since it can't even be stated with any form of certainty that jesus himself said or believed the stuff attributed to him, you cannot then make the argument that he logically was being alegorical. You assume this for two reasons:
1) You believe that god and jesus are real in the form presented in the bible (or at least a version close to that
and
2) Since he said that, and the world hasn't come to an end, he must have meant something other than "generation" when he said it.

This only works if you believe that jesus was actually the messiah, and not some random whackjob spouting shit (that he may or may not have believed himself). If you remove the speculative existence of an almighty deity (removal of such unknowns being necessary to having a rational or logical discussion) then your argument fails immediately.

This usually happens when I discuss with believers. They introduce the existence of god as a matter of fact into the discussion in order to make "logical" arguments, without making any sort of logical argument for the existence of god, thus making the whole argument a matter of pure speculation rather than a logical discussion.

The worst case I've seen was a theologian from Liberty university arguing that the ressurection was more logical than the whole thing being made up. He predicated his entire argument upon the fact that god was real, and therefore it must be true. Unfortunately for this discussion, Lebell is making the same argument but on a smaller scale.

There are also the cases where in this thread there is obvious contradiction. Lebell states that none of jesus message is obsolete, and then states that the bible has been tampered with to such a degree that much of it may be totally unrecognisable. How can anyone then state what the teachings of jesus actually were? How does one draw the conclusion that the redacted parts does not contain inconvenient things that have been edited out as they became troublesome to educated folk? Considering how much xtianitys views on physical punishment of children, amongst other things, have changed over the years, it is highly likely that the edited parts contain things that became obsolete.

Personally I have less of a problem with Lebells irrational beliefs, than I do with the fact that he is certain that his beliefs are more rational than those of muslims. As a humanist (mostly anyway) I may consider Lebells beliefs to be more moral than much of islam, but I can't see how belief in one mythological entity is more rational than belief in another mythological entity.

jkdbuck76
15th May 10, 01:10 PM
These posts need to be put in another thread.
Please Mod Almighty. Do so.

And when the new thread starts, I'd like to know what Lebell means when he says that the bible has been tampered with? Does he mean the cannon? Or the works themselves? Or both? I am curious.

EuropIan
15th May 10, 02:05 PM
really?
because....YOU SAY SO?
why dont you motivate your reasons?

it's widely accepted that the christian-humanistic approach lead us to where we are now.
Did scolars miss something?

Did you read the new testament?
how is it archaic?
what did jesus teach which is now absolete?
The enlightenment tempered Christianity, stop claiming it's an inherent quality of Christianity

EuropIan
15th May 10, 02:11 PM
These posts need to be put in another thread.
Please Mod Almighty. Do so.


I can answer prayers because I am real.

Kiko
15th May 10, 02:21 PM
I can answer prayers because I am real.

I pray that these foolish and futile debates will cease.

Let's see you answer that one!

EuropIan
15th May 10, 02:24 PM
I pray that these foolish and futile debates will cease.

Let's see you answer that one!
I am also a cruel God

DerAuslander108
15th May 10, 03:02 PM
You cannot make logical assumptions regarding religion. Introducing an unknown factor (like the existence of god) into an argument, then basing the entire argument on that existence, invalidates the argument itself.

You certainly can, since you do not have introduce the unknown factor of God or base the argument on His existence in any shape or form.


The most logical conclusions about the apocalyptical message of jesus are:
1) He (or perhaps some editors) actually believed that the apocalyse was just around the corner.
2) He was speaking symbolically.
3) He was full of shit.
4) He never said any of it (or any of the other stuff in the bible) and the whole thing is made up afterwards because it makes for a better story.

You're assuming that Jesus message is apocalyptic. You're your argument from the middle, not from an understanding of the beginning.


The worst case I've seen was a theologian from Liberty university

I think we've come to the crux of the problem right there.

There are no theologians from Liberty University.

EuropIan
15th May 10, 03:04 PM
There are no christian theologians

Aphid Jones
15th May 10, 03:16 PM
Is Lebell actually implying that he has access to the r34l Pre-Pauline Christian sources?

DerAuslander108
15th May 10, 03:19 PM
Is Lebell actually implying that he has access to the r34l Pre-Pauline Christian sources?

You don't?

Kiko
15th May 10, 03:32 PM
I am also a cruel God

Those are a dime a dozen, ya know.

HappyOldGuy
15th May 10, 04:02 PM
You don't?

Err, for the most part noone does. All of our sources are at least filtered by Pauls followers, because they were the ones who survived. However only folks coming in 2000 years later with a bad case of willful blindness think that there was a major discrepancy between Paul and James on any issue that matters to modern day christians.

If Lebell actually wanted to practice the original christianity, the very first thing he would do is go get his dick snipped.

TheMightyMcClaw
15th May 10, 04:21 PM
so because you take the word generation for its literal meaning you must be right?
read your own quote: he also talks about jerusalem berthrodded by gentiles until their time is fulfilled aswell.

perhaps a generation could also refer to ' mankind' the time of mankind?
instead of literally the generation at the time of let's say 30-40 AD?

So let me get this straight:
When Jesus was saying "The world is gonna end any day now" what he actually meant was "the world isn't going to end any day now"?

Kishi
15th May 10, 04:41 PM
After having read the entire thread, I can only conclude: Wow. Just. Wow.

nifoc
15th May 10, 05:11 PM
You certainly can, since you do not have introduce the unknown factor of God or base the argument on His existence in any shape or form. If you mean religion as a social construct then certainly. However the current discussion is about religion as an attempt to explain any form of "truth" regarding the way the world works.



You're assuming that Jesus message is apocalyptic. You're your argument from the middle, not from an understanding of the beginning.

I don't think that word means what you think it does.


Main Entry: apoc·a·lyp·tic
Pronunciation: \ə-ˌpä-kə-ˈlip-tik\
Variant(s): also apoc·a·lyp·ti·cal \-ti-kəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1663

1 : of, relating to, or resembling an apocalypse
2 : forecasting the ultimate destiny of the world : prophetic
3 : foreboding imminent disaster or final doom : terrible
4 : wildly unrestrained : grandiose
5 : ultimately decisive : climactic <an apocalyptic battle>

— apoc·a·lyp·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Please explain how a description of the world being plunged into chaos leaving only those deemed worthy to enter the kingdom of god does not fit at least no. 2 and 3.

Aphid Jones
15th May 10, 05:19 PM
However only folks coming in 2000 years later with a bad case of willful blindness think that there was a major discrepancy between Paul and James on any issue that matters to modern day christians. Ah, that's refreshing.

it's clear that Lebell wants to wish away Paul because he was another Jew and, while early Christianity was virtually all Jews, Lebell feels more comfortable if there's "one less Kike talkin bout Christ".

Aphid Jones
15th May 10, 05:22 PM
Please explain how a description of the world being plunged into chaos leaving only those deemed worthy to enter the kingdom of god does not fit at least no. 2 and 3.
The question lebell is debating isn't what, but when.

nifoc
15th May 10, 05:36 PM
The question lebell is debating isn't what, but when.
That was a response to DerAuslander.

Lebell has already stated that words apparently mean a totally different thing when they come out of religious texts. The best part is that jesus also states that some of his followers will not have tasted death before the coming of the kingdom of god. I guess death is also a metaphor, I can't wait to hear Lebell explain that shit away.

Fearless Ukemi
15th May 10, 07:03 PM
This thread is one big piece of Mohammed

Aphid Jones
15th May 10, 10:36 PM
That was a response to DerAuslander.

Lebell has already stated that words apparently mean a totally different thing when they come out of religious texts. The best part is that jesus also states that some of his followers will not have tasted death before the coming of the kingdom of god. I guess death is also a metaphor, I can't wait to hear Lebell explain that shit away.
You are referring to:

"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

The Son of Man, Yeshua the Messiah, came into his kingdom after being crucified and resurrected. "Coming into his kingdom" is this process.

Let me present the line in context, then you'll see what I mean:

Jesus Predicts His Death


"From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his lifeh (http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/16.htm#footnotesh) will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matthew 16, 21-28



Jesus predicts his crucifixion in metaphorical ways in other places in the Gospels. Here's another example:

"Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
"You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
“We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared." Mark 10: 35-39

"It was the third hour when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews. They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left." Mark 15: 25-27

nifoc
16th May 10, 03:02 AM
The problem with that is that he did not "come into his kingdom". So that interpretation fails.

Lebell
16th May 10, 05:32 AM
oh christ allmighty.
ive read all the posts and im supposed to leave again,(thats why i said i'd reply on monday for sure)

a short reaction: what nifoc doesnt seem to get is his starting point, besides being insultive towards jesus in 2 of his 4 ' points' he doesnt make a good point.
then a whole lot of semantics, with quotes from a dictionairy.

it doesntwork like that people.
read the whole proces, the whole history to have a more complete overview and then tell me if its bullshit.
you're all entitled to your opinions but you cant expect me to take em all seriously.

we're sort of playing in two leagues, two different ballgames and the atheist side thinks they can make up the rules for both.

religion is also about mystery, about parts we simply do not know.
a lot of ateists cant seem to accept that, they use science and what not to point out or ridicule flaws in theology etc.

the main problems with these god vs no god debates is ignoarance on both sides.

some examples of ignorance:

our friend mcclaw:When Jesus was saying "The world is gonna end any day now" what he actually meant was "the world isn't going to end any day now"?

perhaps the world ends when you die?
perhaps it could be seen as ' you dont know the day the world will end for you?'

then some other smartass will quote anothertext from the bible which mentons fire and brimstone but its not a good quote because its not original text.
then it wil be: lebell jumps from excuse to excuse etc.

and thats why i usually dont argue about religion with people who hardly know anything about it.
but i will, and in great depths this time, just not today because my gf will have my balls if im late.

Lebell
16th May 10, 05:35 AM
That was a response to DerAuslander.

Lebell has already stated that words apparently mean a totally different thing when they come out of religious texts. The best part is that jesus also states that some of his followers will not have tasted death before the coming of the kingdom of god. I guess death is also a metaphor, I can't wait to hear Lebell explain that shit away.

seriously, how old are you?
so i know in what kinda phase of your life you're in, you sound like you're early 20ies.


death and living are two theme's that repeat themselves.
but its not literally, all the time.
there are several ways of dying.
there are several ways of living.

Lebell
16th May 10, 06:03 AM
These posts need to be put in another thread.
Please Mod Almighty. Do so.

And when the new thread starts, I'd like to know what Lebell means when he says that the bible has been tampered with? Does he mean the cannon? Or the works themselves? Or both? I am curious.

wikipedia or something.
concili of nicea.
arianism
gnosticism
maneecheans
cathars

there were loads of forms of xtianity, but the catholic church was nesting itself in the roman empire, the concili wa sheld to chose the final biblebooks, whch are to be canonnical and which are to be apocryf.

Tertulianus, augustinus and other churchfathers are nice references to read about that period.

but the watering down started quite quickly: with Paul of Tarsus.
He made up all the crap rules which are used for the reason of celibacy, homosexuality being a sin etc.

nw i know that in the ot things like homosexuality were 'frowned upon' by god, but the thing is Jesus came and broke the old rules, and explained the true laws.

lots of xtians think that jesus, and/or being xtian is a continuation of judaism.
those people dont get it.
jesus was a revolutionairy.
he hang out with hookers, collaborators and other people who were looked down upon by general society.
he said screw the sabbath if you gotta do something really important.
he said: screw the biblebashers with their rules and semantic games, only worrying abut their own ego and status.
i mean he didnt get put on trial and crucified for nothing.

a real jew could never agree to jesus.

jesus said you can eat whatever you want cos what comes out of your mouth makes you unclean, not what goes in.
and he said that circumcision of the mind is usefull instead of crcumcision of the flesh.


he also never mentonned building churches, making statues or worshipping him, he was only pointing to the father, trying to explain how stuff worked.
but if you as an early catholic empire want to expand and grow and win souls its better if you adept the theology to make it more compatible/acceptable to the illiterate heathens you seek to convert.

so tey used pictures, if you cant read ou can remember the story by the pictures.
so jesus was god, son of god,a concept already known by the cult of mithras and it also cut off the road for arianism who could be considered heretics from then on.

danno
16th May 10, 06:08 AM
Not really.
Xtians argue about it.
You got Paul of Tarsus who joined the show and made many 'new' rules and additions on the authority that he had received visions of jesus.

Jesus his own words in the new testament (relatively very few) he said: i have not come to explain the law (as in OT) but to fullfill it.
personally i am convinced that this means: he leads by example.
if jesus would have followed all the ot rules he wouldnt have been put on trial and crucified in the first place.

does that make sense?

you seem to be cherry picking parts you like and affording yourself some creative license with others. you're content for xtians to do that in general, but i think you'd jump on any muslim for doing the same thing with the koran.

this is par for the course. as i said before, these texts are ambiguous enough to walk away with any interpretation you wish.

here is a not-so-positive interpretation of quotes from the new testament:


1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

is there a good reason for me to ignore all that?

Lebell
16th May 10, 06:42 AM
you seem to be cherry picking parts you like and affording yourself some creative license with others. you're content for xtians to do that in general, but i think you'd jump on any muslim for doing the same thing with the koran.

this is par for the course. as i said before, these texts are ambiguous enough to walk away with any interpretation you wish.

no i do not, it seems to me you do not know enough about xtianity so to you it seems like i am cherrypicking.
but let's say i am.
the difference between me and a muslim: i have to cherrypick carefully so i can be a cruel dick towards infadels.
a muslim has to cherrypick so he does NOT ave to be cruel to infadels.
that in big lines is the major difference.



here is a not-so-positive interpretation of quotes from the new testament:



http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm


lolol!
wtf...


is there a good reason for me to ignore all that?

fuck yeah, its all nonsense written down by a bunch of ignorants.
do you want me to adress each ' point' they made?
its really to stupid, but i will.
please tell me you're trolling.

Lebell
16th May 10, 06:51 AM
ok lets get on with this feast of ignorance and semantics.
L is my personal comment.

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

L: no dumbass, it mentions the LAW and the commandments.
perhaps the LAW is different from that in the OT and thats why jesus came and taught the true message?

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

L: frustrated much?
again, it means the laws are universal and not a temporary thingy you can bargain with or can get out of.
like karma for example.
the vicious comment is you're ignorance speaking.

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

L: same thing honey!
also notes how jesus says: i have come to FULLFILL, which is an action.
he fulfilled by helping the poor, healing, giving people parabels, teacing that the poor and the rich are equal for god, and that one should have compassion for its fellowman.
THAT BASTARD!

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
your point being...?
(i dont even 'do' the letters btw)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

So this textsays: there's no prophesy that came solely from the human mind, it ad divine inspiration.
yes, and?

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

L: ughhhhh....to die is not always literally, read the whole story instead of copypasting lines.

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)


^^^that one proves my point.
plain dirty edited.
i DARE you to post the WHOLE story danno.
i dont even need to explain that one if you post it in its entirety.

this proves the vile and frustraton of people behind sites like that.
im sorry for them that they had bad experiences with a religion they do not understand but this is just plain nasty and dirty.
c'mon, post the whole story: mathew 15 1-9

Lebell
16th May 10, 06:57 AM
oops forgot a couple:

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)

L: yes its literally ofcourse! gauge your own eyes out! buahahaha!
or maybe hell is being slave to your primary entity, your lusts, basic instincts and petty thoughts?
maybe he meant its better to cast the hand that wants to sin away, gauge the eye out.
its a (zomg) mindset, its not literally.




okay fuck the last three, this is getting too stupid.
basic idea is clear right?
nasty editing and ignorance do not make good counterpoints when you're dealing with a 'believer' who has some idea of what he's talking about.


BRING ME...

DAAAAAWWWKINNNZZZZZ

lolol! zomg!
7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18



8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Sartori
16th May 10, 07:07 AM
religion is also about mystery, about parts we simply do not know.




you're all entitled to your opinions but you cant expect me to take em all seriously.

but you expect others to take your opinions seriously after saying it's largely made of "mysterious" and unproven stuff, this I think is most people's problem with it :P

danno
16th May 10, 07:19 AM
no i do not, it seems to me you do not know enough about xtianity so to you it seems like i am cherrypicking.
but let's say i am.
the difference between me and a muslim: i have to cherrypick carefully so i can be a cruel dick towards infadels.
a muslim has to cherrypick so he does NOT ave to be cruel to infadels.
that in big lines is the major difference.

it's quite possible there are more obviously nasty things in the koran compared to the new testament. that's not the point though, what bothers me is the hypocrisy.

why can't i just look through the koran and say "this part is full of shit, this part is crap, but THIS part is the REAL truth". that appears to be what you're doing with the bible.

even if the bible was 100% flowers and puppy dogs, people would still use it to justify their heinous shit. it's ambiguous, archaic, contradictory, incongruous.

i think that what influences religion more than these texts are the needs and wants of human beings.


fuck yeah, its all nonsense written down by a bunch of ignorants.
do you want me to adress each ' point' they made?
its really to stupid, but i will.
please tell me you're trolling.

i'm not trolling. i really have no respect for the bible as a guide for life. it's certainly a culturally important document, but that's as far as it goes for me.

your responses to those quotes don't exactly fill me with confidence. it all seems to depend on how well you can explain away what you don't like. but let's discuss one thing at a time.

which part explains that when jesus says "death", he means something other than death?

Fearless Ukemi
16th May 10, 07:28 AM
Lebell, I just read a very good book (IMO) on Christian theology. If you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830833986

Lebell
16th May 10, 07:30 AM
but you expect others to take your opinions seriously after saying it's largely made of "mysterious" and unproven stuff, this I think is most people's problem with it :P

hahah nice one.
ill try to elaborate on that.
it has to do with the approach to it.
most of us humans want to have some approach to life, why we're here, what the whole meaning of this is, etc.

some desire to know everything, each little detail etc.
others accept that some parts are just not meant to understand or at least not in this time in history.
and a whole bunch of opinions on both sides of those two basic views.

what is knowledge?
how is it obtained?
i think science is the best thing we got at this point.
one does not exclude the other, but i believe right now it's too early in time to see that.

a believer is not always an anti stamcel anti abortionist crazy, and an atheist is not always an intellectual sharp thinker and knowledgeble about science.

believers who are champions for g0d quote the scriptures yet still dont really know what they are talking about, just as atheists use science without REALLY knowing anything about it.

the main theme is IGNORANCE, whether you believe or you don't.
this is constantly overlooked.

danno
16th May 10, 07:38 AM
Lebell, I just read a very good book (IMO) on Christian theology. If you're interested:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0830833986

does that book actually blame earthquakes and tsunamis on "evil"? i've looked at a couple of blurbs and it seems that way.

Fearless Ukemi
16th May 10, 08:11 AM
I did not get that impression. The author mentioned those in chapter 1, and it was not a signifcant part of the book.

I did find it pretty deep in the "Crucifed God" chapter that God decided that He, Himself needed to be punished for the state of creation along with us.

danno
16th May 10, 08:22 AM
this is from a review on the the link you gave.


Wright's book was developed out of five lectures he delivered at Westminster Abbey in 2003 and, in summary form, through a television program which first screened in the U.K. on Easter Day 2005. Its approach is biblical, practical, even intuitive, but not philosophical. As he states in his preface after reflecting on the recent natural disasters caused by tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes and the 9/11 attacks: "They are a reminder that 'the problem of evil' is not something we will 'solve' in the present world, and that our primary task is not so much to give answers to impossible philosophical questions as to bring signs of God's new world to birth on the basis of Jesus' death and in the power of his Spirit, even in the midst of 'the present evil age.'" This primary task underlies Wright's approach to what he calls, in chapter 1, 'the new problem of evil'. The old problem was a metaphysical question, asking why evil exists if there is a wise, good and supremely-powerful god. Contrary to some, Wright thinks this is a futile question, and one the Bible does not answer in any way satisfying to contemporary philosophers. The new problem in its present metaphysical form, he says, has been around for at least two-and-a-half centuries, beginning with the Lisbon earthquake on All Saints' Day 1755. He agrees with Susan Neiman's assessment in her book, Evil in Modern Thought, that Europe's philosophical history is best understood as people trying to cope or come to terms with evil. This includes Enlightenment-modern thinkers as well as postmodern ones. However, Wright sees the lines of thought that emerge from these attempts to understand the world in general and evil in particular as unsatisfactory. This includes the popular doctrine of automatic progress which, he affirms, post-modernism rightly deconstructed although it too leaves us without any satisfying solution. The 'new problem of evil' leaves us ignoring evil when it doesn't hit us in the face, surprised when it does, and reacting in immature, dangerous ways.

Wright seeks for a biblical, practical solution to evil that focuses on what God has done, is doing (including through us) and will do about evil. His summarizing journey through the scriptures is impressive, and his focus on the healing nature of divine and human forgiveness as rooted in "the victory of the cross" (favoring the Christus Victor theory of the atonement) is welcome. But take the book for what it's worth. It is not a comprehensive or balanced treatment either of the problem of evil or the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion, things which Wright admits in his preface. Although he asks the question "What is evil?" up front, one doesn't get anything like a definition until the middle of the book, in chapter 3: "Evil is the force of anti-creation, anti-life, the force which opposes and seeks to deface and destroy God's good world of space, time and matter, and above all God's image-bearing human creatures" (pg. 89). Again, his approach to evil is not philosophical. If you want to know "the ultimate reason why suffering exists," then see Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor, where Piper offers a Christ-centered one, but don't expect it to be satisfying to many contemporary philosophers.

In addition to Neiman's book, mentioned above, Wright also references C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, Desmond Tutu's No Future Without Forgiveness, and Miroslav Volf's Exclusion and Embrace, among others, the last two relied on to expound on forgiveness in the last chapter. In terms of a recommendation, possibly no greater one can be given than that of Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland: "From now on, it should be the first work consulted by Christian philosophers and theologians working on the problem of evil, and pastors, laypeople and Christian workers should read and internalize the perspective of the book to insure a distinctively biblical approach in ministering to people in the face of evil."

it's hard for me not to interpret this as "natural disasters are caused by evil".

danno
16th May 10, 08:26 AM
BRING ME...

DAAAAAWWWKINNNZZZZZ

i just want to make it clear to you that i'm not anti religion.

Vieux Normand
16th May 10, 08:50 AM
religion is also about mystery, about parts we simply do not know.
a lot of ateists cant seem to accept that, they use science and what not to point out or ridicule flaws in theology etc.

Dragging science into this, are you?

The scientific method--of prechristian Hellenic origin as far as we can tell--begins with that most Socratic of assertions: "I do not know".

A scientist may then ask: "What can I do, what can I observe--that others can also do and observe--in order to find out as much as we humanly can?" Whatever they discover can become a theory--accepted until another theory comes along which, upon testing via the scientific method, better explains the observed phenomena involved and the relationships between them.

Science has theories, temporary working models in an ever-changing universe, awaiting either further confirmation or replacement. It does not claim to have facts, nor commandments for people to follow. Claims involving either lie outside its realm.

Contrast this to the "fundament" of abrahamic religions: "You humans do not know, but in these sacred writings of barely-more-than-neolithic middle-eastern desert tribes are the FACTS, and the LAWS which ALL humans--everywhere--must follow."

EuropIan
16th May 10, 10:26 AM
You do know that the concept of Jesus is an amalgamation of various prophet at that time?

So basically, you could argue we should follow a cultural trend from over 1800 years ago

Fearless Ukemi
16th May 10, 11:19 AM
this is from a review on the the link you gave.



it's hard for me not to interpret this as "natural disasters are caused by evil".

That's not really what he is saying. He refers to natural disasters as "so-called natural" evil. There are theologians who use that term "natural evil" to describe natural disasters and he does not strike me as one of them fom reading this book. The book really does not focus on natural disasters very much or as defining evil as something being external to goodness. His basic premise is that evil is a problem that lies within human beings and those who bear the solution are also part of the problem.

My understanding of his writing is that he uses natural disasters as an example of the general wickedness of the world. I found it to be a good read. Maybe that means it is evil, but to me it just means the world isn't a very nice place.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 11:58 AM
You do know that the concept of Jesus is an amalgamation of various prophet at that time?



Don't try to outmoron Lebell on this one.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 12:06 PM
wikipedia or something.
concili of nicea.
arianism
gnosticism
maneecheans
cathars

there were loads of forms of xtianity, but the catholic church was nesting itself in the roman empire, the concili wa sheld to chose the final biblebooks, whch are to be canonnical and which are to be apocryf.


Lebell, the council of Nicea had nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. It was to decide whether Christ was made of the same stuff as god, or just made of godly stuff.

The fact that you don't know that means you are not allowed to have opinions on this topic.

There were loads of forms of christianity. That does not mean they they all have a claim to 'teh real xtianity.' Pretty much noone has that. But it's not because we don't know what it was. We have a pretty good idea of the broad strokes. But 'teh real xtianity' was firmly rooted in a jewish culture that the romans wiped out in the second century.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 12:16 PM
Don't try to outmoron Lebell on this one.
Ok, perhaps I should have added "probably".

Do I get my dunce hat now?

Lebell
16th May 10, 12:21 PM
Lebell, the council of Nicea had nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. It was to decide whether Christ was made of the same stuff as god, or just made of godly stuff.

The fact that you don't know that means you are not allowed to have opinions on this topic.

well i take your word for it as you're old enough to have been there...


no srsly, that council was not just about asserting wether jesus was divine or not, many consider it a major point in church history.
lots of other xtian denominations were banned or declared heretic.




There were loads of forms of christianity. That does not mean they they all have a claim to 'teh real xtianity.' Pretty much noone has that. But it's not because we don't know what it was. We have a pretty good idea of the broad strokes. But 'teh real xtianity' was firmly rooted in a jewish culture that the romans wiped out in the second century.

well yes, it came forth from it.
as communism sorta came forth from capitalism, does it mean they are the same?
xtianity was a 'revolutionairy' reaction to the estableshment at that time in judea.

Lebell
16th May 10, 12:23 PM
Contrast this to the "fundament" of abrahamic religions: "You humans do not know, but in these sacred writings of barely-more-than-neolithic middle-eastern desert tribes are the FACTS, and the LAWS which ALL humans--everywhere--must follow."

Thats what the fundi's do.
its safer to just follow then to think for yourself.


btw i dont know how to incorporate several quotes into one [post, so:

@ DANNO:


the post you made earlier about bible not a good guidingbook for life, and archaic, hypocrite etc.
to me thats the PEOPLE, not so much the core of the message.

Cullion
16th May 10, 12:25 PM
Which prophets do you think he was an amalgamation of, Ian ?

Lebell
16th May 10, 12:27 PM
Almost forget, Danno quoted a list of 'arguments' from some the bible is evil website.
i'd like to use this as an example.
this is their quote:
''5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)''


and i said: then copy paste the entire story, here we go:



1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
21Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.

i imagined many of the poster shere would appreciate jesus' somewhat elaborate ' NO YOU!' response.

can you see now what a difference that phrase makes in the whole story/context?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 01:04 PM
Which prophets do you think he was an amalgamation of, Ian ?
At least two different people.. At least one of them was Brian.

Lebell
16th May 10, 01:05 PM
if only that would be true.
that would be truely awesome...

EuropIan
16th May 10, 01:10 PM
I can't say a Jesus didn't exist.

But signs of the Jesus is at bitch incredibly vague and in Greek.

Which would be weird because "no one messes with the Jesus":
http://images.jambase.com/fans/MountFunk/the_big_lebowski_jesus1.jpg

Lebell
16th May 10, 01:12 PM
btw ian, props for changing the title, i LMAO for about 20 secs nonstop.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 01:15 PM
http://www.esquire.com/cm/esquire/images/esq-god-monty-python-082509-lg-58458150.jpg

YOU ARE WELCOME

Lebell
16th May 10, 01:16 PM
mod...is that you?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 01:21 PM
The problem with that is that he did not "come into his kingdom". So that interpretation fails. Christians believe he did rise from the dead, so the interpretation stands.

Why do you have to be so obtuse, Nifoc? You're a smart fellow.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 01:22 PM
Lebell, you're shooting yourself in the foot with an automatic pistol. Stop.

Lebell
16th May 10, 01:23 PM
Lebell, you're shooting yourself in the foot with an automatic pistol. Stop.

no im not.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 01:39 PM
Lebell, the council of Nicea had nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. It was to decide whether Christ was made of the same stuff as god, or just made of godly stuff.

True. But Nicea and subsequent councils produced persecution of heresies, the establishment of a government-enforced canon, etc. Debate about different NT texts would have continued to flourish had it not been for Constantine's "You guys aren't getting along, so I'll MAKE you agree with one group."

In 99% likelihood, though, the bible we have today wouldn't have changed much. Even before the council it was pretty much selected down into orthodoxy except for a few extraneous books. Books like the Gospel of Thomas and the even more hilarious Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas dated far too late and were far too obviously fakes, even in the eyes of ancient "scholars".

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 01:49 PM
Ok, perhaps I should have added "probably".

Do I get my dunce hat now?

Yep. It's extremely unlikely that we have any first hand written accounts, and we all know how distorted stuff gets once we start playing telephone. But we do for sure have second hand accounts, and the gospels are at most third hard. That leaves lots of room for distortion, but not enough room to distort entire new people.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 01:59 PM
True. But Nicea and subsequent councils produced persecution of heresies, the establishment of a government-enforced canon, etc. Debate about different NT texts would have continued to flourish had it not been for Constantine's "You guys aren't getting along, so I'll MAKE you agree with one group."

In 99% likelihood, though, the bible we have today wouldn't have changed much. Even before the council it was pretty much selected down into orthodoxy except for a few extraneous books. Books like the Gospel of Thomas and the even more hilarious Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas dated far too late and were far too obviously fakes, even in the eyes of ancient "scholars".

It wasn't just about silly books. Mark, Hermas, the Didache, Revelations, etc.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 01:59 PM
What about modern censorship?

e.g. the removal of anti Semitic lines from the translated version as to not to godwin the bible?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 02:00 PM
Yep. It's extremely unlikely that we have any first hand written accounts, and we all know how distorted stuff gets once we start playing telephone. But we do for sure have second hand accounts, and the gospels are at most third hard. That leaves lots of room for distortion, but not enough room to distort entire new people.

Written in Greek.

Lebell
16th May 10, 02:02 PM
Books like the Gospel of Thomas and the even more hilarious Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas dated far too late and were far too obviously fakes, even in the eyes of ancient "scholars".

lolwut?
i agree with the infancy gospel being fake and also funny, but the gospel of thomas still is just as credible as the other canonial gospels unless i missed a newsflash?

judas is a strange gospel, if its authentic it surely gnostic.
i just find the whole history of its discovery and 'origins' a bit suspicious.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 02:02 PM
Written in Greek.

And?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 02:06 PM
I'm pretty sure Jesus was Aramaic.

So these are 2-3rd hand accounts written a century later, in another country.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 02:09 PM
I'm pretty sure Jesus was Aramaic.

So these are 2-3rd hand accounts written a century later, in another country.

<50 years later. Jesus native tongue was probably aramaic. But greek was the dominant language in the region, and several of his apostles would have spoken it. Anyone who was literate would have been literate in greek.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 02:12 PM
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/location-where-books-of-the-bible-written.jpg
No, I'm pretty sure the NT was written in Greece

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 02:18 PM
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/location-where-books-of-the-bible-written.jpg
No, I'm pretty sure the NT was written in Greece

I'm not sure what your picture is supposed to be showing, but it doesn't have anything to do with what you wrote. The NT was many books written in several different places.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 02:32 PM
Even so, the original and non-existent gospel of Matthew was written in Syria. And that's still far away.

So you have a translation of a supposed document with no other non-biblical documents backing the gospels up.

Indeed the earliest piece of document we have p52,(most likely the Gospel of John, is from 90-160 AD and was written in godamned Ephesus, which is in Turkey.

Steve
16th May 10, 03:15 PM
I love how every thread that Lebell makes can be summed up as "I'm right and you're dumb and now I'm going to just talk more about how I'm smarter than everyone."

Seriously, Lebell, at least try and make your threads interesting by attempting to engage other people in conversation. This whole shtick of yours is fucking boring and tired as hell.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 04:18 PM
Even so, the original and non-existent gospel of Matthew was written in Syria. And that's still far away.

So you have a translation of a supposed document with no other non-biblical documents backing the gospels up.

Indeed the earliest piece of document we have p52,(most likely the Gospel of John, is from 90-160 AD and was written in godamned Ephesus, which is in Turkey.

You are making claims about original authorship but talking about manuscripts. Author and transcriber are not the same thing.

Cullion
16th May 10, 04:29 PM
No, I'm pretty sure the NT was written in Greece

I heard that people in olden times had ships and mules and sometimes moved around the Eastern Meditteranean and copied books so that stuff wouldn't be lost when the paper rotted.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 04:33 PM
And you are conflating the issues.
You are implying we have the original manuscripts. We don't.
You are implying transcription is a matter of xerox copying, it isn't.

-The bible is a reconstructed document, you can't make tangible historical claims on the basis on such a source. Before even the English translation it's a simulation of at best, translations of original documents.

-there are no historical sources from the time of Jesus that confirms the existence of Jesus, except that Jesus was a common name.

Cullion
16th May 10, 04:44 PM
Who were the people you think the character is based on? Why do you believe there was more than one ?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 05:00 PM
Who were the people you think the character is based on?

Why do you believe there was more than one ?
The myth of Jesus is perhaps better viewed as a construction of mythic characters derived from folklore (a la King Arthur) and popular preachers and failed revolutionaries of the time. The mythic aspects are readily identifiable but yes, the specific people are ultimately anonymous. I will however, posit that this is more likely than a great single named revolutionary that sparked great social change was erased from history by some unseen hand.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 05:07 PM
lolwut?
i agree with the infancy gospel being fake and also funny, but the gospel of thomas still is just as credible as the other canonial gospels unless i missed a newsflash? It's a later composition stitched together from Paul and other Gospels, with bits tacked on in which Jesus is a sorcerer who wants to turn women into men so that they're worthy of the kingdom.

Has your neo-gnostic ass *read* that shit?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 05:25 PM
"This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions - the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. conservation work began.

"The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions - the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this."-Bart Ehrman


Why is Dr. Ehrman trying to deceive everyone, EuropeIan?

Cullion
16th May 10, 05:25 PM
The myth of Jesus is perhaps better viewed as a construction of mythic characters derived from folklore (a la King Arthur) and popular preachers and failed revolutionaries of the time.

Who ?



The mythic aspects are readily identifiable but yes, the specific people are ultimately anonymous. I will however, posit that this is more likely than a great single named revolutionary that sparked great social change was erased from history by some unseen hand.

Why do you believe that? Why were people writing a couple of generations after this figure's supposed life identifying the character with a single name ?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 05:34 PM
Who ?

Why do you believe that? Why were people writing a couple of generations after this figure's supposed life identifying the character with a single name ?

Isn't it obvious, Cullion? (http://www.illuminati-news.com/2006/1218a.htm)

EuropIan
16th May 10, 05:37 PM
"This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions - the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. conservation work began.

"The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions - the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this."-Bart Ehrman


Why is Dr. Ehrman trying to deceive everyone, EuropeIan?
I wasn't claiming it's a mystery religion.

as for Bart Ehrman, I would like to see his "overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed". He then goes on making a true Scottsman fallacy about responsible historians.





Why do you believe that? Why were people writing a couple of generations after this figure's supposed life identifying the character with a single name ?
I find it very strange that there are no sources outside of religious texts.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 05:40 PM
I wasn't claiming it's a mystery religion.

as for Bart Ehrman, I would like to see his "overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed". He then goes on making a true Scottsman fallacy about responsible historians. I should mention he's a non-Christian agnostic and thus is not vested in such conclusions.

Do you know who Ehrman is?

Cullion
16th May 10, 05:44 PM
I wasn't claiming it's a mystery religion.

as for Bart Ehrman, I would like to see his "overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed". He then goes on making a true Scottsman fallacy about responsible historians.



I find it very strange that there are no sources outside of religious texts.

What about Josephus writing a few decades afterwards? If you're looking for accounts from when the character was supposed to be alive, why would you expect him to be documented before his following grew to be sizable ? Why are you assuming that several (unidentified) figures got merged into one, rather than simply a single figure getting a religious following ?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 05:46 PM
What about Josephus writing a few decades afterwards? If you're looking for accounts from when the character was supposed to be alive, why would you expect him to be documented before his following grew to be sizable ? Why are you assuming that several (unidentified) figures got merged into one ?
Because Medieval scribes drastically inflated the Jesus reference in Josephus, many people commit the logical fallacy of therefore discounting the legitimate original passing reference.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 05:46 PM
And you are conflating the issues.
You are implying we have the original manuscripts. We don't.
You are implying transcription is a matter of xerox copying, it isn't.

-The bible is a reconstructed document, you can't make tangible historical claims on the basis on such a source. Before even the English translation it's a simulation of at best, translations of original documents.

-there are no historical sources from the time of Jesus that confirms the existence of Jesus, except that Jesus was a common name.

I am so fucking tired of raping people on this fucking ridiculous internet meme. There is not a credible historian or scholar anywhere who seriously questions the existence of Jesus as a distinct historical figure.

The evidence is incomplete. There are lots of divergent theories about him that match all the available information. The idea that he is not a single real figure does not pass the giggle test. It requires a massive conspiracy of christians and non christians deciding to invent some guy and pass him off to a broad audience of people who could easily prove the story false. All in the name of inventing some israelite prophet even though real ones were a dime a fucking dozen.

Cullion
16th May 10, 05:53 PM
Because Medieval scribes drastically inflated the Jesus reference in Josephus, many people commit the logical fallacy of therefore discounting the legitimate original passing reference.

Yeah, but Josephus did reference Jesus as a 'wise man' with Jewish followers, and Josephus wasn't a Christian.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 06:03 PM
I am so fucking tired of raping people on this fucking ridiculous internet meme. There is not a credible historian or scholar anywhere who seriously questions the existence of Jesus as a distinct historical figure.

So any scholar I put forth who says contrary is automatically disqualified?

[quote=Hog on King Arthur]
The evidence is incomplete. There are lots of divergent theories about him that match all the available information. The idea that he is not a single real figure does not pass the giggle test. It requires a massive conspiracy of British romanticists deciding to invent some guy and pass him off to a broad audience of people who could easily prove the story false. All in the name of inventing some Breton King even though real ones were a dime a fucking dozen.

Cullion
16th May 10, 06:04 PM
Comparing the Jesus figure and King Arthur is just silly, and shows you really aren't familiar with the scholarly arguments or sources.

This is not something that requires you to believe in the Christian religion by any means.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 06:05 PM
P.S. to posit the Testimonium Flavianum as credible evidence is slightly disingenuous.

Cullion
16th May 10, 06:07 PM
No it's not, it's been poured over by many agnostic, atheistic and Jewish scholars who've come to the conclusion that the reference to Jesus 'a wise man' with followers is authentic.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 06:10 PM
That's a very funny way of saying a fundementalist Jew said the messiah already came to be.

Cullion
16th May 10, 06:15 PM
That's not what was claimed here. How did you confuse what I said for some claim that Josephus believed Jesus was the messiah ?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 06:19 PM
No, exactly, he didn't write he was Christ.

Someone else did.

Cullion
16th May 10, 06:23 PM
Nobody said that Josephus said he was a christ. You're confusing the arguments about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, for arguments about whether or not he was the Jewish messiah, and they aren't the same thing.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 06:29 PM
Great, you just made the case for a mention of a Jesus.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 06:30 PM
Great, you just made the case for a mention of a Jesus.
I should also mention an Elvis.

But which Elvis??

Cullion
16th May 10, 06:52 PM
Not just 'a' Jesus, but a Jesus described as a wise man with Jewish followers. What are your sources for the other Jesus' ?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:00 PM
Jesus wasn't an uncommon name.

[yt ]As far as Calling myth King Arthur and equivalent to the myth of Jezus there is as much collaborating evidence for his existence as well: 0. Do you k what else has 0 evidence? Russel's Teapot. And as we all know Russel's Teapot is da inarguable negative of what we cannot possibly know[/yt ]

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:04 PM
So any scholar I put forth who says contrary is automatically disqualified?
Who did you have in mind?

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/cthpb.jpg

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 07:06 PM
So any scholar I put forth who says contrary is automatically disqualified?
When you put one forward we'll talk.

Seriously, this is flat earther stuff.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:08 PM
I dunno, like this guy (http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/avalos.shtml)

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:08 PM
The Diaspora began in the year 66 AD.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:09 PM
I dunno, like this guy (http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/avalos.shtml)
What did this fellow at...Iowa State University... publish that you're referring to?

Cullion
16th May 10, 07:13 PM
Jesus wasn't an uncommon name.

How common was it and how many other people with that name were known to historians as wise men with followers ?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:13 PM
Are you referring to papers or books?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:14 PM
Are you referring to papers or books?
I'm referring to whatever he published in which he claimed that Jesus did not exist.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:15 PM
OK..lets try his critique of biblical studies first:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:16 PM
OK..lets try his critique of biblical studies first:

http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362
So, in this book, he claims that Jesus did not exist, yes? If you have a copy with you, can you give some reasons why he claims this? Because in the description, I see nothing to indicate he makes that claim, so please enlighten us.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:20 PM
Also, everyone keep in mind that picture I posted above. It might become relevant very soon.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 07:22 PM
I don't see any work on translation, archaeology, or biblical texts anywhere in his list of publications. That pretty much by definition means he's not a scholar on the subject. I haven't read the book you are referring to (and something tells me neither have you), but what I'm reading baout it makes it pretty clear that it's a polemic, not a work of scholarship. The author is very straightforward in the introduction that he believes that christianity is a negative force and that biblical studies are wrong because he believes that they perpetuate it.

I also doubt very much that he makes an affirmative case that jesus did not exist. I would have expected the reviews I read to mention it if he had.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:24 PM
It's tantamount to arguing against evolution by attacking the modern day field of Biology.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:25 PM
How common was it and how many other people with that name were known to historians as wise men with followers ?
Josephus refers to Jesuses throughout his works.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:26 PM
So, in this book, he claims that Jesus did not exist, yes? If you have a copy with you, can you give some reasons why he claims this? Because in the description, I see nothing to indicate he makes that claim, so please enlighten us.
It is not the main impetus of the book, instead it is a critique of biblical studies as a whole.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:27 PM
It is not the main impetus of the book, instead it is a critique of biblical studies as a whole. So, in the book, does he or does he not claim that Jesus of Nazareth never existed?

Let me guess, there's a conspiracy in the field of Biblical studies... a conspiracy designed to silence those with differing opinions. Simply because those opinions fail to meet thresholds of "evidence" and "probability" and "credibility", they're excluded. The entire field is geared toward perpetuating a dogmatic belief system.

Where have we heard this before? (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) Oh wait... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled_%28movie%29)

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:30 PM
he makes a claim that the claims to his existence are shaky at best.

Fearless Ukemi
16th May 10, 07:30 PM
Is Tacitus legit?

In the "Annals" (lol)


Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:31 PM
Tacitus is too "new", so to speak.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 07:32 PM
he makes a claim that the claims to his existence are shaky at best.

So that's a no.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:34 PM
Hey, why don't you bring up Robert M. Price? I don't want to wait all day.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:38 PM
Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.

For a while, popular Christ Mythers perpetuated the notion that Pontius Pilate, too, was a myth. Of course, that didn't hold up, especially when this was discovered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:39 PM
Who first mentioned the testemonium flavianum?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:40 PM
Josephus. I mean, he must've talked about it. "Sup Emperor, I'm done".

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:43 PM
I don't see any work on translation, archaeology, or biblical texts anywhere in his list of publications. That pretty much by definition means he's not a scholar on the subject. I haven't read the book you are referring to (and something tells me neither have you), but what I'm reading baout it makes it pretty clear that it's a polemic, not a work of scholarship. The author is very straightforward in the introduction that he believes that christianity is a negative force and that biblical studies are wrong because he believes that they perpetuate it.

I also doubt very much that he makes an affirmative case that jesus did not exist. I would have expected the reviews I read to mention it if he had.
You know me, why read a book when a video presentation is easier to digest.



Josephus. I mean, he must've talked about it. "Sup Emperor, I'm done".
Erm no.

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:44 PM
You know me, why read a book when a video presentation is easier to digest.

Zeitgeist? Or David Icke's Freedom Road?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:44 PM
Richard dawkins: Why I haet god n' stuff

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:47 PM
Bishop Eusebius was divinely ordained to discover that weird Jesus footnote.

"Hay guis, jesus was real"

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:48 PM
6lHgbbM9pu4

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:49 PM
Have you read historia ecclesiastica? Eusebius also makes up this guy named Constantine and this other guy named Maxentius. He was a really good fiction author.


Bishop Eusebius was divinely ordained to discover that weird Jesus footnote.

"Hay guis, jesus was real"
So Eusebius then travelled around inserting it into Josephus everywhere, right? Did he also put coal into children's slippers during his midnight sleighrides across the Mediterranean?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:53 PM
Why didn't Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria mention Jesus?

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:55 PM
Why is Jesus a historical footnote while Theudas the Magician gets much more screen time?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 07:57 PM
If you're going to ignore all the times he's mentioned in the historical record and only focus on those times he isn't, then your argument from silence is quite pseudoscholarly.

It is not abnormal for ancient people and events to be reported CENTURIES after their deaths and endings. here we're talking less than half of one century.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 07:59 PM
All the times he's mentioned in the historical record is once, by Bishop Eusebius, who thought it was ok to make up stuff as long as was for Christ, he didn't even deny it.


The rest of the times he's mentioned in historical context is effectively shoehorned in after the fact. This is a common practice in manuscriptology hen you have to reconstruct stuff.

In addition, to show Eusebius wasn't the only one. There's the well intentioned frauds by pious historians e.g. letter of Pilate to Tiberius or Acts of Pilate. that make the motivations of any early christian scholars suspect.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 08:27 PM
Why didn't Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria mention Jesus?

They all mention him rather alot.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 08:34 PM
Irenaeus read Josephus, but didn't mention he mentioned Jesus?

danno
16th May 10, 08:35 PM
the post you made earlier about bible not a good guidingbook for life, and archaic, hypocrite etc.
to me thats the PEOPLE, not so much the core of the message.

basically you'd like to reduce the bible to a few quotes from jesus, then creatively interpret those quotes?

so why can't i do that with the koran?

really, i don't care if you do this. i don't care if people do it with the koran either.

wait... you know what, i actually like it when people cherry pick and re-interpret their holy books to creative a nicer, friendlier message. i want them to do that, rather than the meanest version they can imagine simply to justify their most heinous acts.

the problem i have is that you would NOT permit a muslim to do what YOU are doing. you'd accuse them of cherry picking and demand that they look at the book as a whole, which is not something you even ask of yourself.

danno
16th May 10, 08:38 PM
Almost forget, Danno quoted a list of 'arguments' from some the bible is evil website.
i'd like to use this as an example.
this is their quote:
''5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)''


and i said: then copy paste the entire story, here we go:



i imagined many of the poster shere would appreciate jesus' somewhat elaborate ' NO YOU!' response.

can you see now what a difference that phrase makes in the whole story/context?

maybe i read it too quickly as i'm short on time today, but i couldn't find the part where he says, "and by kill your children for insulting you, i mean it METAPHORICALLY".

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 08:43 PM
Irenaeus read Josephus, but didn't mention he mentioned Jesus?

I think you mean Origen.

EuropIan
16th May 10, 08:46 PM
No, Ireneaus did indeed read Josephus.

HappyOldGuy
16th May 10, 08:55 PM
No, Ireneaus did indeed read Josephus.

You're confusing me here quoting arguments you don't really understand. So I'm trying to guess which one you are making.

Are you really arguing that Ireneaus should have mentioned Josephus as support for jesus existence when said existence was not ever at issue in his world?

DerAuslander108
16th May 10, 11:21 PM
Err, for the most part noone does. All of our sources are at least filtered by Pauls followers, because they were the ones who survived.

Wrong.

DerAuslander108
16th May 10, 11:26 PM
If you mean religion as a social construct then certainly.

No, that's not what I meant.


However the current discussion is about religion as an attempt to explain any form of "truth" regarding the way the world works.

Exactly.


I don't think that word means what you think it does.

That was my polite way of saying that you've made several basic assumptions that you really don't have a clue about.




Please explain how a description of the world being plunged into chaos leaving only those deemed worthy to enter the kingdom of god does not fit at least no. 2 and 3.

Please explain how that has anything to do with Christ's message?

DerAuslander108
16th May 10, 11:45 PM
Why didn't Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria mention Jesus?

Wanna know how I know you don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireneus)?

Aphid Jones
16th May 10, 11:58 PM
I thought Ian must've meant a different Irenaeus. If he meant *that* one, then LOL.

Wait...

I totally didn't read his post. It's insane. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE MENTIONED JESUS.

EuropIan
17th May 10, 12:27 AM
[yt ]As far as Calling myth King Arthur and equivalent to the myth of Jezus there is as much collaborating evidence for his existence as well: 0. Do you k what else has 0 evidence? Russel's Teapot. And as we all know Russel's Teapot is da inarguable negative of what we cannot possibly know[/yt ]

C'mon, bring it together.

Aphid Jones
17th May 10, 12:33 AM
There is not 0 evidence. Dis be trollin, yo.

EuropIan
17th May 10, 12:38 AM
Aphid gets a Boxxy

HappyOldGuy
17th May 10, 12:38 AM
Wrong.

By all means, enlighten us poor ignorants.

Kein Haar
17th May 10, 12:56 AM
Wasn't Jesus basically a goofball, dime-a-dozen trouble-maker out in the sticks?

Why would anyone important bother to mention him at the time?

Adouglasmhor
17th May 10, 12:57 AM
Lebel already mentioned one of the elements that made up the Jesus we read of. Not a man but a deity from an earlier religion especially popular with soldiers in the legions.

nifoc
17th May 10, 04:35 AM
No, that's not what I meant.
Ok




Exactly.
Which is a problem, since all it does is take a wild stab in the dark.




That was my polite way of saying that you've made several basic assumptions that you really don't have a clue about.
My assumption are based upon the existing evidence. Making other assumptions forces me to bring in the "god did it" part which is like godwinning a religious discussion. I can say that there is a strong possibility that Jesus himself believed his own message, but I can't state with certainty that it is true without first proving god.



Please explain how that has anything to do with Christ's message?
If you're not even going to read the bible, even the quotes in this very thread then why even take part in the discussion?




Lebell actually made a good point many pages back. That atheists and believers have a really hard time understanding each other. Atheists want proof, and demand such in all facets of life (everyone makes exceptions though), while believers are happier with the mystery of religion.
What I stated in my earlier points is simply that belief is irrational, it can still be a force for good, but faith is irrational at its core. The problem I had with Lebells argument was that he seemed to work from the assumption that god exists; therefore X must be thus. This is fine as a belief, but in arguing with people who does not share that belief it doesn't work. I think the main problem I have with religion is that it seems that some words in (for example) the bible are true, and meant to take literally, and others are just allegorical and meant to be interpreted. Unfortunately, it seems that anything that the believer finds even remotely disturbing is always meant to be interpreted as something else. For an atheist discussing with anyone that tries to change the meaning of words or sentences from their normal meaning is just an excercise in futility.

It often becomes like trying to argue poetry, one person claims that the poem about a flower is a poem about a flower, while the other claims that the flower is meant to symbolise life/love/whatever. When questioned how he can be so certain the answer is often like hearing; "well noone would write a poem about a flower".

If Lebells only reason for interpreting the words in the bible where jesus tells his followers to leave material goods, family and friends, and instead follow him and prepare for the kingdom of god as something other than a Branch Davidian-like cult is pure belief, then fine. I can't really argue with personal belief, what I argued against is Lebells instistance that his interpretation is also the most logical interpretation, since he has provided no supporting evidence to support an argument that jesus words are meant to be taken metaphorically.

I had only one question to Lebell at first, and that was why he was certain that xtianity was a more rational belief than islam. This has since escalated, sadly without me getting a response that I can find.
Personally I don't really care if Jesus ever lived, the historical impact that personage has had is unmistakable and any discussion of disproving jesus in order to disprove xtianity is just pointless.

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:07 AM
It's a later composition stitched together from Paul and other Gospels, with bits tacked on in which Jesus is a sorcerer who wants to turn women into men so that they're worthy of the kingdom.

Has your neo-gnostic ass *read* that shit?


Yeah i got it on my bookshelf.
Did you read it yourself?
If you come tothe conclusion that jesus was a sorcerer that wanted to morph women into men i doubt you did..
I must admit there's something appealing to the concept though.
You're watching football with your best mate ad after the match you want some nookie, you look at your bro and go: in te name of jesusssss...

gheheh

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:18 AM
basically you'd like to reduce the bible to a few quotes from jesus, then creatively interpret those quotes?

no, i see the context what jesus meant, and stick with that without all the additional idiot rules made by other people.


so why can't i do that with the koran?

well because it's a recitive book with threaths of hellfire and eternal suffering every 3 pages or so, good luck with that.




the problem i have is that you would NOT permit a muslim to do what YOU are doing. you'd accuse them of cherry picking and demand that they look at the book as a whole, which is not something you even ask of yourself.

oh god..are you still on your p.c. poor muslims track?
have you read anything i typed???
i said: ITS OKAY TO CHERRYPICK, BUT ITS WAY HARDER FOR A MUSLIM TO CHERRYPICK GOOD STUFF COS THERE VIRTUALLY IS NONE.

im serius danno, im not going to discuss this any further with you until you take the trouble of reading the friggin quran.
you obvously dont know what i mean.

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:27 AM
I had only one question to Lebell at first, and that was why he was certain that xtianity was a more rational belief than islam. This has since escalated, sadly without me getting a response that I can find.
.

Got it right here.
If you read a bit about Islam and the way the quran came to be you guys would have a fieldday.
Entire parts copied from the NT,bits and pieces taken from OT, and some other general stories with an arabic sauce on top of it.
Even Jesus is mentionned in the quran!
he's somewhat makes a cameo:' hi guiz! my name is jesus and xtians think im the son of god! lolol boy are they wrong, im just a prophet of allah the one true god!'

which is rather insultive.
The quran and the hadiths go out of their way to incorporate biblical stories and make sure their prophet resides over every other prophet such as elia moses and jesus.
(story of the flight to jerusalem).

the problem with most of you guys is, you want to have an opinion, but you dont want to put in any work to have some knowledge that backs that opinion up.

' i think the quran and the bible are equally bad'

' they are both story books'

read 10 pages of the quran and read 10 pages from one of the gospels and you'l instantly notice the difference in tone, empathy etc.

in fact, buya quran, open a random page and look if hell and fire are mentionned...
try it.
lucky shot?
try it again.
and again.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 06:29 AM
no, i see the context what jesus meant, and stick with that without all the additional idiot rules made by other people.

No, you have created your own context and then interperated what you think Jesus ment in your context.

Not saying that there is anything wrong with that btw.

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:30 AM
I love how every thread that Lebell makes can be summed up as "I'm right and you're dumb and now I'm going to just talk more about how I'm smarter than everyone."

Seriously, Lebell, at least try and make your threads interesting by attempting to engage other people in conversation. This whole shtick of yours is fucking boring and tired as hell.

lolwut?
aren't you the officeclerk who was giving advice on snipertactics in afghanistan?

seriously, you need a gf bro.

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:32 AM
No, you have created your own context and then interperated what you think Jesus ment in your context.

Not saying that there is anything wrong with that btw.

thats true, but in the end everybody has their own interpretations, so you can't avoid that.
you also have these reborn xtians and those superhappy evangelicals who creep me out.
they believe jesus lives in their heartsand stuff and that god is a santa claus in the sky who gives you everything you want as long as you believe in him.
its fine with me, but in a discussion, faced with critique i dont think their faith will hold out long, or at least their logical defense.
mine does.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 06:33 AM
in fact, buya quran, open a random page and look if hell and fire are mentionned...
try it.
lucky shot?
try it again.
and again.

Or try here http://quran.com/

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 06:43 AM
its fine with me, but in a discussion, faced with critique i dont think their faith will hold out long, or at least their logical defense.
mine does.

Just for clarification what is your belief regaurding Jesus?

God incarnate?

Enlightened master?

Revolutionary freedom fighter?

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:46 AM
why not?
personally i dont like reading from a compscreen, it hurts my eyes after 5 minutes.

anyway, read em both for a bit and you might notice the difference between them, the outlook on god-human relations.
in jesus' view (or who-ever wrote it if thats what you like to believe) there's a message of hope, growth, redemption, it shows a deep understanding of human emotions, suffering, the whole spectrum of what it is that makes us human.

the quran lacks that, it goes back to the angry god vision: the believers must surrender to the lord god, unless they like to burn, its fire and brimstone all over agaIn.

whether you believe in a god or not, just read the two books and see the two different visions.
for me the quranic vision is angry, vengefull, arrogant, jealous.

Lebell
17th May 10, 06:47 AM
Just for clarification what is your belief regaurding Jesus?

God incarnate?

Enlightened master?

Revolutionary freedom fighter?

i subscribe to the gnostic approach.
the holy spirit is key.
he received the holy spirit and became more then just a man.
then on the crucifiction the spirit left him and he died and was burried somewhere.
i take the ressurection methaphorically.
not physically.

the holy spirit is not exclusive to xtianity, the buddha most likely had it too.

Fearless Ukemi
17th May 10, 07:04 AM
I had only one question to Lebell at first, and that was why he was certain that xtianity was a more rational belief than islam. This has since escalated, sadly without me getting a response that I can find.
Personally I don't really care if Jesus ever lived, the historical impact that personage has had is unmistakable and any discussion of disproving jesus in order to disprove xtianity is just pointless.


Not sure if this is an argument for rationality of Xtianity, but there must have been something to it for it to get off the ground in an environment where being one was legal grounds for your torture and execution. In fact, that may be an argument for how irrational some of those people were. But you can also take it a step further and question whether more than just an insignificant number of people would be so irrational as to risk their own lives for this new movement.

Islam was spread much differently when that movement first began. Basically, you converted or you died (or if you were lucky you just payed Jizra instead of losing your head). I do acknowledge that once Xtianity became popular, that it also used the sword to convert people but that is not at all how it first began. In its earliest days, no one was forced to become one.



im serius danno, im not going to discuss this any further with you until you take the trouble of reading the friggin quran.
you obvously dont know what i mean.

If you aren'r reciting it in Arabic, it is not the r3al Qu'ran.

Lebell
17th May 10, 07:07 AM
Not sure if this is an argument for rationality of Xtianity, but there must have been something to it for it to get off the ground in an environment where being one was legal grounds for your torture and execution.

Islam was spread much differently when that movement first began. Basically, you converted or you died (or if you were lucky you just payed Jizra instead of losing your head). I do acknowledge that once Xtianity became popular, that it also used the sword to convert people but that is not at all how it first began. In its earliest days, no one was forced to become one.


well yeah, good point.
Egypt was a bit of a different story, some schools uni's teach that by the time the muslims came the locals were so sick of xtianity with their firm rules that it was really easy for islam to get a foothold there.
little did they know huh?
lolol!



If you aren'r reciting it in Arabic, it is not the r3al Qu'ran.

you are aware i can actually read arabic, right?

Fearless Ukemi
17th May 10, 07:07 AM
Got it right here.
If you read a bit about Islam and the way the quran came to be you guys would have a fieldday.
Entire parts copied from the NT,bits and pieces taken from OT, and some other general stories with an arabic sauce on top of it.
Even Jesus is mentionned in the quran!
he's somewhat makes a cameo:' hi guiz! my name is jesus and xtians think im the son of god! lolol boy are they wrong, im just a prophet of allah the one true god!'

which is rather insultive.
The quran and the hadiths go out of their way to incorporate biblical stories and make sure their prophet resides over every other prophet such as elia moses and jesus.
(story of the flight to jerusalem).

the problem with most of you guys is, you want to have an opinion, but you dont want to put in any work to have some knowledge that backs that opinion up.

' i think the quran and the bible are equally bad'

' they are both story books'

read 10 pages of the quran and read 10 pages from one of the gospels and you'l instantly notice the difference in tone, empathy etc.

in fact, buya quran, open a random page and look if hell and fire are mentionned...
try it.
lucky shot?
try it again.
and again.

I especially like the part about Jesus being a Muslim and how he will return to convert the entire world to Islam. If that's what Jesus is coming back to do then he can kiss my ass.

Lebell
17th May 10, 07:10 AM
I especially like the part about Jesus being a Muslim and how he will return to convert the entire world to Islam. If that's what Jesus is coming back to do then he can kiss my ass.

jesus will also defeat and kill the anti christ.
outside the walls of laadeedah town, i forgot.

some muslims also await the coming of the 12th (? not sure) imam.

Fearless Ukemi
17th May 10, 07:11 AM
you are aware i can actually read arabic, right?

I'm considering studying Arabic myself.

Lebell
17th May 10, 07:13 AM
I'm considering studying Arabic myself.

okay lemme know if i can be of help regarding info bout the study itself or some pointers or whatever.

nifoc
17th May 10, 07:22 AM
Got it right here.
If you read a bit about Islam and the way the quran came to be you guys would have a fieldday.
Entire parts copied from the NT,bits and pieces taken from OT, and some other general stories with an arabic sauce on top of it.
Even Jesus is mentionned in the quran!
he's somewhat makes a cameo:' hi guiz! my name is jesus and xtians think im the son of god! lolol boy are they wrong, im just a prophet of allah the one true god!'

which is rather insultive.
The quran and the hadiths go out of their way to incorporate biblical stories and make sure their prophet resides over every other prophet such as elia moses and jesus.
(story of the flight to jerusalem).

the problem with most of you guys is, you want to have an opinion, but you dont want to put in any work to have some knowledge that backs that opinion up.

' i think the quran and the bible are equally bad'

' they are both story books'

read 10 pages of the quran and read 10 pages from one of the gospels and you'l instantly notice the difference in tone, empathy etc.

in fact, buya quran, open a random page and look if hell and fire are mentionned...
try it.
lucky shot?
try it again.
and again.
I have read both the quran and the bible, it makes no difference to me.

They ARE both story books. Wether or not one of them has a higher quality of writning does not change that fact. They only aquire value (other than literary) if one believes in the stories. Since belief is irrational (being based on emotion rather than fact), all religions become equally irrational as belief-systems.

What you are discussing is more along the lines of wether one of these is more "moral" or specifically more in line with western ideas of civilised society. If that is your only criteria for "rational" then we agree. Xtianity (in general) is more in line with the humanistic ideals prevalent in western society, and therefore more palatable to the majority of europeans.

It seems to me that the problem here stems from different usage of the word "rational" rather than any difference of opinion regarding the possible impact of respective religions on western society. Your usage seems to be closer to "calm" or "more in line with western morals", while my usage is closer to "based in fact" or "believable". Neither usage is wrong per se, but becuase of that there may have been a misunderstanding.

Fearless Ukemi
17th May 10, 07:35 AM
okay lemme know if i can be of help regarding info bout the study itself or some pointers or whatever.

I guess it would make the most sense to learn conversational Arabic first or do you think I should get into the writing first?

I'm not really looking to earn a PHD or anything, just to become fluent and pursue career opportunities that would be open as a result of having conversational fluency. I figure I can learn that at a local university and learn the writing/script from Muslims for free once I can actually speak the language.

danno
17th May 10, 08:39 AM
oh god..are you still on your p.c. poor muslims track?
have you read anything i typed???
i said: ITS OKAY TO CHERRYPICK, BUT ITS WAY HARDER FOR A MUSLIM TO CHERRYPICK GOOD STUFF COS THERE VIRTUALLY IS NONE.

im serius danno, im not going to discuss this any further with you until you take the trouble of reading the friggin quran.
you obvously dont know what i mean.

listen to me, ya big poof: you allow yourself to pick certain parts out of your holy book that you like, and then interpret those parts to your liking. at the same time, you don't believe that muslims should be able to do EXACTLY the same thing.

that is HYPOCRISY.

XOXO

danno
17th May 10, 08:44 AM
for example, if i heard a muslim saying "the koran forbids suicide and the killing of innocents, and i consider suicide bombing both of these things. therefore i believe it is forbidden by the koran", i'd say fantastic, you keep believing that.

you'd say no, you're not allowed to believe that because the koran is full of nastiness.

Cullion
17th May 10, 08:54 AM
that's kind of manipulative.

danno
17th May 10, 09:00 AM
if you think so, then let me have it. am i being unfair?

i'm certain i've seen him do it, and i see others do it all the time.

we criticise terrorists and other extremists, as we should. yet when a muslim takes a moderate view of their religion, we try to shoot them down.

i wouldn't normally be hassling lebell about his beliefs, i'm just doing it to make a point.

Lebell
17th May 10, 09:35 AM
for example, if i heard a muslim saying "the koran forbids suicide and the killing of innocents, and i consider suicide bombing both of these things. therefore i believe it is forbidden by the koran", i'd say fantastic, you keep believing that.

you'd say no, you're not allowed to believe that because the koran is full of nastiness.

no im not saying that to a muslim at all.
remember that this whole thing startedin the thread about the attack on the swedish/danish cartoon dude.

so when a muslim is saying that whats in your post, i'd applaud him for that.
but its a bit sad you'd have to applaud someone for not following up the violent rules his own religion imposes on him.
'thank you for not listening to your murderous god!'

Lebell
17th May 10, 09:38 AM
listen to me, ya big poof: you allow yourself to pick certain parts out of your holy book that you like, and then interpret those parts to your liking. at the same time, you don't believe that muslims should be able to do EXACTLY the same thing.

that is HYPOCRISY.

XOXO

no it's not.
you cant compare me to a muslim because the bible and quran are entirely different books.
you're comparing apples with pears.
now go read the books so we can continue a meaningful discussion instead of me trying to educate you on each little step along the line.

you're not making clever points, you only show that you virtually know nothing about either book nor religion.
im not saying this because im a dick, i think you're an allright guy.
but you need to realise this.

Cullion
17th May 10, 09:42 AM
if you think so, then let me have it. am i being unfair?

Do you pat them on the head afterwards ?

danno
17th May 10, 09:52 AM
so when a muslim is saying that whats in your post, i'd applaud him for that.

right... i'm going to put this away in my memory for the future, ok? next time you tell ahmed he's not following his religion properly i'll spank you.


but its a bit sad you'd have to applaud someone for not following up the violent rules his own religion imposes on him.
'thank you for not listening to your murderous god!'

no, it's really not sad. it's a good thing. it should be encouraged.

in principle, it's still the same as you deciding what parts of the bible you like. i'm not just talking about nasty things. the bible really is full of bullshit.

but in the same way, it's a good thing that you've decided to cull most of that crap out.

danno
17th May 10, 09:53 AM
you're comparing apples with pears.

whether you skin an apple or a pear, it's really the same activity.

Cullion
17th May 10, 09:58 AM
You're talking about skinning them now ?

That's racist.

Lebell
17th May 10, 09:59 AM
why do you insist on being ignorant Danno?
what is so wrong about going to paradise after you die?
what scares you?

danno
17th May 10, 10:01 AM
it doesn't exist.

please don't turn me into virus.

Cullion
17th May 10, 10:01 AM
Why don't you read up on what The Science has to say.

danno
17th May 10, 10:04 AM
You're talking about skinning them now ?

That's racist.

you're a big poof too.

Lebell
17th May 10, 10:04 AM
it doesn't exist.

please don't turn me into virus.

Yes.
Virus tried to rebuke me.
Where is he now?
Did science save him?

now bring me dawwwwkinzzzzz

danno
17th May 10, 10:05 AM
Why don't you read up on what The Science has to say.

let me see... it says you're a poof.

Cullion
17th May 10, 10:05 AM
Homophobia as well? This isn't the nice, socially-aware danno we used to know.

danno
17th May 10, 10:08 AM
yep. you're a poof.

Lebell
17th May 10, 10:10 AM
im appalled and shocked.
and also a bit dissapointed.
and not just me, Jesus is also very dissapointed.
i hope the sunblock is cheap round your part of the world....

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 10:13 AM
Jesus was a poof

Cullion
17th May 10, 10:14 AM
Don't tell Danno that, or he really will start hating Christianity. He's from the Australian outback and he doesn't take to homosexuality or certain races, you see.

danno
17th May 10, 10:17 AM
Jesus was a poof

you're a poof too.


Don't tell Danno that, or he really will start hating Christianity. He's from the Australian outback and he doesn't take to homosexuality or certain races, you see.

quite the opposite of how you'd like to take to my bum hole.

i need to go to bed, good night homos.

Lebell
17th May 10, 10:20 AM
well, we all learned something from this thread.

most posters on here, unhindered by any knowledge will not hesitate to give you their ill informed opinions.

there's more to jesus then a lot of people knew.

most posters are more concerned with being p.c. then adressing an issue.

i pretty much rock as champion of christendom.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 10:30 AM
well, we all learned something from this thread.

most posters on here, unhindered by any knowledge will not hesitate to give you their ill informed opinions.

there's more to jesus then a lot of people knew.

most posters are more concerned with being p.c. then adressing an issue.

Quite right. Jesus was gay and now we know we will just have to live with it.

(btw danno is a poof)

Cullion
17th May 10, 10:34 AM
Danno likes to think of himself as 'butch but desirable'.

Oh Lord, does he have a surprise coming to him when they finally lock him up for animal cruelty.

Lebell
17th May 10, 10:35 AM
i wouldnt have a problem with jesus if he was gay.
but he's not.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 10:37 AM
i wouldnt have a problem with jesus if he was gay.
but he's not.

How do you know?

Lebell
17th May 10, 10:38 AM
look, jesus was just not gay, okay?
he also wasnt black.
or chinese.
he had blond hair and blue eyes.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 10:41 AM
look, jesus was just not gay, okay?
he also wasnt black.
or chinese.
he had blond hair and blue eyes.

He was a gay Jew.

Lebell
17th May 10, 10:44 AM
no he wasn't.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 10:51 AM
Thats what it looks like from the context I am interpreting him from.

Jesus was gay and his little band of merry men were also gay and thats the real reason they were persecuted, coz they were gay!

EuropIan
17th May 10, 11:07 AM
look, jesus was just not gay, okay?
he also wasnt black.
or chinese.
he had blond hair and blue eyes.
Hahahahahahahaha

lant3rn
17th May 10, 11:40 AM
look, jesus was just not gay, okay?
he also wasnt black.
or chinese.
he had blond hair and blue eyes.

Your not serious right.... How many jewish people do you know with those characteristics?

Lebell
17th May 10, 11:47 AM
Thats what it looks like from the context I am interpreting him from.

Jesus was gay and his little band of merry men were also gay and thats the real reason they were persecuted, coz they were gay!

sometimes a dude just wants to kick back with his bro's to enjoy a beer and weatch the game.
doesnt make him gay.
its not like he snuck out with them at night to go to a park and...oh...

Lebell
17th May 10, 11:48 AM
lots of em. why?
you should learn more bout jews.

Your not serious right.... How many jewish people do you know with those characteristics?

EuropIan
17th May 10, 12:07 PM
I suppose David was blond haired and blue eyed as well.

Lebell
17th May 10, 12:13 PM
i dont know as ive never actually seen david.

EuropIan
17th May 10, 12:17 PM
You havn't seen Jesus either.
But if it's important to you that he's an aryan paradigm then I guess I can't stop you from thinking that.

Lebell
17th May 10, 12:19 PM
You havn't seen Jesus either.


ehm...okay...

Cullion
17th May 10, 12:20 PM
What do you mean he hasn't seen Jesus ?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 12:24 PM
This just gets better and better....

Lebell
17th May 10, 12:26 PM
no it won't, some things are very personal and private.

Fearless Ukemi
17th May 10, 12:34 PM
I have too.

When I was 23 years old, I had an out of body experience and met a man I think was Jesus. He was huge, probably about 20 feet tall.

Consider yourselves blessed because the only other people I have shared this story with are my mother and father.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 12:39 PM
no it won't, some things are very personal and private.

You met Jesus and he wasnt gay but he was white with blue eyes and blonde hair?

Lebell
17th May 10, 12:43 PM
no it wasn't like that.
you'd never understand what i mean if i'd try to explain.
some things can not be captured in words.

lant3rn
17th May 10, 12:50 PM
what about with some lsd and acid rock?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 12:51 PM
I have had a number of what some people would call spiritual experiences and am always interested in other peoples.

I can understand if you dont want to talk about it, as you have made quite an extra-ordinary claim.

My only caveat would be that in my experience many visions (for want of a better word) are context specific. It is possible to experince many different entities and it is possible to interpret them in many different ways. None of which are the truth of the actual phenomena.

Lebell
17th May 10, 12:54 PM
i have gone beyond, past existance, past dimensions.
it was a life altering experience.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
17th May 10, 12:55 PM
i have gone beyond, past existance, past dimensions.
it was a life altering experience.

and thats your proof that Jesus wasnt gay?

Kiko
17th May 10, 12:59 PM
Part of me wishes a few of you guys had been in school to ask these questions of certain nuns, just to watch the fireworks.

The other part of me knows better.

EuropIan
17th May 10, 01:10 PM
What do you mean he hasn't seen Jesus ?
6784

Have you seen this Jesus?

Lebell
17th May 10, 01:17 PM
and thats your proof that Jesus wasnt gay?

i just know.
either way it isnt terribly important.
black white gay straight male female, its all irrelevant.

Steve
17th May 10, 01:42 PM
lolwut?
aren't you the officeclerk who was giving advice on snipertactics in afghanistan?

I can't get enough of this bullshit. I had an opinion that went contrary to the current of the thread and got busted for it because I'm not a sniper or military. Care to tell me who here is a sniper that was deployed in Afghanistan? Get the fuck off your high horse, you dumb fuck.


seriously, you need a gf bro.

Why, is you're gf feeding you your bullshit posts?

Sartori
17th May 10, 01:49 PM
black white gay straight male female, its all irrelevant.
...Not according to that bible of yours >.>
"he who hath laid with a man as he would with a woman" ...remind me, how does this story end? :P

Lebell
17th May 10, 01:50 PM
I can't get enough of this bullshit. I had an opinion that went contrary to the current of the thread and got busted for it because I'm not a sniper or military. Care to tell me who here is a sniper that was deployed in Afghanistan? Get the fuck off your high horse, you dumb fuck.



Why, is you're gf feeding you your bullshit posts?

lol!
and you're calling me dumb?
you cant see how you commenting on sniper tactics is stupid and then explain yourself by saying: 'well at least i thought outside the box...'?
you were really THAT kid when you were young, werent you?

Lebell
17th May 10, 01:51 PM
...Not according to that bible of yours >.>
"he who hath laid with a man as he would with a woman" ...remind me, how does this story end? :P

Thats the OT.
i don't do the OT.

lant3rn
17th May 10, 01:52 PM
...Not according to that bible of yours >.>
"he who hath laid with a man as he would with a woman" ...remind me, how does this story end? :P
With ball gag, a gerbil and lubed up Lebell dancing while prince softly plays in the background.

Cullion
17th May 10, 01:53 PM
The New Testament concurs that you're not supposed to do it dude-2-dude, but that nobody's perfect and one can always seek forgiveness.

That's what Jesus died for, isn't it ?

Steve
17th May 10, 01:55 PM
lol!
and you're calling me dumb?
you cant see how you commenting on sniper tactics is stupid and then explain yourself by saying: 'well at least i thought outside the box...'?
you were really THAT kid when you were young, werent you?

Uh, yeah I'm calling you dumb. You avoided my question because you can't name a single person that would be qualified to give advice on the subject. If we were to follow your logic, the thread should have just died with no one posting in it.

Just like I said, your posts all consist of "yeah, I'm right and you're wrong" type arguments. It's fucking boring and old.

Fearless Ukemi
17th May 10, 01:56 PM
Before Jesus, women used to get stoned to death for having casual sex. I imagine the same forgiveness would apply to gays now too (despite it not being specifically mentioned in the NT).

Well, they still do stone women and gays in some of those non-Christian countries.