Jesus Said WHAT?!

[Meriweather]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

 

[Spare_change]

Said it before, the Bible is not a 'good' book about a good deity. It's an evil book about an evil deity.

The Bible is a collection of books and includes insights about God and His relationship with mankind. It was all written through the lens of humans. As we see, each human lens is unique.

Some people pick up a collection of books, are horrified, and declare the Harry Potter series to be a great evil. Some are influenced by the friendship and courage and are better people because of it.

Simply because some see through the lens of evil is no reason to insist that everyone look through their lens.

Oh you fucking piece of shit... Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

 

[hobelim]

Yep, the writers of the books of the Bible were some real dumb bastards.

I suppose it all depends on how a person looks at it. Whoever wrote the story of adam and eve obviously was educated enough to know, understand, and use metaphors and analogies to convey in their writing a not so obvious teaching. No so dumb.

Some people read the story and believe it is a historical document about some magical time in the past when snakes could talk and fail to comprehend the teaching. Pretty dumb. Some people read the story, do not believe and deride it all as superstitious nonsense because snakes can't talk and fail to comprehend the teaching. Just as dumb.


You might as well accuse the author of the three pigs of being a dumb bastard because pigs can't build houses and by doing so you would only be tattooing DUMB BASTARD on your own forehead..

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Said it before, the Bible is not a 'good' book about a good deity. It's an evil book about an evil deity.

The Bible is a collection of books and includes insights about God and His relationship with mankind. It was all written through the lens of humans. As we see, each human lens is unique.

Some people pick up a collection of books, are horrified, and declare the Harry Potter series to be a great evil. Some are influenced by the friendship and courage and are better people because of it.

Simply because some see through the lens of evil is no reason to insist that everyone look through their lens.

Oh you fucking piece of shit... Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Yep, the writers of the books of the Bible were some real dumb bastards.

I suppose it all depends on how a person looks at it. Whoever wrote the story of adam and eve obviously was educated enough to know, understand, and use metaphors and analogies to convey in their writing a not so obvious teaching. No so dumb.

Some people read the story and believe it is a historical document about some magical time in the past when snakes could talk and fail to comprehend the teaching. Pretty dumb. Some people read the story, do not believe and deride it all as superstitious nonsense because snakes can't talk and fail to comprehend the teaching. Just as dumb.


You might as well accuse the author of the three pigs of being a dumb bastard because pigs can't build houses and by doing so you would only be tattooing DUMB BASTARD on your own forehead..

You are just a loser, fool and a dumb fuck you has to resort of insults. You wanna go there? You just stepped into my wheelhouse.

Excuse me, you torture-cheering lemming, but aren't you late for your Flat Earth Society meeting?

 

[HaShev]

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you."

~ Jesus

The best way to know the Bible, Fatty, is to read it.

1) this means those who see him and his god as one in the same makes Jesus in love with himself=proving the grest eglomaniac image they created.
2) Christians don't even know their own Bible ,
I've proved it time & time again.
I'll give you examples:
Christians say Jesus was only 33 when he died but John says closer to 50.
Christians say Jesus was from Nazareth(which didn't exist yet) but their bible says Capernaum.
Christians say Jesus was God when Jesus had a God who he spoke about third person and talked to.
Christians say Jesus was the son of man yet that too is an error because he talks third person tense of another to come, but also says he's like unto son of man in Rev 1:13. Christians are like unto christ (in resemblance) but aren't christ themself, while Muslims literally use that same term saying they are to be "like unto" Muhammad but that doesn't mean they are Muhammad.
Also Christians call him son of God not knowing what "son of " means when not literal, this means he can't be son of man (can't be both), just as he can't be both God and Messiah as they are seperate concepts.
Christians say Jesus was crucufied but their bible says slew (stoned) and hanged on a tree.
Christians say he was in the tomb for 3 days the Bible shows less then 2.
Christians say Jesus lived in the AD era yet Herod died in 4 bc and Lysanias in 35 bc.
Oops that's where Christians can't read history.
Christians say Jesuscwill usher in oeace yet in Matthew peter and Thomas he says he does not come to bring peace, instead he comes to bring division war and a earth destruction through burning it all down till it melts away (more proof that Jesus was a created image for the Sun worship thus describing the suns final collapse taking the earth with it)

 

[Meriweather]

1) this means those who see him and his god as one in the same makes Jesus in love with himself=proving the grest eglomaniac image they created.
2) Christians don't even know their own Bible ,
I've proved it time & time again.
I'll give you examples:
Christians say Jesus was only 33 when he died but John says closer to 50.
Christians say Jesus was from Nazareth(which didn't exist yet) but their bible says Capernaum.
Christians say Jesus was God when Jesus had a God who he spoke about third person and talked to.
Christians say Jesus was the son of man yet that too is an error because he talks third person tense of another to come, but also says he's like unto son of man in Rev 1:13. Christians are like unto christ (in resemblance) but aren't christ themself, while Muslims literally use that same term saying they are to be "like unto" Muhammad but that doesn't mean they are Muhammad.
Also Christians call him son of God not knowing what "son of " means when not literal, this means he can't be son of man (can't be both), just as he can't be both God and Messiah as they are seperate concepts.
Christians say Jesus was crucufied but their bible says slew (stoned) and hanged on a tree.
Christians say he was in the tomb for 3 days the Bible shows less then 2.
Christians say Jesus lived in the AD era yet Herod died in 4 bc and Lysanias in 35 bc.
Oops that's where Christians can't read history.
Christians say Jesuscwill usher in oeace yet in Matthew peter and Thomas he says he does not come to bring peace, instead he comes to bring division war and a earth destruction through burning it all down till it melts away (more proof that Jesus was a created image for the Sun worship thus describing the suns final collapse taking the earth with it)

1. You should change, "Christians don't know their own Bible" to "Some Christians don't know their own Bible." I was still a child when I learned Jesus may have been well into his forties (but "not yet fifty") when he died. I also understand why Christians pick up on the date of thirty-three. This is not a matter of theology--and hardly matters. Those of us who are interested in such points enjoy the investigation and the research.

2. Christians believe Christ has two natures; a human nature and a divine nature. As such, he can be called Son of Man; Son of God. "Son of Man" is used throughout the Bible, sometimes to denote the frailty/mortality of humans compared to the power/immortality of God. However, the phrase also occurred in the Old Testament when a human had a role to play in redemption. Christians regard Christ as their redeemer, and the Gospels testify to Jesus as such.

3. The Bible also testifies to nail marks in Jesus hands. Hanged on a tree is used to compare/reference Deuteronomy where people were seen as given a final shame by hanging them on a tree/wooden pole.

4. Jesus was placed in a tomb on Friday. Remained their on the Sabbath (Saturday). Rose on Sunday. This is the three days. Some non-Christians seem to think that Jesus should have remained in the tomb for seventy-two hours before Christians can note "three days." Shrug. My daughter arrived here yesterday. She's staying today and leaving Monday morning. By my reckoning her visit here was Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Three days.

5. Jesus often spoke of individual peace--the type of peace he retained during a deadly storm, and in turn offered to the Apostles. Personal peace in times of trouble is a great blessing. However, Jesus also cautioned that some were interpreting this personal peace to mean world peace. Jesus warned peace would not come to the world. Despite whatever is going on around us, it is possible to dwell in Christ's peace.

Today we often hear that Muslim (terrorists) don't know their own Qur'an. Non-Muslims can then take passages terrorists are said to cite, and throw these passages around as well, often not accurately. Basically, this is what you have done with the Bible passages you selected.

When my children were young, we lived in the desert. One day when we were traveling outside the desert we pulled into an area that had had a recent rainstorm. The girls stared at a huge puddle, and then one asked me, all wide-eyed, "Mom, is this a lake?" Conversely, we sometimes hear of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans referred to as a pond. Your presentation of the scriptures you selected is like those who don't know the real thing--like thinking a puddle is a lake; or the ocean is a pond.

It serves no purpose for anyone to take another faith's scriptures/holy writings and present themselves as an expert who made a great discovery. These "discoveries" are like pyrite (fool's gold), and lose out every time when the true meanings are presented.

 

[hobelim]

1) this means those who see him and his god as one in the same makes Jesus in love with himself=proving the grest eglomaniac image they created.
2) Christians don't even know their own Bible ,
I've proved it time & time again.
I'll give you examples:
Christians say Jesus was only 33 when he died but John says closer to 50.
Christians say Jesus was from Nazareth(which didn't exist yet) but their bible says Capernaum.
Christians say Jesus was God when Jesus had a God who he spoke about third person and talked to.
Christians say Jesus was the son of man yet that too is an error because he talks third person tense of another to come, but also says he's like unto son of man in Rev 1:13. Christians are like unto christ (in resemblance) but aren't christ themself, while Muslims literally use that same term saying they are to be "like unto" Muhammad but that doesn't mean they are Muhammad.
Also Christians call him son of God not knowing what "son of " means when not literal, this means he can't be son of man (can't be both), just as he can't be both God and Messiah as they are seperate concepts.
Christians say Jesus was crucufied but their bible says slew (stoned) and hanged on a tree.
Christians say he was in the tomb for 3 days the Bible shows less then 2.
Christians say Jesus lived in the AD era yet Herod died in 4 bc and Lysanias in 35 bc.
Oops that's where Christians can't read history.
Christians say Jesuscwill usher in oeace yet in Matthew peter and Thomas he says he does not come to bring peace, instead he comes to bring division war and a earth destruction through burning it all down till it melts away (more proof that Jesus was a created image for the Sun worship thus describing the suns final collapse taking the earth with it)

1. You should change, "Christians don't know their own Bible" to "Some Christians don't know their own Bible." I was still a child when I learned Jesus may have been well into his forties (but "not yet fifty") when he died. I also understand why Christians pick up on the date of thirty-three. This is not a matter of theology--and hardly matters. Those of us who are interested in such points enjoy the investigation and the research.

2. Christians believe Christ has two natures; a human nature and a divine nature. As such, he can be called Son of Man; Son of God. "Son of Man" is used throughout the Bible, sometimes to denote the frailty/mortality of humans compared to the power/immortality of God. However, the phrase also occurred in the Old Testament when a human had a role to play in redemption. Christians regard Christ as their redeemer, and the Gospels testify to Jesus as such.

3. The Bible also testifies to nail marks in Jesus hands. Hanged on a tree is used to compare/reference Deuteronomy where people were seen as given a final shame by hanging them on a tree/wooden pole.

4. Jesus was placed in a tomb on Friday. Remained their on the Sabbath (Saturday). Rose on Sunday. This is the three days. Some non-Christians seem to think that Jesus should have remained in the tomb for seventy-two hours before Christians can note "three days." Shrug. My daughter arrived here yesterday. She's staying today and leaving Monday morning. By my reckoning her visit here was Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Three days.

5. Jesus often spoke of individual peace--the type of peace he retained during a deadly storm, and in turn offered to the Apostles. Personal peace in times of trouble is a great blessing. However, Jesus also cautioned that some were interpreting this personal peace to mean world peace. Jesus warned peace would not come to the world. Despite whatever is going on around us, it is possible to dwell in Christ's peace.

Today we often hear that Muslim (terrorists) don't know their own Qur'an. Non-Muslims can then take passages terrorists are said to cite, and throw these passages around as well, often not accurately. Basically, this is what you have done with the Bible passages you selected.

When my children were young, we lived in the desert. One day when we were traveling outside the desert we pulled into an area that had had a recent rainstorm. The girls stared at a huge puddle, and then one asked me, all wide-eyed, "Mom, is this a lake?" Conversely, we sometimes hear of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans referred to as a pond. Your presentation of the scriptures you selected is like those who don't know the real thing--like thinking a puddle is a lake; or the ocean is a pond.

It serves no purpose for anyone to take another faith's scriptures/holy writings and present themselves as an expert who made a great discovery. These "discoveries" are like pyrite (fool's gold), and lose out every time when the true meanings are presented.

Excellent post.

I think Hashev as someone who was taught to believe that a person can eat their way into the kingdom of God feels compelled to try and prove that Jesus was a false prophet as if his life was being threatened.. Its a much easier thing to do than it would be for him to even consider the possibility that Jesus was right, that there is deeper meaning and hidden subjects in the divine commands, which would turn his entire world upside down and then he would either have to rebuild the foundation of his conscious mind from scratch or take the easy way out and become a completely false person by choice. An extremely frightening proposition for a person that professes a love for God and truth but whose entire identity is completely dependent on their religious affiliation and the support of a community of like minded believers devoted to teaching and practicing error..

Its the same shame and fear that explains why otherwise intelligent people who have devoted a lifetime to their indoctrinated worship of a trinity can't even consider the possibility that they are wrong even when it is put right in front of their face.

 

[Meriweather]

Its the same shame and fear that explains why otherwise intelligent people who have devoted a lifetime to their indoctrinated worship of a trinity can't even consider the possibility that they are wrong even when it is put right in front of their face.

Perhaps sometime you and I can discuss the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[TrinityPower]

Said it before, the Bible is not a 'good' book about a good deity. It's an evil book about an evil deity.

The Bible is a collection of books and includes insights about God and His relationship with mankind. It was all written through the lens of humans. As we see, each human lens is unique.

Some people pick up a collection of books, are horrified, and declare the Harry Potter series to be a great evil. Some are influenced by the friendship and courage and are better people because of it.

Simply because some see through the lens of evil is no reason to insist that everyone look through their lens.

Did you watch the believers convention too and credo dollar's awesome sermon about the philosophical lense?

 

[hobelim]

Its the same shame and fear that explains why otherwise intelligent people who have devoted a lifetime to their indoctrinated worship of a trinity can't even consider the possibility that they are wrong even when it is put right in front of their face.

Perhaps sometime you and I can discuss the doctrine of the Trinity.

Perhaps....if you are willing to make it interesting and put something real and tangible at stake and make a commitment to a righteous course of action if proven wrong. I am.

Do you as someone who worships and eats something made by human hands that has no life for spiritual life really think that you have more substance than our morally and ethically challenged friend who doesn't seem to have the ability to defer to a rational argument or acknowledge a valid point..?

 

[HaShev]

1. You should change, "Christians don't know their own Bible" to "Some Christians don't know their own Bible." I was still a child when I learned Jesus may have been well into his forties (but "not yet fifty") when he died. I also understand why Christians pick up on the date of thirty-three. This is not a matter of theology--and hardly matters. Those of us who are interested in such points enjoy the investigation and the research.

2. Christians believe Christ has two natures; a human nature and a divine nature. As such, he can be called Son of Man; Son of God. "Son of Man" is used throughout the Bible, sometimes to denote the frailty/mortality of humans compared to the power/immortality of God. However, the phrase also occurred in the Old Testament when a human had a role to play in redemption. Christians regard Christ as their redeemer, and the Gospels testify to Jesus as such.

3. The Bible also testifies to nail marks in Jesus hands. Hanged on a tree is used to compare/reference Deuteronomy where people were seen as given a final shame by hanging them on a tree/wooden pole.

4. Jesus was placed in a tomb on Friday. Remained their on the Sabbath (Saturday). Rose on Sunday. This is the three days. Some non-Christians seem to think that Jesus should have remained in the tomb for seventy-two hours before Christians can note "three days." Shrug. My daughter arrived here yesterday. She's staying today and leaving Monday morning. By my reckoning her visit here was Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Three days.

5. Jesus often spoke of individual peace--the type of peace he retained during a deadly storm, and in turn offered to the Apostles. Personal peace in times of trouble is a great blessing. However, Jesus also cautioned that some were interpreting this personal peace to mean world peace. Jesus warned peace would not come to the world. Despite whatever is going on around us, it is possible to dwell in Christ's peace.

Today we often hear that Muslim (terrorists) don't know their own Qur'an. Non-Muslims can then take passages terrorists are said to cite, and throw these passages around as well, often not accurately. Basically, this is what you have done with the Bible passages you selected.

When my children were young, we lived in the desert. One day when we were traveling outside the desert we pulled into an area that had had a recent rainstorm. The girls stared at a huge puddle, and then one asked me, all wide-eyed, "Mom, is this a lake?" Conversely, we sometimes hear of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans referred to as a pond. Your presentation of the scriptures you selected is like those who don't know the real thing--like thinking a puddle is a lake; or the ocean is a pond.

It serves no purpose for anyone to take another faith's scriptures/holy writings and present themselves as an expert who made a great discovery. These "discoveries" are like pyrite (fool's gold), and lose out every time when the true meanings are presented.

1) fair enough I did generalize, but the word "some" is pushing it as we know "most" is more politically correct.
Saying the age doesn't matter is extremely naive though. Along with the other contradictions it shows a pattern emerging exposing a mixing of many christ figures accounts.
Example: One christ Yeshu son of Mary of 100BC as the Carpenter, while the Galilean or Capernaum Christ being fisherman.
Yeshu and yehuda christ figures dying young
Theudas by the Jordan possibly lasting close to 50 (died 45ad)
Blaming Jews (Yeshu) or Romans(Yehuda & Theudas) for his death.
Being stoned and hanged (Yeshu on Passover)
Being Crucified (Yehuda of Galilee 6bc and Theudas by the Jordan 45ad)
Galilean (Yehuda the tax revolter)
The Capernaum christ (?)
The Nazareth christ(?Yeshu if they confused terms for his cult called Hanotzrim)

2) no Rome masking Baal with his son (morning star) merely borrowed/plagiarised the Baal passion play (exact stories & birthdate) hence the deification of the image to compete and converge with all the other fantasy mystery religions when they formed their one world religion. Ironically Christians themselves admit this will happen by Rome because they never figured out this already
occured and they were the resulting faith of the false prophet made divine by Rome.
3)answered this in 1
4) 1 day= day time+ night time try again using night time as half a day.
5)and Muslims claim the same=double standard when you call BS but don't use that same reflection to notice table turning and calling to arms is not peace. You were willing to contradict his words and give him up so easy.

In conclusion your arguments /reply did not address the issues raised and merely selectively avoided/danced around many of the problems addressed-good try though,
"A" for effort and not being lazy.

 

[Spare_change]

Said it before, the Bible is not a 'good' book about a good deity. It's an evil book about an evil deity.

The Bible is a collection of books and includes insights about God and His relationship with mankind. It was all written through the lens of humans. As we see, each human lens is unique.

Some people pick up a collection of books, are horrified, and declare the Harry Potter series to be a great evil. Some are influenced by the friendship and courage and are better people because of it.

Simply because some see through the lens of evil is no reason to insist that everyone look through their lens.

Oh you fucking piece of shit... Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

 

[Spare_change]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

 

[Fat Bastardo]

Said it before, the Bible is not a 'good' book about a good deity. It's an evil book about an evil deity.

The Bible is a collection of books and includes insights about God and His relationship with mankind. It was all written through the lens of humans. As we see, each human lens is unique.

Some people pick up a collection of books, are horrified, and declare the Harry Potter series to be a great evil. Some are influenced by the friendship and courage and are better people because of it.

Simply because some see through the lens of evil is no reason to insist that everyone look through their lens.

Oh you fucking piece of shit... Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

 

[Spare_change]

The Bible is a collection of books and includes insights about God and His relationship with mankind. It was all written through the lens of humans. As we see, each human lens is unique.

Some people pick up a collection of books, are horrified, and declare the Harry Potter series to be a great evil. Some are influenced by the friendship and courage and are better people because of it.

Simply because some see through the lens of evil is no reason to insist that everyone look through their lens.

Oh you fucking piece of shit... Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

You are a lot of things ... but a Biblical scholar ain't one of them.

Hey, you illiterate, tobacco-juice-dribbling fundamentalist, the Dark Ages called—they want their ideology back.

That's it? THAT is the best you got .... some ad hominem attack? Pretty childish, if you ask me.

It was not an attack it was a statement of fact. That's exactly the kind of laughable logic I'd expect from a brainwashed, Bible-banging tool of the Religious Reich.

Your ignorance, coupled with an ingrained sense of jealousy, disqualifies you from discussing the Bible. I recognize that your childish little tantrums are your way of validating your pathetic existence, but you clearly have demonstrated an in-depth lack of understanding of religious issues.

Listening to you pontificate on Biblical issues is like listening to you discuss sexuality ... you have no experience at either.

 

[irosie91]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

 

[Spare_change]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

 

[irosie91]

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Harry Potter is fiction and it is presented as fiction. The Bible is presented as the Word of the Creator of the Universe. AND.. no it is not about interpretation.... There are 516 verses in the Bible that are not sick and evil. The rest of the Bible is either absurd or evil. I know because I am a Biblical scholar and a very good one at that.

The Bible is a collection of books, and it contains works of fiction as well. My post was about perceptions, not about fiction or non-fiction. It stands. The authors' intents, purposes, and perspectives are quite different from what you would have people perceive/believe. That makes it about interpretation/ignored context--and as we both know, interpretations like yours have been on the Internet for years, so I don't find them shocking, or even interesting. Same ol', same ol. However, I am interested in what, personally, caused you to develop such a hatred of God--but only if you are comfortable in sharing this.

The BIble is a collection of cherry-picked religious texts written generationsand centuries after the main figure died. Whether the figure, a Jew intended to create a splinter religioni s a very good question. And if so, why not write something? Why leave that to others, make no mention of specificly telling them to do that, then hope they get around to it?

I don't think Jesus or even any of the disciples intended to create a religion distinct and apart from Judaism. I think someone had that idea seeing that possibility and co-opted what should have remained a kind of biography of what happened. And made a religion around it. Custom selecting those works that made it seem like a single holy book. While rejecting those that depicted more accurately the human nature of the man.

You got it!!! You are ABSOLUTELY right !!!

You don't think ....

since I actually did read the OT and NT----I completely agree with Delta-dawn. There is
ABSOLUTELY nothing in the NT to suggest that the main men-----ie Jesus and John the Baptist---
had a NEW RELIGION IN MIND------- it is absolutely obvious that ----Christianity was an after-thought-------mostly created as far as the record shows-----by some guy named "PAUL".
Paul-----even claims DIVINE REVELATIONS----
for himself. Even Jesus does not do that

Let's see ... since Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ ... which were unlike any previous religion ... the fact that the Bible does not explicitly state that they were creating a new religion would seem, at best, to be immaterial.

The Bible is not intended to be a tutorial on how to create a new religion. Rather, it is a discussion of how to better live our lives. Christ did not intend to create a separate sect within Judaism, nor did he intend to create a separate religion. He only intended to pass the Word of God to us. To assign venal motives to him is typical of non-believers.

Your point is moot.

Try again------Jesus quoted HILLEL
incessantly-------just what is there that
you imagine that jesus "taught" that was
innovative? -----(hillel was a person who died
at about the time that jesus was born-----he
was quoted and is still quoted -------all the time)