Zone1 Would Jesus support Donald Trump if alive today?

[Hafar1014]

The concept of hell emerged during the Greco-Roman period in Judaism as a way to understand suffering and maintain faith in divine justice. It was a response to oppression where people hoped for retribution against evildoers.

I love it you deny your own dogma. Jews never had hell in our beliefs

 

[ding]

I love it you deny your own dogma. Jews never had hell in our beliefs

Jews invented hell hundreds of years before Christianity even began.

The concept of hell emerged during the Greco-Roman period in Judaism as a way to understand suffering and maintain faith in divine justice. It was a response to oppression where people hoped for retribution against evildoers.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jews invented hell hundreds of years before Christianity even began.

The concept of hell emerged during the Greco-Roman period in Judaism as a way to understand suffering and maintain faith in divine justice. It was a response to oppression where people hoped for retribution against evildoers.

could the inconvenience for the jews, 70 ce have played a role in your timeline -

The Greco-Roman Period refers to the era when ancient Greek culture and Roman power merged, primarily from Alexander the Great's conquests (starting 332 BCE) through the division of the Roman Empire (395 CE) and beyond ...

could the divine justice be the retribution from the heavens for judaism's crucifixion of jesus and they being who deserved their own hell you claim they invented as just punishment - that obviously did not work being just a fib anyway even w/ the destruction of their temple and somehow as through history they manage to live through their sins and crimes. so what really is the desert hell.

The history of hell doesn't begin with the Old Testament. Instead, hell took shape in the 2nd century from Mediterranean cultural exchange.

madeup by the christian crucifiers long after the 1st century events and added to their likewise madeup 4th century christian bible.

 

[ding]

I will make this easy for you. **** off. My God doesn't need lowlife creatures to kiss his ass.

Everything I have made known vindicates the WORDS of Jesus, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

hadit just busted you.

 

[ding]

I demonstrate my love for God by doing what he says.

What does he say to do? Don't tell me what he says to not do. I don't think you can answer because you are a fake.

 

[ding]

You didn't explain anything. You said it was a parable. So what did Jesus mean by calling for the slaughter of Jews in the parable?

Like I don't already know that you don't know, you phony ****.
'
You can't fool me, you think you can fool God?

Some faith you have there. Damn stupid.

Said the charlatan. Your faking religion makes you the nuttiest religious nutjob here... by far. You are so pathological. It's comical.

 

[ding]

He didn't. as I've explained. Why don't you tell us why you think He did?

He thinks Paul's letters prove Paul was a guilt ridden self loathing masochistic homophobic misogynist Roman shill who hated Jesus and was sabotaging Jesus.

Paul was a Roman shill who told Christians to submit to Nero OR ELSE. A guilt ridden self loathing masochistic homophobic misogynist who infiltrated the movement to curse the Gentiles and insure the Jewish people and insure the Jewish people would never accept Jesus, who he hated, as the messiah by promoting Mithraism, the secret Babylonian MYSTERY RELIGION of the Roman government and military under the name of a substitute counterfeit Jesus, the Antichrist.

Do you have any evidence that Paul was a guilt ridden self loathing masochistic homophobic misogynist?

Yes, the proof is in the words he used in every letter he wrote from a Roman prison.

 

[hadit]

I already know what he meant. You claimed it was a parable and it is, so what did he mean? If you don't know just say so and then I will tell you the very truth, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

I've already told you that it is a parable because the Bible explicitly says it is. You seemed surprised by that, which indicates that you didn't have any idea what was going on and just pulled one verse out to make a claim about it that the context does not support.

You claim Jesus meant He wants to slaughter Jews so I'm asking you why He would want to slaughter His own people? Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus indicate He wants to slaughter Jews, so I'm asking where in your imagination did you come up with that impossibility. You are famous for perverting every statement from the Word of God, so this should be interesting.

To God be all glory, honor and praise. He is worthy to be praised. Can you say that in plain English without equivocation?

 

[BreezeWood]

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus indicate He wants to slaughter Jews

your statement to slaughter jews is correct - however irrational the necessity you make for your claim.

the christian bible is written in the 4th century by the crucifiers of jesus than those who gave their lives during and for the 1st century events, the repudiation of judaism - false commandments claim by the liar moses et al.

 

[hobelim]

Yet, per his own words, he didn't come to change the laws.
So, his claims about forgiving the sinner but not the sin, kind of rings hollow if he didn't come to change the laws.

Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. To fulfill the law is to comply with its demands. By saying "eat my flesh" Jesus was making a direct reference to kosher law teaching that the law was not to be taken literally, flesh a metaphor for teaching, the creatures described whether clean or unclean metaphors for universal human archetypes.

Jesus was accused of being a sinner and he was a sinner if the Law is to be taken literally. Jesus came to reveal the WAY Moses originally taught to follow the law, the only WAY to understand and comply with its demands that fulfills the promise of abundant blessings and eternal life in the sanctuary of God on earth. So the only thing that became obsolete after this revelation was the wrong way to follow the Law not the Law itself.

For instance one cannot comply with the literal interpretation of the Law that prohibits eating "the flesh" of swine that do not ruminate without violating the deeper implications of the same exact law because "the teaching" that the subject of kosher Law is about food is "the flesh" of unclean creatures THAT DO NOT RUMINATE.

So the Law is not about diet fashion or the sexual preferences of consenting adults but Jesus was accused of being a sinner by the religious 'authorities' who took the Law literally according to the talmud, what Jesus called "the traditions of men" rendering the Law null and void.

 

[ding]

Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. To fulfill the law is to comply with its demands. By saying "eat my flesh" Jesus was making a direct reference to kosher law teaching that the law was not to be taken literally, flesh a metaphor for teaching, the creatures described whether clean or unclean metaphors for universal human archetypes.

Incorrect. You don't believe in the resurrection even though the historical evidence is overwhelming for an event so far back in antiquity. So it isn't a surprise that you deny the real presence either. Let's look at the actual account where Jesus gave the command because you aren't the first person to be shocked by Jesus' command to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He lost a lot of disciples over that command.

1. Jesus said he was the bread of life and whoever ate this bread would have eternal life. John 6:48-51
2. The Jews quarreled and said how can this man give us his flesh to eat. John 6:52
3. So rather than softening his stance he doubled down and said very clearly, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. John 6:53
4. Afterwards his disciples said, this is hard to take. John 6:60
5. Jesus asked them, does this shock you. John 6:61
6. Then Jesus explained that it is the spirit that gives life. The flesh is of no avail. John 6:62-63
7. But they didn't believe in Jesus and they couldn't accept what he was saying because it shocked them like it is shocking you. As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. John 6:64-65

He let disciples walk away rather than to soften his stance and make it symbolic. He was given an opportunity to soften it and instead he reinforced what he said by saying the flesh is of no avail.

 

[hobelim]

I've already told you that it is a parable because the Bible explicitly says it is. You seemed surprised by that,

No. I know its a parable. My question to you is simple. What did Jesus mean by saying, "But those who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence."? And I am not surprised that you are squirming trying to avoid admitting that you have no idea what he meant, so just ask me what Jesus meant and I will tell you the truth.

You faithless coward.

Many deranged antisemitic people like Hitler THE RCC and some Christians have and still take that verse literally planning genocide behind closed doors thinking it is a divine directive.

AM I TELLING YOU SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW?

"The voice of the Lord makes the wilderness writhe in travail; the Lord makes the wilderness writhe."

 

[hobelim]

He let disciples walk away rather than to soften his stance and make it symbolic.

That is just a lie.

Many walked away who couldn't stomach what he said but to those who remained he explained that his WORDS is what he meant by saying flesh. Then he asked Simon Peter if they would leave him too and he replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Your WORDS are WORDS of eternal life. We have faith and know that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68) the Moshiach, a Jewish man (not a trinity that became a sacrificial edible supernatural mangod) that Moses said would be sent by God to reveal all of his commands. Deut.18:18

If you don't believe me, look it up.

 

[hobelim]

could the divine justice be the retribution from the heavens for judaism's crucifixion of jesus

Don't blame the Jewish people for what Romans did. Every time they crucified anyone on the cross they were making a human sacrifice in the name of Mithras to a trinity on the Mithran cross. Jesus the Messiah was the "perfect human sacrifice" to their imaginary trinity.

Mithraism was the secret Babylonian MYSTERY RELIGION of the Roman government and military that became the official religion of the empire after 325CE when Rome assimilated and perverted Christianity creating the Antichrist in the image and likeness of Mithras, a false substitute counterfeit Jesus conjured from the depths of a Roman wilderness of pain. Hell.

 

[hadit]

No. I know its a parable. My question to you is simple. What did Jesus mean by saying, "But those who would not have me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence."? And I am not surprised that you are squirming trying to avoid admitting that you have no idea what he meant, so just ask me what Jesus meant and I will tell you the truth.

You faithless coward.

That's easy, He meant that there would be repercussions for rejecting His lordship, at judgement.

Many deranged antisemitic people like Hitler THE RCC and some Christians have and still take that verse literally planning genocide behind closed doors thinking it is a divine directive.

AM I TELLING YOU SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW?

"The voice of the Lord makes the wilderness writhe in travail; the Lord makes the wilderness writhe."

They're not reading the Word as it is written, which is something you do regularly.

Now, YOU tell us why YOU think He was calling His followers to slaughter Jews. No more beating around the bush, no more equivocating, why do you make that assertion?

 

[hobelim]

That's easy, He meant that there would be repercussions for rejecting His lordship, at judgement.

Liar. Jesus was making a direct reference to the Laws of ritual slaughter revealing that they have absolutely nothing whatever to do with killing farm animals much less Jewish people.

For instance, YOU, a he-goat "without blemish", have been carefully chosen and prepared as an offering for the expiation of sin. YOUR slaughter has been dedicated to the Lord, my God. The hungry will feast on the flesh stripped from your broken bones and the fat trimmed from the flesh and thrown on the fire is a soothing and fragrant offering to the Lord, my God.

See? No blood shed, no antisemitic genocide, nothing was killed except for maybe your ego and the egos of the billions of nitwits who profess to believe in the supernatural trinitarian sacrificial mangod garbage that you swallowed without ruminating hook, line, and SINKER.

Does that help?

 

[hadit]

Liar. Jesus was making a direct reference to the Laws of ritual slaughter revealing that they have absolutely nothing whatever to do with killing farm animals much less Jewish people.

For instance, YOU, a he-goat "without blemish", have been carefully chosen and prepared as an offering for the expiation of sin. YOUR slaughter has been dedicated to the Lord, my God. The hungry will feast on the flesh stripped from your broken bones and the fat trimmed from the flesh and thrown on the fire is a soothing and fragrant offering to the Lord, my God.

See? No blood shed, no antisemitic genocide, nothing was killed except for maybe your ego and the egos of the billions of nitwits who profess to believe in the supernatural trinitarian sacrificial mangod garbage that you swallowed without ruminating hook, line, and SINKER.

Does that help?

So, IOW, you were lying when you insisted that Jesus was demanding the slaughter of Jews. This is why you have no credibility.

 

[BreezeWood]

Don't blame the Jewish people for what Romans did.

the 1st century events had nothing to do w/ romans (christians) in fact the repudiation of judaism was an advantage the romans allowed to flourish, jesus left unhindered - their mistake in the conclusion was to side w/ the jews and murder for them their antagonist.

for whatever reason the romans would have been compelled to do so is a true mystery - the mystery of the jews going to the romans in the first place seems the height of cowardliness their fear of jesus was so great by their clergy.

 

[hobelim]

So, IOW, you were lying when you insisted that Jesus was demanding the slaughter of Jews.

No. I never said that, liar. I pointed out the conundrum that people like you are in incapable of understanding what Jesus meant by saying things like that and so many take it or have taken it literally in the past, like Hitler, the RCC, Muslims, and many sects of Christianity to this day.

This is why you have no credibility.

Like I give a shit what a slaughtered goat thinks who thought that Jesus was talking about judgment day when he said, "Bring them here and slaughter them in my presence."

you talking about me having no credibility is pathetic.

 

[ding]

That is just a lie.

Many walked away who couldn't stomach what he said but to those who remained he explained that his WORDS is what he meant by saying flesh. Then he asked Simon Peter if they would leave him too and he replied, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Your WORDS are WORDS of eternal life. We have faith and know that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:68) the Moshiach, a Jewish man (not a trinity that became a sacrificial edible supernatural mangod) that Moses said would be sent by God to reveal all of his commands. Deut.18:18

If you don't believe me, look it up.

It's so funny that hadit sees through your charade.