|
Post by StyxD on Mar 17, 2015 18:38:10 GMT
Yeah, I know that. If this is what Can is referring to, I guess I understand. What I've read sounded more like "Jesus was reluctant to help that one women, which means he secretly wanted to eradicate all non-Jews."
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 17, 2015 21:31:04 GMT
Oh yeah, when I said "if we are to be consistent" I meant if we are to keep it in line with the Old Testament. Since, you know, God is unchanging.
But if there was a historical Jesus who said most of what they say he said, he probably wouldn't be all murdery. Even if the run in with the gentile woman is accurate. I was just referring to the Old Testament.
I mean, if things are to believed, he healed a Centurion's slave just because the man asked and believed it could happen (with more faith than Jesus' followers).
Though I will say that the portrayals of Jesus aren't exactly consistent all the time.
Anyway, yeah, God fucks with Free Will all the time, at least in the Old Testament.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Mar 17, 2015 21:41:29 GMT
I don't know, he looks like he might bust a cap in someone's ass.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 17, 2015 22:34:47 GMT
Ugh! How dare you! Such blasphemy! I know what Jesus thinks about this! Yup, he made himself pretty clear there. And yes, I have kind of been looking for an excuse to use that one on you, ever since you used it on me after I predicted that you'd use the Johnny Cash one... which you'll probably be at the least tempted to do now.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Mar 17, 2015 22:36:21 GMT
Nope, not going to do it just because you said so.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 17, 2015 22:44:06 GMT
Yeah, but if I hadn't said it, you would have.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Mar 17, 2015 22:58:57 GMT
No, probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 17, 2015 22:59:58 GMT
Okay, if you say so.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Mar 18, 2015 4:00:25 GMT
Don't got Johnny Cash, but I do have Lois Lane.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Mar 18, 2015 4:05:52 GMT
And Superman is totally fine with you having Lois Lane.
How do I know?
I looked for images of Superman giving the finger and couldn't find any.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 6, 2015 5:43:44 GMT
When I first read the title I thought, "Oh crap they figured out why my nachos are as spicy as well." Then I remember, there has to be an X to be an anti-X. While there may have been a bloke named Jesus around that time, the bible version can't work for once simple reason. Matthew says he was born in a house before King Herod died (in 4 BC) and some wise men followed a start to get him shiny-good-goods. Luke says he was born in a stable and plonked in a feeding through (aka a manger, a bucket of horse spit and pig slop is a real sanity place for a newborn) while Qurinius was governor of Syria (he took that office in 6 AD) and an angel told some farmers to come say hi. Anyone else catch that? He was born before 4 BC and after 6 AD, a feat which surely proves either he is so divine he breaks time and space or Luke and Matthew didn't talk to each other and work out an official canon for their storybook hero. And to follow along the current theme a bit:
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 6, 2015 8:42:02 GMT
To be entirely fair, it is clear that the early lifetime of Jesus is virtually unknown even to the scriptures. They tossed in some weird origin stories to satisfy the Pagans and to a lesser extent perhaps the Jews (They pull a kind of reverse Moses. Jesus' family runs away from the baby killing by going to Egypt).
It is also unclear when this stuff was added, really. Niccea really messes with some of the Chronology.
So it really is easy to dismiss some parts of the Gospels, even for Christians, as being just kind of made up. Total infallibility is actually not necessary, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 6, 2015 14:35:54 GMT
The problem I have is that if we are going to dismiss somethings in bible, why not dismiss everything? It seems to just be picking and choosing what we want. If we use our own judgemnet to decide what to ignore, why even have the book? Just use our own judgement independantly.
Interestingly, fundamentalist christians use this same logic but reach an opposite conclusion. I say we might as well dismiss it all, they say we should take every word literally.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 6, 2015 18:41:03 GMT
The problem is that, of course, as soon as you take everything as 100% true, you run into contradictions.
Of course, the problem is that if they don't take everything as 100% true... there is no reason to do so. You don't have to. You might say "why not just throw the whole thing out?" But it is entirely understandable and even logical to keep what seems stable or best. After all, it is built into Christian history that shit was picked and chosen by humans. That doesn't actually invalidate the core of the religion, but it does make it very flexible.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 7, 2015 5:51:54 GMT
The very first writings about Jesus were the letters by Paul which weren't written until around 50 ad. Jesus was born around the BC/AD switch was about 30 years, and yet the earliest writings are 20 years after his supposed death. This chap made an excellent video showing just how the legend of Jesus progressed into mythology:
|
|