Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Let's Assume The Bible Is Infallible


Foxy Methoxy

Recommended Posts

If it was a dude, I want to know what the deal was with all the weeping in the messiah's lap going on. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Come to think of it, only a gay man could be fabulous enough to pull off the whole Son of Man / Son of God thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By avoiding those verse that prove that Jesus Christ said He was God only shows that you can't defend your claim.

Okay, I'll have a go at this.

 

Even if Jesus existed and did claim he was a god, and this was accurately recorded in the Gospels... What if he was lying, and no such god even exists?

 

To put this in perspective, *I* claim to be a goddess. I even know of a book that states that I'm a goddess; it's on a bookshelf about 5 feet away from Me. What makes the godhood claim of "Jesus" different from My godhood claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By avoiding those verse that prove that Jesus Christ said He was God only shows that you can't defend your claim.

Okay, I'll have a go at this.

 

Even if Jesus existed and did claim he was a god, and this was accurately recorded in the Gospels... What if he was lying, and no such god even exists?

 

To put this in perspective, *I* claim to be a goddess. I even know of a book that states that I'm a goddess; it's on a bookshelf about 5 feet away from Me. What makes the godhood claim of "Jesus" different from My godhood claim?

 

Don't be silly. Of course you are a goddess. It says so right there in your post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By avoiding those verse that prove that Jesus Christ said He was God only shows that you can't defend your claim.

Okay, I'll have a go at this.

 

Even if Jesus existed and did claim he was a god, and this was accurately recorded in the Gospels... What if he was lying, and no such god even exists?

 

To put this in perspective, *I* claim to be a goddess. I even know of a book that states that I'm a goddess; it's on a bookshelf about 5 feet away from Me. What makes the godhood claim of "Jesus" different from My godhood claim?

 

Don't be silly. Of course you are a goddess. It says so right there in your post.

 

"It...is...WRITTEN...(right there in your post)....." :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus called himself master and Lord. John 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am .

 

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. John 4:25

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh , which is called Christ: when he is come , he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

 

Jesus claimed to be the son of God. See Matt. 16:15-17, 26:63-64; Mark 8:29-30, 14:61-62

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus called himself master and Lord. John 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am .

 

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. John 4:25

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh , which is called Christ: when he is come , he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

 

Jesus claimed to be the son of God. See Matt. 16:15-17, 26:63-64; Mark 8:29-30, 14:61-62

 

Still would've been nice if he just said "I am God." That would resolve a lot of problems between Islam and Christianity. I still would consider the whole thing bullshit, but it would've been a favor to society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus called himself master and Lord. John 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am .

 

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. John 4:25

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh , which is called Christ: when he is come , he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

 

Jesus claimed to be the son of God. See Matt. 16:15-17, 26:63-64; Mark 8:29-30, 14:61-62

 

Yes the character in a story did those things.

 

I wonder if there was a real rabbi Yeshua and if so what the real rabbi Yeshua thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer the OP for starters..

 

The Bible does have conflicts in it but if one assumed that it was infallible, then one must force themselves to reconcile the differences. Thing is, we all reconcile differently. It's a bit hard for me to judge how I would look at the Bible with only the knowledge of it being infallible since I am tainted by past experiences but I think there are some general themes that one cannot help noticing.

 

The NT has a common message that the OT law has been superseded so I probably wouldn't follow the OT. The NT clearly teaches that faith in Jesus is required to go to heaven and those without faith go to hell. This is especially noticeable in John's gospel which has a high Christology as well as Paul's epistles. I don't think I'd pick up on the Holy Spirit being a person of the Godhead, nor would I think that there was a Godhead, I would probably be a modalist (God displays himself as different person of the Godhead at different times).

 

I would probably be harsh on sin with myself, but more like Jesus with regards to the world, i.e. wining and dining with them as opposed to judging and condemning them. Can't think of much else at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, Jesus did claim to be God.

 

The NT states that there was a Jesus and John claims that he said he was God, if we are to be pedantic about it smile.png John's Christology is much more advanced than the Synoptic gospels as you're well aware. Probably gotta do with the fact that it was written much later and the mythology had time to develop. Mark, the earliest gospel has a far lessor Christology and that's why you can see Luke and Matthew "correcting" him when they use the same material. Could give examples if you want, couldn't be bothered looking at the moment but yeah, if Jesus existed he definitely didn't think he was God the Son in the Trinity from what we see in Mark.

 

John did not just make up a story, he related his experience of Jesus based on memory. Otherwise, he was a liar, and by his own writings condemned himself to the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8)

 

So you're not only a blasphemer but a liar. John wrote John and Revelation. Matthew, even Levi(a disiciple) wrote Matthew . John Mark, Barnabas' nephew, wrote Mark (Acts 15:38-39). Luke the physician, who wrote Acts, also wrote Luke. John was some 90 years old when he wrote Revelation and John, and yes, he was born about the same time as Jesus.

 

hahahahaha...oh wait, you're serious!? It doesn't state anywhere in Matthew that Matthew wrote Matthew. It doesn't state anywhere in John that John wrote John, though some infer that his claim to be a disciple is true and the best fit is John so it's gotta be him. Neither do Mark or Luke (Luke not 100% sure, could be wrong but I distinctly don't remember him mentioning his name). John who wrote Revelations doesn't give an evidence to suggest he was the Apostle John. All assumptions on your part buddy. Quite deceitful for a Christian no? Yet, you are accusing others of lying? You're a hypocritical Pharisee and fuck you and your God. How's that for blasphemy you judgmental fuck?

 

I am guessing that your quesstion following this will be somewhat like this, "When Jesus said 'I and the Father are one' He just mean they are of one accord, they are merely like-minded."

 

The Greek word he used, heis, is the word for the number one. It is a reference to the Shema, the core tenet of Judaism, "Sh'ma, Yisrael, Adonai Eloheynu Adonai echad," which, using Christian terminology is, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah is our God. Jehovah is one."

 

Jesus very much so on more than one occasion claimed to be God, and throughout the Bible we are told over and over that God is to be worshiped.

 

Notice that in the gospels, it only happens in John? Funny that ain't it? Refer to above statements. Who gives a shit if the Bible says Jesus said XYZ? Gotta prove first that it's a credible source, which for many reasons, it is not.

 

Fun fact: Everyone familiar with Nicodemus in John 3? You know how that silly man gets confused with Jesus telling him he needs to be born again? For the Greek scholars amongst us, the word for again is obviously a Greek word, and that Greek word is "anothen" it has a couple meanings but the two main meanings are "again" or "from above". As you can tell, this ambiguity is what allows Jesus to expand on his message when poor Nicodemus doesn't follow. The ambiguity of this word is important to the story.

 

Now the issue is this, there is no equivalent word (that implies the same ambiguity with the two terms) in Aramaic which would've been the only language these two would've conversed in. To put it simply, this whole conversation was fabricated by the Greek writer. Thank you and good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^Great post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus called himself master and Lord. John 13:13

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am .

 

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. John 4:25

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh , which is called Christ: when he is come , he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

 

Jesus claimed to be the son of God. See Matt. 16:15-17, 26:63-64; Mark 8:29-30, 14:61-62

 

Still would've been nice if he just said "I am God." That would resolve a lot of problems between Islam and Christianity. I still would consider the whole thing bullshit, but it would've been a favor to society.

 

I think it's clear that Jesus, according to the bible, viewed himself as a separate person from God. Although he said that he and the father were "one", any christian could say that they are one with Jesus according to Paul. Luke 2:52 says that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God". I believe this verse makes it clear that they were separate.

 

Jesus was the son of Zeus, half brother of Hercules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is better with mysticism, including Christianity and shit sandwiches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John 1: 1 - 5

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 

That seems mystical to me.

 

And I think we could replace instances of "the Word" in the above passage with "Language". I know of philosophers and researchers even to this day, who debate about the nature and origin of language. Some have even asserted that it is everything, and it's mysterious. Some things we know. We know language is a bearer of complex implication and meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems mystical to me.

 

And I think we could replace instances of "the Word" in the above passage with "Language". I know of philosophers and researchers even to this day, who debate about the nature and origin of language. Some have even asserted that it is everything, and it's mysterious. Some things we know. We know language is a bearer of complex implication and meaning.

You just made a shit sandwich.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is better with mysticism, including Christianity and shit sandwiches.

 

Oh definitely. Shit sandwich is best with extra mysticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is better with mysticism, including Christianity and shit sandwiches.

 

Oh definitely. Shit sandwich is best with extra mysticism.

I also like a litte Jesus tar-tar on a stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.