Total posts: 102
-->
@Public-Choice
I dont think there is a naturalistic explanation for it, I am genuinely unconvinced, so I want someone to convince me.
Created:
-->
@IlDiavolo
The first Christians were more divided than you think. It's an error to say all first Christians believed in resurrection, the trinity, the virgin birth and all this fancy stuff. Actually there was a group among them that believed (and still believes) Jesus was a mere human as you and me. They are called the gnostic Christians.
They were split yeah, no one can reasonable deny that, that's mostly because there wasnt a cannon or even a full bible till like 300 ad.
Where did these fancy stories come from? Basically from other ancient cultures, like the Egyptian and Babylonian. Jews really liked to mix up their traditions and beliefs with other culture's. You can also find in the old testament different references to other ancient cultures' stories. Why did that happen? I don't know, since there was no copyright back then I suppose everything was possible.
So this is the mythic theory? (The theory that it was just made up years later after the apostles, and the apostles never actually claimed that)
Created:
It is different than the apostles just making up a story. Cult members in general don't think they r making anything up.
So do you think they were genuine in their belief of the resurrection?
But while the theory that Jesus led a cult doesn't address your proposed ideas in your opening post, the theory is still possible, isn't it, as a natural explanation?
Is it possible as in should it be taken into consideration, of course im open to taking any theory into consideration. But does it meet the criteria id have to look into it. (for example im concerned it may not meet the criteria of enemies converting, or the empty tomb [which is very debatable])
Created:
-->
@Stephen
answering a question with a question of your own is not answering my question.
Im asking you to specify what you meant.
Well you made the statement of doubt. Why don't you explain why, and on what grounds you have to doubt.
Sure, ive looked at the major theories and none of them explained all the factors of the origin of christian belief.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Would you tell me what cult theory is, and is it like the conspiracy theory? (That they just made it up)
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Thought I ought to ping you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
You obviously dont understand what I said, your nagging me trying to get me to create a post, so I gave in and created a post, so I asked why your still nagging me to create a post.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
They may not be wrong, christianity was considered a cult back then, as to if jesus lead it, debatable, it was certainly based around him though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I made the post brother d, I have no clue what your doing here.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What was the origin of christian belief?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But you did use the excuse of being prohibited from creating a thread of your own because of your low post count, which implied that you would once you had reached the required amount of posts that allowed you to do so. And the topic was the blood line of Jesus if I recall correctly.
Your right, I did say I didnt have enough, I did make a post about it too if you want to go look.
Are you intending to create the aforementioned thread?
Just created it.
Created:
I said I wouldnt make this post, yet here I am. I challenged brother d to a debate on his unbiblical ideas, yet he refuses to do a debate on the debate section, so be it we all have our preferences, so here I will show how Jesus is of the flesh of david, but 1st let's address why this is important. The old testament is not explicit in the messiah being son of david (explicit meaning directly stating it) but it is still a truth in the old testament that the messiah will be of david's line.
Isaiah 11:1
And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
The rod is referring to a messianic figure in the context, and jesse is the father of david, therefore of the line of david.
Jeremiah 23:5
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
This verse is more explicit saying that the messiah will be of david as well.
So now let's get into why jesus is descendent of david, since this is a internal critique I will be using bibical answers.
Let's look at Jesus's birth "parent's" Mary, and the holy spirit. We know Mary is married to Joseph (Matthew 1:24) which would make marry of david as well under jewish law (Genesis 2:24) since they became "one flesh" from marriage.
Let's establish joseph is of david as well (matthew 1:1-16)
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, 4 and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David.And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph,[d] 8 and Asaph[e] the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos,[f] and Amos[g] the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, who bore Jesus, who is called the Messiah.[h]
Explicitly says jesus is son of david, the jews understood this as well (Matthew 22:41–42)
41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42 “What do you think of the Messiah?[a] Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.”
I think we can conclude from the bible that jesus is son of david, even if joseph's sperm wasn't the one that made jesus, since marry is of david from marriage.
edit: Should be noted jesus would be son of joseph under law as well, meaning he is indeed of david.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have repeatedly explained many times on this forum and to you very recently that I am more than content to discuss, question and criticize the scriptures right here on the open forum. Where members can see , read, judge ,comment on or refute anything that I have written. You don't have to join my threads and neither does anyone else. Sending me offers to debate is a waste of your time and my own. Especially offers of debate that you have simply lifted from other web pages.
I prefer to debate on the debates section, it's more personal, formal, and less time consuming. You don't have to accept the debate, im completely fine with that, just don't call someone a runner because they don't want to debate your way, that is simple human decency. (I know you haven't said anything like that, so that's not at you rather it's at brother d)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
here is the debate challenge I sent you https://i.imgur.com/oWBqQPf.png feel free to accept.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I sent you a debate request, you denied it because you didnt want people to vote on it. I really dont care if you want to debate, I don't consider it running to simply decline a debate, but it is childish to say someone is running after you declined a debate.
Here's the receipts that I sent him a debate challenge https://i.imgur.com/oWBqQPf.png
Created:
-->
@FLRW
There is no direct empirical or archaeological evidence to support the claim that Joseph Smith, Jr. found actual gold plates as described in the founding narrative of the Mormon faith. The existence of the gold plates is primarily a matter of faith for believers in Mormonism. While some witnesses at the time reported seeing the plates, these accounts are often considered subjective and have not been independently verified. We can make a naturalistic theory to this, and say he lied and still meet the criteria for the explanation. Of course my theory could be wrong, and ill admit it is if further evidence is shown.
My main critique was that there is no naturalistic theory that can explain the origin of the christian belief (origin meaning the belief in the resurrection, the spread of it, the enemies that were converted, etc.) but mormonism has a explanation, a natural one at that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think it isnt a minority opinion that the apostles were genuine in their belief (atleast that some of them were), ehrman even accepts that some saw genuine visions, although he says some didnt. Of course there are theories to explain a genuine belief like the swooning theory, the hallucination theory, etc. But I think these theories majorly fail.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well im going hunting tomorrow so feel free to curse me with artemis, I dont see a reason for her to exist, so im not afraid.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Again I havent seen any real good reason to believe Artemis was real, I am unconvinced, convince me.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont even see a real reason to believe Artemis was real either. So I conclude I have no reason to believe any of these beings even existed.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Well how munch later do you think it was created? 30 years? 40? 50? less than that?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Was it made up by the apostles, or did people make it up in the apostles names?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont see any real good reason to even believe those beings existed.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
So I want to expand on your theory, Are you saying early christians lied about the resurrection, or were they genuine in their belief, or did they just make it up years later?
Created:
There are many naturalistic theories to explain why the disciples came to believe/claim the resurrection happened, like the conspiracy theory says they merely lied, or the hallucination theory says they hallucinated it, etc. I am unconvinced that these theories can explain the origin of the christian belief, so convince me.
Created:
Posted in:
If you haven't worked it out Brother D. It the only way The Reverend Tradesecret can communicate with either you or myself after "permanently" blocking us both. We have both shown him to be a bible ignorant clown even with all his alleged theological training in everything from ancient languages to presiding over a congregation of 300 + worshipers and lets not forget his acclaimed miraculous capacity of being able to memorise the bible backward and forward from a very early age.
I havent seen a good reason to believe the bible is ignorant, if you want to debate I will send a debate offer to you as well.
The reason he will only discuss in the debate forum is simply because there is less likely chance of the wider members of the forum getting to see what a complete and utter bible cretin he really is.
I dont think ive made a bad claim on the bible, ive merely represented the case of the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Your the one that replied to me, if you want to stop clogging up stephens thread accept my debate challenge.
And I think ive shown to the membership that im not running, your merely being stubborn and not accepting a debate challenge.
Created:
Yikes.
Disturbing am I right? Well how do you think God feels when he sees our sins? I think he's equally as disturbed, blood is needed to forgive sins.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You do realize christians dont follow the laws of the old testaments right? Those are the jews. Christian law never calls for a sacrifice, Jesus is considered the sacrifice
Created:
Posted in:
When Seth Brown gets 25 posts, and then creates a thread regarding his misguided notion of Jesus is from the linage of David through His mother of Mary, he better not be running away when I Bible Slap him Silly®️ on this topic!!!
I won't be creating a thread, I sent you a debate challenge, feel free to accept it whenever
He is a RUNNER just like Miss Tradesecret, hmmmmm, same syntactical sentence structuring, same Bible dumbness, hmmmmmm.
Okay, I really dont care if you call someone a runner, ive had the decency to respect your wishes to not debate, but you must recognize the hypocrisy. Im not really sure what im running from either.
Created:
Boutta start a war with this one, if anyone wishes we could have a full debate over this.
One of the ways I reconcile the existence of god is to show the rationality of the resurrection (Note the difference between rational & 100% truth, I dont live my life on 100% truths)
I simply cannot explain the events surrounding the resurrection without reference to the resurrection, the claims that were made & the enemies that converted to christianity, I can't explain those happening with the 3 main theories represented (laymen represent them at least, it's important to note that professional scholars present a mixture of theories, although I find all the theories ive seen unfulfilling) by atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting thought. I can't think of a reason why Adam would have needed a belly button if he was just created. Perhaps so he could fit in with the rest of the people. But is it a point of discussion with atheists who mock God on every level?
It is kinda odd, ill admit to that. It's possible they wouldnt have belly buttons, but I don't see them being created from dust follows they didn't have belly button rings. I dont see why it quite matters to brother D.
Another interesting thought. The "We" in Genesis might be referring to God and his angels. Some theologians take that view, along similar lines to the beginning of the book of Job. It may be referring to the Trinity of course.
I personally think it's referring to the trinity, since the creation account talks nothing of the angels helping (although perhaps im begging the question by assuming this verse doesnt say that) but I wouldnt necessarily eliminate the other view, you can find the trinity elsewhere in the old testaments.
The word Elohim in Hebrew is plural. So either god or gods. The ribs thing is a bit of a red herring though, isn't it? A distraction. The point is - God initiated here at the beginning of the world, a death and a resurrection at which the end - new life came about. True Adam didn't really die. But he went into a deep sleep. And the rose from that deep sleep. A bit like Jonah in the fish, Daniel in the Lion's den and Joseph in the pit. And Isaac on the mountain when Abraham was commanded to kill him. All are pictures of Christ. The true resurrection.
The rib thing was interesting to bring up in the middle of the comment, didn't quite understand the point he was making.
Agreed. But I would extend that further. He doesn't have much understanding of anything.
I find it interesting, I challenged him to a debate since he claimed he was gonna "Bible slap me silly (with a trade mark symbol oddly)" but he doesnt seem to want to do it, wont fault him for it, just odd.
Created:
Posted in:
" whom I created,” then goes on to state "for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth". His way ie, gods way.
I dont think thats what the verse is saying, by "His way" it's referring to the people's way. Genesis 6:12 says "And God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth." the Hebrew shows it doesn't say "their" or "His" (this is common for sematic languages, we infer based off of what it says already)so its not necessarily inferring god's way. Looking at the translations it seems as if only 4 bibles translate it to "his", so im assuming you looked at the kjv (one of the versions that say that).
Ok so when god said let us make man, to whom was he talking?
Could be referring to the trinity, the Jews say its referring to angels though, although that's not a view I hold.
You love your circular arguments, don't you. God admits to creating everything including Evil.
He created the beings of the earth & the universe, when a man creates a table, I dont think god created that table, same way when a man does something evil, I dont think god created that action.
The bile says we are created in their image. So man's sinful nature had its origins with god.
We were created in their image, but we fall short of that glory (romans 3:23) eve & Adam weren't born with a sinful nature.
Which verse?
Colossians 1:16, I dont think god created a table, when a carpenter makes one. Obviously not, analogously when someone shoots someone I dont think god shoots that person.
Of course you do. You simply want to dissolve god of any blame for the sinful nature of his sons and humans.
I dont think this debunks my claim at all, god created mankind in his image (it's likely angels were as well, although bible doesn't explicitly state it to my knowledge) therefore sinless (I havent seen a good reason to believe god's image is sinful)
Irrelevant. This does not get away from the fact that god created evil, weather or not one chooses to be or practice evil.
The concept of "natural evil" saying that things in creation aren't evil just because they can be bad for humans. And I don't think god created only Adam & eve, I think adam & eve were merely the 1st priests (genesis 1 tells us he created humans then genesis 2 tells us he created adam, then eve) as we know god is good, so god would've picked the best representatives for us.
You have already admitted that god created everything visible and invisible/ seen and unseen when you quoted Colossians 1:16 and there is also gods own admission that he created evil in Isaiah.>> "I make peace, and create evil".
When I make a chair, does god make a chair?
To address Isaiah, its simply expressing how you cant have one and cant have the other, We know what light is, and darkness is merely the absence of light. Once light exists, darkness also exists wherever light isn't. Therefore, by creating light, he created darkness. Analogously, god by creating goodness created the standard for what's bad. Surely its not a bad thing to consequently create the standard for bad by creating a standard for good.
Stop it. The verse is in context and clearly refers to anything, including evil has gods fingerprints all over it.
Go read the context, it's making parallel's. And again do you think god cant be good while still causing things that seem "bad" to us? Even if we grant your premise, which I still disagree with, maybe I cant tell you why, but I can show you it's not necessarily contradictory.
Premise 1: It's not logically contradictory for a good end to come from a bad mean
For example vaccination, it's a good thing but that needle shot causes pain, which is bad.
Conclusion 1: There is a possible world where a good thing can come from a bad thing
Follows logically through modal logic, from premise 1
Given it's not logically contradictory, then god isnt necessarily evil.
And that old chestnut of "free will" is a very poor excuse for the fact that it was god and god alone had created evil. Mankind didn't inherit sin simply by virtue of having mothers , mankind inherited sin from his creator, god himself. Read your bible.
Me and you must be reading different bibles.
Created:
Posted in:
The issue is that I had already shown you twice "the reasoning" from the bible and the mouth of god, if the BIBLE is to be believed. And you do believe the bible don't you?
Yes, and I havent seen god say he has a sinful nature.
There is nothing wrong or "vague" about the title "son/s of god". And as for "vagueness" the BIBLE is "vague" about many things. It is certainly not a "crystal clear" as some here insist on it being. It is ambiguous and full of half stories and evasiveness .
No, the son/s of god is rather vague, it could refer to alot of different things. Jesus, humans, angels, etc.
Where did the ability for the sons of god to sin come from?
God gave them free will, that also gave them the ability to do good.
Oh please, stop with the apologetics. GOD! himself admits to being the creator evil. Read your bible.
He created the possibility for good & the possibility for evil, that is far divorced from just creating evil, adam & eve created evil, god merely created the possibility for good & as a side effect, evil.
Nice, " all things seen and unseen" and that includes Evil and not just the "Possibility" of evil as you have attempted to water down and relieve god of any blame.
In the context the verse is referring to objects & creatures, etc. Evil isnt really a thing, instead a absence of a thing (good) so it'd be absurd to think god created it, when a human builds a table, I dont think god created that table, similarly when a human/angel does something evil I think that human/angel did something evil, not god.
Well of course they ALL do. Haven't you taken in what I have written above. Why would god create only some with a sinful nature and not all?
Oh I disagree with that, I think god created them with free will, and their pride is what caused them to sin & therefore a sinful nature.
Your are simply once again attempting to relieve your god of any responsibility for the creation of evil. You have to accept it, the GOD of the BIBLE admits to creating EVIL. You really aught to read your bible a little closer if you seriously intend to discuss scripture.
Show me the verse where god says he created evil, there is not one.
I quote the prophet native of Tekoa "shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it"?
Taking it slightly out of context, in context the verse will evil happen in a city without having its sufficient cause in Jehovah’s purpose? That's how most scholars interpret it. Sorta plays back into job.
Created:
Posted in:
. "lets look"? Even though I have shown you in the very next line of my comment.
Yes, I was saying lets look at your reasoning? What's the issue with that?
Yes, also known as the sons of god. Or didn't you know that?Angel simply means messenger.
Sons of god is kinda a vague name to call them, although not necessarily wrong. Could also refer to humans who are redeemed.
Why not? They were first to sin. If they didn't have a sinful nature then where did their ability to sin come from?
Their ability to sin came from god, but we must specify, creating the possibility of evil is very different from creating evil, say a doctor when he vaccinates a kid, he created the possibility for good, but also the possibility for blood clots, rare allergic reactions, heart problems, etc. Now if that shot did result in a blood clot, or allergic reactions, certainly that doctor wouldnt be in the wrong, that's simply a risk that could happen, the doctor created the possibility for bad as well. I think God in a way created the possibility for good, and the possibility for bad, I dont think that makes god bad the same way it doesnt make the doctor bad.
The bible doesn't mention god created angels period!.
I think Colossians 1:16 heavily alludes to god creating angels.
Well of course I am. The sons of god disobeyed and sinned against him in the first instance. There by they must have had a sinful nature to begin with as I have explained to you already.
Im not disagreeing with you, the angels can have a sinful nature (not to say all of them do)
So if every man "born of women" did "inherit sin" from Eve "the mother of all living" then it came from only one place; god. Who also admits to creating evil.
I think this is actually really relevant to what I said earlier, he created the possibility for evil, as well as the possibility for good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Doesn't God by his own admission have a sinful nature.
I haven't seen a reason to believe that, but sure lets look.
Then, why should it be thought necessary for all men to be born with a sinful nature to account for their sins?
To say it's necessary is to say it couldnt of been any other way, and obviously it could've been another way, it's not logically contradictory for someone to not have a sinful nature. The Christian belief as to why all are born with a sinful nature is because of eve's sin, it was spread like a gene (although not a literal gene of course) there's more to it as well, its very likely adam & eve werent actually the only humans, so its likely the other ones sinned as well
Were not the son's of god created first?
are you referring to angels here?
It is the firm belief of Christians and the Christian Church that the son's of god "fell" i.e. sinned; the bible is riddled with verses telling us this, 2 Peter being just one. But the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests can never face up to - going by their own beliefs - that the son's of god too must have had been created /born with the same sinful nature.
I dont think it would follow they are necessarily created with a sinful nature (I see no reason to believe they were born), adam & eve were created in god's image (The Bible never refers to angels being made in the image of God, although many theologian friends of mine believe its very likely they were as well) and since they were made in god's image they don't have an sinful nature, at least not at that moment, but you see god also gave them free will, which gave them the option to make that sinful choice which eventually lead to the fall.
They -the Pastors, Chaplains and Priests - will ignore the clear biblical fact that it was only after the son's of god sinned, that Eve is said to have sinned and not before, while also ignoring the what we have and are, all comes from god according to their very own ideology!
I think your right in saying the priests, chaplains are wrong for saying eve was the 1st sin, and not all we have comes from god, alot of it I believe is self caused through free-will or other means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think dust is just representing some non-important or minuscule, maybe a single cell organism like evolution states but the Bible doesn’t make it clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He doesn’t seem too keen, more just a “mocker” to be honest, thanks for the welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Regarding that last comment I’d love to see a genealogy, I don’t think it being 1,000 years out would necessarily make it nuanced or anything, if your doing an internal critique you’d also have to accept that, as to how the record was obtained, I am unaware, most scholars think the gospels drew upon another source that either didn’t survive or hasn’t been found yet. Jesus could’ve known it through the Father, his (non-biological) father Joseph could’ve told him, tons of possibilities.
And the 2 flesh become 1 isn’t mumbo jumbo, you need to take into context for the “flesh of David”
Sadly brother d hasn’t responded to my debate request
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that would imply god (as in the father or/& the holy spirit) created the son which they didnt, its a curious question because the virgin birth is not discussed in detail.
Jesus was also of Mary though, & mary is of david since she was married to joseph (Joseph is directly from david, if your curious read the genealogies) and since they were married their "flesh" became one
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Apologies for clogging up your thread, I’ll move to a debate with brother Thomas
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Barring that you didn’t use the word “the” instead of “an” in your Bible stupid misguided quote above, you therefore agreed that Jesus was the messiah in your statement, understand the English language? Huh?
I made a grammatical error, that does not dismiss the fact that you said Jesus was not from the line of David when the Bible in the 1st few verses says he is.
Most certainly, and I have forgotten more than you will EVER LEARN from the Bible in your entire lifetime Bible fool!
You either forgot the genealogy or skipped over it, I’m betting the later
Now, to not clog up Stephens thread with another topic of your comical assumption that Jesus is from the line of David, then you are to create a new thread about Jesus being the messiah in this respect, where I will literally Bible Slap you Silly®️ in front of the membership at your expense upon this topic! UNDERSTOOD?
Well I can’t make threads, given I haven’t made 25 posts, but I did dm you challenging you to an debate over it, dm me back and we will work out the details.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
NO! Neither Adam or Eve could have a belly button because Adam was made from earthly dust
I don’t think Adam was created literally from dust, even if he was how does it follow he couldn’t have a belly button?
by my serial killer Jesus as God ( Genesis 2:19)
Not necessarily true, “we” could be referring to god & the angels, not necessarily the trinity (although I think it does) ns where you got serial killer from either
and Eve was made from ONE, I repeat, ONE of Adams ribs, therefore Adam should have had only 11 ribs
Umm, I don’t think so. Every human has 24 ribs in total, so he’d have 23.
and this godly gene should have been passed on to his children, but as shown, it didn't because men have 12 ribs just like the 2nd class woman Eve!
How does it follow the “god gene” (which it isn’t even a gene more of a essence) should’ve been passed down? And why does Adam having 23 ribs show he doesn’t have the “gene”, I agree he doesn’t but that’s poor reasoning
Therefore, with the biblical axioms portrayed above, it is truly embarrassing to see fine artists depict Adam and Eve with navels as shown in this ungodly painting herewith which is BLASPHEME:
I don’t think you understand what blasphemy is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Adamantly within the scriptures, Jesus is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and a malevolent. I accept the aforementioned true description of Jesus within the Bible, and I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away, understood Bible fool?
I’d like to see reasonings for all of these, and don’t run away, provide the verses & context.
Created:
-->
@linate
Would you define omnipotence? It means the ability to do anything but does it appeal to the laws of logic or no? (Meaning could god do something illogical, like making a round square)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Im sorry to hear about that, its odd why an all loving god would take people away from us, or even allow evil in general. But I don't think he does things for no reason, don't you think it'd be horrible if people had to live in their sins forever? That is the reason god drove us out of the garden, it would be far better to be in heaven than to live in our sins.
Now this wouldnt answer the question of evil, if your curious for my answer for that I don't mind going into details about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
This doesn't really contribute anything to the form, ngl.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Dont get the wrong idea, I dont think Jesus fulfilled the people's expectations of the messiah, that's part of what got him killed, but he is indeed from the line of david
even if he wasnt the evidence behind the resurrection would be yahweh's public vindication's of the man who was rejected as a blasphemer.
Created: