hmmmn. as i recall, jesus never said anything that somebody else didn't have to write down for him. you don't like the pauline theology, apparently. on what evidence are you basing your assertion that all the "jesus" quotes in scripture are more correct, must refer to future christianity, and must never refer to the judaism of those around him? do you have any evidence? or is it just your opinion?
Yep, you’re right in that, so again, why think any of it is right? But, if we do go with the bible, which you at least seem to think some of it is correct, I have supported my point. I don’t like the Pauline or Jesusine or any other theology since they are one as flawed as the next.
I find it curious that you are asking why I find the jesus quotes more correct. I don’t, but gee, Christians certainly do (at least the convenient ones; Paul’s sayings take precedence when JC says something inconvenient). We have JC saying that all who follow him are to follow the laws. Not just some, not that gentiles will get the get out jail card to ignore the laws since they have “grace”. The evidence I have is the bible itself. What it says in words. I apply no “interpretation”. I do not decide that “all” doesn’t really mean “all”, when there is nothing to support that claim.
i provided a series of quotes for you from jesus himself explaining that his purpose was to fulfill the law and the prophets. your response to evidence that refutes your argument is telling:
I see you ignored my actual arguments. I skipped the actual verses, but I did address them. You claim you *knew* I was wrong, but again, nothing to support that claim other than your opinion.
I pointed out that your claims from Luke aren’t followed through in the other gospels. Always a good bit when even the gospels don’t agree. I’m not wrong. You pick and choose what you like from the bible, like any Christian. Luke fails in claims of prophecies being fulfilled, as you noted is a Christian claim that he did fulfill them. And it seems that you want evidence that JC didn’t fulfill what the OT prophecied. Okay, well, since there are Jews, that’s a rather good indication. Second, they have a lovely website that shows why they find JC to be a false messiah, and list the prophecies unfulfilled: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=431&Itemid=477
Now, I thought you might have actually read the bible yourself, and already knew some of this. My apologies.
um, yes. did you miss this verse i provided? the red stuff means jesus supposedly said it himself, by the way.
Oh yes, I know it is. But I see nothing saying that the law is indeed finished since it’s still to be followed and I do see the other gospels not supporting such a set of last words.
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. jesus said the law and the prophets were over when john began his ministry. but like every christian in history, i don't restrict christianity to the words of christ, so here are two more;
hmmm, really? Matthew 5, which says that the law in place until the earth passes. Seems it’s still right here. And the rest of your verse?
11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.
I see nothing that says the law ended when Joh began his ministry. I see that the “violent” raided the law and the prophets, to do with them what they would. We have that the law is still worthy and to be followed in the new kingdom
Matthew 13: 52 He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.”
and I know you pick and choose whatever source you want to support your opinions about what this god of yours really wants. No surprise there at all.
Yep, Paul makes the claims that grace is all that’s important. So? JC didn’t mention grace once and there were certainly a lot of gentiles then. JC also said watch out for those who claim to speak for me. Seems that Paul is pretty exactly what he warned about.
this is news? not to me, i'm afraid.
I’m sure it’s not “news”. I didn’t ask that, I asked why there is such a difference?
I cite the bible and then I point out how Christians claim all sorts of differing and conflicting things about it. It is not me that says something is “unchristian”, it is the Christians. I point out that the bible is a mess and ask why people try to defend such primitive ridiculousness. I’m guessing that’s why you “don’t get it” since you seem to think your version is the only right one and assume I should agree and join you in ignoring the parts you don’t like and accepting the parts you do. You claim that you are a not an inerrantist, but you do claim that some parts are indeed true even with not a shred of evidence. It matters not to me how much of the bible you accept since each Christian has a different answer for that. I find it funny that you think I can’t accept that the bible has errors. I know it does. That’s just about all it has. And ah, the excuse that different writers “considered different things more important” as why there are completely different stories about this god/man. We have a calm JC in one and a distraught in the other. We have Gesthemane, JC sweating blood, in one and in John, JC’s just waiting around not concerned about being cruxified at all. Yep, the authors may have had different things in mind, but they certainly didn’t have the same character or the same story. It shows me that the claims in the bible aren’t true at all.
It is Christianity’s problem since some Christians think the bible is inerrant. I know, shocker that Christians have a Christainity that disagrees with your version. I love how you want to claim I have a private version of Christianity all my own when that’s all theists have. I just have a poorly written bundle of stories that I’ve actually read. And oh, that I intend on this to have a Christianity that’s “better” than others so I can judge Christians. Sorry, no, I can leave that up to all of you to do to each other.
he did mean exactly what he said, and i gave you plenty of evidence that you chose not to discuss. can't help it if you prefer your own christianity to what christians actually believe, velkyn. and you're already way behind on the evidence aspect, so i won't ask you to back up your own assertions here.
Oh, I did discuss it and showed how it was in error. But ignore it if you want, your prerogative. I was a Christian and I known what I actually believed and what other Christians actually believe and I know that it often has little to do with each other. Your claims of some magical unity are not born out by facts. And do you want evidence of this too? How Christians can’t agree on what really gets one saved? Grace? Works? Belief? Childbirth (for women)? I know even Quakers can’t agree, the wiki entry shows your various “branches”. At one point they didn’t even agree on the aspects of the god, spirit, man/god nonsense. Killing and persecuting went a long way to get “agreement” on that.
more assertions, velkyn, again with no evidence. if you know christianity so well it's beyond me why you have it so backwards. you've got some personal view about a christianity that you've made up and don't like, or maybe you didn't like christianity first, so you made something up that was easier to disagree with. i don't know, but either way your understanding of the christianity that christians believe is limited. i can't help you with that. christianity is not defined by proof texts from the gospels, nor from the epistles, nor the pastorals, nor the apocrypha, nor the deuterocanon, nor the pseudipigrapha, no matter how much you'd like it to be. it's also not defined by your own personal decisions about christian theology. you can speak for yourself, any time, but you've got plain vanilla christianity backasswards in a number of places.
Why yes, more assertions and backed up too! You again claim that I have Christianity “wrong” or “backwards” in someway. However, I can point to Christians that agree with what I’m seeing in the bible. It might not agree with your version but until I can see you do the miracles that your god promised his followers could do, I have no more reason to think your assertions that I have Christianity somehow wrong are right at all. All I can see is that I’m not the only person who reads what I read. Again, you make up strawmen to attack with your baseless claims about me. I’m curious on how I can be so wrong about Christianity when you yourself claim that you can’t define it. Damn, how does that work? Not knowing what you are talking about but being sure that everyone else is wrong and you are right.
That “old book” as you now refer to your bible is the basis of Christianity. Your sect may have decided that it knew better,as did the RCC and the Protestants but you are all pissing in the wind.
when did you become the arbiter of what it was that defines the christianity you don't believe in, velkyn? when did you become authorized to determine what was, and was not, the correct foundations of christian theology, faith, and practice? when you decided not to believe it? doesn't that strike you as odd?
Gee, when did you become the same thing you are accusing me of trying to be? I was a Christian, so I have a modicum of knowledge in the area. But I agree, even then I was just a Christan among many who again haven’t a clue what they are talking about, all yammering that they have the “truth” and telling me that I’m somehow “wrong”.
And nice attempt to claim that my claims are less defined by reason evidence and knowledge than by emotional and aesthetic dislike. Baseless as usual. And no, you souldn’t be surprised by your own actions at all. As for Quakers, you claim that they aren’t typical. Oh really? The religion, based on Christianity, already split into sects. You all are sure that your version is the best. You want a god but that god has to agree with you. This is what I get from the wiki entry on Quakers. Is that article correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers#Branches_of_Quakerism
Seems well referenced. Lots of bible belief seems to be going on in all of the branches. Are you something not referenced? I’ll ask you again, do you consider yourself a follower of Jesus Christ?