Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.
Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.
Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.
Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?
There was no historical Jesus
So you’re a science denier. I don’t know if Jesus is just a man without relationship with a God or more than that, or even if a God exists. But denying the historicity of Jesus is like saying we don’t walked on the Moon.
Christianity has always been a fascist faith.
Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.
Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.
No. Your Jesus is clear that the law has to be followed when it came to most things, especially the sexual laws which he said didn’t go far enough. Most likely this was an attempt by the author to undo the smack Mark has written about James. So he made Jesus take a deeds vs faith and did it with a Paul alignment, invoking sex.
Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?
He saves the kid only AFTER the woman begs at his feet and calls herself a racial slur. You are found of fucking lying aren’t you?
so you’re a science denier.
Present your evidence.
Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.
Just because a religion has a good people in it doesn’t mean the religion is good.
You mix up “justification” and “interpretation”. The Bible wasn’t written by a 21st century American you know… for example that Matthew 10 is about the persecutions is well known by every serious historian, but you don’t care about history. You just care about your hatred for Christianity. It’s your right, but it’s not very interesting yo discuss in these conditions.
What it says must be interpreted in the light of what historians said about the context of the writing. Jesus didn’t wrote the Gospels. Do you think you know better than historians?
Same with Jesus? All serious historians, both religious and atheists, agree on the existence of Jesus. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud). If you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.
If you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.
You might be able to get a refund on whatever class you took on debate, just a fyi. In any case it isn’t even a question of what I think the context was the question is what the text actually says. If the text endorses fascism it endorses fascism. The fact that you can lie about the history and say that it was okay at the time written changes nothing. It still led to the horrors Christianity unleashed.
Same with Jesus? All serious historians
No true Scotsmen logical fallacy combined with posioning the well logical fallacy
both religious and atheists,
Not relevant. Truth is truth and doesn’t depend on personal belief.
. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus,
Proof of attestation is proof that of attestation not proof that it is true. There have been way more than 19 Batman comics lines. That doesn’t give you Bruce Wayne.
, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud
Josphius: wrote his book 4 decades after supposed events and the two passages are known frauds.
Tactius wrote even later and was repeating what a group called the Christus (not Christians) told him.
The remainder are all the same except the Talmud mentions which was 3 whole centuries later and talks about a Messiah figure of the 1st century BCE and was no doubt written in response to Christianity.
Not a single contemporary of Jesus recorded him. A man with a large following in an urban area, for supposedly 2.5 years, in a civilization actively documenting religions and they are all silent. And amazingly not a single secular historian notes this huge James community for 40 years.
you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.
Nope. You accuse Jesus of existing you prove your Messiah existed. I won’t let you shift the burden of proof. Another logical fallacy.
you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.
Science isn’t history and your personal attacks are a pointless waste of time.
Look, why don’t you actually read your book, learn the languages it was written in, and study this a bit instead of wasting my time and yours quoting whatever random blog you are quickly searching? I don’t believe for a second you knew who Celsius was or said and yet you feel confident enough to copy and paste him in the list. Get back to me when you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Konic Greek.
Edit: oh sorry I missed another logical fallacy you made. Argument from adverse consequence s. The whole idea that since an atheist historian says Jesus exists he Jesus must have existed. I will endeavor to be better at pointing out the flaws in your “argument” next time.
History is a science, it’s my formation (I actually worked on some people I cited), and you don’t answer to scientific arguments with YouTube rhetorics. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.
History is not a science and if you understood how science works you would know to stop invoking authority and present your evidence.
. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.
I see. So not able to prove your point you now claim you don’t have too. Man, if your Messiah existed he must really hated you, leaving you no evidence of his existence like this. Good thing he is as fictional as Batman.
I lost enough time with you.
You will lose more praying to a non-existent being this Sunday, if it makes you feel any better.
Typical Christian, can’t even be bothered to learn the language(s) of his holy book. Let alone read it in even once in their native tongue.
Matthew 10 is not about what Jesus desired, but about the persecutions.
Matthew 8 is a parabola, not meant to be taken literally.
Matthew 5:18 is followed by Matthew 5:19-48 when Jesus change the law. The teaching is clear, especially when compared to the actions of Jesus: what should be followed is the spirit of the law, not its letter. And that’s valid for the letter of Jesus’ commandments themselves.
Matthew 15:24 is followed Matthew 15:28, where he does save the Canaanite’s daughter. Jesus changes his mind in this text. You’re fond of cherry picking, aren’t you?
So you’re a science denier. I don’t know if Jesus is just a man without relationship with a God or more than that, or even if a God exists. But denying the historicity of Jesus is like saying we don’t walked on the Moon.
Say that to MLK, William Wilberforce, Dorothy Day, or the Lübeck martyrs.
This is a very bad analogy.
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
Doesn’t say that. Post hoc justification on your part
No. Your Jesus is clear that the law has to be followed when it came to most things, especially the sexual laws which he said didn’t go far enough. Most likely this was an attempt by the author to undo the smack Mark has written about James. So he made Jesus take a deeds vs faith and did it with a Paul alignment, invoking sex.
He saves the kid only AFTER the woman begs at his feet and calls herself a racial slur. You are found of fucking lying aren’t you?
Present your evidence.
Just because a religion has a good people in it doesn’t mean the religion is good.
So was your moon landing analogy
You mix up “justification” and “interpretation”. The Bible wasn’t written by a 21st century American you know… for example that Matthew 10 is about the persecutions is well known by every serious historian, but you don’t care about history. You just care about your hatred for Christianity. It’s your right, but it’s not very interesting yo discuss in these conditions.
No. The passage is to be read based on what it says not based on what you decided it means 19 centuries later.
Why can’t you produce evidence that your boy existed?
What it says must be interpreted in the light of what historians said about the context of the writing. Jesus didn’t wrote the Gospels. Do you think you know better than historians?
Same with Jesus? All serious historians, both religious and atheists, agree on the existence of Jesus. 19 texts from high Antiquity speak about Jesus, 9 between then weren’t written by Christians (Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Galen, Mara bar Serapion, Celsus, and the Babylonian Talmud). If you think it’s not enough, please prove me the existence of Julius Caesar.
If you reject the conclusions of the scientific community, you’re no better than a conspiracy theorist.
Argument from authority logical fallacy
You might be able to get a refund on whatever class you took on debate, just a fyi. In any case it isn’t even a question of what I think the context was the question is what the text actually says. If the text endorses fascism it endorses fascism. The fact that you can lie about the history and say that it was okay at the time written changes nothing. It still led to the horrors Christianity unleashed.
No true Scotsmen logical fallacy combined with posioning the well logical fallacy
Not relevant. Truth is truth and doesn’t depend on personal belief.
Proof of attestation is proof that of attestation not proof that it is true. There have been way more than 19 Batman comics lines. That doesn’t give you Bruce Wayne.
Josphius: wrote his book 4 decades after supposed events and the two passages are known frauds.
Tactius wrote even later and was repeating what a group called the Christus (not Christians) told him.
The remainder are all the same except the Talmud mentions which was 3 whole centuries later and talks about a Messiah figure of the 1st century BCE and was no doubt written in response to Christianity.
Not a single contemporary of Jesus recorded him. A man with a large following in an urban area, for supposedly 2.5 years, in a civilization actively documenting religions and they are all silent. And amazingly not a single secular historian notes this huge James community for 40 years.
Nope. You accuse Jesus of existing you prove your Messiah existed. I won’t let you shift the burden of proof. Another logical fallacy.
Science isn’t history and your personal attacks are a pointless waste of time.
Look, why don’t you actually read your book, learn the languages it was written in, and study this a bit instead of wasting my time and yours quoting whatever random blog you are quickly searching? I don’t believe for a second you knew who Celsius was or said and yet you feel confident enough to copy and paste him in the list. Get back to me when you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew and Konic Greek.
Edit: oh sorry I missed another logical fallacy you made. Argument from adverse consequence s. The whole idea that since an atheist historian says Jesus exists he Jesus must have existed. I will endeavor to be better at pointing out the flaws in your “argument” next time.
History is a science, it’s my formation (I actually worked on some people I cited), and you don’t answer to scientific arguments with YouTube rhetorics. It’s perfectly normal for a man for Antiquity not to be recorded in texts from his lifetime.
I lost enough time with you.
History is not a science and if you understood how science works you would know to stop invoking authority and present your evidence.
I see. So not able to prove your point you now claim you don’t have too. Man, if your Messiah existed he must really hated you, leaving you no evidence of his existence like this. Good thing he is as fictional as Batman.
You will lose more praying to a non-existent being this Sunday, if it makes you feel any better.
Typical Christian, can’t even be bothered to learn the language(s) of his holy book. Let alone read it in even once in their native tongue.