Then again, he did say "there is no man nor woman, no Roman or Jew, for all are one people under God".
So maybe preaching to the non-jews wasn't just Saul's idea.
Or maybe the Bible was a compilation of different accounts from different adherents of different forms of Christianity with different biases and different levels of consideration for the truth living in different locations at different times in history surrounding did by different environmental environmental influences and written down after being passed down for multiple generations by word alone by illiterate and uneducated people who were credulous or skeptical on a basis that would seem arbitrary from our perspective.
The books pf the disciples were not written by them, the accounts may not have come from them, and some of those disciples may have not even existed in reality.
The Bible is far from trustworthy or reliable, and it was not intended to be read by most Christians, it was intended to be selectively quoted to them by a priesthood who acted as a political and legal authority over the unwashed Christian masses, and those priests would not treat the Bible as the sole scripture of Christianity, but would also study and refer to the other texts of the Christian Canon as well.
I don't really know much about what I'm talking about here. Hope your replies could fill me in.
Man did you interpret that wrong. He told the Samarian woman that he had come for the lost sheep of Israel. She and the jews understood he was talking about the Northern Kingdom of the 10 lost tribes, not the jews which comprised of the tribes of Levi, Benjamin and Judah. They were not lost, they were the southern kingdom and they were there. The 10 lost tribes had been exiled in 700BC by the Assyrians. If Christ is the Messiah and he is not fallible then he understood were his message would take, Look around you, those that accepted Christianity are of the lost tribes.
He doesn't know what he's talking about either. Never trust some random person on a forum for exegesis. Especially on a web site full of Christ hating jewish subverts like voat.
The atheist channels I used to watch back in the 90s were all of the more biblically scholastic sort, focusing on some biblical passages and it's multiple translations and interpretations, particularly within the context provided by the book.
Some of the Christians would come on and use their own headcanon to argue why the Bible doesn't say what it does, and all of them would accuse us of reading things into the Bible from the outside, even after they themselves had done such a thing, and even when they had never mentioned how we were reading things into the Bible from the outside of it, they just made their accusations vaguely and refused to specify their charges.
Well, you're probably thinking of heretical Christians because there are tons of those. Protestants hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura which means scripture alone. Because of this they have as many bible interpretations as protestants. That's why there are thousands of protestant sects and counting, but the bible didn't fall from heaven. It was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church who is the sole authority on its interpretation. Obviously today, what people assume to be the Roman Catholic Church is not actually the Church but a counterfeit church filled with heretics and apostates hence all the insanity coming out of Rome for the past 50 years. That's another topic.
[ - ] yesiknow 1 point 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 19:14:58 ago (+1/-0)
They weren't "illiterate and stupid people". They knew the world and all material was made of atoms. They'd known it for 300 years.
Imagine thinking all knowledge comes only from the written word.
The classical thinkers wrote, but they held symposiums and taught and had seminars. People weren't sitting around watching stupid fucking TV shows and talking about stupid fucking TV shows or banging internet keyboard apps.
Did I day they were stupid? I meant ignorant. But yes, they were as informed as it was possible for them to be, and probably not that much less intelligent than we are now, there'd very likely be those among them whose mental ability could blow ours out of the water by comparison. However, they were restricted by various factors apart from intelligence, as far as critical thinking goes, they'd probably be on par with us, skeptical on some things, credulous on others, and unwavering on others. NPC phenomenon was always with us, its just now that the problem's existence is most visible and the dangers most apparent. As well, I'm quite familiar with how great the minds of ancient thinkers were, the practices of philosophy and science have been with mankind for as long as we've been human, and then some, as it dates back to our pre-human ancestors.
I approach the problem thusly. Do you believe there is a higher Divine Being or God? If you do, then do you believe the Bible is his Testimony? If you don't believe in a deity, or if you do, but dont believe the Bible is his Word, then nothing in the book makes sense to you and can be dismissed out of hand.
If you do, however, then it is a MUCH smaller matter of Faith to believe the Bible is his inerrant Word and a Divine Being is CERTAINLY capable of using men to write his Word and make the collected text infallible at the same time. Obviously I'm going to get replies about the different versions of the Bible and that is a valid point, but one I have researched and dismiss. I can elaborate if you wish.
I certainly would take umbrage with your assertion that the Bible was intended for some sort of Priestly class. That is in fact the direct OPPOSITE of the point of the New Testament.
In point of fact, I disagree with almost all you have written here.
I can debate in a civil manner, however. Please let me know if you want further information.
I'm an atheist, not looking for debate, just interested in hearing your thoughts and analysis.
Thanks for the offer.
I will ketp sharing my opinions on the subject and read what you post, then modify my posting content on this subject in accordance with what you have written written.
I was a bit confused by what I thought were two conflicting quotes from Jesus, but the reply above kind of filled me in on this.
I WILL say that IMHO the Catholic church has indeed done what you referred to earlier and set up a Priesthood. Protestants, however, generally vehemently disagree with that approach and describe a personal relationship directly with God.
I would love to hear your explanation of how there are so many versions of the Bible and yet the book as a whole is supposed to be infallible. If you’re of a mind to, I would also be interested in your take on the supposed lost books.
Certainly. There is what is referred to as the "received text" (the Textus Receptus) and then there is everything else. The Textus Receptus is what the King James version is based on. Most of the other translations are called "eclectic texts" because they combine the musings of several different men on what they though God was speaking.
The Latin Vulgate is pure trash. I do not have the time to defecate on it prolifically enough. Other "later" translations suffer from the same problem.
But I point back to my original statement. If you believe in a Divine Being, how hard could it be for Him to keep his book straight? What part of "Omnipotent" is not computing? Of course, if you do not believe then my arguments will not make sense to you and never will.
What better way to defy God than to introduce false versions of his word?
What lost books are you referring to? The Apocrypha?
Edit: this was a very basic expository due to my shortness of time. If you care for it, I can provide much more nuanced explanations when I have more time to review my notes.
I like big picture ideas, and then narrow down the points into what matters.
Big picture: someone posted a while ago on here that Jesus was for jews because he came to uphold the law.
The actual verse is Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
What does fulfill mean?
The answer to that is found in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and discover themselves to be naked, and sewed fig leaves together.
God rebukes them, and then makes them clothes from the skin of animals - meaning blood had to be shed.
This is the start of the sacrifice for sin. An animal needs to be sacrificed, and blood spilled, because it is a very potent image for how dangerous sin is. (this doesn't address the abomination that today's filthy kikes adhere to with their "rituals")
When the Law was given to Moses, the practice of animal sacrifice was encoded - and the passover also used animal sacrifices.
The blood sacrifice in the law is what "atoned" for sin for a time, and the ritual supposedly produced introspection for how a person acts.
What does it mean to fulfill the law? To become the single sacrifice for all sin. That is what Jesus is saying in Matt 5:17 - to fulfill the law and the prophets is to spill pure Godly blood for every sin to be forgiven.
The jews were chosen for this purpose as the promise to Abraham, but that doesn't mean the jews are any more special than anyone else - just that someone had to start the promise. The kikes have bastardized that promise into thinking they are above God and the law, like with the "technicalities" to subvert the spirit of any law.
Jesus' entire existence was based on becoming the pure sacrifice for sin - and preaching to the jews about the law and the prophets obviously made the kikes mad enough to kill him.
Once Jesus completed the sacrifice for everyone, his commandment in Mark 16:15 is And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
So the gospel was not limited to the jews anymore - only Jesus' travels and miracles were.
As another comment mentions - how powerful is a God that cannot keep His divine Word perfect?
As for what "religion" and (((religion))) do to the preaching of the word, that is the result of the sinful nature of men.
James 1:26-27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
Christ-Cucks really hate it when you ask them to name one non-jew disciple of Jewsus. The next time you have a conversation, you should try it. First, they'll try deflecting the conversation to another topic. Then they'll start insulting you. But the one thing they will NEVER do is name a non-Jew disciple of Jewsus.
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 5 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 18:15:34 ago (+5/-0)
Well, at least that much is correct.
I wrote this previously. It explains why I believe Christianity was exclusively for non-jews.
https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=62514c969272c&commentid=62519044ed110
[ + ] Laputois
[ - ] Laputois 4 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 17:13:12 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 17:30:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] mattsixteen24
[ - ] mattsixteen24 0 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 18:14:45 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 15, 2022 10:42:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] mattsixteen24
[ - ] mattsixteen24 0 points 3 yearsApr 15, 2022 18:33:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 16, 2022 01:12:58 ago (+0/-0)
The atheist channels I used to watch back in the 90s were all of the more biblically scholastic sort, focusing on some biblical passages and it's multiple translations and interpretations, particularly within the context provided by the book.
Some of the Christians would come on and use their own headcanon to argue why the Bible doesn't say what it does, and all of them would accuse us of reading things into the Bible from the outside, even after they themselves had done such a thing, and even when they had never mentioned how we were reading things into the Bible from the outside of it, they just made their accusations vaguely and refused to specify their charges.
[ + ] mattsixteen24
[ - ] mattsixteen24 0 points 3 yearsApr 17, 2022 23:35:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Garbalon
[ - ] Garbalon 1 point 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 23:05:47 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 1 point 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 19:14:58 ago (+1/-0)
Imagine thinking all knowledge comes only from the written word.
The classical thinkers wrote, but they held symposiums and taught and had seminars. People weren't sitting around watching stupid fucking TV shows and talking about stupid fucking TV shows or banging internet keyboard apps.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 13, 2022 10:50:22 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sturmgeschutz
[ - ] Sturmgeschutz 1 point 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 17:18:36 ago (+1/-0)
I approach the problem thusly. Do you believe there is a higher Divine Being or God? If you do, then do you believe the Bible is his Testimony? If you don't believe in a deity, or if you do, but dont believe the Bible is his Word, then nothing in the book makes sense to you and can be dismissed out of hand.
If you do, however, then it is a MUCH smaller matter of Faith to believe the Bible is his inerrant Word and a Divine Being is CERTAINLY capable of using men to write his Word and make the collected text infallible at the same time. Obviously I'm going to get replies about the different versions of the Bible and that is a valid point, but one I have researched and dismiss. I can elaborate if you wish.
I certainly would take umbrage with your assertion that the Bible was intended for some sort of Priestly class. That is in fact the direct OPPOSITE of the point of the New Testament.
In point of fact, I disagree with almost all you have written here.
I can debate in a civil manner, however. Please let me know if you want further information.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 17:33:48 ago (+0/-0)
Thanks for the offer.
I will ketp sharing my opinions on the subject and read what you post, then modify my posting content on this subject in accordance with what you have written written.
I was a bit confused by what I thought were two conflicting quotes from Jesus, but the reply above kind of filled me in on this.
Thank you for responding.
[ + ] Sturmgeschutz
[ - ] Sturmgeschutz 2 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 18:26:28 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] QueenAlt
[ - ] QueenAlt 0 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 21:25:27 ago (+0/-0)
If you’re of a mind to, I would also be interested in your take on the supposed lost books.
[ + ] Sturmgeschutz
[ - ] Sturmgeschutz 1 point 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 21:54:35 ago (+1/-0)
The Latin Vulgate is pure trash. I do not have the time to defecate on it prolifically enough. Other "later" translations suffer from the same problem.
But I point back to my original statement. If you believe in a Divine Being, how hard could it be for Him to keep his book straight? What part of "Omnipotent" is not computing? Of course, if you do not believe then my arguments will not make sense to you and never will.
What better way to defy God than to introduce false versions of his word?
What lost books are you referring to? The Apocrypha?
Edit: this was a very basic expository due to my shortness of time. If you care for it, I can provide much more nuanced explanations when I have more time to review my notes.
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3 yearsApr 13, 2022 01:03:04 ago (+0/-0)
Big picture: someone posted a while ago on here that Jesus was for jews because he came to uphold the law.
The actual verse is Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
What does fulfill mean?
The answer to that is found in Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and discover themselves to be naked, and sewed fig leaves together.
God rebukes them, and then makes them clothes from the skin of animals - meaning blood had to be shed.
This is the start of the sacrifice for sin. An animal needs to be sacrificed, and blood spilled, because it is a very potent image for how dangerous sin is. (this doesn't address the abomination that today's filthy kikes adhere to with their "rituals")
When the Law was given to Moses, the practice of animal sacrifice was encoded - and the passover also used animal sacrifices.
The blood sacrifice in the law is what "atoned" for sin for a time, and the ritual supposedly produced introspection for how a person acts.
What does it mean to fulfill the law? To become the single sacrifice for all sin. That is what Jesus is saying in Matt 5:17 - to fulfill the law and the prophets is to spill pure Godly blood for every sin to be forgiven.
The jews were chosen for this purpose as the promise to Abraham, but that doesn't mean the jews are any more special than anyone else - just that someone had to start the promise. The kikes have bastardized that promise into thinking they are above God and the law, like with the "technicalities" to subvert the spirit of any law.
Jesus' entire existence was based on becoming the pure sacrifice for sin - and preaching to the jews about the law and the prophets obviously made the kikes mad enough to kill him.
Once Jesus completed the sacrifice for everyone, his commandment in Mark 16:15 is And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
So the gospel was not limited to the jews anymore - only Jesus' travels and miracles were.
As another comment mentions - how powerful is a God that cannot keep His divine Word perfect?
As for what "religion" and (((religion))) do to the preaching of the word, that is the result of the sinful nature of men.
James 1:26-27 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 [op] 0 points 3 yearsApr 13, 2022 10:43:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] localsal
[ - ] localsal 0 points 3 yearsApr 13, 2022 21:32:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 22:14:07 ago (+1/-1)
The next time you have a conversation, you should try it.
First, they'll try deflecting the conversation to another topic.
Then they'll start insulting you.
But the one thing they will NEVER do is name a non-Jew disciple of Jewsus.
[ + ] Qwertytoal
[ - ] Qwertytoal 0 points 3 yearsApr 12, 2022 17:54:21 ago (+0/-0)