The new testament is pretty clear that Jesus will return within their life time. Paul is like “don’t make any major life changes, Jesus is coming soon enough.” They struggle with questions like how come some of us are dead and Jesus still isn’t back? Guess what, all of them are dead by now.
So you are talking explicitly about the gospels and not anything else? Because in another comment you talked about the new testament in general so I’m confused you reject a big bunch of it
That is very true. You can’t try to analyze it, you just have to accept it as true no matter what. To do otherwise can break that belief. It’s why many non-believers used to be Christians until they broke this rule.
Does it really matter? I identified as Christian for a long time and still sympathize with certain Christian strands. I read all 4 of the 96 gospels at one point of my life. I don’t consider myself a believer and neither an expert but I might have a clue of what I’m talking about
I like your combination of commitment and inability to convey a coherent strain of thought, so if by fight you mean trying to understand you, than yes, let’s have this fight.
Are you implying that Jesus is still alive? What are the implications of his death only mentioned in 6 out of 96 gospels? Gospel is a brought term. The Gospel of Thomas for example doesn’t have a narrative, just a collection of quotes. Other gospels tell a particular story. Imagine having a story about an event in childhood and the story doesn’t end with “much later he died”.
Anything from the Bible can be interpreted differently. Render unto Caesar seems to support some rule following, even if it’s used as a separation principle between earthly and heavenly things. Was Jesus a full-on anarchist? Maybe selectively, but given everyone was to be servant to God it wasn’t absolute.
I feel like “render unto caesar what is caesar’s” to mean “pay your taxes. The money you’re using is theirs. Your faith and beliefs aren’t really part of that.”
Which is really funny in the current political context.
Community based on rules was the LAST thing Jesus Christ advocated for…if you read the books and all…
The new testament is pretty clear that Jesus will return within their life time. Paul is like “don’t make any major life changes, Jesus is coming soon enough.” They struggle with questions like how come some of us are dead and Jesus still isn’t back? Guess what, all of them are dead by now.
you are incorrect, paul was a racist piece of shit who added his name to the narrative, thanks to justinian
So you are talking explicitly about the gospels and not anything else? Because in another comment you talked about the new testament in general so I’m confused you reject a big bunch of it
you either believe it or not, i do not argue the nature of the interpretations.
That is very true. You can’t try to analyze it, you just have to accept it as true no matter what. To do otherwise can break that belief. It’s why many non-believers used to be Christians until they broke this rule.
and, what does anything else i say in another thread have to do with this particular argument?
…nonononononono, you do not get to claim anything after the 96 gospels, any of the prophesies are heretical bullshit
I have no idea what you are trying to communicate
are you christian?
Does it really matter? I identified as Christian for a long time and still sympathize with certain Christian strands. I read
all4 of the 96 gospels at one point of my life. I don’t consider myself a believer and neither an expert but I might have a clue of what I’m talking aboutRemoved by mod
I like your combination of commitment and inability to convey a coherent strain of thought, so if by fight you mean trying to understand you, than yes, let’s have this fight.
Are you implying that Jesus is still alive? What are the implications of his death only mentioned in 6 out of 96 gospels? Gospel is a brought term. The Gospel of Thomas for example doesn’t have a narrative, just a collection of quotes. Other gospels tell a particular story. Imagine having a story about an event in childhood and the story doesn’t end with “much later he died”.
I am implying you are making an argument where none is necessary
I reacted to something I thought was important to your argument because I still don’t know what your argument actually is
I think people haven’t gotten to the point of arguing with you because they have no idea what you’re trying to say.
To be clear, I’m not arguing with you either.
Anything from the Bible can be interpreted differently. Render unto Caesar seems to support some rule following, even if it’s used as a separation principle between earthly and heavenly things. Was Jesus a full-on anarchist? Maybe selectively, but given everyone was to be servant to God it wasn’t absolute.
I feel like “render unto caesar what is caesar’s” to mean “pay your taxes. The money you’re using is theirs. Your faith and beliefs aren’t really part of that.”
Which is really funny in the current political context.
New testament is very clear, old testament has been debated for millenia, are you sure you want this argument?
The new testament has a bunch of authors with different views and each text can be interpreted very differently. Nothing of it is “very clear”
Which statement crossed the line for you?