[ home ] [ tv / art / wooo ] [ ost / lit / bane ] [ dup / oven / dunk ] [ truth / top ]

/truth/ - Paranomal

Seek the Truth
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.2660

Father Time talks about Sumerian ghost stories.

 No.2661

I've watched this kike's video on Noah's Ark. It was pretty interesting from what I recall.

 No.2662

>Kike
>pushing "muh Sumeria was first" psy op
Every time. If you still can't see how "muh Sumeria muh Babylon muh Marduk and Enki were da real Gods and creation story" is shilled everywhere and protected on jewtube and in media while countless other things are censored and have no sense of cynicism towards this, you're hopeless and a normalnigger.

 No.2663

>>2662
>being this in denial about the fact that the kike scriptures started off as the ancient Middle-Eastern equivalent of DeviantArt sanic recolors

 No.2664

>>2662
>being upset that nobody will ever take your hibernarian bullshit seriously
Aw poor baby..

 No.2665

>>2662
Holy Fuck, you're a mutt and good goy without any doubt.

 No.2668

File: 1639020185260.gif (40.03 KB, 509x671, 509:671, hidden_hipoornian.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>2664
>hibernarian
Are the conniving Celts at it again?

 No.2669

>>2663
>>2665
>durr you're a christian if you call out ba'al worshiping feds ans their controlled protected shilled normalnigger theories
>>2664
>>2668
>You're pagan
Which one is it retards. Definitely got someone mad.
Yes, only normalniggers can't notice at all how sumerian shit has been glorified and protected in media while theories about all kinds of other shit are censored. By the amount of replies already, looks like I've already upset some feds or shills.

 No.2671

File: 1639031913814.jpg (117.27 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 854721.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>2669
You're telling me we aren't chimps?

 No.2672

File: 1639071579425.jpg (99.58 KB, 969x710, 969:710, 16da06a34aa1de33937ef3510d….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>2669
Instead of being a total schizo about it, how about you provide some examples of older civilizations not Sumerian?

 No.2673

>>2672
"Schizo" just means the persons paying attention

 No.2674

>>2673
"Schizo" means making wild claims without having any valid evidence to support them.

 No.2677

File: 1639172568916.jpg (142.13 KB, 608x880, 38:55, 608907.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>2673
Nice sage, bro. Still waiting on those civilizations that btfo Sumeria.

 No.2678

/Christian/ is like /leftypol/, both boards are full of pathetic mentally ills fags trying to ruin all other boards.

 No.2680

>>2678
I actually feel bad for /christian/. Not only is their religion dying out (Third Worlders notwithstanding), but they've been having a group of offboard shitstirrers spamming their board with soyjaks lately.

 No.2681


 No.2682

>>2681
Hi, Eric.

 No.2683

>>2678
Majority of /chrstian/ posters that I knew or know are closet homos or literally got molested before. Just saying.

 No.2684

File: 1639232493121.jpg (137.03 KB, 1000x750, 4:3, ghost_tablet.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

A few days ago I was looking up some yūrei and the idea of "ghost sickness" in association with grief (https://archive.ph/Xomve) and I came across this article by chance: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/3500-year-old-babylonian-tablet-may-hold-earliest-known-ghost-image-180978923/

The idea of a helpful ghost is, apparently, a rather recent one.

 No.2711

>>2678
When has /christian/ tried to ruin other board? Or do you consider Christians posting at all on "your" boards as "ruining" the boards.
>>2680
Don't feel bad for us, we're doing fine, moderation just took a little long that is all.
>Not only is their religion dying out (Third Worlders notwithstanding)
This is a humorous meme, we're one of the largest religion on the planet, and even if we followed a dead religion it wouldn't matter, what matters is God and the evidence for Jesus Christ. The truth will remain the truth even if it's scarce.
>>2683
Luke 5:31 Jesus answered, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

 No.2719

>>2662
redpilled
>>2663
>>2665
>>2664
bluepilled
>>2668
greenpilled
>>2671
apepilled
>>2681
emojipilled
>>2682
ericpilled
>>2683
brownpilled

 No.2721

>>2719
pillpilled

 No.2724

>>2711
>Don't feel bad for us, we're doing fine, moderation just took a little long that is all.
That's good if things are finally under control.
>This is a humorous meme, we're one of the largest religion on the planet
But it's dying in the West.
>and even if we followed a dead religion it wouldn't matter, what matters is God and the evidence for Jesus Christ. The truth will remain the truth even if it's scarce.
The problem is that there is no good evidence for the Bible's claims. The whole religion is based on mental gymnastics. We don't even have authentic eyewitness testimony of Jesus himself, just stories written down in Greek decades after his death and following decades of people playing the telephone game with oral traditions.

 No.2725

>>2724
I love to suck on BBC which stands for big black cock if you didn't know, anon

 No.2726

File: 1640267817644.mp4 (920.83 KB, 256x256, 1:1, yt1s.com - George Floyd B….mp4) ImgOps iqdb


 No.2727

I am STILL waiting to hear about older civilizations that btfo the Sumerians.

 No.2730

File: 1640386101447.png (86.88 KB, 389x1066, 389:1066, d.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>2724
>But it's dying in the West.
That is definitely a problem, but Christianity has dealt with more serious eradication like the tearing down of churches in socialist countries. I don't worry about everyone conforming to Christianity or not, because the satanic world will always conform to the devil. But i don't fear the devil because what matters is God and he is more powerful.
>The problem is that there is no good evidence for the Bible's claims.
Read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, it's about an atheist who set out to disprove Christianity.
>The whole religion is based on mental gymnastics. We don't even have authentic eyewitness testimony of Jesus himself, just stories written down in Greek decades after his death and following decades of people playing the telephone game with oral traditions.
There is a lot of false information from atheists, like recently on dunk there was an atheist who said the gospel was written in a date that wasn't 70ad. We also have the old testament, that talked about the Jesus's arrival. lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus is not a good argument against Christianity, since it's an argument of silence. Christ myth theory doesn't disprove Christ just because there is a lack of a specific kind of evidence, Here is an atheist who explains why it's a bad argument https://historyforatheists.com/2018/05/jesus-mythicism-3-no-contemporary-references-to-jesus/ . The Jesus myth theory is not only a fringe theory (yet very vocal on the internet) but also not supported by modern scholars. Another good book on this (as Christianity from atheist/agnostic perspective) is Solving The God Puzzle by Tom Hammond, a very short introduction that answers many common atheist and agnostic memes like why "we cannot know God" is self-defeating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

 No.2734

>>2730
>That is definitely a problem, but Christianity has dealt with more serious eradication like the tearing down of churches in socialist countries. I don't worry about everyone conforming to Christianity or not, because the satanic world will always conform to the devil. But i don't fear the devil because what matters is God and he is more powerful.
The Abrahamic religions have serious credibility problems even without governmental repression.
>Read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, it's about an atheist who set out to disprove Christianity.
Apologetics is more about preaching to the choir and keeping believers from leaving the flock than necessarily doing an adequate job of addressing criticism.
>We also have the old testament, that talked about the Jesus's arrival.
No, it talked about a coming leader who would rebuild the Temple and usher in an era of peace. The messiah (literally "anointed one," like the kings) was supposed to be an earthly figure and a patrilineal descendant of David.

The Christ myth hypothesis is a load of shit, but that doesn't mean that the historical Jesus was much like the idea that today's Christians have of him. The most likely scenario is that he was an apocalyptic preacher who was handed over to the Romans and brutally executed for potentially being a threat to their power.

 No.2735

>>2727
Gobekli and Tartessos are older, nor were they the first civilizations either. Sumeria was only an off-shoot of traveling tribes from the Danubian Vinca culture (hence Vinca script) out of Anatolia (likely Western Hunter Gatherer Cro-Magnon).
You have to be a jew to be this willfully ignorant.

 No.2736

>>2734
>The Abrahamic religions have serious credibility problems even without governmental repression.
Lumping together three contradicting religions is strange to me.
>Apologetics is more about preaching to the choir and keeping believers from leaving the flock than necessarily doing an adequate job of addressing criticism.
Apolegetics talks about the criticism of Christianity's theology. Maybe we have a different idea of what Apolegetics is.
>No,
>it talked about a coming leader who would rebuild the Temple and usher in an era of peace. The messiah (literally "anointed one," like the kings) was supposed to be an earthly figure and a patrilineal descendant of David.
Which is Christ, are you saying Jesus is not the Messiah?

>18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "

 No.2738

>>2736
>Lumping together three contradicting religions is strange to me.
They're distinct religions, but they all share the same roots and are based on the idea of the Mosaic distinction.
>Apolegetics talks about the criticism of Christianity's theology. Maybe we have a different idea of what Apolegetics is.
It's supposed to, but even vaunted figures like William Lane Craig aren't very convincing.
>Which is Christ,
Jesus did none of those things.
>are you saying Jesus is not the Messiah?
Yes. The idea of the Messiah was clearly understood to be an earthly leader who would restore Israel to greatness. To say that Jesus was the Messiah is completely twisting what the idea of the Messiah was supposed to be. The whole Second Coming concept is just a cop-out excuse, especially considering that Jesus supposedly told his followers that they'd live to witness the apocalypse.
>18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "
That's from the Gospel of John, the last of the Gospels to be written and considered the least reliable.

 No.2739

File: 1640494332764.webm (3.6 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, Jews are the apocolypse r….webm) ImgOps iqdb

>>2738
>but they all share the same roots and are based on the idea of the Mosaic distinction.
Sure they have connections to Moses but I disagree. maybe to an outsider, but certain key teachings conflict or contradict. For example Jesus Is not the messiah in Judaism so they're still waiting for another messiah to arrive, and that messiah is the anti-Christ for Christianity. While Islam teaches that Christ did not die on the cross.
>It's supposed to, but even vaunted figures like William Lane Craig aren't very convincing.
My impression is apolegetics is more about theology than historical evidence, at least for Frank Turek.
>Jesus did none of those things.
>Yes. The idea of the Messiah was clearly understood to be an earthly leader who would restore Israel to greatness.
>To say that Jesus was the Messiah is completely twisting what the idea of the Messiah was supposed to be. The whole Second Coming concept is just a cop-out excuse,
Jesus was decedent of David, you have it reversed, the Messiah of that the Jews were looking for is the Anti-Christ, Jesus was the Messiah in his own inverted but holy way, no in the way the Jews were looking for.
>especially considering that Jesus supposedly told his followers that they'd live to witness the apocalypse.
There is some controversy about that specific bible verse where it talks about "this age" or something i don't remember exactly but i remember studying it, an ambiguous wording of "this age or the next". i'm sure you can find a good answer to it if you look enough, like every other supposed contradiction in the bible. Shitty answer i know.
>That's from the Gospel of John, the last of the Gospels to be written and considered the least reliable.
Wouldn't it be simpler to take the bible as a whole, or not take it at all?

 No.2744

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>2739
>Sure they have connections to Moses but I disagree. maybe to an outsider, but certain key teachings conflict or contradict. For example Jesus Is not the messiah in Judaism so they're still waiting for another messiah to arrive, and that messiah is the anti-Christ for Christianity. While Islam teaches that Christ did not die on the cross.
They're closely related historically, even if they have different teachings. It's like comparing Christianity and Mormonism.
>My impression is apolegetics is more about theology than historical evidence, at least for Frank Turek.
Christian apologetics is about defending Christianity from objections in general, although I'm sure there are figures who do it in different ways.
>Jesus was decedent of David, you have it reversed
How could he be a paternal descendant of David if Joseph wasn't his real father?
>the Messiah of that the Jews were looking for is the Anti-Christ, Jesus was the Messiah in his own inverted but holy way, no in the way the Jews were looking for.
That's just retconning what the ancient Jews actually believed. If it was really supposed to happen the way Christians say, then why didn't the Old Testament clarify that he wasn't actually literally going to be a great leader who would restore Israel to greatness?
>There is some controversy about that specific bible verse where it talks about "this age" or something i don't remember exactly but i remember studying it, an ambiguous wording of "this age or the next". i'm sure you can find a good answer to it if you look enough, like every other supposed contradiction in the bible. Shitty answer i know.
Mark 9:1 (and Matthew 16:28) and 13:30 don't make sense as fulfilled prophecies unless you're willing to go full preterist and consider the world we're living in to be a golden age brought forth by the Son of Man.

There are tons of contradictions in the Bible, like how Judas is supposed to have died or whether or not the women who supposedly found the empty tomb of Jesus told anyone about it or not.
>Wouldn't it be simpler to take the bible as a whole, or not take it at all?
You really can't, since the Bible is a collection of many different books by many different authors with many different opinions that aren't necessarily in agreement with each other.

 No.2745

>>2744
>They're closely related historically, even if they have different teachings.
They're not just different teachings, they contradict each other.
>It's like comparing Christianity and Mormonism.
Joseph smith was a freemason who added to the Bible, and that's not the only connection that freemasons have to Mormonism.
>How could he be a paternal descendant of David if Joseph wasn't his real father?
Luke 3:23 Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. He was (as legally calculated)[b] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. He was adopted so he was the legal decedent.
>That's just retconning what the ancient Jews actually believed.
It's not retconning, Jesus fulfilled the Torah, but not in the way the jews believed. For example the restored Kingdom was not of this world to the Jews united world government which is the anit-christ. Something that is important to God is freewill, a world government that forces a belief is alien to God's desire, and is something that Satan tempted Christ with to get him to become the anti-christ.
>then why didn't the Old Testament clarify that he wasn't actually literally going to be a great leader who would restore Israel to greatness?
Jesus fulfilled the promise God made to David, Abraham and Adam that their seed would overcome evil and that the Messiah would redeem man for his sins. Jesus also did unlawful acts that went against the Jews to show him that he was God.

Mark 2:23One Sabbath Jesus was passing through the grainfields, and His disciples began to pick the heads of grain as they walked along. 24So the Pharisees said to Him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?" 25Jesus replied, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26During the high priesthood of Abiathar, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread,c which was lawful only for the priests. And he gave some to his companions as well." 27Then Jesus declared, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
>Mark 9:1 (and Matthew 16:28) and 13:30 don't make sense
Well hes clearly not talking about the second coming. We like to focus on the very exciting 2nd coming and think of that as 'the Kingdom of God,' but really that's just a clean up operation, Christ defeating evil and death on the cross is his kingdom and power.
>There are tons of contradictions in the Bible
I've grown up with a lot of atheist questions of the Bible and i've been able to find answers to them, there are always two sides to one story. On rational wiki there is a huge list of them, for example God cursing Egypt from becoming a desolate wasteland, while Egypt isn't a wasteland right now it would be that it the curse hasn't happened. Another example is how Jesus is called the prince of peace and he says "i did not coming to bring peace but a sword" but in context, it could be the variety of God who brings peace but also divides us from those who reject him. It's good to question the Bible, i study it almost every day, and will keep testing it for the rest of my life.
> since the Bible is a collection of many different books by many different authors with many different opinions that aren't necessarily in agreement with each other.
I agree, but there is an over all story and values/morals to them.

 No.2752

>>2745
>They're not just different teachings, they contradict each other.
That's why they're considered different religions. They all sprang from the same source though.
>Joseph smith was a freemason who added to the Bible, and that's not the only connection that freemasons have to Mormonism.
The point is that Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity takes it in its own direction in the way that Christianity and Islam did with ancient Judaism.
>Jesus fulfilled the promise God made to David, Abraham and Adam that their seed would overcome evil and that the Messiah would redeem man for his sins. Jesus also did unlawful acts that went against the Jews to show him that he was God.
He wasn't a great leader who gathered the Twelve Tribes to Israel, brought forth an era of peace and prosperity, ruled the world, ended death on earth, and resurrected the dead. Jesus did next to nothing that could be considered traditionally messianic.
>Luke 3:23 Jesus himself was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. He was (as legally calculated)[b] the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. He was adopted so he was the legal decedent.
An adopted child doesn't share the lineage of their adoptive parents.
>Well hes clearly not talking about the second coming. We like to focus on the very exciting 2nd coming and think of that as 'the Kingdom of God,' but really that's just a clean up operation, Christ defeating evil and death on the cross is his kingdom and power.
Evil and death are still all around us. It's pretty telling that not only does the Bible attribute these quotes to Jesus, but his followers anticipated the end of the world within their lifetimes. Preterism isn't an out here, because nothing ultimately changed after 70 A.D.
>I've grown up with a lot of atheist questions of the Bible and i've been able to find answers to them, there are always two sides to one story.
The problem is that there are plenty of contradictions and errors so blatant that it requires someone to twist themselves into a pretzel to resolve them. The amount of leeway given toward the Bible's contradictions isn't extended toward similar discrepancies in other contexts. If two people in a secular setting gave two completely different accounts of the same story, you'd have very few people saying the two accounts are ultimately compatible and going into overdrive trying to harmonize their stories.

 No.2765

>>2752
>The point is that Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity takes it in its own direction in the way that Christianity and Islam did with ancient Judaism.
That doesn't make it Christian, especially when it's from a freemanson who worship the Devil. Also Ancient (or Old Testament) Judaism is different from what we now call modern Judaism. There are Christian Atheists and Christian Satanists, that doesn't make it a valid form of Christianity or a part of it.
>ruled the world
>Jesus did next to nothing that could be considered traditionally messianic.
He was not the anti-Christ worshiping the devil and bringing a one world government.
>An adopted child doesn't share the lineage of their adoptive parents.
Have you ever heard of a Levirate marriage? An adoptive son is still an heir. Mary was a direct descendant of King David. This gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke (luke 3 and Mathew 1) is actually the genealogy of Mary. St. John of Damascus (c. 676-749) stated that Mary's great-grandfather Panther was a brother of Mathat, her grandfather Barpanther was Heli's cousin, and her father Joachim was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son.
>Evil and death are still all around us.
Jesus has full authority over evil and death, which tried to kill him and he survived. Sin and it's consequences are still permitted by God, but they don't mean sin will necessarily brings death as long as we are accept Jesus. Of course evil and death are still around us, it's part of the reason why God gave us freewill.
>It's pretty telling that not only does the Bible attribute these quotes to Jesus, but his followers anticipated the end of the world within their lifetimes. Preterism isn't an out here, because nothing ultimately changed after 70 A.D.
Since it obviously didn't happen he wasn't talking about the 2nd coming.
>The problem is that there are plenty of contradictions and errors so blatant that it requires someone to twist themselves into a pretzel to resolve them.
I am not perfect, but i'm sure if you found the right Christians you could have answers to many of the bible contradictions. Or through your own research.
> If two people in a secular setting gave two completely different accounts of the same story, you'd have very few people saying the two accounts are ultimately compatible and going into overdrive trying to harmonize their stories.
If your talking about the differences in the gospels, just because people give different accounts of one story doesn't mean they're incompatible or that the story is false, it could be a detail that wasn't mentioned in on one account. One example is the global flood documented by other beliefs.

I get it, you aren't convinced with the Bible, that is okay, it's good to not accept things at face value and to investigate, if you're going to accept a religion you should always test it. I don't have them all, but The answers are out there. Remember that God is separate from Religion, i would say have a relationship with God, go to a Christian retreat and go to church three times a day and have a priest or pastor praying over you, and maybe you'll be filled with the Holy spirit.

 No.2771

>>2752
Also…
>An adopted child doesn't share the lineage of their adoptive parents.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-lineage.html
>It is common knowledge that the genealogies contained in Matthew and Luke differ. Most conservative Bible commentators explain the difference by holding that Jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:1-16 is traced through Joseph's line to show Jesus' royal right to the Davidic throne; correspondingly, the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' ancestry through Mary's line. This means that Mary's lineage is recorded in the Gospel of Luke.
>Mary's lineage, as recorded by Luke, does not mention Mary, but that's to be expected-including women's names in genealogies was not standard practice. It begins this way: "[Jesus] was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23). This comment affirms the truth of Jesus' virgin birth (see Luke 1:29-38). Joseph was a "son" of Heli by virtue of his marriage to Mary, who would have been the daughter of Heli (Matthew 1:16 lists Joseph's biological father as Jacob).

 No.2785

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>2765
>>2771
>That doesn't make it Christian, especially when it's from a freemanson who worship the Devil.
Joseph Smith wasn't a devil worshiper, and Mormonism started off as a Christian sect that went its own way (although Mormons try to play up their Christian connections to outsiders).
>Also Ancient (or Old Testament) Judaism is different from what we now call modern Judaism.
Yes, but it's part of the same family.
>He was not the anti-Christ worshiping the devil and bringing a one world government.
The Messiah was supposed to be a powerful king whose reign would bring peace to the world and bring Israel and its religion, not to mention rebuilding the Temple after its destruction.
>Have you ever heard of a Levirate marriage? An adoptive son is still an heir. Mary was a direct descendant of King David. This gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke (luke 3 and Mathew 1) is actually the genealogy of Mary. St. John of Damascus (c. 676-749) stated that Mary's great-grandfather Panther was a brother of Mathat, her grandfather Barpanther was Heli's cousin, and her father Joachim was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son.
Being an heir doesn't mean you share the blood of your adoptive parent, and the line of kings was patrilineal. If Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus, his bloodline doesn't matter.
>Jesus has full authority over evil and death, which tried to kill him and he survived. Sin and it's consequences are still permitted by God, but they don't mean sin will necessarily brings death as long as we are accept Jesus.
>Since it obviously didn't happen he wasn't talking about the 2nd coming.
These are just post-hoc justifications for failed prophecy. There's a shift in the portrayal of Jesus over the Gospels, from an apocalypticist preaching imminent divine intervention in Mark to downplaying that in John (which might have been written as late the early 2nd century, possibly postdating Revelation). The early Christians thought the end was coming within their lifetimes, just like Jesus said in the synoptic Gospels.
>Of course evil and death are still around us, it's part of the reason why God gave us freewill.
The end that Jesus and his followers were anticipating back in the 1st century never came.
>I am not perfect, but i'm sure if you found the right Christians you could have answers to many of the bible contradictions. Or through your own research.
With enough ingenuity you can come up with rationalizations to explain away discrepancies in just about anything. The real question is whether or not the provided explanations are plausible or in line with what the authors of the books of the Bible intended, and I don't think they tend to pass either of those tests.
>If your talking about the differences in the gospels, just because people give different accounts of one story doesn't mean they're incompatible or that the story is false, it could be a detail that wasn't mentioned in on one account. One example is the global flood documented by other beliefs.
There are contradictions so blatant that the justifications given are completely unbelievable, like the circumstances surrounding Judas's death or whether Jairus's daughter was still alive when he went to go get Jesus.
>I get it, you aren't convinced with the Bible, that is okay, it's good to not accept things at face value and to investigate, if you're going to accept a religion you should always test it. I don't have them all, but The answers are out there. Remember that God is separate from Religion, i would say have a relationship with God, go to a Christian retreat and go to church three times a day and have a priest or pastor praying over you, and maybe you'll be filled with the Holy spirit.
I was raised Christian and was a strong believer until I reached the point where I couldn't justify my faith anymore given the lack of satisfactory arguments in its favor and the glaring textual problems with the Bible itself. I think there's a lot more to reality than "skeptics" would like to admit, but the idea of a personal being presiding over all of existence comes across like someone humanizing an infinite force and trying to reduce all the gray areas of reality to something more in accordance with simplistic black-and-white narratives of good and evil.

 No.2795

File: 1641783308545.png (51.57 KB, 711x825, 237:275, Jewish beliefs compared 2.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>2785
>Joseph Smith wasn't a devil worshiper
If hes a Freemason then he is a Devil worshiper. According to "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder" The endowment resembled rites of freemasonry that Smith had observed two months earlier when he had been initiated "at sight" into the Nauvoo Masonic lodge.
>Yes, but it's part of the same family.
There are many differences between Ancient Judaism, Christianity and modern Judaism. Picture related.
>The Messiah was supposed to be a powerful king whose reign would bring peace to the world and bring Israel and its religion
That is literally the Jewish position, I guess you didn't see the webm i posted saying the jewish messiah would bring world peace, Which is the anit-christ.
>not to mention rebuilding the Temple after its destruction.
You're repeating yourself, i've already answered this, "18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "
>These are just post-hoc justifications for failed prophecy.
That's your opinion.
>The early Christians thought the end was coming within their lifetimes
>The end that Jesus and his followers were anticipating back in the 1st century never came.
Your completely ignoring the answer i gave you and just declaring victory. His promised return in that generation was the "end of days" told Daniel by Gabriel for the desolations of Jerusalem. His return was a day of judgment just as all OT prophesy is couched as "a coming of the Lord," or a "day of the Lord," or a "day of calamity," or the "day of His wrath." His return was not to set up a physical kingdom on earth but to remove the last remnant of the old Mosaic sacrificial covenant, the temple where the Jews were still offering animal sacrifices. Those sacrifices had become profane once His blood became that sacrifice promised by OT prophesy (Dan. 9:24-27; Psa. 22:16-18; 2 Sam. 7:14; Isa. 53:5, etc.)
>With enough ingenuity you can come up with rationalizations to explain away discrepancies in just about anything.
The same could be said about people against Christianity, You act like there aren't people with personal problems or agendas who want to discredit the Bible. The teachings of the Bible are very difficult to practice, who wants to avoid lust in the internet age, disregarding the Bible is dangerously convenient.
> like the circumstances surrounding Judas's death
That is two diffrent veiw points of one thing that happened. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because he was hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it. Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging
>or whether Jairus's daughter was still alive when he went to go get Jesus.
Either Matthew Didn't Record the First Statement of Jairus or Different Point of Emphasis. The translation of the phrase "just died" in Matthew could also be translated "near death." Arti eteleutēsen is the Greek phrase used in this text, and the Greek word arti is often translated as "henceforth" or "hereafter." If this theory is correct, then Matthew did not omit any discourse with Jairus. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house.

>I was raised Christian and was a strong believer until I reached the point where I couldn't justify my faith anymore given the lack of satisfactory arguments in its favor and the glaring textual problems with the Bible itself.

I don't know your situation, but i bet you didn't look at the Christians side too much or didn't like the Christians answers.
>and trying to reduce all the gray areas of reality to something more in accordance with simplistic black-and-white narratives of good and evil.
It's simplistic but Good vs Evil is all around us, not just in a spiritual sense.

 No.2798

>>2795
>If hes a Freemason then he is a Devil worshiper.
Nope.
>There are many differences between Ancient Judaism, Christianity and modern Judaism. Picture related.
And they're all different variations on the same myths.
>That is literally the Jewish position,
And they're right in that Jesus didn't fulfill the necessary requirements for being the Messiah. That's why Christians jump through hoops trying to justify him with verses that have nothing to do with him.
>I guess you didn't see the webm i posted saying the jewish messiah would bring world peace, Which is the anit-christ.
I did watch it, and it's just Steven Anderson making claims without anything to back them up. It's based on a flawed reading of Revelation.
>You're repeating yourself, i've already answered this, "18 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." 20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. "
And I've already responded: that's from John, which postdated the destruction of the Temple and might have even been finished as late as 110 A.D. Why is it that we only start to see that interpretation catching on after the Temple was destroyed and nothing was changed?
>Your completely ignoring the answer i gave you and just declaring victory. His promised return in that generation was the "end of days" told Daniel by Gabriel for the desolations of Jerusalem. His return was a day of judgment just as all OT prophesy is couched as "a coming of the Lord," or a "day of the Lord," or a "day of calamity," or the "day of His wrath." His return was not to set up a physical kingdom on earth but to remove the last remnant of the old Mosaic sacrificial covenant, the temple where the Jews were still offering animal sacrifices. Those sacrifices had become profane once His blood became that sacrifice promised by OT prophesy (Dan. 9:24-27; Psa. 22:16-18; 2 Sam. 7:14; Isa. 53:5, etc.)
Like I said, that interpretation only came later. What was predicted was that the Messiah would come and usher in an age of peace and prosperity for Israel. None of those verses refer to Jesus, and the fact that so few people seemed to believe he fit the bill in his own life seems to point in that direction.
>'The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.
What wrong did Jesus do if he was without sin?
>For dogs are all around me;
a company of evildoers encircles me.
My hands and feet have shriveled;[b]
17 I can count all my bones.
They stare and gloat over me;
18 they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.
Obviously the character described is in rough shape, but nothing here is specific to Jesus's crucifixion.
>Isa. 53:5
The "suffering servant" is Israel. Israel is referred to as God's servant elsewhere in the Old Testament, and other parts of Isaiah point to the identity of the passage's subject.

Isaiah 41:8:
>But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
the offspring of Abraham, my friend;
Isaiah 49:3:
>And he said to me, "You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified."

Isaiah 48:20:
>Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea,
declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it,
send it forth to the end of the earth;
say, "The Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob!"

>That's your opinion.

It's the most obvious conclusion to come to.
>The same could be said about people against Christianity, You act like there aren't people with personal problems or agendas who want to discredit the Bible. The teachings of the Bible are very difficult to practice, who wants to avoid lust in the internet age, disregarding the Bible is dangerously convenient.
There are people with axes to grind no matter the belief. You don't have to come up with tortuous logical justifications to justify the fallibility of the Bible the way you do for a divinely inspired Bible though.
>That is two diffrent veiw points of one thing that happened. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because he was hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it. Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging
There's still a problem if you ignore the fact that Acts suspiciously never brings up the hanging itself. One passage says that Judas rejected his reward and the field was bought by the priests, while another says that he bought the field he died in with his payment.
>Either Matthew Didn't Record the First Statement of Jairus or Different Point of Emphasis. The translation of the phrase "just died" in Matthew could also be translated "near death." Arti eteleutēsen is the Greek phrase used in this text, and the Greek word arti is often translated as "henceforth" or "hereafter." If this theory is correct, then Matthew did not omit any discourse with Jairus. When Jairus left his house, his daughter was at the point of death; so he may have thought that by the time he was with Jesus, she quite possibly had already died. Indeed, by the time he arrived, she had passed away, as confirmed by the messenger who brought the account of her death before Jesus came to the house.
From what I've read, the word "arti" can be used that way, but only in certain tenses. It apparently isn't used in the way suggested anywhere in the entire New Testament.
>I don't know your situation, but i bet you didn't look at the Christians side too much or didn't like the Christians answers.
Wrong. I went fundamentalist for several years to try and hold onto my faith.
>It's simplistic but Good vs Evil is all around us, not just in a spiritual sense.
Good and evil are subjective labels that people use to paint themselves as the good guys and everyone else as villains.

 No.2799

Holy fuck shut the fuck up

 No.2800

>>2798
>Nope.
Wrong. This is a quote by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et L'enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, Page 588. Cited from 'The question of freemasonry, ( 2nd edition 1986 by Edward Decker pp12-14) "Oui, Lucifer est Dieu, et malheureusement Adonaï" which translates to "Yes, Lucifer is God, and alas Adonai" Roughly translated the full quote is:
"That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a god, but it is the god one adores without superstition. To you sovereign grand inspector general, we say this and you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees - the Masonic religion should be by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the luciferian doctrine.
If lucifer were not god, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and His priests, calumniate Him?
Yes, lucifer is god, and unfortunately Adonay is also God, for the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods. darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil, as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.
Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in lucifer, the equal of Adonay, but lucifer, god of light and god of good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the god of darkness and evil"
https://archive.org/details/RiveACDeLaLaFemmeEtLenfantDansLaFrancMaconnerieUniverselle1894/page/n5/mode/2up Supposidly the Confession of Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, better known as Léo Taxil https://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/Taxil.html debunks this quote, but If you read his full confession it records "A voice. "That was a successful prank!" Another listener. "These Freemasons were your accomplices!" M. Léo Taxil "You bet!… "".
As well as from Thirty third degree Mason Manley P. Hall amplifies the luciferian doctrine on page 48 of his book 'The Lost keys of Freemasonry' "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy" http://www.cedarcitylodge.org/books/The_Lost_Keys_of_Freemasonry.pdf
>And they're all different variations on the same myths.
Do you believe atheism isn't a faith based belief?

 No.2801

>>2798
>I did watch it, and it's just Steven Anderson making claims without anything to back them up.
It's well known to be part of what the Jews look for in their anti-christ messiah.
https://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
"The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15)."
>that's from John, which postdated the destruction of the Temple and might have even been finished as late as 110 A.D.
According to scholars John was written from 50 A.D. to around 150 A.D. Are you basing this Messiah temple requirement from "Zechariah 6:11 "Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; (12) And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: (13) Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."?
>that interpretation only came later.
How do you know that?

 No.2802

>>2798
>What wrong did Jesus do if he was without sin?
forever ('aḏ-) Strong's Hebrew 5704: prep 1) as far as, even to, until, up to, while, as far as 1a) of space 1a1) as far as, up to, even to 1b) in combination 1b1) from…as far as, both…and (with 'min' -from) 1c) of time 1c1) even to, until, unto, till, during, end 1d) of degree 1d1) even to, to the degree of, even like conj 2) until, while, to the point that, so that even. So it's not literally forever but until a certain point, so he could have been talking about Solomon since God is a father to all.
>You don't have to come up with tortuous logical justifications to justify the fallibility of the Bible the way you do for a divinely inspired Bible though.
If there isn't an answer it can be discarded. 2 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.".
>One passage says that Judas rejected his reward and the field was bought by the priests, while another says that he bought the field he died in with his payment.
Just because Judas was not holding the money in his hand, doesn't automatically mean it doesn't belong to him. lacking the desire to have/keep an object does not relinquish ownership of it either.
>Good and evil are subjective
That is very dangerous territory, i hope you aren't too serious about that. Evil is certainly objective to a certain point even for the most secular of people.
>Good and evil are subjective labels that people use to paint themselves as the good guys and everyone else as villains.
That's not what i meant. Good vs Evil can mean you do good actions against evil people, or evil against good people, the People in power are clearly evil because of their actions towards humanity, even if you believe in subjective morality. The Bible teaches that humanity is evil when compared to God who is good.

 No.2803

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP

 No.2808

So. Uh. Anybody want to talk about cultures that rival Sumeria or.. ?

 No.2835

>>2800
>>2801
>>2802
>Wrong. This is a quote by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et L'enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, Page 588. Cited from 'The question of freemasonry, ( 2nd edition 1986 by Edward Decker pp12-14) "Oui, Lucifer est Dieu, et malheureusement Adonaï" which translates to "Yes, Lucifer is God, and alas Adonai" Roughly translated the full quote is:
"That which we must say to the crowd is, we worship a god, but it is the god one adores without superstition. To you sovereign grand inspector general, we say this and you may repeat it to the brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees - the Masonic religion should be by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the luciferian doctrine.
If lucifer were not god, would Adonay (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and His priests, calumniate Him?
>Yes, lucifer is god, and unfortunately Adonay is also God, for the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods. darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil, as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.
>Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is heresy, and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in lucifer, the equal of Adonay, but lucifer, god of light and god of good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the god of darkness and evil"
>https://archive.org/details/RiveACDeLaLaFemmeEtLenfantDansLaFrancMaconnerieUniverselle1894/page/n5/mode/2up Supposidly the Confession of Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, better known as Léo Taxil https://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/Taxil.html debunks this quote, but If you read his full confession it records "A voice. "That was a successful prank!" Another listener. "These Freemasons were your accomplices!" M. Léo Taxil "You bet!… "".
>As well as from Thirty third degree Mason Manley P. Hall amplifies the luciferian doctrine on page 48 of his book 'The Lost keys of Freemasonry' "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy" http://www.cedarcitylodge.org/books/The_Lost_Keys_of_Freemasonry.pdf
Lucifer isn't the same thing as Satan, and these sound like Gnostic beliefs. The Christian Gnostics saw the God of the Old Testament as being evil. There was even a belief among some of them that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Jesus helping Adam and Eve reach knowledge forbidden to them by the Demiurge.
>Do you believe atheism isn't a faith based belief?
Atheism is a lack of faith as far as belief in gods are concerned.
>It's well known to be part of what the Jews look for in their anti-christ messiah.
Those are just the traditional ideas of what the Messiah is supposed to be that predate Christianity, and Anderson is twisting it to say they're awaiting the Antichrist.
>According to scholars John was written from 50 A.D. to around 150 A.D.
Mark is believed to have been written around 70 A.D., and that's considered the earliest of any of the Gospels. Putting John as late as 150 A.D. would only further remove it from the synoptic Gospels.
>Are you basing this Messiah temple requirement from "Zechariah 6:11 "Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; (12) And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: (13) Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."?
That seems to point to it. The idea of the Messiah physically rebuilding the Temple was expected during Second Temple Judaism.
>How do you know that?
Because we don't see anyone making that claim before the Gospel of John. Maybe they did, but we have to go off the information we have.
>If there isn't an answer it can be discarded. 2 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.".
If you have to throw out the parts of the Bible that don't hold up to scrutiny. You don't have too much left.

2 Peter is also considered to have been written by someone else using Peter's name, and most scholars today don't think he wrote the first epistle either.
>Just because Judas was not holding the money in his hand, doesn't automatically mean it doesn't belong to him. lacking the desire to have/keep an object does not relinquish ownership of it either.
Then what does? Matthew says he threw the pieces of silver on the ground and hanged himself. He was clearly rejecting the money.

Either way, that doesn't resolve the hardest contradictions to deal with. Matthew says Judas threw the money away and hanged himself and the priests bought the Field of Blood, while Acts says Judas himself bought it with his own money.
>That is very dangerous territory, i hope you aren't too serious about that. Evil is certainly objective to a certain point even for the most secular of people.
A lot of non-religious people are still clinging to remnants of liberal Christian morality and trying to justify it via evolutionary reasons, like Richard Dawkins. But evolutionary explanations are descriptive rather than prescriptive and don't mean that our moral inclinations have any objective basis in fact.

 No.2858

File: 1642656258235.jpg (124.69 KB, 1206x886, 603:443, 1642609843317.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>2808
No, I just want to talk about the new Travis Scott meal at McDonald's.



[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home ] [ tv / art / wooo ] [ ost / lit / bane ] [ dup / oven / dunk ] [ truth / top ]