• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Jesus Would Have Hated Most Modern Day Religion

I don't dispute opinions. Everybody has one. You should go hang out with the guy who's argument is that Mother Theresa is a fraud because her name really isn't Theresa.
Same type of argument that Slate makes.
Not an opinion but fact. Also stop using the strawman. You have already conceded the argument . Move on.

Academics suggest Hitch called it right on Mother Teresa - IV Drip - Voices - The Independent
Mother Teresa Humanitarian Image A 'Myth,' New Study Says
 
I don't believe Jesus was "God." So, I'm not sure I can say anything which will counter your argument without the two of us talking past each other.

It doesn't matter whether you think He is, or He is not God. Whatever you believe about Jesus is irrelevant.


Your OP quoted an article that used Matthew 8 as the basis for its argument.
You believe the article on the basis of his argument (which relies on his lack of understanding of Matthew 8).
I responded to your article's argument.

The argument is on your quoted article. That's the argument you presented.

I merely showed where the author of that article is wrong.
He didn't really understand what he's on about. That's all.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter whether you think He is, or He is not God. Whatever you believe about Jesus is irrelevant.


Your OP quoted an article that used Matthew 8 as the basis for its argument.
You believe the article on the basis of his argument (which relies on his lack of understanding of Matthew 8).
I responded to your article's argument.

The argument is on your quoted article. That's the argument you presented.

I merely showed where the author of that article is wrong.
He didn't really understand what he's on about. That's all.
:roll:
 
The Old Testament was there at Jesus's time. I think they called it the Torah.

The TORA is the Jewish book of Words. It is not a Christina document. SOme of it did exist at the time of Jesus.
 
the religious book of Jewish people is the Talmud.

That is incorrect. The Talmud is one of Judaism's holy books, the other being the Tanakh (which Christians refer to as the Old Testament).
 
The TORA is the Jewish book of Words. It is not a Christina document. SOme of it did exist at the time of Jesus.

The Torah is one of the component of the Tanakh, which is the Hebrew scriptures that Christians call the Old Testament. All of it existed in the time of Jesus. In fact, the Greek translation Jesus was using had existed for some 200-300 years before he was born.
 
The Torah is one of the component of the Tanakh, which is the Hebrew scriptures that Christians call the Old Testament. All of it existed in the time of Jesus. In fact, the Greek translation Jesus was using had existed for some 200-300 years before he was born.

Agreed thank you. (Source "Man from Earth)
 
The Torah is one of the component of the Tanakh, which is the Hebrew scriptures that Christians call the Old Testament. All of it existed in the time of Jesus. In fact, the Greek translation Jesus was using had existed for some 200-300 years before he was born.

The Torah is a subsecton of the Old Testament.>> The Jewish scriptures are split into three sections.. The 5 books of Moses (the torah), The Prophets, and the Writings.

The greek translation of the Torah existed. There rest of the Septuagint is a little more murky when it comes to the Greek translation, because it didn't happen all at once, and a lot of it got translated by Christians later.
 
The Torah is a subsecton of the Old Testament.>> The Jewish scriptures are split into three sections.. The 5 books of Moses (the torah), The Prophets, and the Writings.

The greek translation of the Torah existed. There rest of the Septuagint is a little more murky when it comes to the Greek translation, because it didn't happen all at once, and a lot of it got translated by Christians later.

That's not different from anything I said.
 
That's not different from anything I said.

Except, 1) Many sections that were claimed that Jesus used were not translated until after he died.

2) When it comes to the Septiguaint, Jesus, since he was born in Judah, would not have used it. The Greek translation was very much scorned by the Jews that were brought up speaking Arabic. It does show that the authors of the New Testament were NOT the apostles, since they relied on the Greek translation, and not the Hebrew.
 
Except, 1) Many sections that were claimed that Jesus used were not translated until after he died.

2) When it comes to the Septiguaint, Jesus, since he was born in Judah, would not have used it. The Greek translation was very much scorned by the Jews that were brought up speaking Arabic. It does show that the authors of the New Testament were NOT the apostles, since they relied on the Greek translation, and not the Hebrew.

Greeks were probably more liberal than the Desert Dwellers. So, that the NT is much more liberal than the OT makes perfect sense to me.
 
Except, 1) Many sections that were claimed that Jesus used were not translated until after he died.

2) When it comes to the Septiguaint, Jesus, since he was born in Judah, would not have used it. The Greek translation was very much scorned by the Jews that were brought up speaking Arabic. It does show that the authors of the New Testament were NOT the apostles, since they relied on the Greek translation, and not the Hebrew.
Again, none of this has to do what I said. I said the Torah existed for some 200-300 years prior to Jesus' birth. You acknowledged as much.
 
Though technically a religious discussion, I suspect the rules in there would result in me receiving an infraction just for posting this. Nonetheless, assuming there really was a Jesus (I know, but suspend disbelief for just a second), I totally believe what Mr Schaeffer says here. How about you?



Jesus certainly was no bible thumper. Hence, bible thumpers are not really Christians. Right?

IMO, if Jesus exists up in heaven, he would probably condemn most Christians to hell. Clearly, it seems to me He has no choice because they do not really believe in Him, which is the sole requirement for passage through heaven's gates. Correct?.

images
 
lol...I just realized this thread is from 2014.

Why on earth would W-man necro it?
 
You said my post was incorrect and stated the same words I said. So I'm a bit confused.

Read it again. I'll repost the whole thing below and add bold for your convenience. If you still can't see it then...I don't know what to say. The rest of us can see it.

calamity said:
The Old Testament was there at Jesus's time. I think they called it the Torah.
the religious book of Jewish people is the Talmud
CrabCake said:
That is incorrect. The Talmud is one of Judaism's holy books, the other being the Tanakh (which Christians refer to as the Old Testament).
 
Semantics. It's semantics.

If it's semantics, what was the point of your post? Your response to his statement that the Torah existed in the time of Jesus was to point out, incorrectly, that it is the Talmud that is the religious book of the Jewish people. What was the purpose of posting that if not to claim that the Torah is NOT the religious book of the Jewish people? You were just adding random irrelevant information?

It seems more likely that you weren't adding random information but actually meant what you said. It isn't semantics, you were just wrong.
 
The beautiful thing about Jesus, is he didn't hate anyone. As an atheist who follows his philosophy, and takes comfort in his message of love. And considers him the greatest human to have lived. I truly believe that he would not hate the religious of today. Even those who do wrong in his name. His lack of hate for those who do wrong is where his message gains its strength and merit.

If he were alive today, he would show us a better way, and forgive us our trespasses. That's how he changed the world.
 
Back
Top Bottom