Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/jesus_was_hypocrite.shtml
Sorry if this offends anyone but I wanted to hear comments on this essay.
Sorry if this offends anyone but I wanted to hear comments on this essay.
J.C. was a hypocrite?
- Thread starter IanStuart
- Start date
Bigsatan13
New member
No shit? Just like the catholic religion?
jesus 2 said:
Damn Jesus!!! I thought you would have a better answer than that!
I agree. The dates and authors of the Bible are highly contested amongst scientists. The die hard Christians say the Bible is perfect; however, nothing man creates is perfect I don't care who wrote it.
First off, I'd like to say that it's hard to comment on what is written in the Bible since it has passed through so many translations.
With that said, I will say that the writer or that essay has taken many interpretational liberties in his work. He at one point disputes a verse of the Bible, saying that an "editorial amendment" was made, and that the original verse said something different. I would argue that his entire essay is one big edititorial amendment.
Secondly, he devotes an entire paragraph to the fact that Jesus called his mother "woman" on several occasions, and then uses this to "prove" that Jesus did not honor his father and mother. This goes back to my original point - in today's time that would be disrespectful, but we have no idea what it meant back then. For instance, back then, the word "bastard" was a common part of the language and did not have the nasty connotation it does now.
Thirdly, his points about anger mean nothing to me. The word anger probably has thirty other greek, roman, hebrew translations that don't mean the same thing.
To conclude, I can appreciate the points the writer is trying to make, but many of them are very weak points at best. If he had come across as a more authoritative interpreter of the Bible, I might have given this more thought and given him more credit.
With that said, I will say that the writer or that essay has taken many interpretational liberties in his work. He at one point disputes a verse of the Bible, saying that an "editorial amendment" was made, and that the original verse said something different. I would argue that his entire essay is one big edititorial amendment.
Secondly, he devotes an entire paragraph to the fact that Jesus called his mother "woman" on several occasions, and then uses this to "prove" that Jesus did not honor his father and mother. This goes back to my original point - in today's time that would be disrespectful, but we have no idea what it meant back then. For instance, back then, the word "bastard" was a common part of the language and did not have the nasty connotation it does now.
Thirdly, his points about anger mean nothing to me. The word anger probably has thirty other greek, roman, hebrew translations that don't mean the same thing.
To conclude, I can appreciate the points the writer is trying to make, but many of them are very weak points at best. If he had come across as a more authoritative interpreter of the Bible, I might have given this more thought and given him more credit.
All the guys i went to scholl with that were Muslim always tried to get me to read crap like this, as if they wanted to prove how wrong my religion was. Silly crap if you ask me.
So much of religion is up to interpretation. Unfortunately thruought history it's been interpreted in vilent ways.
So much of religion is up to interpretation. Unfortunately thruought history it's been interpreted in vilent ways.
Similar threads
- Locked
