New Testament?

But a lot of what's actually written into the New Testament is just Paul regurgitating what was in the Old Testament.

So to even claim that there is a "New Covenant" whilst that's going on is quite hypocritical, IMHO.

In short, I don't buy.

Just sounds like hypocritical treachery to me.

In truth, Cowboy, I don't trust the Christians. They have proven to me that their words are untrustworthy. They are devious and cannot be trusted.

As far as I can see they just use a dead Jesus as a patsy to support their bigotry. I don't trust a Christian when they speak of "love". From my point of view they speak with forked tongue out of both sides of their face. They talk about a "New Covenant" and then use the "Old Covenant" to support their bigotry.

I simply don't trust them to speak for the dead man.

And from what I've read about the dead man, he wouldn't support their bigotry either.

1. The "God" of the Old Testament (or Torah) is mere gossip and old wives' tales.
2. Jesus was actually an Irishman, later to become a Russian Eastern Orthodox Buddhist Bolshevik revolutionary in Jerusalem at around 30 a.d.
3. Jesus renounced the old ways of circumcision (it stings like crazy, He said).
4. Jesus taught pan-global unified fight against poverty, and against imperialistic empricism and military globalization.
5. Jesus had a foul mouth.
6. Jesus renounced the charges, (S**t, that ain't me, man)
7. The pilot agreed that Jesus was not claiming to be Yahweh and remained behind the controls of the Enterprise.
8. The mob crucified Jesus anyway. There was nothing else on that night. You know how boring eves of religious family feasts can get when you are single. Mobs and rioting crowds are notoriously made up of single, maladjusted males.
9. Decades later some bible scholars decided to make their jobs a paying job. To create the impression they did something important, they argued with each other in highfalutin language. Economists learned that trick from them.
10. Arguments about what should and what should not be included in the New Testament slowly evolved into creating the best-paying job of all times, the job of Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome, the job of the pope.

"Just as the day will be fullfilled with the coming of night." I believe the first part is true, that Jesus is the ultimate promise fulfilled, that had been made in the old Book. But this quote is a semantic disgrace. A fact cannot be fulfilled. Only a prediction can be fulfilled. The end of something is not at all the fulfillment of something. Who originated that sentence in the quote? What a gaping lingual ignoration.

I've been converted.

I'm now a Wuxian.

I believe in Wuxianity.

I believe every word in the bible. But were there any other references in Testament no. 2 to the fact that Jesus was god? Because being God's son is no big deal. I am God's son. We are all his children. There have got to some more references, stating Jesus was God. Or else every last Sunday school teacher I ever had lied to me.

I am not saying that the bible is wrong. I am saying that people are arrogant stupid bastards, who take a holy book and put words in its mouth.

Bring me your sacrifice.

One virgin at a time. (You ARE a virgin, no, Abra? if not, kindly go away.)

Oh pooh.

Rejected by God again!

If a law is not abolished, it remains current. If you instruct others with the proper authority invested in you to not continue to follow the old law, then you are abolishing a law.

I'll never get a grip on this. Since I believe in the absoluteness of logic, I strongly believe that Jesus was a liar. God too. It does not contradict Christianity to say so.

We can not measure the system of God's morality with ours. It is haughty of us, humans, to assume that because we can't kill, then God can't kill either. He kills daily.

Similarly, saying untruths, or lying, is only a sin for humans, not for God. If God was forbidding His own self to lie, then the above two statements in the quote would no coexists in this universe.

Hehe. (God does not do smiley faces. By principle.)

the quote is actually 7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.


preceeded by a reference about understanding proverbs and their interpretation

I agree, the quote (like many which people isolate and note) is irresponsible and void of meaning without the CONTEXT surrounding it,,

According the gospels he did so.

He said, not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

So there.

(Sheesh! Those Christians just won't stop lying no matter what! )

abolishing a law is making it nulled. Canceling out. Jesus was telling us he did not come to do as such, he came to FULLFILL the law. When Jesus returns the second time he will be again fullfilling the law..... The new testament.

yes very true, but not one jot nor one tittle did pass from the law. The law was fulfilled..... completed........ finished.

Someone listed about 20 or 25 different wordings of this, according to the many editions of the Bible. About 15 were modern issues (less than 50 years old).

If you say the it is "actually", then these days you have to specify the edition, as well as the year, the translator, the software used, the minimum education level of the team that worked on the translation (if anyone had a degree inferior to a Ph.D. then scrap that book unless you're a collector), the p.H. balance of the pages, (not too much acid), the pH. balance of the reader (reading it is more fun with having dropped LSD), and then plus about 545.7 more specifiers.

If you know properly what Law means, you know darned tooting well you are bs-sing here.

In human concepts, you can't fulfill a law. You can obey it or disobey it. You can fulfill a prediction.

If Jesus did not come to abolish, cancel, annul a law (but he came to fulfill them) then the original laws would be in effect, no?

But some original laws are no longer in effect (dietary laws and laws that govern the conduct of worship.)

So if a law is not abolished, then how come it is not obeyed?

This means we are living in sin when we eat shellfish or pork.

This means we are living in sin when we disallow harems and polygamy.

This means we are living in sin when we do not stone blasphemers.

To contradict these, as you do, is an assertion of a basic ignorance of what law, as a concept, both practical and theoretical, means.

I am sorry, I can't explain this in any simpler terms. If this is still beyond you, then please, go debate with a grade two student.
---

Now I expect that you will say an umpteenth time that Jesus did not abolish the Laws, He instead came to fulfill them, or in your version of the word, fullfill them.

I very much agree with you here. My only reservation is that we must not mix context up with interpretation, that is edited into explanatory and annotated issues mid-stream with the text.

So I don't necessarily agree that "a reference about understanding proverbs and their interpretation" can be considered as context. A reference may be valid, and useful to the reader, but a reference can NOT write the original text. And therefore references and interpretations are very-very dangerous tools of the intellect.

My entire quest of the last five years has been to allow people to read the Bible and read IT, not the references, interpretations, explanations and scholarly or else Sunday-school dogmatizations of it.

according to the belief everyone is the sons and daughters of God, the only human that can be equated to be the true son would be Adam because Adam was the first human created in God's image by God himself and not born from woman and was the only human born without sin ..Jesus was born from woman from a bloodline of sinners

the reference I was referring to was the line IMMEDIATELY before that one,, which would be kind of important to the context

If I was quoted as saying ' dogs should be considered superior beings'

it might seem a lot less logical without the line PRECEDING IT

' If dogs can train up humans and support them and nurture them and create their own necessities and luxuries..'

the first line in the bible gen 1:1 and god created...... but if you read it in the orginial hebrew it actually says alehtav. in romans jesus says he ie the alpha and omega, the begining and the end. aplha is the first greek letter in the alphabet and omega is the last. hebrew aleh is the first and tav is the last. in original hebrew gen 1:1 reads in the begining, god, jesus created

sorry it is not romans it rev 1:11, the jews don,t interpert alehtav because they do not know what it means.