Newsflash

[sirs]

d'oh       

[Xavier_Onassis]

Gimme a break!

I did not say that I did not understand the parables, most of them are not that hard to understand. I said that his disciples did not understand them and found them confusing. That is at least what they are reported to have said.

Most of what Jesus said was never written down or transcribed.  Years and decades passed between the time when Jesus lived and the time when the Gospels were written.

The concept of the Trinity is not mentioned EVER by Jesus in any way. It was all made up much later. Wars were fought over it, and perhaps the wrong side won those wars.

I fail to see anything even remotely miraculous in any of this. I fail to see why it would even need to be miraculous. Pen and Teller do a lot more "miraculous" stuff in their stage acts. It is an effective way to get attention, that is about it.

[Plane]

This is why there needed to have been a Gospel of Jesus. Except, of course, for the habit Jesus had of speaking in confusing parables.

I was speaking twards the hang up you seem to have on scripture being hard to understand.

I did not say that I did not understand the parables, most of them are not that hard to understand

Or maybe you don't have a hang up pn the scripture being confusing, perhaps you are just searching for a complaint?

[sirs]

I did not say that I did not understand the parables, most of them are not that hard to understand

Or maybe you don't have a hang up pn the scripture being confusing, perhaps you are just searching for a complaint?

lol.......ya think?     

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is not one single thing in the New Testament that could meet the standards for presentation in any court of law. It is all hearsay, mostly by unknown witnesses or people who were not even there.

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the allegation, but for so-called Biblical "scholars", the scripture is presumed to be true. That is simply BOGUS.

[sirs]

That's why the Bible isn't a book of law, outside of Christian law and the 10 Comandments, but a book of Faith.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Exactly, a Book of Faith, just like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365182300&sr=1-1&keywords=flying+spaghetti+monster

Which also has more pirates and fewer silly dietary laws.

[sirs]

ahhh, more of that Christianity equates to Cannibalsm crap, or in this case, flying spaghetti monsters.  No, not like that one, in any way, shape or form, sorry to say

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not only more pirates, but also stripper factories and free beer.

[sirs]

.....not in any way, shape or form, sorry to say

[Xavier_Onassis]

Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is cannibalism.

Communion is clearly a ritual.

As described by the Holy Mother Church, Holy Communion is clearly ritual cannibalism.

[Plane]

There is not one single thing in the New Testament that could meet the standards for presentation in any court of law. It is all hearsay, mostly by unknown witnesses or people who were not even there.

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the allegation, but for so-called Biblical "scholars", the scripture is presumed to be true. That is simply BOGUS.

That is a pretty high standard.

A lot of science doesn't meet this standard either.

Do you suppose the Higgs Bosun could be proven in a court of law?

[Xavier_Onassis]

A reproducible natural phenomenon is by definition acceptable to a scientist.

Most of the New Testament is not even adequate second hand evidence.

No one is sure of who Luke or Mark really were, except in the vaguest terms. They are still disputing whether John the Apostle was the same John that wrote the Book of Revelation.

There is nothing in science even a fraction as dubious as the Book of Revelation.

[sirs]

Eating human flesh and drinking human blood is cannibalism.

Communion is clearly a ritual.

As described by the Holy Mother Church, Holy Communion is clearly ritual cannibalism.

.....not in any way, shape or form, sorry to say

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sorry, that is the DEFINITION of ritual cannibalism.
As we can see, cannibalism and drinking blood played a part in a lot of religions, and some people would be surprised to hear that Christians practice a form of cannibalism even today.

John 6

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

53 Then Jesus said to them: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Later Jesus breaks bread and offers it to his disciples saying: This is my body. Then offers them wine saying: This is my blood.

Christians today practice the Eucharist where they eat a blessed wafer and drink wine. While there is a lot of debate about whether or not this is symbolic rather than literal, there is no difference between what cannibalistic tribes did for centuries, and what modern Christians do. The two elements of sympathetic magic are at play in the same ways in both cases.

The Christian is told to do this for several reasons depending on which book of the bible you want to read on the subject. In the supper event we see Jesus telling the disciples to do this to remember or commemorate him. But this is not a contradiction to what Jesus said before. He was clearly still alive and instructing his followers on how they should ingest him.

I tend to think Jesus meant it literally like the Catholics do. Their theory is called: Transubstantiation. It tells its followers that when blessed, the wine and bread become the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. The act of blessing actually transforms the material. This was decided at the council of Trent after long debate.

There was another side who favoured consubstantiation, which means that while the host and the wine remain what they are, they somehow, magically, connect the person eating it with Jesus. This was declared a heresy by the council of Trent, but became the official position of the Protestant churches after the reform.