Jesus was a terrorist!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
Quote:I was under the impression that transubstantiation only occurred after the bread and wine was consumed although I could be wrong.


No, no. It's when the priest says the magic mumbo jumbo on it.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
15-12-2016, 06:49 PM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(15-12-2016 01:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. IF they actually believe they are eating flesh and blood, then that's what they are doing, in their own minds. That's cannibalism, AND it's not permitted in ancient Judaism. Your fake distinctions with no differences are pathetic.

Haha, I doubt if you ask the Pope whether he imagines he's engaging in cannibalism when he partakes in the Eucharist, he'll affirm this.

And no I'm not making a fake distinction, because the distinction between bread and wine, and flesh and blood are literal, scientific ones. It doesn't get anymore non-fake than that.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2016, 10:30 PM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(15-12-2016 06:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-12-2016 02:47 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No.

Go back and read Luke chapter 19...I'll even provide a link for you. Jeebus was referring to himself.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19


I showed you the actual historical reference. I've read that chapter quite a bit. Luke and Mathew do you use elements of the passage differently, and to different effect. But Luke rendition of it is a clear historical reference to Herod Archallias, a reference his audience would clearly of gotten. A reference so evident that a number of bibles highlight it in the footnotes.

In fact the story of Zacheaus, the Pharisees and their treatment of the disciples, indicate also in context that Lukes Jesus wasn't referring to himself.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I showed you the actual historical reference."


No you didn't. You quoted something from we don't know where, because you didn't tell us where. You also failed to present an argument that this quote had anything to do with Luke 19;27. I might be interested in hearing that argument, but you weren't interested in telling me.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 12:02 AM
Jesus was a terrorist!
Mark Fulton Wrote:No you didn't. You quoted something from we don't know where, because you didn't tell us where. You also failed to present an argument that this quote had anything to do with Luke 19;27. I might be interested in hearing that argument, but you weren't interested in telling me.

In the Luke parable Jesus speaks of an cruel individual who went off to receive the title of King, and that a delegation of individuals went out before him to indicate they did not want him to be their ruler, but he was made their ruler anyway.

Herod Archaleous, went to Rome to receive the title of King, a delegation of Jews went to Rome to oppose the rulership, because of his cruelty. Archaleous was selected to rule over them anyways.

Here's the wiki reference, the previous one was from the NAB footnotes.

"Thus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allottThus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom).ed to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom)."

It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 02:48 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(16-12-2016 12:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Mark Fulton Wrote:No you didn't. You quoted something from we don't know where, because you didn't tell us where. You also failed to present an argument that this quote had anything to do with Luke 19;27. I might be interested in hearing that argument, but you weren't interested in telling me.

In the Luke parable Jesus speaks of an cruel individual who went off to receive the title of King, and that a delegation of individuals went out before him to indicate they did not want him to be their ruler, but he was made their ruler anyway.

Herod Archaleous, went to Rome to receive the title of King, a delegation of Jews went to Rome to oppose the rulership, because of his cruelty. Archaleous was selected to rule over them anyways.

Here's the wiki reference, the previous one was from the NAB footnotes.

"Thus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allottThus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom).ed to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom)."

It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thankyou for posting this (although your cut and paste is all wrong.)

I agree the "parable" sounds like it is all about Archelaus. It is interesting that he lasted 10 years, to be replaced by Antipas.

Here is the "parable" from Luke , KJV

"11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

29 And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples,..."


I agree it may not have been Jeebus, but this character ( Archelaus ) speaking about killing his enemies through "Jeebus." Thankyou for pointing that out to me.

Yet to the casual reader it sounds very much like Jeebus is saying this.

Either way, either Jeebus, or the character in the parable, is advocating murder.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
16-12-2016, 02:55 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2016 03:05 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(15-12-2016 06:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-12-2016 01:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. IF they actually believe they are eating flesh and blood, then that's what they are doing, in their own minds. That's cannibalism, AND it's not permitted in ancient Judaism. Your fake distinctions with no differences are pathetic.

Haha, I doubt if you ask the Pope whether he imagines he's engaging in cannibalism when he partakes in the Eucharist, he'll affirm this.

And no I'm not making a fake distinction, because the distinction between bread and wine, and flesh and blood are literal, scientific ones. It doesn't get anymore non-fake than that.

Of course he's not going to *say* it's cannibalism, but The RC church believes it ACTUALLY is the body and blood of Jesus, (his "body, blood, soul and divinity") . Of course you don't know this, as you know nothing about religions, Mr. "I don't need no Jebus to be a Christian". Do I have to quote their Catechism for you ? It IS a distinction with no difference if in ancient Judaism it is an abomination.

Try harder next time. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-12-2016, 02:57 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2016 03:10 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(16-12-2016 12:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Mark Fulton Wrote:No you didn't. You quoted something from we don't know where, because you didn't tell us where. You also failed to present an argument that this quote had anything to do with Luke 19;27. I might be interested in hearing that argument, but you weren't interested in telling me.

In the Luke parable Jesus speaks of an cruel individual who went off to receive the title of King, and that a delegation of individuals went out before him to indicate they did not want him to be their ruler, but he was made their ruler anyway.

Herod Archaleous, went to Rome to receive the title of King, a delegation of Jews went to Rome to oppose the rulership, because of his cruelty. Archaleous was selected to rule over them anyways.

Here's the wiki reference, the previous one was from the NAB footnotes.

"Thus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allottThus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom).ed to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom)."

It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident."

I, and I presume most people reading this, don't know what you mean by "Jesus' audience." Who do you mean? The people who the gospel of Luke was written for? Who do you think they were?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 03:07 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(16-12-2016 02:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 12:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In the Luke parable Jesus speaks of an cruel individual who went off to receive the title of King, and that a delegation of individuals went out before him to indicate they did not want him to be their ruler, but he was made their ruler anyway.

Herod Archaleous, went to Rome to receive the title of King, a delegation of Jews went to Rome to oppose the rulership, because of his cruelty. Archaleous was selected to rule over them anyways.

Here's the wiki reference, the previous one was from the NAB footnotes.

"Thus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allottThus, Archelaus received the Tetrarchy of Judea last will of his father, though a previous will had bequeathed it to his brother Antipas. He was proclaimed king by the army, but declined to assume the title until he had submitted his claims to Caesar Augustus in Rome. In Rome he was opposed by Antipas and by many of the Jews, who feared his cruelty, based on the murder of 3000; but in 4 BC Augustus allotted to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom).ed to him the greater part of the kingdom (Samaria, Judea, and Idumea) with the title of ethnarch (a king who ruled over one-half of his father's kingdom)."

It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident."

I, and I presume most people reading this, don't know what you mean by "Jesus' audience" Who do you mean? The people who the gospel of Luke was written for? Who do you think they were?

Exactly. The gospels are not history. They are faith affirmations by believers to remind themselves what they already believed. They are not a "record" of his preaching.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 06:52 AM
Jesus was a terrorist!
(16-12-2016 02:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "It's pretty clear, that Jesus's audience would have understand who Jesus was referring to. The parallels are quite evident."

I, and I presume most people reading this, don't know what you mean by "Jesus' audience." Who do you mean? The people who the gospel of Luke was written for? Who do you think they were?

The audience in the parable is Jewish, if the parable as stated in Luke is representive of what Jesus actually said, which your appeal to using it in supporting Jesus the terrorist, is suggesting as well, the audience would clearly have been Jewish.

Now, with this in mind, and the historical reference we spoke of earlier, it changes a few things regarding how many non- Jewish people unaware of the historical reference interpret the passage.

If you were a Jewish person hearing this story who opposed Herod Archaleus's rule and cruelty, the person you would readily identify with is the defient servant, and the ones the ruler is planning to kill for not accepting his authority.

Just like if we were to tell a parable of a slave revolt, where the slaves were caught and killed. The slaves hearing the parable would identify with the murdered revolters, not the oppresser.









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 06:57 AM
RE: Jesus was a terrorist!
(16-12-2016 06:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The audience in the parable is Jewish,

What a fucking charlatan-fake ignoramus. NO scholar says Luke was written for a Jewish audience.

"In contrast to either Mark or Matthew, Luke's gospel is clearly written more for a gentile audience. Luke is traditionally thought of as one of Paul's traveling companions and it's certainly the case that the author of Luke was from those Greek cities in which Paul had worked."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/.../luke.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: