How do you reconcile the teachings of Jesus Christ with the vicious...

THEY ARE NOT MEANT TO BE RECONCILED; CONTRARILY, THEY SHOULD BE CONTRASTED, AND DIFFERENTIATED, BECAUSE «THE OLD TESTAMENT» IS A DIRECT INCLUSION OF JUDAIC SCRIPTURE —THE «TORAH»—, AND AS SUCH, IS ANTITHETICAL TO CHRISTIANITY.

THE COLLECTION OF TEXTS KNOWN AS «THE BIBLE» CONSTITUTES JUDEOCHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE, NOT CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE; JUDEOCHRISTIANITY IS THE RELIGION THAT WAS CONSTITUTED FROM THE JEWISH PERVERSION OF THE ORIGINAL DOCTRINE FOUNDED BY JESUSCHRIST, AND DEVELOPED BY HIS DISCIPLES.

CHRISTIANITY, AS AN ORGANIZED SPIRITUAL DOCTRINE, WAS EXTINGUISHED WITH THE CATHARS.

Attached: CABEZA DE CRISTO, CIRCA 1600, EL GRECO.jpg (1237x1600, 326K)

a more efficient presentation of your post would have been nothing but the word "sneethe"

Attached: 1555007414336.png (244x285, 82K)

>How do you reconcile the teachings of Jesus Christ with the vicious, vengeful and ridiculous god of the jews in the Old Testament?
Pure faith.

>what are types
Imagine being this obtusely ignorant.

I read your post and understood it perfectly. I just think it's garbage.

No, that isn't long. You must not read very much if you think it is.

You are that based user who was originally Christian until he investigated the texts himself, right? I asked you what your personal philosophical views are now, but you never replied. That's okay, but keep up the honest expose (french accent on the end) of the Biblical scriptures. And yes, that quote about "there are people standing here" who will see the End Times is pretty dang difficult for Christians to spin into something else.

compared to fucking what? "long" requires a context of comparison to have any meaning whatsoever. a bus is long compared to a volkswagon beetle but a bus is short compared to a passenger train.

the bible is hella fucking long compared to a vast majority of books. obscenely long. like eight times the length of most books. that's why nobody reads it.

No, it's called being critical and viewing the NT through a historical lens instead of a religious one. If anybody tried that shit today, especially cutting off the part where it specifically talks about Israel, you would rightly berate them for dishonest and selective quoting.
>obtusely ignorant
I guarantee you I have more knowledge of scripture than you.

What kind of poofta is turned off by the blood and guts and war of the Old Testament? NT ends with a battle scene, Constantine didn't win the Battle of the Milvian Bridge with hugs and kisses. God made us to fight and strive and struggle.

The key to understanding the continuity between the Old and New Testament is the Incarnation. Since higher criticism rejects it at the outset they'll always be blind as Scripture tells us. The Incarnation reveals to us that God is not some wholly transcedent psychopathic bean-counter but a God who out of love deigns to lower himself to the level of fallen man. Through this it is also revealed that God is also a God of history. The Old Testament sets the world stage, so to speak, for the coming of Christ. Without the Old Testament there is no Christ.

>he thinks texts only have a historical meaning
Check out this pleb. I bet you think the Odyssey wasn't an allegory for the journey of the soul.

Divinely inspired texts have historical, literal, allegorical, tropological, moral, and anagogical meanings. See:
newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

>literal, allegorical, tropological, moral, and anagogical
all of these things fall underneath the umbrella of history. they tend to change a lot over time.

Don't choke on that pearl pig.

The Talmud is long. The Hadiths are long. The Complete works of the Church Fathers is long. The Summa Theologica is long. You can't compare the Bible to the YA novels you usually read.

>How do you reconcile the teachings of Jesus Christ with the vicious, vengeful and ridiculous god of the jews in the Old Testament?
Letter of the law kills, spirit gives life. Truth shall set you free. Kingdom of God is within you.

What we have about the Old Testament is just like the New Testament; humans writing down their experiences and guidance. In the Kings there is a story where the Israelites are defeated after they burn all the forests in Moabite lands, and the Moabite king sacrifices his own son to save his own nation.
God does not operate on what Israelites, jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists or so want, or even on how they interpret things. God is highly active and ruins plenty of our plans.

Jesus is the Son of Adam, Judas is the Son of Satan
Jews have become an enemy to God and all mankind
>1 Thessalonians 2:15
>Matthew 23
>John 8:21-23

Jesus btfo'd the traders out of the temple in Jerusalem. God is full of love AND justice.

What Jesus did is not comparable with massacring millions because you want to make a point, which is my point.

The OT spans 1000 plus. The NT, prophesies aside, spans less than 50. The scale is very different. How do we know God hasn't had a hand in wars in the last 2000 years? Wars being lost due to some lack of righteousness? No different from the battles of Judges-Chronicles. The time scale is just so large in the OT that we can see the full picture and attribute God to it much clearer.

1000 years* oops

Most the things God says not only apply to past, and current events ,but also to future events

God is constantly changing in the Bible. Solomon prays to allow fellow traveler gentiles to receive his blessings in addition to just Jews, for instance. It all makes a lot more sense in an occult/magical context than it does in a literalist one.

>cathars
now this is an interesting take on abrahamic thought, what is the recommended reading on this?

Attached: 2f6b33ab.jpg (1920x1080, 127K)

>>This is helpful

The OT is an embarrassment to Christianity. This is why they hook you in with the Jesus stuff and hope you don't read the OT or only read it when you're so committed you're willing to rationalize anything. It's like a much softer version of Scientology keeping the Lord Zenu shit secret from low-level members because if they told you that bit up front you wouldn't be able to take it seriously. When people say "reading the Bible made me an atheist" they are almost always talking about the OT.

Typology is bullshit. It's just pointing out random similarities between stories. And in this case the author of Matthew probably cheated by having Jesus go to Egypt just so he could use that quote

You say he's a vicious and angry God but I think you're an idiot who can't read the text beyond a superficial level.

old testament - written by men about men who recieved the word of god and could only interpret it in vindictive ways because they did not fully understand. (David got pretty close to the NT god tho)
new testament - written by men about a literal god in human flesh who clarified the will of God, straight from the horse's mouth

Firebombing a city full of fags was a act of love.

>It's wrong because I don't like it.
Thanks for sharing.

I would start with the Nag Hammadi scriptures just because having a familiarity with original gnostic thought will help you understand some of the subsequent similar forms of Christianity.

You don't need everything from the OT. You don't need to believe it is divinely inspired. It just had the prophesy about the messiah. Which then gets fulfilled in the NT. You don't even need the whole NT since Matthew and Luke are clearly derivative works, and Paul was just trying to destroy Jesus's message. Read Mark and John and you're done.

finally, an original, if a bit braindead, take on this forsaken board

None of what he wrote constitutes an original idea.

The irony here is astounding. You accuse the NT authors of misunderstanding the bible, while misunderstanding it yourself. The NT authors very well knew what they were talking about. Paul himself was one of the most well versed OT scholars of his generation

Moses was definitely a lot closer to God than David was. God was even with Moses when he died, and buried him Himself, showing that he was genuinely Moses' lifelong friend. And in the NT God allowed Moses to be with Jesus in Israel for his transfiguration.

People who say that God is any less compassionate in loving between the two testaments are genuinely blind.

God didn't change, duh, but obviously the interpretation of God's love became much clearer.

You reconcile them by reading the rest of the text, bruh.
What commandments do you give to people that literally have to be taught not to f*ck each others wives and not to kill each other? Hardcore 'vicious' ones.

What commandments do you give to people who have the spiritual and collective maturity to form an adequate body of believers? The more profound ones.

Exodus is full of love actually. You lead people out of Egypt with one miracle after another and not two pages further they are already complaining and want to go back to slavery, they want to beCOME SLAVES. It took lots of love to not give them what they capriciously asked for. I understand the instances where God is extremely aggressive do stand out, but really there is plenty of benevolence on every page.

There's also Judges where God has to keep sending a judge to free the people of Israel, as they continuously turned away from him and got themselves into more trouble

Why is it braindead?

Oh? Where does it come from?

Do you think it was reasonable for Matthew to quote Hosea in this way without providing the full context? Do you think the quote would have been as convincing if Matthew hadn't snipped off the inconsequential part about the son being Israel NOT the messiah? Would you not correctly identify this as dishonest quoting if it was done by anyone else in any other context?
A lot of the quotes from the OT in the NT arise from mistranslations into the Greek. It has been discovered, for example, that the quote in Isaiah was not "the virgin shall conceive" as the Greek manuscripts had it; rather, "the young woman shall conceive". That's right, the virgin birth originated from a mistranslation of the Hebrew manuscripts which the NT authors took at face value.

It's always fun to play the "people were D U M B back in the day" but really there is no reason to presume the young woman >>> virgin was an accident. Those two are symbolically nearly indistinguishable and many myths and tales conflate the two.

People in the ancient world being less intelligent than we are today is always my favorite misconception. It reminds me of how in elementary school we were taught that people thought the earth was flat until Columbus found america, while the Greeks knew that it was round thousands of years ago.

Then there's also the fedora tier argument of people mistaking natural events for miracles and what not, despite the average person having a very good idea of what was going on around them

How fucking ignorant are you that you can't wrap your mind around the extremely basic concept of Exoteric and Esoteric exegesis?

Or in Jeremiah, after the fall of Jerusalem, when the survivors ask Jeremiah if they should go to Egypt or stay there:
>should we go or stay here, we'll do whatever God says
>God says stay here
>ok we're gonna go lol

>send a messiah who fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah
>literal son of God, prophesied and shown pre-incarnate throughout the OT
>The Jews have him crucified
They were a very stubborn people

>God was even with Moses when he died, and buried him Himself, showing that he was genuinely Moses' lifelong friend
You mean after he ordered him to die?

>God dumbs down his moral law that will be preserved forever in scripture for the sake of savages
>they usually fail to follow it and get punished anyway
So what was the point of compromising?

Christianity is not Abrahamic.

The theology of Christianity was completely revolutionary. It's not at all what the prophets prepared them for, so it's quite understandable they wouldn't recognize it. Even the idea of God having a literal son was new. And most of the "fulfilled predictions" are like this

God didn't order Moses to die, he just didn't allow him to enter the promised land. Moses was very old, and knew that it was his time. He understood that the torch needed to be passed to Joshua

>Then there's also the fedora tier argument of people mistaking natural events for miracles
This is still common today though. There are popular faith healers today.

t. illiterate poltard american incel

I don't, which is why I'm not religious.

t. some newfag yurostarve/brown

Not really what I was thinking about, since doing that in Israel back in biblical times was a capital punishment. You make a fair point though. There are always going to be people who are easily conned, but that doesn't take away from the genuinely intelligent people who witness true miracles and believe

t. American """Theologian"""

I'm not that first guy but I was right

Abraham is probably the most cited OT figure in the NT... Both Jesus and Paul spoke about him as the father of the faithful..

>that doesn't take away from the genuinely intelligent people who witness true miracles and believe
Intelligent people can be just as easy to fool. Uri Geller was tested by scientists at Stanford and had them convinced he was psychic. I don't think they were stupid. It's often less about intelligence and more about being aware of certain kinds of tricks or not letting your desire to believe something sway you.

I am still not that first guy and you're still a newfag and an o b s e s s e d yurostarve

where in that post was it claimed that people were dumb in the past?
While someone was translating a manuscript of Isaiah into Greek, he accidentally mistranslated "young woman" into "virgin". Since they did not have a rigorous editing and proofreading process in those times, this mistake was glossed over. This new manuscript was then copied up by scribes into more manuscripts and the error was retained. We now know from the discovery of earlier Hebrew manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that the original reading was not "virgin" but in fact "young woman".
Now which is more likely to you
1) In a time when claims of being a messiah were not so uncommon, there arose an eccentric preacher named Jesus who placed emphasis on community and love. After he was killed (as was common for false messiahs), his followers, wanting to retain this message, invented some stories about him that would justify his claims of messiahood. Wanting to convince their brothers, Jews, they searched the OT for passages that could be applicable to their narrative. Since the manuscripts in use were the aforementioned Greek translations, they stumbled across this passage in Isaiah and retroactively made up the story of the virgin birth, under the impression that this passage was translated correctly.
2) the laws of nature were suspended, and a man was born of a virgin, which just so happened to be in line with a mistranslated passage the gospel writers thought was authentic

Given that even before Jesus was born almah was being translated as parthenon would seem to indicate some sort of association by context with virginity.

>Since they did not have a rigorous editing and proofreading process in those times, this mistake was glossed over.

You're assuming it was a mistake, and not a accurate rendition of the meaning of the phrase. Given that a Jewish priest probably understood what almah and parthenon meant, and indeed understood the context of the word better than people several millennia later that do not natively speak either, I am going to assume almah can, and in the case of Isaiah does mean virgin.

>vicious, vengeful and ridiculous god of the jews
hi /pol/

parthenos*

Just noticed that autocorrect.

You're going against all academic consensus on the matter. Nobody is saying that's the translator didn't know the difference between the words(it is entirely possible he didn't). The word virgin is indeed culturally related to young woman so it's not surprising that such a mistake could be made, in the heat, in shitty lighting, and after hours of working on the translation. Your attempts of reconciling this disparity are laughable and clearly betray a bias on your part. Transliterating the words for us lends you no credibility when the entire body of scholarship agrees that the original mean that young woman.

Meant not mean that*
Autocorrect

>You're going against all academic consensus on the matter.

No I'm not.

>it is entirely possible he didn't

And that he did.

>The word virgin is indeed culturally related to young woman so it's not surprising that such a mistake could be made,

Or that it was intentional as that is what was meant.

> Your attempts of reconciling this disparity are laughable and clearly betray a bias on your part.

You haven't made an argument.

> Transliterating the words for us lends you no credibility when the entire body of scholarship agrees that the original mean that young woman.

OR that like most words almah's meaning is subject to the context in which it is used and given it was translated into a word that means virgin by native speakers of BOTH languages during the creation of the fucking Septuagint it is VERY unlikely it was a mistake. How a panel of 72 fucking Jewish scholars could all simultaneously mistakenly translate a word is mindbogglingly stupid to consider.

I reject all of the NT as not canon.

>"I did not come to destroy a single letter of the law." - Jesus Christ

GOD NEVER CHANGES
STONE FAGS

All I can do is refer you to the entire body of scholarship which is unanimous in identifying it as a mistranslation. I do not presume, unlike you, that I have the linguistic and historical expertise to make categorical claims contradicting all the scholars in this field.
You obviously want to believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of god which is why you have to engage in these pathetic mental gymnastics. Your argument is literally climate change denial tier.

Not him and not a christian but you seem like an over emotional pseud.

>cathars
Their only manuscript is the Voynich manuscript. Good luck making sense of that.

>also say FUCK YOU MOM if you want to follow me!
t. jesus christ
what a great man

159:4.5."Nathaniel, never permit yourself for one moment to believe the Scripture records which tell you that the God of love directed your forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies—men, women, and children. Such records are the words of men, not very holy men, and they are not the word of God. The Scriptures always have, and always will, reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. Have you not noted that the concepts of Yahweh grow in beauty and glory as the prophets make their records from Samuel to Isaiah? And you should remember that the Scriptures are intended for religious instruction and spiritual guidance. They are not the works of either historians or philosophers.

159:4.6."The thing most deplorable is not merely this erroneous idea of the absolute perfection of the Scripture record and the infallibility of its teachings, but rather the confusing misinterpretation of these sacred writings by the tradition-enslaved scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem. And now will they employ both the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures and their misinterpretations thereof in their determined effort to withstand these newer teachings of the gospel of the kingdom. Nathaniel, never forget, the Father does not limit the revelation of truth to any one generation or to any one people. Many earnest seekers after the truth have been, and will continue to be, confused and disheartened by these doctrines of the perfection of the Scriptures.

159:4.7."The authority of truth is the very spirit that indwells its living manifestations, and not the dead words of the less illuminated and supposedly inspired men of another generation. And even if these holy men of old lived inspired and spirit-filled lives, that does not mean that their words were similarly spiritually inspired. Today we make no record of the teachings of this gospel of the kingdom lest, when I have gone, you speedily become divided up into sundry groups of truth contenders as a result of the diversity of your interpretation of my teachings. For this generation it is best that we live these truths while we shun the making of records.

159:4.8."Mark you well my words, Nathaniel, nothing which human nature has touched can be regarded as infallible. Through the mind of man divine truth may indeed shine forth, but always of relative purity and partial divinity. The creature may crave infallibility, but only the Creators possess it.

Attached: 39eu39dhu3h29388d9huh3ddi9d9d3h9hohdod.png (337x412, 393K)

If Jesus is God, then the old testament is from Jesus. So Jesus did those things in Leviticus and Exodus.

The thing is modern Christians are just nominal or syncretic

Old testament = based and redpilled

Anyone who disagrees has taken too much liberal look aid. You're no different from the sjw you despise

This desu senpai baka

Roman man destroy temple. Roman man bad. Roman man look - here's new religion for you. Roman man you have to be peaceful now, love your enemies. Oh Roman man, what happened, why is your city in ruins? Serves you right for destroying our temple.

Use your imagination.
First, don't presume to become God's prosecutor (diabolos)--
I mean, who THE FUCK are [YOU]?

thanks Book of Job, but God himself admits he's petty and jealous (i assume that's the word in English) so he's much more flawed in the Torah than the rest of the Bible claims him to be

contrary, the interpretation by man is flawed.

>People who say that God is any less compassionate in loving between the two testaments are genuinely blind
Either that or they happened to notice all the bits where Jehovah either kills people or orders them to be killed

Among the many things I enjoyed about finally reading the Bible was how explicitly sexual the whole 'jealous God' thing was.

that actually says more about your self

Academia is a fraud. You must not be 18 yet if you haven't realized this

The Greek Septuagint is older and more authoritative than the Hebrew Masoretic.

there are only fifteen books from major publishers I can find that are longer than the bible.

What part of Diotima's speech about eros do you not understand? What part of "God so loved the world" do you you not understand? Eros is how God interacts with man and man with God.

Attached: 11443617._UY461_SS461_.jpg (461x461, 26K)

My issue is with the historical Jesus seekers who think a fisherman doesn't know what someone standing on the shore looks like.

The amount of heresy, errors, and outright lies in this thread is depressing. It's terrifying how fast factually untrue memes can proliferate in the absence of the Holy Spirit, like the way poisonous mushrooms spread in the dark. God have mercy on us, this wretched generation.

God changes, don't be so critical of Him

>Even the idea of God having a literal son was new
You fucking retard. Zeus was a randy bastard who fathered dozens of children, to name but one example.

Attached: girls_laughing.png (449x401, 490K)

deep and wisepilled

you're not talkin about "the NT authors" but matthew specifically; and ye it's pretty well accepted that matthew's gospel is specifically addressed at jews, and, yes, sometimes he tries a little hard. But that's also why we don't base our theology on just matthew.

I mean you have to be pretty arrogant to think that in 2k years of christianity with thousands of people dedicating their life to the study of scripture, you are the first guy to notice this lmao; every child can see that even between the 4 gospels there are differences and contradictions; personally I blame this kind of argumentation on protestant fundies who view the bible as the literal spoken uncreated word of God like Muslim would the Quran

Sure, I wasn't trying to say anything profound. Just stating a fact about the Bible that I hadn't known

>Clearly the OT quote was talking about Israel yet Matthew attempted to apply it to Jesus
but you do know that Christ is the new Israel in christian theology?
young woman / unmarried woman / virgin / girl ~ interchangable terms bro, seems like grasping at straws

do you guys think i brought the wrath of God onto us by making this thread so he burned down that french church

France brought down God's wrath upon herself.

Christ is the herald of the new Israel; a people shaped after God himself through his son made flesh.

God does not conform to your view of him. A sign of a sinner is someone who believes the world and its creator should conform to him and his worldview.

Jews are deluded satanists. No modern day jew is a defendant of David.

What we have today are merely endogamous ashekanazi wannabes.

it's a metaphor

Of course he doesn't, IF this is truly what God is, then I'm just disappointed, however insignificant and limited my understanding may be. Of course I feel a note of ego that I might stand for something that I would consider right and oppose evil but I'm only human. I just find it ridiculous that God devised a plan that featured his chosen people scamming unsuspecting egyptians out of their jewelry.

The books are written by people; a people who believed that as Gods chosen, everything they did was by the grace of God which was also their downfall. The Jews want Barrabas but forsake Jesus because he does not meet their expectations.

Fr doe

this guy gets it

The Hebrew bible originated as a long and elaborate court jest at the expense of psychopathic cult leaders (the personalities of which resemble YHWH, or any particularly vicious demagogue) and their pretensions to divinity. Later redactors, who were psychopathic cult leaders, of course "cleaned it up" for consumption as a straight self-justification of their ways. The Gnostics, of course, were perceptive enough to notice that the only possible religious cosmology with a creator god, that is also at all consistent with earthly and cosmological reality, would be just such a monster who cruelly botches everything he does. As an epicurean humanist I agree with them on that, but think it so unlikely that such a being exists, that I lack all paranoid apprehension when delighting in the good things of the earth, while avoiding the bad, or savoring views of the night sky and what's yet known about it. As for what Christianity is all about, that's mostly about Paul's sex/violence issues, his sadomasochism and half-assed attempt at self-reform of it. It's really just an austerity treatise for men whose idea of fun is a little rape and pillage.

>you ripped it off from the Gnostics
What did they say about it.

They claimed that the god in the old and new testament could not possibly be the same god, and rationalized that the god of the old testament was not the "true" god, but simply a creator god that mistakenly claimed to be the one and only true god out of jealousy/arrogancy. They infused the concept of the demiurgos from platonism with the old testament Yahweh, and spent their time trying to contact the real god beyond Yahweh.

>epicurean humanist
What a faggot.

Shut up fag

Attached: 1537132438712.jpg (541x380, 249K)

What's life like as an atheist?

I've never been one so I don't know what it feels like, I bet you guy don't even utilise all the freedom you have

Christianity is a religion of pure platitudes. All the philosophical content peddled by xtianity was ripped off from greeks.

Is talking about things you barely know anything about what you enjoy doing for a living?

ATHEISTS... FREEDOM...

WHAT FREEDOM CAN HAVE ONE WHO RENEGES GOD?

ATHEISTS ARE SLAVES TO THEIR OWN WICKEDNESS.

Attached: IMG_2350.png (750x492, 693K)

Yeah but those kind of sheananigans typically elicited contempt from the Hebrews. The idea that your god isn't just a horndog with colossal power but transcend material forms and cannot be represented is pretty essential to the Judaic sense of singularity (just like the idea that the new covenant supersede the old covenant and that Jesus is the messiah of the OT is pretty central to the Chrisitan sense of relevance).

I once feared it too. Went on fumes of mysticism for a while, but after I accepted it, it was something like nasal decongestion. I felt a little bummed at the loss of eternity, but it focuses ones life.
And no shit, of course I’m not utilizing all the freedom I could have. I’m a prisoner of capitalism.

Christians are not without this wickedness. Find out the true wickedness of the world is and why they do it.

CATERPILLAR, I WILL NOT ENGAGE IN A THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION WITH SOMEONE SPIRITUALLY DEFICIENT, SUCH AS YOURSELF; I WILL ONLY STATE THIS: YOU IGNORE WHAT ARE CHRISTIANITY, AND WICKEDNESS, AND IF IT WERE POSSIBLE FOR INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU TO COMPREHEND, VIA DISCOURSE, WHAT THEY ARE, ATHEISM WOULD HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY ERADICATED CENTURIES AGO.

Attached: IMG_2126.png (470x652, 582K)

>Yeah but those kind of sheananigans typically elicited contempt from the Hebrews.
Good thing that NT isn't neither based on jewish religious views and philosophy of the time nor was popular amongst them.

Based and christpilled. You're my new favorite person here. I'm tired of butterfly sneaking her edgy, ignorant thoughts into every theological thread

You discuss it every time.
I don’t recall the original Rei being at all concerned with theology. Are you He?

I know I shouldn’t be the one saying this, but you should believe in God. If just for the predestination. :3

>If just for the predestination

Their kind have Satan for that.

People read books longer than the Bible though. What makes it so unbelievable that they would read the entirety of a book that also happens to be the cornerstone of most of western culture?

That's my point. In theory they should be doing whatever they want, but in fact they behave fearfully because they don't have the afterlife insurance

The problem is that many of these and contradictions have deep theological implications, such as Jesus parentage(virgin birth vs Joseph being the father), or how the famous "cast the first stone" is probably a later interpolation from John.

People react differently with this truth. Some just kill them selves in a fit of irrationality. Others want to fix the world, others discover “the immortal jellyfish”. Generally we would move towards making the world our heaven instead of letting the sociopaths run it to ruin. A far healthier way to live, I say

Incoherent gibberish.

You should filter all namefags and tripfags, period.

Okay but right now you need to actually masturbate trust me. :3

Is it?

Attached: 54C10470-A770-44CE-9108-3C06B4CC6584.gif (500x380, 801K)

Fair point. I wish this guy used a trip too so I could block him

Me too

Actually.. are you posting WHILE MASTURBATING TO ME

See

Lol

>cant into basic symbolism
>posts on literature board
one good thing about Yea Forums is that it's consistently disappointing

Matthew was writing a book aimed at religious Jews many of whom would have that passage memorized. The entire reason to add in the quote is because they already knew it, and understood the context. Are you actually fucking retarded or do you think the ancient world was like twitter where an out-of-context screenshot is enough to build a 2000 year old religion.

You mean like Matthew did with the Suffering Servant verses, were it goes from refering to Israel to being a stealth Jesus prophecy?

>same exact argument again
try reading one more time, since it still applies

Even the actual jews thought that it was garbage, hence why all significative early christian centers were in Greece, Anatolia and Egypt. Also, try to argue and defend your points rather than just saying "they knew what they were doingm, bro", especially since the very people they were aiming for thought that they were full of shit.

>Even the actual Jews thought it was retarded
>Paul, the brightest Pharisee of his generation, converted to Christianity while persecuting the Christians
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Have you forgotten that all of the Apostles, and the early converts, were Jews?

>the brightest Pharisee of his generation
Based on what?
>converted to Christianity while persecuting the Christians
And? Is that supposed to prove something? Christianity was widely rejected by the jewish community, and that is a well established fact that christians themselves don't deny.

>God in OT: don't worry about rebelling against my laws Israel you repented so it's cool thanks for the barbeque don't forget to feed the widows and orphans k?
>God in NT: how you like that raining blood sinners still got Hell to look forward to don't ya enjoy the end of the world

How did this stupid gnostic meme even start?

>Hosea 11:1
Look what it says in my LXX and this is from a scholarly translation NETS.

For Israel was an infant, and I loved him,
and out of Egypt I recalled his children.

You'll find out that objectively more than 75% of NT OT quotations are from LXX, which is vastly different from Masoretic + we knew before that It came from 300 BCE - finalized most critically around 150 BCE.. now DSS findings bring use some greek scrolls among apparently parts of the original Hebrew that LXX was based on - both date around 200 BC.

The early Church preserved LXX and still preserves it in Eastern Orthodoxy - Catholics and Protestants don't.

I actually like that translation a lot

It's essentially a Greek interlinear translation of a Hebrew original within a Hebrew-Greek diglot.

Helps that then both OT and NT are written in Koine Greek for you.

I'll have to check it out. I'm used to just reading from my KJV

If you meant English translations of Septuagint you only have these:

NETS < OSB

>As an epicurean humanist
cringe

Attached: shutthefuckuphumanist.jpg (650x376, 37K)