Would Jesus Sodomize Little Kids?

You do what you always do, you quoted one sentence out of context and pretended you made a rational argument.

James is a complete document, you cannot take one sentence from the middle and pretend it captured the thesis of James.

In fact, this leads to gross mistakes. In Romans, Pauls thesis is salvation though grace alone, and he argues it in the rhetorical form of a scholastic diatribe. In Romans 1:18 - 3:20 is the argument by antithesis, and those who quote from that section (such as 2:13) and think Paul is argueing salvation through the Law, they show total ignorance of Romans and prove they have not read or understand it. Just as you do by quoting one sentence from James.

 

I did not quote James out of context - this is a falsehood which shows it is you who have not read the Bible - yet you accuse me of not reading the Bible.

Then you accusing of arguing Paul argued salvation through the law - something I never did and in fact did the reverse.

What a joke of a post- as usual.

 

His Daddy wasn't a nice guy.

God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament

https://io9.gizmodo.com/gods-12-biggest-dick-moves-in-the-old-testament-1522970429

 

You cannot even read. Thats not what I wrote at all. But complete misunderstanding of posts is typical of you, so its no wonder you have a total misunderstanding of the Bible.

 

You inferred that I had inferred that Paul is arguing salvation through law or similar stupidity.

I have done no such thing. You have not pointed out one flaw in my argument or how my quote from James was taken out of context.

 

Wrong. Take a reading comprehension class. Romans was a clear example of how something can be taken out of context. You have made that exact same mistake with Romans in a previous thread, a couple of other people have as well.

In this thread, you took a single sentence (James 2:20) out of context as you have done before with that exact same sentence. Thats like taking a single rhetorical question from a dissertation and pretending you have captured the meaning of the dissertation.

James 2:20 does not even support your arguement even out of context.

 

Look - if you are going to claim that I have taken something out of context ... then either explain how you think I took something out of context or shut up.

Running around saying "you took something out of context" without explaining what you are talking about is not an argument for anything but your own inability to make a coherent argument.

 

I have done that before, in detail, in 2 previous threads on salvation through faith, in which you brought up the exact same arguments and quote from James. After extended posts, you still make the exact same incorrect argument. You are a waste of time.

 

Jesus already did what he wish to do,
sad to say that those who continue his teachings are humans and some of them were to weak to contend the devil itself.

Circumcision of women are not mentioned in the Quran, I could see another human attributes towards that.

 

No you didn't - all you did was claim I was taking something out of context. Now you can not write a simple sentence explaining yourself.

I have been through this with you and others in great detail. You can not even seem to understand the fact the majority of Christianity does not accept "Sola Fide" Catholic and Orthodox.

Not that these are right but, you posting some link making a bunch of fallacious and dumb arguments - which I went through in detail - constitutes proof of claim.

I use the Bible as "proof of claim". James gives us the context. 14) What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?

The answer is a definitive and unqualified NO. He says

15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

James then goes further and calls the people who believe in the doctrine of faith alone "Foolish"

19) You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless

Luther was so disturbed by James 2 that he thought it should be removed from the Bible.

James is echoing Jesus in saying this

Jesus says in Matt 7:12 that the Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have done to you/treat others as you would be treated - is the "Rule that sums up the Law and the Prophets".

In the sermon on the mount Matt 5-7 - the context is how one achieves salvation. Jesus talks about works works and more works. Not a single word about Faith in him as being the determining factor.

At the end of this sermon he sums up by contradicting Sola Fide. Matt 7

"Only the one who does the will of my Father" which is what Jesus has just finished explaining in his Sermon - works works and more works. Call out "Jesus Jesus" all you like - that by itself will not get you into heaven.

If there was any doubt he explains exactly what I have stated in his next sentence.

It is putting the teachings of Jesus in to practice that gives one a solid foundation in Christ .. not the "Foolish man" (again using the word foolish as does James in referring to the same thing) who has faith but no works.

You can run around in denial crying "NO NO NO" ... it matters not to me. If you do not want to accept the words of Jesus and James this is your choice but, it is preposterous nonsense to claim I have taken something out of context when the context is crystal clear to anyone with eyes.

 

You are wrong. James argues that faith is shown in works - salvation is through faith, but salvation is demonstrated through works, and works increase righteousness. Salvation is not through works. Read James, don't just cut and paste from a google search.

And you are wrong about the Catholic Church. Read and get educated (maybe this time you will actually read):
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works-0
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/sola-fide/
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/faithalone.html
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm

 

1) I did not say faith was not shown by works - as usual you have to rely on fallacy - inferring I said something I did not say.
2) Nothing in my post was from a google search. I posted directly from the Bible.

Claiming I said something I did not - and then attacking that claim is strawman fallacy by definition.

Whats more is that your second link says the same thing I have said.

Catholic's do not believe the "Sola Fide" doctrine. Sorry but, your own link- aside from the council of Trent which states that belief in "faith alone" is an anathema - proves you wrong.

I did not say the salvation formulation of Catholicism did not have a faith component - but it also has a works component. They do not believe in the doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" - "Sola Fide"

1) you obviously do not understand the subject matter - and have engaged in Strawman fallacy.
2) You completely avoided addressing the actual words from scripture - this is a denial avoidance tactic.
3) Your own link supports my claim.

 

According to the fairy tale what happens on Judgment Day when the Book of Life is opened and people's lives are reviewed?

It says in Revelation 20:13(KJV) = *And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.*

There is nothing about being judged on your faith.

 

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” . No one gets into heaven except by faith in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ on his or her behalf. John 14
From this everything else flows. I cant really cherry pick a few verses because they all are inspired and work together, but just doing good works is not the way.

He saved us not because of works done in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.
Titus 3:5

...and no we dont always submit to human authority. Hell no.
but authority does have its place.

 

1) Neither of the two cherry picked phrases necessarily supports "Sola Fide" - if at all - and you made zero attempt to address the Jesus of Mark/Matt - such as in Matt where Jesus gives a whole sermon on how to get through the pearly gates (not just one vague sentence).

Why is that ? Why are you disregarding the words of Jesus ? Is this some kind of denial response - you will pick out a single passage that kind of supports your dogma while ignoring the pages from Jesus that go into great detail on the topic. Whats with that ?

The Jesus of the gospel of John was "The Logos" - mistranslated in modern bibles as "The Word". The author is speaking to a Greek speaking audience and is using terminology with which they are familiar in an attempt to broaden the appeal of Christianity.

The term "Logos" meant the emissary between God and Man. Jesus spoke the word of God via the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the "Logos" - the word of God. Jesus was the truth and the way and the path to everlasting life.

None of this means that works is not a requirement or that mere faith one gets one through the pearly gates.

As Jesus states in Matt 7

I posted more of the passage previously. What part of this do you not understand ? What is the will of the Father if other than what Jesus has just explained as the will of the Father in his sermon ? Explain yourself ?

If there was any doubt .. Jesus then clarifies saying exactly what I have stated earlier and completely contradicting what you are saying.

Jesus is the LOGOS - the word of God. It is by putting those words into practice that one is doing the will of the Father. The foolish man (sorry but if the shoe fits don't blame me - blame Jesus)

What part of "Only the one who does the will of the Father" are you having trouble figuring out ?

No one comes to the Father except through me”

How does this passage in any way shape or form support Sola Fide (salvation by faith alone) ?

In Matt 25 - Sheep and Goats parable - Jesus is depicted as sitting on the throne as Judge .... It is Jesus who is deciding who gets in and who does not.

What do you not understand about that ?

The question is - On what basis is Jesus making his decision.

Those that know Jesus end up in the fiery pit. Those that do not know Jesus but do good works get eternal salvation.

So yes - you have to go through Jesus. This has zero to do with answering the question of what one must do to get through the pearly gates.

 

According to the fairy tale Yeshua told his Apostles that each one of them would sit on thrones and judge one of the twelve tribes of Israel. There are twelve gates in the wall to the golden cube called New Jerusalem. There is no gate for Gentiles to pass through.

 

LOL .. I am not aware of what you are referring to but, Jesus did say that he had come only for the Jews.

 

To quote from the fairy tale lets start with Matthew 19:28-29(NKJV) =
*28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother [a]or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.*
&

Revelation 21:12 (NKJV) =

*12 Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:*

So each of the apostles will be judging a tribe and at the gates are dedicated to a tribe. The place is called New Jerusalem so how will a Gentile get in unless he's a slave? Who wants to be a slave for eternity?

 

Thanks for this. Revelations of course should have never been turned into Canon - and obviously is not the words of Jesus.

I am thinking that the passage you cite from Matt was likely a later addition to try and make Jesus better fit into the messianic tradition but, interesting nevertheless.

 

You have to look at the fairy tale as a whole. The passage from Matthew 19:28-29 is in accordance with all of the Yesuha dialogue. If it was added later it fits the character to a tee.

Remember, the book of Revelation is the Revelation of Jesus Christ = Revelation 1:1. To discount it is to toss everything that ties the fairy tale together and without it there is no Judgment Day.

 

That some self professed visionary attaches such a label (Revelation of JC) to some dream/vision that they have - is no reason to attribute that dream to the teachings of Jesus. Revelations was referred to as "spurious" even by Eusebius.

This is why I find the reference in Matt interesting - because I do look at the fairy tale as a whole including writings that are not in the Bible - in an attempt to try and figure out what the actual teachings of Jesus were.

One of the big problems was that "Pious Fraud" - changing or embelishment to make some story better fit the dogma of the day - was acceptable back in the day. This was justified on the basis that it would "save more souls". If your soul is saved on the basis of a small fib .. is it not better to use the fib than to lose the soul - was the logic in play.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that Pious fraud was at work at least as early as the author of Matt.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

So the author of Matt - writing a couple of decades after Mark was written - uses all of Mark as a source document (sans a few verses he doesn't like). The verses he omits are verses that conflict with the changing dogma in relation to Jesus = artistic license = Pious Fraud.

The Jesus of Mark is deified at his baptism. There is no virgin birth. There are no stories of Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death. (remember that the so called "long ending" is a much later addition). The story ends at an empty tomb and the leader is left to wonder. There is no "smoking gun" no proof of the resurrection.

If you were a Jewish Christian - living prior to the destruction of the temple (around 75 AD) and only had the information in Mark to do on - Jesus was just another prophet. A man who had been favored by God and given religious insights in the way of other prophets of the past. A David/Solomon like figure. There were numerous Jewish "Messiah's" just prior to and during the first century AD. The messianic tradition was strong and many really believed that someone - like David -was going to appear and restore Israel to its former glory.


Decades later - the temple has been destroyed and Christianity is evolving. The author of Matt takes the writings from Mark and adds to them. The divinity of Jesus has evolved.

Matt adds a virgin birth story - Jesus is now divine at birth ! He adds a lineage back to David to try and fit Jesus into the messianic tradition. He also adds the "smoking gun" - stories of Jesus appearing "in the flesh".

What is interesting is that if you go to the writings of Paul - someone who never knew Jesus but had heard a few stories - Paul likens the "appearances" of Jesus after his death to his vision. So the external evidence - someone living at the time when Mark was written - is that one of the most devout followers of Jesus has never heard of any of the Physical Resurrection stories - Jesus appearing in the flesh.

So the author of Mark - reputed to have been a pupil/interpreter for Peter - has no knowledge of any "Physical resurrection" - Jesus showing up in the flesh after death. The other person living during this time - Paul - has not heard these stories either.

YET - a couple of decades later - some guy takes the available writings at the time - adds a few passages and all of a sudden we have Jesus appearing in the flesh after death ... the "smoking gun".

 

Without the resurrection there would be zero reason to worship Yeshua or to become a Christian. It is essential to the religion. So if the resurrection was added decades after Yeshua was supposedly crucified what did the early Christians actually believe regarding their religion?

 

Jesus taught the "Promise" of a resurrection. Islam has the same promise and look how many believers there are just on this basis.

There is a difference between some prophet saying "there is an afterlife - a glorious kingdom - 43 virgins and so on" and proving that there is life after death by showing up in the flesh after being crucified. Big Difference - hence the term "smoking gun". If Jesus really did appear in the flesh after death (unless one argues the death was staged) this is proof of the life after death.

The "doubting Thomas" story. - where Jesus proves it is not a sham - that it was not staged - by showing the Thomas the wounds - is an attempt to dispel this argument. It is interesting that this story does not appear in Matt but appears some 20-30 years later in the Gospel of John. If there were groups of people expressing this doubt - doubt that Jesus was actually crucified - adding this story could well have been an attempt to dispel this doubt.

but I digress. The fact that neither Paul or the author of Mark are unaware of stories about Jesus returning in the flesh is suspicious to say the least. All one can argue is - "They knew but just did not include this information"

This argument fails in the case of Paul because he does relate a couple of stories that he heard about Jesus "appearing" to people after death. The problem is that he likens these appearances to his vision - not - the dude actually showing up in the flesh. Lots of people have claimed to see the virgin Mary in the clouds ... is this proof of the virgin birth ?

Mark is perhaps more troubling. The idea that this author knew the ending of the story but chose to leave it out just does not cut the mustard. As you state - why bother writing the story at all if you are going to leave out the ending - the most important part - the smoking gun.

Further complicating the issue is that Clement - (Leader/ Pope - of the Christian Church around 95 AD) - doesn't seem to know about the Physical resurrection either.

This is not for lack of trying to show that the "Promise" of the resurrection is true. In his Epistle to the Corinthians (Church in Corinth) he goes to great lengths arguing that the promise of the resurrection is real. The Epistle is very long - 1 Clement 24 is where his arguments for the resurrection starts.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

As you can see Clement is making quite the argument for the promise of the Resurrection.

1) He argues from Nature - death and rebirth of the seasons.
2) He brings up the story of the Pheonix - a bird which - he is told and obviously believes in this myth - comes back to life after death.
3) He refers to OT scripture "Job"
4) He says that Jesus commanded "not to lie" and on this basis Jesus would not lie about the resurrection.

Interesting that Clement does not refer to the Lazarus story ? The parallels with a commonly known Osirus resurrection story are a whole other story.

The main point however is - Where is the Smoking Gun ? Why does Clement not say something like "And behold the appearance of Jesus to the disciples after death" - followed by recounting the various stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh after death.

Now John has not yet been written. Matt is dated (80-100AD) so perhaps 1) Matt had not yet been written or 2) Matt had been written and did not yet have these stories 3) Matt had been written - contained these stories - but Clement had not yet read Matt.

All 3 possibilities are problematic. So what if Clement had not read Matt. The dude was born in 35 AD, was a disciple of Peter and was Pope from 88-99AD How could he not know first hand the stories of Jesus appearing in the flesh after death ?

Conclusion - Clement did not know these stories because - it didn't happen.

 

What did Paul supposedly write concerning the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15:12-20&version=CEB

If there are no zombies then as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:32 *Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!*

The dummy Clement didn't know Jack because the Bible hadn't been written when he was alive.

 

Mark had been written - and some of Pauline scripture. The passage from Paul you quote shows that Paul did not know whether or not Jesus had actually been resurrected. His basis for his belief was the Message that Jesus preached. He does not know anything about Jesus actually showing up in the flesh after death.