Old Testarooni

Fulfill literally means to render something unnecessary
youtube.com/watch?v=eBTpsVFhPPw

Thank you I painted it

>Why do protestants
Because they're heretics. They think they can just ignore whatever they don't like and make up their own rules.

The NT and OT are deeply and fundamentally in conflict. Christianity is a fraudulent religion. It was written by men to control other men which is why it is so contradictory and non-sensical.

Here is a good, concise article a rabbi wrote explaining why Jews rejected Jesus as being the messiah and in doing so exposes the prophetic failures of Christianity and how it's not compatible with the Old Testament.

aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html?mobile=yes

Don't get me wrong either, Judaism is retarded too in its own right but how cucked do you have to be to be a Christian?

>Fulfill
Fulfill means to achieve. The only thing made unnecessary in the equation is the DESIRE to fulfill.

How likely is it that the historical Jesus was a violent revolutionary who wanted a messianic Jewish kingdom?

He was crucified for that reason and mocked as "king of the jews"

Also quite a few of his quotes can be interpreted as anti-Roman, so I think, yes, it's very likely

Christianity is true so not likely at all

I interpret him no differently from how I see Vissarion or any other modern cult leader. A charming guy who bastardized a religion so it could appeal to outliers.

Paul. That's the correct answer. Paul supposedly received vision from God that he and other Christians were no longer bound by laws concerning mingling with gentiles. Christianity was to be an evangelical religion.

>Why do protestants denounce the Old Testament
No Christian "denounces" the Old Testament.

>Isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume by "fulfill" he meant his followers would no longer need to abide by the old laws?
Christians aren't Jews. They don't have to follow the Old Testament laws intended only for Jews, just the laws intended for Gentiles. They never had to follow the Jew-only laws because they were never Jewish. Christianity is a new covenant. There are "Christian Jews" but it's a moot point now because the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 and so the Jew-only laws are pretty much impossible to practice these days anyway (today's "Judaism" is a joke and has nothing to with the correct practice of the Hebrew religion even in Christ's day). You're basically asking why American citizens don't obey British law.

For fuck sacks. Most protestants don't even follow the new testament.
"Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.."
—Matthew 25:27

"…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. Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?"
—Luke 19:22-23

The following scriptures teach about lending:

"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:42

"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."
—Luke 6:34-35

"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
—Luke 6:38

To be fair Catholics runs a banking system.

Only the Orthodox seem keen on actually following the damn scriptures these days.

themoscowtimes.com/business/article/orthodox-church-calls-for-alternative-financial-system-in-russia/527781.html

>However, protestants, generally speaking, outright denounce it.
wat. I don't know what you are talking about. Old testament stories are always a go to for protestant sunday schools even though they soften them up a bit and any prostestant who is against homosexuality will quote leviticus. the 10 commandments are still greatly loved. fundies will manage to justify Moses's killings in Numbers. how do protestants denounce the OT besides perhaps some protestants giving a less well thought out response for why the OT laws no longer apply?

If Jesus was a violent revolutionary or a cult leader He would have ordered His armed men to resist His arrest and the Romans would have massacred all of the Christians at Gesetheme and we wouldn't be talking about Him. Revolutionary leaders usually try to start a, you know, actual revolution, and cult leaders almost always take their followers down with them.

You're making the assumption he had the opportunity to take his followers down with him. We're both just speculating here.

Because, while the New Testament is crazy but manageably so, the Old Testament is full retard barbarism of the highest order.

There's examples such as Jesus in the temple of him being violent; Is it such a stretch to say that the biblical account of his life may be different to the historical Jesus's life?

An assumption based on the only textual evidence that we have and that isn't contradicted by any primary sources.

The bible is evidence of its own claims? Don't tell me you can't see the problem with that logic.

Still doesn't explain after a 1000 years of forbidding usury it suddenly becomes OK in the 1600's after the Protestant reformation.

To be fair, western civilization exponential economic and technological growth was due to the fact that the both sides of the Christians said "Fuck it, let's ignore the Bible's rules and make money."

Hell, if you asked the most fervent Christian today in America if they had a bank account that charges interest, they would probably say yes and still not know the passages in the Bible that expressly forbids it.

I place usury specifically on the heads of the Protestants, since they had the most to gain by the economic expansions after 1600.

The money-changers weren't Roman. Closest He came to being a revolutionary leader was ordering His disciples to buy some swords. He probably wouldn't have been taken alive if they'd used them to resist beyond the incident with the ear. LEOs tend to go apeshit on perps who try to kill them. (e.g. Waco.)

The Bible is evidence of Jesus' life, which is what we're talking about. If you want to automatically throw out everything in the Bible just because it's in the Bible, then what evidence are we going to use? The Gnostic gospels? Josephus? The Talmud? Not much food for thought there, and as far as I recall none of them offer much support for your speculations, and we have no reason to assume that any of them are without their own biases.

The bible is not evidence for the life of Jesus. it was written 300 years after he was dead. Stories change from generation to generation. The only proof of Jesus's life is the Roman records.

The biblical account of Jesus' life is not evidence of any historical account of Jesus' life.

>i did not come to abolish
means
>i came to abolish
in the minds of christcucks through the powers of bias, cognitive dissonance and rationalization. the holy trinity

No. It's some evidence. Just not ironclad evidence. Jut like we might take the Iliad for evidence of Troy. We just only believe it now because of archaeological evidence--in that case--and dismiss talk of the gods and miracles.

>300 years
Give me a break.

Yes it is. You probably mean to say that it isn't "good evidence." You don't have to agree with every statement in a document to treat it as historical evidence. If you were a judge, would you throw out an accused killer's confession because in it he says your favourite colour sucks?

protties allow pastoral marriage because their prophet Martin Luther did it.

They're not ones to follow any sort of precedent

"Some" as in barely any. Illiad is some evidence for troy, but no evidence of Zeus.

Why would you need evidence of a pagan god? They're supposed to be forces of nature. Would you deny that the sky exists?

What? Protestants are possibly the only ones who give a shit about the Old Testament.

Why do you think so many OT names are so common in Murrican history? And even today in the Bible Belt?

Why would you need evidence of a monotheistic god? Daily reminder that in all of the original manuscripts Jesus is an angel.

>Jesus
>Angel
>JW detected

Let's have a look at history.

Rome persecutes christians.
The inquisition and witch hunts persecute "witches" and "devil worshippers" that do "magic" (miracles) - Notice the date when black death appeared.
Psychiatry still hasn't been proven to have a clinical test that objectively defines who has a "mental illness" all we have is some photographs, and lots of words where "maybe" "could be" "must have" and other "probablys" appear. And those meds are known (search the internet) to make you unhappy, suicidal, anhedonic, etc.

It is still the same persecution of the same christians but merely pretending.

The bible says (and it has been modified to hell and back by those who hate mankind) that the devil hates humans.

Let's see an example:

Serve your enemies, love your enemies, be poor, be dumb, give your money away. Do not make sure if this is actually God, you do not try and test that, it is "sin", humilliate yourself everywhere and die a virgin, be struck painfully by everyone and don't defend yourself and give the other cheek. God is "testing" you, not punishing you for following the wrong path. Pleasure is bad, suffering good. Your sexuality is evil.

So, in short, pleasure is "evil" and suffering "good", anyone able to tell me if these are not the words of a hellish fiend that hates you and takes you for a fool?

When you look for God and the actual Christ, you look with faith and skepticism, omnipotence is omnipotence, and a lack of convincing miracles is impotence, and you look from the perspective of freedom, from the one where you are loved and desired as you are. And trust no one (especially not your family) that doesn't prove perfectly that comes from God, you will be able to do miracles yourself when you know it all and all is correct.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is

if he was a violent revolutionary the jews would have backed him

The way it seems to me (don't take my post as the official position of any church): Jewish laws that have to do with ritual purity are no longer relevant since there is no institution of temple sacrifice for which reason the ritual purity was necessary in the first place. Laws regarding punishments are irrelevant since Jesus abrogated them but the specific things that required punishment (the ones that don't have to do with ritual purity) are still very much wrong; adultery and homosexuality, for example.

As for circumcision...well, I can see why there was disagreement about it among the apostles. It seems like a tricky question.