What the fuck kind of god dies?

What the fuck kind of god dies?

Like seriously nigga just use your powers to save yourself lmao how tf can a bunch of iron-age spear-chuckers kill a god hahaha.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship.2C_date.2C_and_origin
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Reads the roman version
>Ignores gnostic version
Many such cases

The foolishness of the cross is wisdom to those who are being saved

only his human part died and it was to redeem mankind duck. Go suck YHWH's or Allah's cock if you don't like it

>and it was to redeem mankind duck
Why didn't he just use his god powers to do that?

He's omnipotent right?

A nongod

Only the wisest gods die, blasphemer.

>What the fuck kind of god dies?

The kind who performs the greatest act of love in the history of the universe. What greater love is there than to lay down your life for another?

to not make it nessicary to do so in the first place.

The trinity is a Catholic lie

It was God's son and I imagine that is the worst moment in time for God who watched prophecy be fulfilled

Jesus mentions the night before that he could summon myriads of angels if he wanted while being arrested

In the old testament, a single angel kills 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in a single night while they sleep

Feels good

Back to hell, Arius

>Jesus
>God

>Jesus
>Crucified

Sorry, I can't hear you over how red pilled I am

STOP WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY

I can't shut it off

Adam disobeyed God by eating the apple. It was a debt that needed to be repaid but no human could repay it. Jesus, being both 100% human and 100% divine, could be the only one to repay it. Hence, Jesus is called the "Last Bloody Sacrifice" and why Christians don't sacrifice offerings to God.

>It's a Christian's don't understand that their God is literally the same YHWH from Judaism episode

what if I told you that the romans crucified like 200k people and jesus was just another dude who got dealt with and no big crowd showed up or anything, actually all this followers ghosted when they strung him up. Don't get me wrong he has some great teachings but there are even theories that he survived the ordeal, got married and chilled the rest of his life.

How do you imagine that would be accomplished?

Make a universe of robots? Make no universe?

Trinity is God's nature; thee persons, one being.

Jesus killed those soldiers.

Then I'd ask you what those teachings are.

Then I'd ask you why we're still talking about Jesus on a Manchurian tea trading board.

All gods in every mythology can die

>jesus was just another dude who got dealt with and no big crowd showed up or anything, actually all this followers ghosted when they strung him up.
I don't think biblical scholars deny this. It was Jesus coming back to life that finally made the disciples realize Jesus was the real deal.

did he? again the alternative theory is that he died and his body was moved and destroyed, or he lived the ordeal and moved into exile.

>. It was a debt that needed to be repaid
Yeah but Jesus was also god so he could just waive the whole thing.

>Christians don't sacrifice offerings to God.
a) Neither do Jews
b) Jews do not, and never did, believe in original sin anyway.

Why do either of those myths have any weight in your opinion?

Because of what an arab was told by the devil 600 years later?

Every single one of the disciples were martyred and never recanted. I'd say if you're prepared to be boiled in a pot of oil there's a good chance at the very least you fully believe the resurrection was legit. The theories you're proposing have serious flaws in them and I don't think many scholars take them seriously.

>Yeah but Jesus was also god so he could just waive the whole thing.

Nope. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

You keep thinking God is arbitrary; that's allah, not God. Because all allah has to do is lie. So that's all he does.

Why are you so incredulous that Jesus' body was merely moved when you're prepared to believe he rose from the dead?

Because I have the eyewitness accounts of the men who lived with Jesus for 40 days after he rose from the dead.

What do you have?

Besides normalcy bias?

No, both the Jews and the Romans were doing their best to eradicate Christianity. All they had to do was produce his body. Which is why they took every precaution known to mankind to guard it in that tomb.

Read "Who Moved The Stone?" for more of the same.

Ok, remember Heavens Gate?

>Nope. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.
But god is omnipotent, he can literally do whatever he likes.

"Omnipotent" does not mean "you can do whatever you like". It means you have sufficient power to do anything that requires power to do.

Don't leave God's holiness, righteousness and justice out of the equation. If a judge on earth acted like that, and just let all the accused criminals free, he wouldn't be a judge very long.

>Because I have the eyewitness accounts of the men who lived with Jesus for 40 days after he rose from the dead.
Source?

False equivalence

Actually yes it does, it means literally all powerful. If he wanted to do anything he could make it happen. This is the man who made the universe in 6 days we're talking about.

>If a judge on earth acted like that, and just let all the accused criminals free, he wouldn't be a judge very long.
If a judge had himself crucified, THEN let all accused criminals free I don't think he would be a judge for very long either.

How? Belief is something that you're willing to die believing it.

The gospel accounts of Matthew, Peter, and John.

Omnipotence means you can do everything that's possible. It wasn't possible for God just to forgive everyone without them accounting for their current and future crimes.

Yes, "all powerful".

Not "Can go against his own nature." If you want a laundry list of things God cannot do, I'll start with every single sin there is, and go from there.

>This is the man
God is not a man, are you fucking retarded or what?

religion is a form of control. Morality is a different animal and everyone needs to have a sense of morality and humanity but religion protects those in power.

>If a judge had himself crucified, THEN let all accused criminals free I don't think he would be a judge for very long either.

That's Jesus, and he'll be the judge of the universe until the universe no longer needs a judge.

So, a little more than 1,007 years.

Why do you want Jesus to judge you? I sure don't. Do you think that judgment will work out in your favor?

Neither Matthew nor John (as in the authors of the gospels) were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry let alone his resurrection.

Likewise the Gospel of Peter was not actually written by Peter.

Which is why God gave every man a conscience and Adam and Eve bought us the knowledge of good and evil.

While you are correct in saying religion is a method of control, literally a system of bondage, that's not why Jesus came down to earth. He did not come to institute a new religion, a new set of laws, of bondage.

He came to set us free from all of that, and to give us life everlasting.

Both were apostles.

I'm not talking about the Gospel of Peter, which is not in the bible, but the Gospel according to John Mark, who wrote what he recalled from speaking to Peter.

aka the Gospel of Mark.

>Not "Can go against his own nature." If you want a laundry list of things God cannot do, I'll start with every single sin there is, and go from there.
He can though. If god wants something done it's done.

>his own nature
If you'd like to start describing god's nature I'm sure every theologian alive would be very interested in your discoveries.

I'm afraid you really don't know God if you think God can break an oath, break a covenant, or act in a way contrary to his nature.

maybe, his teachings were against the establishment of that time...then his teachings were twisted into another uniformed religion designed to separate everyone into "us and them" its a load of bullshit. you wana find god, look inside you and fuck all the preachers.

>If you'd like to start describing god's nature I'm sure every theologian alive would be very interested in your discoveries.

It's in the bible. They can read it for themselves. The ones filled with the Holy Spirit actually can understand it; the ones without cannot.

See, as a born again Christian, I do not have to explain Jesus to another born again Christian. We both know the same guy. We're both under the New Covenant, not the old.

No he can't. You have a kindergarten understanding of Omnipotence. It doesn't mean you can do everything you want. God is perfect and sin is imperfection; if God sinned he wouldn't be God.

The authors of the gospels? No they weren't.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship.2C_date.2C_and_origin

>I'm not talking about the Gospel of Peter, which is not in the bible, but the Gospel according to John Mark, who wrote what he recalled from speaking to Peter.
Mark's gospel doesn't actually include an account of Jesus appearing after the resurrection. The original ending is when the tomb is found empty, that's it, no appearing to the apostles.

That scene was added later, which should send alarm bells ringing.

Yes, Jesus separates his creation into sheep and goats. Into us and them. Many times. If you'd like the verses, I'd be happy to share them with you. Or we can just stipulate that this is the truth.

Now you tell me why that's a problem for you.

perfect example of "us vs them" as I posted earlier. Fuck you and your religion bullshit.

When did god make a covenant with anyone that said he can't use his powers to forgive people unless he had himself crucified?

whos doing the separating of us and them...men, fucking men that don't know shit. stop looking for others to guide you. everything you need is in you.

The question was why I believe Jesus rose from the dead, and I was introduced to it by eyewitnesses.

John Mark was an eyewitness; he is the young boy dressed in a towel at the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemene who gets away butt naked when they grab his linen.

Peter wrote epistles in the NT, as did John. Matthew is also an apostle.

If you think satan does not spend all of his time trying to cast doubt on the authority and inerrancy and inspiration of the bible, you haven't thought it out very well.

I'll give you a good rule of thumb to go by.

If it's new, it ain't true, and if it's true, it ain't new.

And "liberal scholar" is a lost sinner, just like you, with no more understanding of the bible than you have.

Yes, we agreed. Jesus said if you're not for him, you're against him. We agree that it is set up as us v them.

Now you get to say why you have a problem with that.

all of this according to the bible...put together by a roman emperor trying to cling to power.....

Why "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins"?

I don't know.

I just know that the wages of sin is death, and that the life is in the blood. So if you put it all together, the Law of Sin and Death demands that a man die if he sins, and that all men sin. Thus are all men condemned to die, and as we are eternal beings, to die eternally.

Death is a separation from God, who is Life. So if you have no God in you, you have no Life in you, and are dead.

Like, right now. You are dead.

What's in me is a wicked heart that is endlessly plotting wicked things.

The person who separates the living from the dead would be Jesus.

because it completely discounts anyone else who has a different idea of the pursuit of happiness. you're telling me the other what like 4 billion non Christians are all wrong? yeah no. like I said great teaching but I don't subscribe to any one religion because they are all man made.

No, it was all finished in Israel prior to the Romans finally getting tired of the Jewish uprisings and crushing them.

The Romans have only something to do with the Roman Catholic Church some 300 years after Jesus rose from the dead, nothing at all to do with Christianity.

whatever floats your boat there crazy ass.

>John Mark was an eyewitness; he is the young boy dressed in a towel at the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemene who gets away butt naked when they grab his linen.
Yes he was an eyewitness to his ministry (if we accept the theory that he appeared in the gospels). He was not however an eyewitness to the resurrection and indeed Mark's gospel did not originally feature Jesus appearing after the resurrection.

>Matthew is also an apostle.
There was an apostle named Matthew but he wasn't the author of Matthew's gospel.

>Peter wrote epistles in the NT, as did John.
Neither of them gave a first-hand account of the resurrection.

>If it's new, it ain't true, and if it's true, it ain't new.
Quality historical investigation right here.

If you need to justify the fact that historians and biblical scholars totally disagree with on the basis that they've been deceived by satan you've lost the argument.

Jesus is not man made. The Holy Spirit is not man made. The universe is not man made.

Maybe it's time for you to start focusing on things that are not man made.

>Like, right now. You are dead.
This is news to me.

I've seen it. I've lived it.

And you've lived yours. Are you perfect? Or would you say "I'm only human"?

Gentles without access to the knowledge of Jesus Christ are salvaged if they are virtous

Jesus appeared in Jerusalem for 40 days. You bet John Mark saw him, talked to him, ate with him, drank with him. To say he was at the arrest in Jerusalem but not aware of the resurrection is absurd.

Matthew the apostle wrote the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew to the Hebrews emphasizing the kingly right of Jesus to the throne of David. You have zero evidence for saying it was a different Matthew. Zero.

Peter absolutely did.

I'm starting to think you don't read the bible much.

To say satan does not deceive historians and bible scholars is to admit foolishness.

"jesus is not man made."....he's a human that died.
again you cant discount other peoples perspective because you think yours is right. thanks again for confirming why religious freaks are the cause for a fuck ton of problems.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

again your "source" is the bible itself. that's like confirming trump isn't in the Russian pockets because he said so.

It's likely you never contemplated this before. I'll walk you through it.

When Adam was made of clay, God breathed his Holy Spirit, the Breath of Life, into Adam and made Adam in God's image. The Holy Spirit lived in Adam, and Adam became a living being.

When Adam sinned, the Holy Spirit fled him and he died. Spiritually. Naked and afraid, he hid from God. And when cast from the Garden, he and his wife could only make children in their own image, the image of a spiritually dead human being.

Long line of spiritually dead human beings eventually produced you in their image. So you are physically alive, but not spiritually alive. To be spiritually alive, as Jesus said to the pharisee Nicodemus, you must be born again. You must be born of both water (you have done this) and the Spirit (you have not done this).

Things born of the flesh are flesh; things born of the Spirit are Spirit.

This is what we mean by saying we are born again; we have confessed out loud that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our hearts God raised him from the dead, and have been saved. At that moment the Holy Spirit entered into our body and resurrected us to eternal life.

he who has the Spirit has life; he who has not the spirit has not life.

So while Adam lived for centuries after the Spirit fled him and he died, spiritually, that very day, just as God said, eating the fruit killed them both and damned them to hell. Them and all their descendants.

No, Jesus created the universe, let go of being God, and was born of a virgin to save the world.

Not man made. Son of God and Son of Man.

Yes, my source for all things Jesus is the bible, and my own personal experiences.

What's your source to discount the bible again? "Liberal scholars casting doubt?"

I made it about 4 words in and quit.

its called reason and perspective you should try it.

It's too powerful for you to read on your own. Ask God for assistance.

So my reason and perspective can alter things that happened thousands of years ago.

I must be God.

The Bible is just a collection of writings that confirm Jesus message and status as the messiah. Dismissing the accounts of people who lived in that time because they're part of the Bible now is silly. If people collected all the writings about Julius Cesar into a book would you say we can't say Cesar actually existed without some source outside of the book that is just a collection of historical references to Cesar?

lul yes I'm weeping from the immense amount of truth emanating from my laptop rn.

Gimme a quick rundown on the gnostic version

Yet it's not contained in the Gospel of Mark. You said Mark had a first-hand account, not that he probably saw him behind the scenes.

>ou have zero evidence for saying it was a different Matthew. Zero.
If you actually bothered with any analysis of the text it would be abundantly clear that
a) It was written in Greek
b) It was not written as an eyewitness account, but rather a compilation from other sources included Mark's gospel
It's possible however that it drew from a lost Hebrew or Aramaic source. But that's entirely hypothetical, and whoever wrote it is even hypothetical.

>Peter absolutely did.
No he didn't. He didn't write the epistles and Mark's gospels doesn't truly contain an account of the resurrection.

>I'm starting to think you don't read the bible much.
Not only have I read it. I've formally studied the authorship of the gospels.

>To say satan does not deceive historians and bible scholars is to admit foolishness.
>Everyone who disagrees with me is deceived by satan
Brilliant.

I love how originally you were all "I have proof, what do you have". But now you're all "All proof contrary to my blind stubbornness is satanic".

>he died, spiritually
That is
>he died, in my mind.

again I never discounted his teachings, I'm saying that his teachings have been used to establish a us vs them which is used as level of control through structured religion. just like every other structured religion in the world. meanwhile the catholic church could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda before it even started, extremists are using religion to satisfiy their own power for desire and even tibetian monks have committed genocide in the name of god. Fuck religion. I'm down with the teachings and humanity but you can take your structure and shove it up your dick hole.

>It's an atheist who just skims Bible passages to find the ones that support his worldview
Read it properly or not at all, nigga.

Who gives a shit how? The Christian God is omnipotent, therefore you shouldn't need to ask that question in the first place.

You don't understand omnipotence.

Are you actually this brain-dead?

Hey, retard. You faggots always read into shit that isn't there while atheists just show you what your book says. Like that guy up there just making shit up about Adam having the holy spirit and then it left him and all that other shit. Shit that may sound nice, but something that was never said in the Bible, has no basis in scripture, and not even a hint that people who wrote Genesis understood it to even mean that. And I'm not even that guy you're arguing with.

But if you are going to be religious at least be honest rather than making up some shit that sounds real good but isn't even backed up by your holy book.

No one understands omnipotence.

It's like infinity, or omnipresence, or omniscience, no human could comprehend what that would be like.

Define 'anything'. Can God create a triangle with 2 sides?

It really annoys me that you made this post without adding a "not that guy" or something.

I had a good thing going before you came in with retarded arguments.

>implying they crucified Isa ibn Maryam, peace be upon him

There's no shame in asking God for help to do things that can only be done with God's help. He's already said he's ready, willing and able to help you, and requires only your consent.

What are you afraid of?

success?

you never had anything good going.

Yes, John Mark had a first hand account whether or not it is written down in the Gospel of Mark. That you can doubt that is so odd as to be almost bizarre.

While the bible contains only truth, it does not contain all truth about everything at all times everywhere.

Matthew was written in Hebrew, according to Papias who had to try to translate it into Greek. As I've seen a copy of the original Matthew in the original Hebrew, and it does not contain the errors in the Greek translation, again, you need to go back and find out what the truth of the matter is, not what your precious Ehrman says.

Luke is a compilation, and says so. Not Mark.

You saying people didn't write what they wrote is ludicrous. Christians for thousands of years have been passing down the bible and their knowledge, but here you are in the 21st century, and you know more than all of them.

No, spiritually.

God said the very day they ate of the fruit, they would die. They ate the fruit and lived physically for centuries, and had dozens of children.

Did God lie?

Or is there a spiritual death you're not aware of? Which is more likely?

So what evil people did by abusing and misusing what Jesus taught is your problem.

Why didn't you say that to begin with?

And your non-arguments belong on /r/atheism.

I'm not asking questions. I'm trying to get you to think.

Could God have made a universe populated by robots? Of course.

Could God have not created any universe? Of course.

Could God have created a universe where all of his creations always make the right choice and always do good? Of course.

So why did he make this one?

What does this one offer that those cannot?