*Absolves your sins*

Only if you confess and repent.

Thank you

Christposting should be a ban-able offense.

...

Thank you

Christian Nomis get out
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

...

>praying to a RAPIST
SHAME

...

>tfw im an athiest but i like jesus cause he seems like a good guy

but im pure and sinless

i have never done anything bad in my life

Unfortunately that opinion of Jesus actually makes the least sense. C. S. famously described what has become known as the "trilemma" which is the argument that Jesus of Nazareth must have been either the Christ, a fraudster or a lunatic because of the way the Gospels depict him. Basically the idea is that Jesus did some pretty extreme things such as forgiving other people's sins which was something only God was supposed to be able to do. This is like if someone were to hit you and then a random hobo showed up and was like "it's all good, I forgive him for hitting you." There was also the time that Jesus allowed a strange woman to clean his feet with her hair which is odd to say the least. The point is that this behavior is only justifiable if he was indeed who he claimed to be, otherwise he was definitely not a good guy.

*C.S. Lewis

delet this

A shitload of time in Purgatory after death so that you're less shitty enough to enter heaven.

Absolve this

Best picture I've seen posted on Veeky Forums. Bravo user.

The notion of purgatory is an interesting one. The physical suffering that happens to the individual after death in purgatory is meant to be the same infernal nervetorching flames as there are in hell, however the one saving grace is the hope the individual has since they know that there is a time limit to their cleansing, as they will see the face of god one day. The time in purgatory varies on the level of sinner that you are. Hypothetically speaking, Hitler and Stalin may have been saved in their last moment, however the amount of time they would have to spend cleansing their sins could be as astronomical as millions of years, but it would not be eternal. Everyone has sinned, whether you spend a month or 100 years in purgatory is up to you. Get right with God now.

i've done nothing wrong
never in my life
no, no, no, no, no, no, no

The irony is the Daoist is correct.

also the Dao is not the Dao because the Dao te Ching is not THE dao, its just a book.

Thanks doc.

Excellent post! You should join us on r/atheism.

>Basically the idea is that Jesus did some pretty extreme things such as forgiving other people's sins which was something only God was supposed to be able to do
Why do so many Christian apologetics clearly not read the Bible? Half the stuff in Leviticus is about how the Priest, not about how God, grants atonement.

He also seems to be implying that the Gospels are accurate renditions of Jesus's ministry, which is just adorable.

The priest performs the sacrifice but only God can forgive sins and whether you believe in them or not the Gospels are the authoritative biographies of Jesus.

>The priest performs the sacrifice but only God can forgive sins
Well, that's not what Leviticus says. Check out 5:6, 5:10, or 5:13.

>Confuses source criticism with textual criticism.
I really never can tell if Christfags are being deliberately deceptive or just don't know what they're talking about. Lots of copies of the Gospels being (mostly) true to each other means that it's very unlikely that there was a "real' gospel of Mark/Matthew/Luke/John that the ones we have now diverged from. It says absolutely nothing whether or not those claims are accurate in the first place. In Jesu's case, they almost certainly aren't, since the Gospel authors make a bunch of other mistakes concerning 1st century Judea that means they're almost certainly not eyewitness accounts.

You can't absolve anything because you got killed by the authorities for being a troublemaker. youtube.com/watch?v=1_I9Q5kBLS0

>Hehe...that was personnel, Kid

Israelite priests and Christian priests are not the same thing and aren't even supposed to be the same thing.

This image actually doesn't prove anything other then that the christian church liked to have lots of copies of their central religious text and also liked to burn any "heathen" works that contradicted it.

The "making of atonement" in those verses refers to the performance of a sacrifice. That sacrifice is made to God who in exchange forgives the sin as explained in 5:10.

The Gospels we have are the "real" Gospels; codified versions of the oral stories that originated from the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry.

Also,

>Jesu

Can't even bring yourself to utter His name eh?

Which I realize, but it has nothing to do with point at hand. claims that

>the idea is that Jesus did some pretty extreme things such as forgiving other people's sins which was something only God was supposed to be able to do.
This is simply wrong, ad moreso, would have been understood as such by an Israelite audience that Jesus predominately dealt with.

It's not wrong and you're either being dishonest or ignorant. The priest has authority to perform the sacrifice but it is God who grants him that authority and God who forgives in exchange for the sacrifice.

>The "making of atonement" in those verses refers to the performance of a sacrifice. That sacrifice is made to God who in exchange forgives the sin as explained in 5:10.
It literally says nothing of the sort

>And he shall prepare the second (bird) for a burnt-offering, according to the law, and the priest shall make atonement for the sin that he has sinned, and he shall be forgiven.

>The Gospels we have are the "real" Gospels; codified versions of the oral stories that originated from the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry.
So, all those eyewitnesses ccollectively forgot that women couldn't divorce men in their society? They didn't know that going to Galilee from Tyre takes you nowhere near Sidon? They didn't realize that they didn't have kings, they had tetrarchs, and the Romans were very, very particular about that distinction? They couldn't tell the difference between Sadducees and Pharisees, despite them being the dominant two sects of their day?

>Can't even bring yourself to utter His name eh?
Actually, I just made a typo. Although, to be fair, "Jesu" probably is closer to "Yeshua" than "Jesus" is.

>It's not wrong and you're either being dishonest or ignorant. The priest has authority to perform the sacrifice but it is God who grants him that authority and God who forgives in exchange for the sacrifice.
Then you can point to me where it actually says that in the verses. I'll wait.

>This is simply wrong, ad moreso, would have been understood as such by an Israelite audience that Jesus predominately dealt with.
Do you not understand the relationship between divine will and ritual practice?
The proper practice of ordained ritual is the at-one-ment of the will of the priest and his flock with God. This is true in the stories of the Prophets, many of whose lives amounted to explicit ruptures with the established religious tradition of their time. The Old Testament is the story of the development of Israel's and the rest of the world's relationship with God; the New Testament's centerpiece is the Gospel and its message of eternal life. These are two very different stories, each of which presents us with the development of new sets of traditions built on old sets of traditions by the work of men and women empowered by the Spirit to do the will of the Father. The rituals that develop alongside the development of the relations between God and Israel and the Church reflect God's will; as such, the priest operating the ritual is operating according to God's will; the ritual brings the people into unity as the body of the Church in accordance with the will of God. The priest does not of his own power forgive sin. The priest performs the rituals that God has ordained as necessary for the salvation of the soul. By way of these rituals, the penitent comes to know God and be one with God. The priest is a midwife.

In Isaiah 43:25 it is made explicit that God is the one who forgives sins.

Regarding divorce, Jesus knew He was speaking to all generations so you cannot limit His teachings to the first century Jewish context.

Your geography criticism is born our of a misunderstanding of the text. This website explains your error: answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/geo-errors2.htm

As for the claim that Herod wasn't a king, Josephus says otherwise:

>...then resolved to get him made king of the Jews ... told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. And when the senate was separated, Antony and Caesar went out, with Herod between them; while the consul and the rest of the magistrates went before them, in order to offer sacrifices [to the Roman gods], and to lay the decree in the Capitol. Antony also made a feast for Herod on the first day of his reign."

- Jewish War

Lastly, the Gospels do distinguish between the Pharisees and Sadducees such as in Matthew 3:7 where John identifies them each by name.

>Not getting it.
I guess it really is just plain stupidity. The development of Christian theology would not impact how 2000ish year old Jews would view the acts of Jesus as he's running around forgiving sins, something which a bunch of them probably saw the priests do at Jerusalem, or at least hear of someone who had the treatment. It would not be a revolutionary act of claiming to be God to them, it would not be a "pretty extreme thing".

Why not give yourself the power to absolve your own sins?

>This is like if someone were to hit you and then a random hobo showed up and was like "it's all good, I forgive him for hitting you."
Do we live in a society where people often randomly hit each other and hobos routinely forgive it?

Jesus was not a Levite so He could not have been a priest so even if we ignore your misunderstanding of how the sacrificial economy functioned the fact that Jesus, a non-Levite, was forgiving sins would have been bewildering to the Jews regardless.

why not go back to tumblr?

I don't see what this has to do with your claim that priests forgive sins and God does not.

>In Isaiah 43:25 it is made explicit that God is the one who forgives sins.
No, it is not explicit that God is the ONLY one who forgives sins. Stop moving your goalposts.

>Regarding divorce, Jesus knew He was speaking to all generations so you cannot limit His teachings to the first century Jewish context.
Which is why he prefaces it with statements about Mosiatic law in Deuteronomy! Clearly he was speaking to everyone, like all those people who never followed Moses's teachings.

>As for the claim that Herod wasn't a king, Josephus says otherwise:
You really need to stop being stupid. And to read carefully. Herod the Great is not Herod Antipas you dumbfuck. And of course, Matthew IS careful to call them tetrachs most of the time (14:1, for instance), except when he forgets to, probably because he was copying Mark, who is a lot sloppier about these kinds of things.

>Lastly, the Gospels do distinguish between the Pharisees and Sadducees such as in Matthew 3:7 where John identifies them each by name.
Yeah, and they also attribute each other's positions back and forth, like how the "Pharisees" get mad at Jesus for saying a prayer and healing someone on the Sabbath, despite healing being forbidden something that the Sadducees thought.

>STILL not getting it.
This is unbelievably simple.

1) Original user claims that "JESUS FORGIVING SINS MEANS HE CLAIMS TO BE GOD!"
2) I point out that that is not how Jews understood shit, and that a claim of forgiveness does not imply a claim of divinity.

Ta Fucking Da.

That isn't what I claimed. Try to read. I claimed that mere forgiveness of sin is not something that Jews held exclusively to be something that God does. And what doctrines Christians have much later really has nothing to do with what 1st century Jews believed.

I'm out. I can only take so much idiocy at a time. It's one thing to be unable to read a text written thousands of years ago in a language you're unfamiliar with, but you dipshits can't even read Veeky Forums posts.

Nowhere in the Torah does it say that a priest forgives, the best you can find is that they "make atonement" which again refers to the ritual sacrifice they performed.

Yes clearly the Messiah was speaking to everyone and you're the one who claimed that the Jews didn't have kings and when Josephus shows you otherwise you try to say that king didn't count so you're the one moving the goalposts.

All Jews, both Pharisees and Sadducees alike, held that the Sabbath was to be a day of "complete rest" so Jesus working miracles on the Sabbath would have offended both of them.

I did and i forgave myself
And i knew all was right in the world.

>but you dipshits can't even read Veeky Forums posts.
That's because you're incoherent.