Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
Just curious...
Stories is the correct term.
All of them!
They either allude, represent, are a fascilime or allegory of the divine mission of the savior.
They either allude, represent, are a fascilime or allegory of the divine mission of the savior.
Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of them!
> They either allude, represent, are a fascilime or
> allegory of the divine mission of the savior.
So when Yahweh orders the Hebrews to invade a city, and kill all the men and children and animals, except for the young virgin girls (who they can take and rape), that's about the divine mission of a Jesus they'd never heard of at the time, and didn't expect?
Really?
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of them!
> They either allude, represent, are a fascilime or
> allegory of the divine mission of the savior.
So when Yahweh orders the Hebrews to invade a city, and kill all the men and children and animals, except for the young virgin girls (who they can take and rape), that's about the divine mission of a Jesus they'd never heard of at the time, and didn't expect?
Really?
Hey, when the Jeez-meister showed in the New World, a shit ton of people and cities were wiped out because of Jesus and...because...you know...He died for the sins of the world and those people were sinners and...no, wait...they were forgiven...and Jesus...wait...no, they were *not* forgiven because Jesus said...uhhhh.....wait a minute...He *didn't* destroy...no, wait...He *did* destroy...because He loved....errrr....uhhhh...
Oh, this was about the Bible, right?
Oh, this was about the Bible, right?
Haha. Jesus is sort of a tricky guy who likes to change things up. Your take on his shenanigans is dizzyingly insightful. Gave me vertigo---just like the Bible does.
EXCELLENT point !!!!!!
a tiny fraction of a percent by word count or page count as the OT and NT are lumped together, even less when considered that the three major NT accounts of Jesus are basically the same/identical, and the fourth and final account is very similar to the previous three.
However, the relatively minuscule NT packs a significant punch, as its religion loathing main character does an epic job of mocking Judaism, just as was intended. Think of the New Testament as a fulfillment of the OT ....in the same way that the Book of MORmON Musical is a fulfillment of the Book of MORmON.
Now, what were you asking about the BuyBull????
However, the relatively minuscule NT packs a significant punch, as its religion loathing main character does an epic job of mocking Judaism, just as was intended. Think of the New Testament as a fulfillment of the OT ....in the same way that the Book of MORmON Musical is a fulfillment of the Book of MORmON.
Now, what were you asking about the BuyBull????
Well, in the Old Testament the number is zero percent.
Another reason the BoM is hogwash--too much Jesus, even the Christ, and they talk about him, by name (you know his actual name is Jesus Christ, right? :-) ) in an Old testament setting.
WTF!?
Joseph Smith & Co. were too clever by half...
WTF!?
Joseph Smith & Co. were too clever by half...
The BOM seems to think that "Christ" was his last name.
"Well, Mr. and Mrs. Christ, what are you planning to name the boy?"
"Well, Mr. and Mrs. Christ, what are you planning to name the boy?"
hahahahahahahhaha.
I don't know, but if you check out a red-letter Bible, you can easily see the things that Jesus said.
That is hard to say. I can tell you that 25% of the Bible is the New Testament and the New Testament is all about Jesus.
isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is hard to say. I can tell you that 25% of
> the Bible is the New Testament and the New
> Testament is all about Jesus.
Most of Paul's letters deal with problems/politics in christian groups in various locales. They're not "all about Jesus" at all.
Acts of the Apostles is almost entirely about getting/keeping a "church" going AFTER Jesus -- it's also not "all about Jesus."
Have you read it?
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is hard to say. I can tell you that 25% of
> the Bible is the New Testament and the New
> Testament is all about Jesus.
Most of Paul's letters deal with problems/politics in christian groups in various locales. They're not "all about Jesus" at all.
Acts of the Apostles is almost entirely about getting/keeping a "church" going AFTER Jesus -- it's also not "all about Jesus."
Have you read it?
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> isthechurchtrue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is hard to say. I can tell you that 25% of
> > the Bible is the New Testament and the New
> > Testament is all about Jesus.
>
> Most of Paul's letters deal with problems/politics
> in christian groups in various locales. They're
> not "all about Jesus" at all.
>
> Acts of the Apostles is almost entirely about
> getting/keeping a "church" going AFTER Jesus
(SKIPS TOWN, GOES COMPLETELY AWOL, PERMANENTLY DISAPPEARS UP INTO HEAVEN ....so much like the Golden Plates)
--
> it's also not "all about Jesus."
>
> Have you read it?
SLAAAA BAM BAAAAAA!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> isthechurchtrue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That is hard to say. I can tell you that 25% of
> > the Bible is the New Testament and the New
> > Testament is all about Jesus.
>
> Most of Paul's letters deal with problems/politics
> in christian groups in various locales. They're
> not "all about Jesus" at all.
>
> Acts of the Apostles is almost entirely about
> getting/keeping a "church" going AFTER Jesus
(SKIPS TOWN, GOES COMPLETELY AWOL, PERMANENTLY DISAPPEARS UP INTO HEAVEN ....so much like the Golden Plates)
--
> it's also not "all about Jesus."
>
> Have you read it?
SLAAAA BAM BAAAAAA!!!!
Here we go again with the childish responses... Yes, I read it. That is why I said it is hard to say because it all depends on how literally you want to take the "about" part.
Try to use your brain before you post sarcastic and insulting responses. At least try to act like you have some sense and dignity.
As the apostles spread the Gospel they were teaching ABOUT Jesus because the Gospel is ABOUT Jesus so yes in a sense the New Testament is all ABOUT JESUS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 04:24PM by isthechurchtrue.
Try to use your brain before you post sarcastic and insulting responses. At least try to act like you have some sense and dignity.
As the apostles spread the Gospel they were teaching ABOUT Jesus because the Gospel is ABOUT Jesus so yes in a sense the New Testament is all ABOUT JESUS.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 04:24PM by isthechurchtrue.
isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again with the childish responses...
If you're referring to my post, it wasn't childish.
If you're referring to the post under mine...yeah, I agree.
> Yes, I read it. That is why I said it is hard to
> say because it all depends on how literally you
> want to take the "about" part.
OK. It's more than a bit of a stretch to say Paul giving instructions on which people can teach (for example) is "about Jesus." Wouldn't you agree?
> Try to use your brain before you post sarcastic
> and insulting responses. At least try to act like
> you have some sense and dignity.
The ad-hominems aren't necessary. Even for the post under mine. Perhaps you should take your own advice...
> As the apostles spread the Gospel they were
> teaching ABOUT Jesus because the Gospel is ABOUT
> Jesus so yes in a sense the New Testament is all
> ABOUT JESUS.
Well, other than perhaps Paul, almost none of the NT was written by "apostles." But, whatever. Me, I consider things "about Jesus" to be, you know, things said by, or said about, the bible character Jesus. I guess you have a different consideration. If I mention that a particular person is an OK guy, or a real jerk (such things make up huge parts of Paul's letters), and that person happens to be christian, do you think I'm talking about Jesus? Or about that person? I think it's the latter.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go again with the childish responses...
If you're referring to my post, it wasn't childish.
If you're referring to the post under mine...yeah, I agree.
> Yes, I read it. That is why I said it is hard to
> say because it all depends on how literally you
> want to take the "about" part.
OK. It's more than a bit of a stretch to say Paul giving instructions on which people can teach (for example) is "about Jesus." Wouldn't you agree?
> Try to use your brain before you post sarcastic
> and insulting responses. At least try to act like
> you have some sense and dignity.
The ad-hominems aren't necessary. Even for the post under mine. Perhaps you should take your own advice...
> As the apostles spread the Gospel they were
> teaching ABOUT Jesus because the Gospel is ABOUT
> Jesus so yes in a sense the New Testament is all
> ABOUT JESUS.
Well, other than perhaps Paul, almost none of the NT was written by "apostles." But, whatever. Me, I consider things "about Jesus" to be, you know, things said by, or said about, the bible character Jesus. I guess you have a different consideration. If I mention that a particular person is an OK guy, or a real jerk (such things make up huge parts of Paul's letters), and that person happens to be christian, do you think I'm talking about Jesus? Or about that person? I think it's the latter.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> isthechurchtrue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here we go again with the childish responses...
Most correct thing that ITCT had said, (much more correct than his prior comments on the New Testament, which was an easy new level of improved correctness to achieve since ITCT's previous comments on the NT had a huge flaw, that was then duly exposed by you, IICHTK) .....because right after that ITCT issued warning then came along the (HIS) "childish response", just like ITCT had warned !!!!
....Thanks for the warning, ITCT !!!
>
> If you're referring to my post, it wasn't
> childish.
> If you're referring to the post under mine...yeah,
> I agree.
Funny dang thing, the post under your post is still 80 percent yours (IICHTK's) by word count.
..... and IF saying that (dead wood)Jesus has disappeared for a long time so much like the golden plates have disappeared is childish, then what else is childish (or childishly accurate) too?
The SLA BAM BAAAA comment was a simple (supportive) observation about the brutal, not very childlike, fact based take down that was executed on ITCT's prior errant comments.... a take down that was then RE executed in your follow up post ......to which I again respond to by saying SLA BAM BAAAA!!! as in brutal take down. are you,IICHTK,suddenly going to be "childish" enough as in silly enough to say that is not what happened ?
> OK. It's more than a bit of a stretch to say Paul
> giving instructions on which people can teach (for
> example) is "about Jesus." Wouldn't you agree?
SLAAA BAM BAAAAAA!!!
> Well, other than perhaps Paul, almost none of the NT was
> written by "apostles."
Actually, strictly by word count and author attribution, a significant part of the NT WAS written by Apostles, SO you blew it on that one by being incorrect!!!! but I will not be too hard on you for that, because as the fact that much of the first 3 NT gospels are nearly identical and the fourth is quite similar, there is a redundancy of that content which considerably reduces its practical whole. But "None" is still way too extreme in describing the deal. As the legitimacy of Paul as an apostle is question, (even as they are ALL mythical characters) then apostle created NT content is again considerably diminished.
Best of all, it is apparent that you have mentally segregated the NT into content actually about Christ versus every thing else, which is one of the best (as in most valid) distinctions of the NT of all, even if you bumbled a little bit in attempting to state it, that after you so very effectively demolishing ITCT's errant commentary.
....I hope those observations are NOT too "childish" (accurate) for you ( the master wielder of facts) to take.
-------------------------------------------------------
> isthechurchtrue Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here we go again with the childish responses...
Most correct thing that ITCT had said, (much more correct than his prior comments on the New Testament, which was an easy new level of improved correctness to achieve since ITCT's previous comments on the NT had a huge flaw, that was then duly exposed by you, IICHTK) .....because right after that ITCT issued warning then came along the (HIS) "childish response", just like ITCT had warned !!!!
....Thanks for the warning, ITCT !!!
>
> If you're referring to my post, it wasn't
> childish.
> If you're referring to the post under mine...yeah,
> I agree.
Funny dang thing, the post under your post is still 80 percent yours (IICHTK's) by word count.
..... and IF saying that (dead wood)Jesus has disappeared for a long time so much like the golden plates have disappeared is childish, then what else is childish (or childishly accurate) too?
The SLA BAM BAAAA comment was a simple (supportive) observation about the brutal, not very childlike, fact based take down that was executed on ITCT's prior errant comments.... a take down that was then RE executed in your follow up post ......to which I again respond to by saying SLA BAM BAAAA!!! as in brutal take down. are you,IICHTK,suddenly going to be "childish" enough as in silly enough to say that is not what happened ?
> OK. It's more than a bit of a stretch to say Paul
> giving instructions on which people can teach (for
> example) is "about Jesus." Wouldn't you agree?
SLAAA BAM BAAAAAA!!!
> Well, other than perhaps Paul, almost none of the NT was
> written by "apostles."
Actually, strictly by word count and author attribution, a significant part of the NT WAS written by Apostles, SO you blew it on that one by being incorrect!!!! but I will not be too hard on you for that, because as the fact that much of the first 3 NT gospels are nearly identical and the fourth is quite similar, there is a redundancy of that content which considerably reduces its practical whole. But "None" is still way too extreme in describing the deal. As the legitimacy of Paul as an apostle is question, (even as they are ALL mythical characters) then apostle created NT content is again considerably diminished.
Best of all, it is apparent that you have mentally segregated the NT into content actually about Christ versus every thing else, which is one of the best (as in most valid) distinctions of the NT of all, even if you bumbled a little bit in attempting to state it, that after you so very effectively demolishing ITCT's errant commentary.
....I hope those observations are NOT too "childish" (accurate) for you ( the master wielder of facts) to take.