He was a Rabbi. He could write just fine. He would have been fluent in Greek (as evidenced by His exclusive use of the Septuagint), Hebrew for use of the Masocretic texts and out of tradition, and Aramaic as it was the common speaking language. He didn't write anything down because He died during His mission.
Originally posted by Nellinator
He was a Rabbi. He could write just fine. He would have been fluent in Greek (as evidenced by His exclusive use of the Septuagint), Hebrew for use of the Masocretic texts and out of tradition, and Aramaic as it was the common speaking language. He didn't write anything down because He died during His mission.
Didn't he write his sermons? He did a lot of teachings, why didn't he write them down as he went? Maybe he did, and the Vatican has them hidden away or something?
Originally posted by Nellinator
No. His scribes (ie. disciples) did it for Him. Unlikely.
yea, and they waited for him to die, then wrote over 95% of the stuff in third person and claiming personal revelations{often self contradictory}, while hardly quoting him directly and drawing wild conslusions based on jumps in logic which are not mentioned even in jesus's QUOTED statements?/
hrmmm, im sure you have an unconventional argument which turns my argument on its head and goes in opposition of the greater beleifs of christians
as far as the teachings they hide, a christian/missionary will always quote quotes describing the love and acceptance and tolerance+ exclusive interpretations of scriptures to apparently point towards prophesised real world event inside christianity before they ease you into the hateful and illogical parts of the relegion which is often directly contradicting the philosophy of love etc.
Originally posted by leonheartmmThey were busy when Jesus was alive you know and for a period afterward, founding churches and whatnot. In fact, the disciples had scribes. It is commonly thought that the gospel of Mark is Peter's account as Mark was Peter's scribe. I'd like to see evidence of conclusions not based on Jesus's teachings. I think the best you will find is a few newer teachings. Which is entirely reasonable when one considers that not all of Jesus's teachings were written down.
yea, and they waited for him to die, then wrote over 95% of the stuff in third person and claiming personal revelations{often self contradictory}, while hardly quoting him directly and drawing wild conslusions based on jumps in logic which are not mentioned even in jesus's QUOTED statements?/hrmmm, im sure you have an unconventional argument which turns my argument on its head and goes in opposition of the greater beleifs of christians
as far as the teachings they hide, a christian/missionary will always quote quotes describing the love and acceptance and tolerance+ exclusive interpretations of scriptures to apparently point towards prophesised real world event inside christianity before they ease you into the hateful and illogical parts of the relegion which is often directly contradicting the philosophy of love etc.
Hardly.
Or, you know, go with the most common themes. However, the multitude of fire and brimstone preachers and missionaries kinda disproves that.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea, and they waited for him to die, then wrote over 95% of the stuff in third person and claiming personal revelations{often self contradictory}, while hardly quoting him directly and drawing wild conslusions based on jumps in logic which are not mentioned even in jesus's QUOTED statements?/hrmmm, im sure you have an unconventional argument which turns my argument on its head and goes in opposition of the greater beleifs of christians
as far as the teachings they hide, a christian/missionary will always quote quotes describing the love and acceptance and tolerance+ exclusive interpretations of scriptures to apparently point towards prophesised real world event inside christianity before they ease you into the hateful and illogical parts of the relegion which is often directly contradicting the philosophy of love etc.
What exactly is the philosophy of love?
Originally posted by Nellinator [/i]
[B]They were busy when Jesus was alive you know and for a period afterward, founding churches and whatnot. In fact, the disciples had scribes. It is commonly thought that the gospel of Mark is Peter's account as Mark was Peter's scribe. I'd like to see evidence of conclusions not based on Jesus's teachings. I think the best you will find is a few newer teachings. Which is entirely reasonable when one considers that not all of Jesus's teachings were written down.
oh my GOD!!!!!! church, trinity, rapture, much of what is claimed about jesus being the biological SON of god, differences between the old and new testament{i did not come to destroy the teachings of old}, redemption from sin based on just accepting jesus's sacrifice{every1 must carry their own cross as me}, jesus being baptised ...............this list continues on indefinately. most of christianity is paul.
Hardly.
Or, you know, go with the most common themes. However, the multitude of fire and brimstone preachers and missionaries kinda disproves that.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the philosophy of love is the inconsistant and largely non existance claim of christianity being a relegion of love and not hate or high headedness. {"god is love" etc}
Oh. That explains why that was in your post...I thought it was just some random made up phrase from the blue😮
Originally posted by leonheartmmJesus taught the church. He founded it even. Trinity is based entirely off Jesus. The "rapture" is based off Jesus's promise to return. What are you talking about?
oh my GOD!!!!!! church, trinity, rapture, much of what is claimed about jesus being the biological SON of god, differences between the old and new testament{i did not come to destroy the teachings of old}, redemption from sin based on just accepting jesus's sacrifice{every1 must carry their own cross as me}, jesus being baptised ...............this list continues on indefinately. most of christianity is paul.lol, ok i beleive u now.
erm, did u even read what i wrote old man?
Good.
Yah, you said that missionaries avoid the non-soft parts to start with. But they don't, so your allegation doesn't really have a bearing in reality.