One of the reasons I don't believe in Christianity is because the Jews did not believe in Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

Father Mike is not a great thinker and doesnt stray from anything outside the doctrine. He has nothing to offer to a Jewish person or an athiest.

Fr. Mike is an apologist for the faith. But I don't think that discredits him. He doesn't hide it. Many people outside of the Christian faith stayed with Bible in a Year through completion, including some atheists and agnostics. Even if only for educational purposes. So your assertion seems to be facially wrong, at least with that category of folks.

[Anonymous]

St. Paul says hold my beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

Father Mike is not a great thinker and doesnt stray from anything outside the doctrine. He has nothing to offer to a Jewish person or an athiest.

Fr. Mike is an apologist for the faith. But I don't think that discredits him. He doesn't hide it. Many people outside of the Christian faith stayed with Bible in a Year through completion, including some atheists and agnostics. Even if only for educational purposes. So your assertion seems to be facially wrong, at least with that category of folks.

It discredits him from having any viewpoint that doesnt line up with the faith. Hes intellectual in the same way that Prager U is intellectual. Not really making sense outside of the agenda being pushed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus prohibited anal intercourse man to man. I dont know about Egyptian rules. What is your point related to the absurd assumption in the christian church that God came down to earth as a child turning into a man but failing at convincing the jews he was their messiah? Seems like you are on a different topic.

Where does it say "anal" in Leviticus?

I gotta get a new edition, apparently.

Hahahahaha

Do tell your interpretation of a man lay next to another man.

Can’t wait

Yeah, ok, you are right, it can only mean anal, as that is the only kind of other sexual contact it could be. How could I be so impossibly, incredibly, unbelievably, unforgivingly stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul says hold my beer.

Paul if he really believed Jesus was the son of the old God would have spent his life convincing jews of this.

[Anonymous]

I believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Canaanites didn't believe the early Israelites' religion. So taking Jewish pov as established fact doesn't work, either. It's like the old myth about there being turtles all the way down.

God didnt make a covenant with them. They weren't his people. Thats why it makes no sense that God then chose the Romans to be his people.

You are inverting the Christian understanding with the bolded. God did not choose the Romans (or anny other people) after Christ. After Christ’s redemptive act on the cross on behalf of all humans, God is no longer choosing a people within humanity, but rather God is allowing all of humanity to choose to be in relationship with God, through Jesus. Hence, the emphasis on John 3:16, especially in Protestant circles. John 3:16 sums up the Christian understanding/message as succinctly as possible. There is more depth to it, but that is the very core essence of Christianity and how it builds upon the OT.

Except that it doesnt build upon the OT except possibly the commandments. There is little correlation from God's plan in the OT to God's plan in the NT. Even the afterlife is different. As well as the commandments. What was the point of Leviticus or even the Exodus? There is no flow from one to the other from God's perspective.

Yes and no. A lot of different variables in play, and your views might differ slightly from one Christian denomination to another. Catholics and the Orthodox absolutely see a flow and symmetry between the OT and NT. In the sense that Jesus himself says he came to establish a new order and a kingdom not dreamed of before, then I understand how you see it as not flowing. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of the Mosaic law and Christian theologians believe this established a new covenant with a new set of rules that in some cases built upon the old rules (the two greatest commandments...) while others would be seen a sort of a "New Deal" (healing on the Sabbath, the sermon on the Mount).

If for no other reason than educational purposes, you might consider the Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz. As the name implies, he starts on Jan 1 and goes through the (Catholic) Bible day-by-day until you complete the whole thing in a year. Daily, about 10-15 minutes are spent on a set of readings from two or three books of the Bible (sort of in chronological order) and then another 10-15 minutes on a theological reflection of the readings. The podcast was wildly successful and many non-believers enjoyed it just to broaden their understanding of Christian thought. One of the themes he hammers over and over again on his podcast, and his chosen format really works well for it, is that the OT, in Christian thought, is interpreted as preparation for Christ's arrival on Earth and Christ's time spent in his earthly mission. That sort of touches on what OP might have heard in the homily at Mass.

Fr. Mike does a great job of pairing OT and NT readings where it makes sense to see how they compliment each other.

Father Mike is not a great thinker and doesnt stray from anything outside the doctrine. He has nothing to offer to a Jewish person or an athiest.

Fr. Mike is an apologist for the faith. But I don't think that discredits him. He doesn't hide it. Many people outside of the Christian faith stayed with Bible in a Year through completion, including some atheists and agnostics. Even if only for educational purposes. So your assertion seems to be facially wrong, at least with that category of folks.

It discredits him from having any viewpoint that doesnt line up with the faith. Hes intellectual in the same way that Prager U is intellectual. Not really making sense outside of the agenda being pushed.

Your objection is that a Catholic priest says Catholic things? I don't know if you are the same poster in all these responses, but what exactly are you looking for. There exist resources to weave the OT & NT story together. You may find those sources unpersuasive (well within your right to do so). But what exactly are you looking for in this thread?

[Anonymous]

It’s all ancient mythology. Focus on the now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:St. Paul says hold my beer.

Paul if he really believed Jesus was the son of the old God would have spent his life convincing jews of this.

Spoiler: that he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts

This is religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus prohibited anal intercourse man to man. I dont know about Egyptian rules. What is your point related to the absurd assumption in the christian church that God came down to earth as a child turning into a man but failing at convincing the jews he was their messiah? Seems like you are on a different topic.

Where does it say "anal" in Leviticus?

I gotta get a new edition, apparently.

Hahahahaha

Do tell your interpretation of a man lay next to another man.

Can’t wait

Yeah, ok, you are right, it can only mean anal, as that is the only kind of other sexual contact it could be. How could I be so impossibly, incredibly, unbelievably, unforgivingly stupid?

I’m not sure how. You sound like you’re around 12 years old, it’s probably that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe anyone still believes any of this in this day and age.

Agree.

Like we’re supposed to believe that Noah gathered 2 armadillos, 2 mosquitos, 2 Komodo dragons, 2 aardvarks, 2 termites, 2 scorpions, 2 hippos, etc………
And the lions, tigers, wolves, bears, etc…all behave and don’t attack each other.

What an utterly ridiculous fairy tale!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leviticus prohibited anal intercourse man to man. I dont know about Egyptian rules. What is your point related to the absurd assumption in the christian church that God came down to earth as a child turning into a man but failing at convincing the jews he was their messiah? Seems like you are on a different topic.

Where does it say "anal" in Leviticus?

I gotta get a new edition, apparently.

Hahahahaha

Do tell your interpretation of a man lay next to another man.

Can’t wait

Yeah, ok, you are right, it can only mean anal, as that is the only kind of other sexual contact it could be. How could I be so impossibly, incredibly, unbelievably, unforgivingly stupid?

I’m not sure how. You sound like you’re around 12 years old, it’s probably that.

So you clearly got the point, then. Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch Life of Brian.

After watching the Life of Brian, I understood how Britain became so unchristian. More people should watch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1947 the bible was rewritten the word Homosexual did not appear in the bible before that.

Religions are cults nothing more nothing less.

+1 million Not to mention the word "homosexual" was mistranslated, AND the person that brought the mistranslation to the attention of the people in charge was agreed with. They just never got around to changing it/fixing it. It changed a lot for a lot of people that cannot only not think for themselves about what is right and wrong, but also a lot of people that have become convinced that just THEIR version of a booze age myth is correct. It has also harmed a lot of people, my family being one of them.

So, you are saying that the Bible verse “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." wasn't in the Bible until 1947?

It's immaterial what was in the Bible when. the Bible is an ancient story book. Nothing more.