Will Jesus return on a white horse?

[Cinjin]

There is no single verse in the whole fucking NT which causes xtians to twist their scrotums into knots more than ole jebus' line about this "generation."

Of course, the Mark 9-1 line of bullshit:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

really undercuts the interpretations that the nuttier ones try to come up with. Nope...it looks, quite simply, that jebus was wrong.

Gods should not be wrong. Really impacts their 'godliness.'

It's likely he never even read the verse. Most of them don't even read the book they model their lives after. They simply listen to some blowhard behind a pulpit and assume it's all true. Just the kind of sheep every god needs.

Don't worry Christian, I'm sure you can find some apologists bull shit to gymnasty your way outta this one too.





On a Side Note: Not much of a surprise, but interesting that Mark13 didn't respond to this.

[Minimalist]

Their crudibility level is shockingly low, Cinj. They don't need good reasons to fall for bullshit. Any old reason will do.

[Undeceived]

It's likely he never even read the verse. Most of them don't even read the book they model their lives after. They simply listen to some blowhard behind a pulpit and assume it's all true. Just the kind of sheep every god needs.

Mark 9:1/ Matthew 16:28 commentaries:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm
The two main interpretations are thus:
1. The "kingdom" Jesus refers to is the church empowered by the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus meant his transfiguration, which immediately follows this verse.

Needless to say, no one is going to throw away their faith based on one verse they don't entirely understand--especially when the only condemning interpretation fails to involve any spiritual thought. When Jesus says "now" has he ever really meant that instant as his 12 disciples would experience it? No, he means now, universally, in the spiritual sense. That's what makes Jesus different. He talks on another layer. If you ignore that layer, you miss everything.

[Minimalist]

The two main interpretations are thus:
1. The "kingdom" Jesus refers to is the church empowered by the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus meant his transfiguration, which immediately follows this verse.

Um, excuse me but if you fuckers can't even agree on which version of the lie to put forward why are we supposed to be impressed?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's likely he never even read the verse. Most of them don't even read the book they model their lives after. They simply listen to some blowhard behind a pulpit and assume it's all true. Just the kind of sheep every god needs.

Mark 9:1/ Matthew 16:28 commentaries:
http://bible.cc/matthew/16-28.htm
The two main interpretations are thus:
1. The "kingdom" Jesus refers to is the church empowered by the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus meant his transfiguration, which immediately follows this verse.

Needless to say, no one is going to throw away their faith based on one verse they don't entirely understand--especially when the only condemning interpretation fails to involve any spiritual thought. When Jesus says "now" has he ever really meant that instant as his 12 disciples would experience it? No, he means now, universally, in the spiritual sense. That's what makes Jesus different. He talks on another layer. If you ignore that layer, you miss everything.

Why should we be expected to take a book seriously that relies so heavily on 'interpretation'?

If anyone can interpret whatever they want however they want, then what use is it? If words have such a flimsy meaning (eg "now") depending on the reader, then isn't the message behind those words easy to lose?

For example, I've had conversations with Christians in the past who have adamantly denied that the bible is very averse to homosexuality, despite the obvious:

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

&

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

In fact, if you search for these verses on google, the first site that comes up is this:

http://christianteens.about.com/od/whatt...sexual.htm

^^ the above site is written by a women falling over herself attempting to portray the bible as not condemning homosexuality (male homosexuality that is), despite the rather glaring statement from Leviticus that portrays it as a heinous crime punishable by...well...death.

This passage from that site stands out to me:

Whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin based upon your interpretations of the scripture, there are some issues surrounding the treatment of homosexuals of which Christians need to be aware. While the Old Testament focused on rules and consequences, the New Testament offers a message of love. There are some Christian homosexuals and there are those that desire deliverance from homosexuality. Rather than trying to be God and pass judgement on those individuals, a better option may be to offer prayers to those struggling with their homosexuality.

Sounds open minded right? I mean, one could read behind this 'just go with the flow'. Then I read it again, and noted a number of things:

The woman believes that the bible is the word of god (she states as much on the blog/site), but then agrees in a convoluted way that the OT is somewhat contradicted by the NT (OT = laws and rules, NT love and forgiveness as per Jesus which renders the rules of the OT obsolete and so on). So, isn't that a bit confusing? Again, interpretation right?

Then you look at it again, and you notice the little statements that seem to indicate that some Christian teens (??? As opposed to just, teens) desire so called "deliverance from homosexuality" (her words). Now to me, that indicates that actually, she does think homosexuality is a sin, despite the wishy washy statements on the same blog/ site that attempt to create doubt in the biblical view of homosexuals. She continues by saying "Rather than trying to be God and pass judgement on those individuals, a better option may be to offer prayers to those struggling with their homosexuality.".

So god will certainly pass judgement (as we assume he does for everyone), but the underlying connotation in this statement is that gods judgement will certainly be bad, again indicating that homosexuality is bad. This is further reinforced through "struggling with homosexuality" in the closing remark. Why are they struggling with it? Could it be because there are people like this women giving out conflicting messages about why homosexuality could be good but is actually bad according to the bible?

Again, just interpretation right?

[Cinjin]

Needless to say, no one is going to throw away their faith based on one verse they don't entirely understand--especially when the only condemning interpretation fails to involve any spiritual thought.

No one here expected you to. In the history of this site, I don't think anyone has ever been converted to the other side.

When Jesus says "now" has he ever really meant that instant as his 12 disciples would experience it? No, he means now, universally, in the spiritual sense. That's what makes Jesus different. He talks on another layer. If you ignore that layer, you miss everything.

We already know that you and your fellow sheep have interpreted it the way you see fit.
We intelligent people on the other hand, read what is written and interpret it according to the dictionary.

Regardless if you believe that your god told a man what to write in this particular passage of horse shit, the words are defined the same. One, because the man writing them could only write if he understood what your god was saying, and two, because your "omnipotent, all knowing" god would have to realize that we future readers of his ancient scripts would need to understand it.

You lose. Either god didn't write this or he is as impotent as a flaccid cock when it comes to controlling what his authors and future translators jot down.

[Brian37]

Needless to say, no one is going to throw away their faith based on one verse they don't entirely understand--especially when the only condemning interpretation fails to involve any spiritual thought.

No one here expected you to. In the history of this site, I don't think anyone has ever been converted to the other side.

When Jesus says "now" has he ever really meant that instant as his 12 disciples would experience it? No, he means now, universally, in the spiritual sense. That's what makes Jesus different. He talks on another layer. If you ignore that layer, you miss everything.

We already know that you and your fellow sheep have interpreted it the way you see fit.
We intelligent people on the other hand, read what is written and interpret it according to the dictionary.

Regardless if you believe that your god told a man what to write in this particular passage of horse shit, the words are defined the same. One, because the man writing them could only write if he understood what your god was saying, and two, because your "omnipotent, all knowing" god would have to realize that we future readers of his ancient scripts would need to understand it.

You lose. Either god didn't write this or he is as impotent as a flaccid cock when it comes to controlling what his authors and future translators jot down.

This is why I hate getting into "interpretation". Certainly it is good sport, because it does show the lack of consistency and their "tradmark" bullshit that their particular club has a magic cell phone and cosmic twitter account to their invisible friend upstairs(but fail to see that all these clubs claim to have the right magic tin foil hat).

This is why I think it is more important to attack the fantastic claims and bash their Dungeons and Dragons comic books with science. They can change game all they want, but it will never make the rules or the game peaces real, much less the entire game. It still boils down to a delusional case of the "warm fuzzy's" because "it feels right".

[RichardP]

Let's interpret some of the controversial New Testament verses.

Matthew chapter 24

36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

This means "I Jesus Christ am God and I know all things. And I came earth as a man so that you could know God in a much more personal and intimate way."

--------------------

Matthew chapter 19

16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

There are a number of details to interpret in this chapter.

-- "There is only one who is good. That is me because I am God."

-- "Your salvation does not depend upon keeping the Ten Commandments. Your salvation is not based on deeds. You will be saved by faith. And that faith means that you will believe that I am God, and have a personal relationship with me -- and then you will go to heaven no matter what!"

-- "God loves rich people and any money that you give to the poor will be returned to you a hundred fold. God will bless you with wealth. If a man is poor than he is not one of God's blessed".

[Minimalist]

It's 2,000 years later...."jesus" is more likely to return in a pink cadillac...with horns.... in Texas.

[RichardP]

The "Christians" and their fucking insane "translations"! If you read the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John you read about Jesus teaching that people have to keep the Ten Commandments to have eternal life. And he tries to make the Commandments easier to understand -- like when he argues that if a man divorces his wife and remarries he is committing adultery (Mark Chapter 10)

If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' "

But the Christians argue that the Ten Commandments were done away with when Jesus was crucified -- and after his death you only had to "believe" to be saved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they like to focus on Paul -- who changed what Jesus had taught, and started Christianity.

So to get around what Jesus had taught they "translate" what he said to make it mean what they want. They will take the cases where Jesus taught the Ten Commandments and argue that he didn't really mean that they had to keep them -- they argue that they just have to "try" to keep them. And they argue that Paul -- who came after Jesus's death -- taught that they would be saved by "faith" and not by "deed". I don't know why they even bother to keep the part of the New Testament where Jesus Christ spoke!

THEY ARE NOT EVEN FUCKING FOLLOWERS OF JESUS! THE CHRISTIANS ARE FOLLOWERS OF "PAUL"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And they claim to be believers?