Do you love your enemies?

[Xenich]

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

The laws I'm referring to aren't any more Jewish than the rest of their holy text.
You're basically confirming there is a contradiction but that's because the OT is corrupted.
What about Matthew 5:17?

I didn't say they were inherently jewish. The pharisees wanted a messiah based on their false interpretation that he would kill all the jews' enemies and make a theocracy with himself as king over the world, which is satanic, like a lot of doomsday cultists want. If you believe their interpretation of the OT, you get contradictions, because they weren't reading scripture with mercy. The jews were acting like Jonas and hating their neighbors.

The Pharisees were of the Synagogue of Satan, their father is him, they went after him because of that. There are several passages where he rebukes them for all their evils, and specifically calls them out as such:

39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

[ArcaneLurker]

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

The laws I'm referring to aren't any more Jewish than the rest of their holy text.
You're basically confirming there is a contradiction but that's because the OT is corrupted.
What about Matthew 5:17?

I didn't say they were inherently jewish. The pharisees wanted a messiah based on their false interpretation that he would kill all the jews' enemies and make a theocracy with himself as king over the world, which is satanic, like a lot of doomsday cultists want. If you believe their interpretation of the OT, you get contradictions, because they weren't reading scripture with mercy. The jews were acting like Jonas and hating their neighbors.

Pharisees had their own Orally-transmitted Law, which is what became the Talmud and also things like the mysticism later found in Kabbalah.
They're basically a separate cult, but you can see what non-Pharisees believed, and there's no Jewish belief similar to Jesus where you don't stone people, because you're also a sinner, despite God telling you to stone them.

[maidenhaver]

Isn't it God's prerogative to be lenient with his own laws?

[Xenich]

Isn't it God's prerogative to be lenient with his own laws?

I think this goes back to the whole "Virtuous" concept. Abraham walked with God, but his heart was always to serve God, and he too even sinned though he was consistent to his focus (a sort of grace before the law handed down by Moses). The Bible seems to show the theme of a start to finish to that concept from Abraham to the grace through Christ, but only for those who are Virtuous (ie seek such in their focus in Christ). With the old law many people couldn't hold to it, its very difficult to achieve such as we see the tests of Christ in his perfection.

Through Christ, we can then not be held to the absolutes in our punishment as long as our hearts are driven and our goals stay focused in such. I think that is why Christ says that only those who "truly believe" and seek to hold to such in their focus of actions are truly known to him. (ie the whole concept of once saved you can then go party and sin disregarding his teachings is not truly knowing him). The Bible also seems to refer to the concept of blessings gathered for after our lives here, showing that some will be elevated over others based on their performance to such, even though one may still be saved, though again determined by our hearts to stay virtuous to our commitments to him (ie "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it).

[ArcaneLurker]

Isn't it God's prerogative to be lenient with his own laws?

Wouldn't it be God's prerogative to clarify how the only form of communication from him has been corrupted by the people he selected out of all the peoples in the world?
Shouldn't Jesus be saying "I have come to abolish the law which was corrupted"?

[maidenhaver]

Isn't it God's prerogative to be lenient with his own laws?

Wouldn't it be God's prerogative to clarify how the only form of communication form him has been corrupted by the people he selected out of all the peoples in the world?
Shouldn't Jesus be saying "I have come to abolish the law which was corrupted"?

There was a prophet a generation or two before Jesus, the one the pharisees killed, and John the Baptist was around in his own day. Why would he also need to say he's abolishing the corrupted law, if he's said he's fulfilling the actual law?

[Red7]

Isn't it God's prerogative to be lenient with his own laws?

not if u want justice. mercy means unfairness. thank god what u think of god is actually cold machine which defines laws of physics.
imagine if matrix was changing laws for some and u couldnt get anything to work with persistence or get any reliable feedback to learn from

im curious if u somehow knew for sure bible god is bs (or aliens that want u dead), how would it impact your notion of morality

[Nammu Archag]

person that loves my enemy cuases me harm (or at least disappoints me by not causing harm to my enemy) , ergo is my enemy (or is worthless)
i would say love to my enemies is act of hatred towards me, ergo making all christians hateful people, assuming common enemy.

those who love their enemies are enemy to themself and most likely their friends. which makes them not friends really.

He's got a point

[Nammu Archag]

Yeah, because his first coming was to give the world a second chance, not judging it. In his next visit, he judges us. The jews wanted to purge the world.

The laws I'm referring to aren't any more Jewish than the rest of their holy text.
You're basically confirming there is a contradiction but that's because the OT is corrupted.
What about Matthew 5:17?

I didn't say they were inherently jewish. The pharisees wanted a messiah based on their false interpretation that he would kill all the jews' enemies and make a theocracy with himself as king over the world, which is satanic, like a lot of doomsday cultists want. If you believe their interpretation of the OT, you get contradictions, because they weren't reading scripture with mercy. The jews were acting like Jonas and hating their neighbors.

The Chrsitian OT is still insanely jewish and most of the characters have weird jewish mannerisms or belief complexes

[Xenich]

The laws I'm referring to aren't any more Jewish than the rest of their holy text.
You're basically confirming there is a contradiction but that's because the OT is corrupted.
What about Matthew 5:17?

I didn't say they were inherently jewish. The pharisees wanted a messiah based on their false interpretation that he would kill all the jews' enemies and make a theocracy with himself as king over the world, which is satanic, like a lot of doomsday cultists want. If you believe their interpretation of the OT, you get contradictions, because they weren't reading scripture with mercy. The jews were acting like Jonas and hating their neighbors.

The Chrsitian OT is still insanely jewish and most of the characters have weird jewish mannerisms or belief complexes

Jewish as in Talmudic? What do you mean by "Jewish"? Give an example? When and where at? Were they Jewish though (ie descendant of Judah?).

[Nammu Archag]

I didn't say they were inherently jewish. The pharisees wanted a messiah based on their false interpretation that he would kill all the jews' enemies and make a theocracy with himself as king over the world, which is satanic, like a lot of doomsday cultists want. If you believe their interpretation of the OT, you get contradictions, because they weren't reading scripture with mercy. The jews were acting like Jonas and hating their neighbors.

The Chrsitian OT is still insanely jewish and most of the characters have weird jewish mannerisms or belief complexes

Jewish as in Talmudic? What do you mean by "Jewish"? Give an example? When and where at? Were they Jewish though (ie descendant of Judah?).

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this

David and Goliath
17 Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. 2 Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. 3 The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them.

4 A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. 5 He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; 6 on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. 7 His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him.

8 Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, “Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. 9 If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us.” 10 Then the Philistine said, “This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other.” 11 On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified.

Goliath, the evil philistine, challenges the Israelis to an honorable duel, a chance to prevent a mass of death on both sides and to prove the righteousness of their cause. The King of the Israelites and all of his men were dismayed and terrified. Germanics and Celts faced the onslaught of the Roman war machine zealously, Romans and Macedonians charged literal elephants on the field of battle, but not one of gods chosen people had the courage to face either the philisitines or their champion. They lack honor and courage, and will only be saved by their faith in god, the ultimate plot armor. Keep in mind for the duration of the story that these chosen warriors of god probably looked like this except even less white

16 For forty days the Philistine came forward every morning and evening and took his stand.

17 Now Jesse said to his son David, “Take this ephah of roasted grain and these ten loaves of bread for your brothers and hurry to their camp. 18 Take along these ten cheeses to the commander of their unit. See how your brothers are and bring back some assurance from them. 19 They are with Saul and all the men of Israel in the Valley of Elah, fighting against the Philistines.”

20 Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. 21 Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. 22 David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. 23 As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. 24 Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear.

25 Now the Israelites had been saying, “Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel.”

The Israelites flee and scurry whenever the proud warrior comes out. Nobody has the dignity or honor to face him, and the king even offers his daughter, and more importantly tax exemption (LOL), to whoever will face him

26 David asked the men standing near him, “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?”

Weird obsession with foreskin

27 They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, “This is what will be done for the man who kills him.”

28 When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, “Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle.”

29 “Now what have I done?” said David. “Can’t I even speak?” 30 He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. 31 What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him.

Read this in a Jew York accent and it'll be clear as day. If that doesn't click with you, notice how the brothers snarl at one another, especially over something of monetary value like their flock. This is just treated as a normal response. Skipping forward a few lines for the sake of brevity.

40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.

41 Meanwhile, the Philistine, with his shield bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David. 42 He looked David over and saw that he was little more than a boy, glowing with health and handsome, and he despised him. 43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals!”

45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. 49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

The philistine is insulted by the perceived lack of seriousness of the Israelites. He doesn't laugh at David or underestimate him, instead, he is disappointed and angry that the Israelites would send a boy with no arms to battles. I'll touch on David's promise soon.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.

When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran. 52 Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron. 53 When the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp.

The ending. The noble, righteous Israelis slaughter every single Phillsitine despite accepting the duel. They honored zero of the conditions, cut off the champion's head to show off and later take it as a trophy. They killed everyone, chased them in various directions just to kill them, and looted their camps, leaving the dead everywhere across the lands of the Philistines.

The Jews accepted a deal, then weaseled out of their deal, were cowards in the face of danger, sent a boy in their stead, and then became bloodthirsty butchers the moment they didn't have to risk their own hides, and plundered with glee. They've been doing this shit since 1000 BC

[Kalarion]

This isn't the contradiction that people think it is, and honestly is just one tier above "Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock heavier than he can lift?" type arguments.
Some scheming Jews were trying to set up a situation to force Jesus' hand as a 'gotcha' moment, and he used it to teach a lesson instead.

Although to be fair, it is one of the more difficult passages to fully wrap your head around. I'm not 100% sure that I get it myself. Suffice it to say that Jesus' mission here was one of forgiveness and redemption (judgement and damnation are for next time) -- and this anecdote serves to remind us to be merciful in our own lives. This doesn't mean that adultery is suddenly okay, or that it isn't still the purview of the authorities to punish adulterers.

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

What is the issue?

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this...

I don't think there's any point in responding to this. You don't want to understand the Bible. You want to intentionally make the most malicious interpretation of the quoted passages possible, and then laugh at the foolishness of the opinions of idiots on the side you hate. I like to do that too.

[Xenich]

The Chrsitian OT is still insanely jewish and most of the characters have weird jewish mannerisms or belief complexes

Jewish as in Talmudic? What do you mean by "Jewish"? Give an example? When and where at? Were they Jewish though (ie descendant of Judah?).

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this

David and Goliath
17 Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war and assembled at Sokoh in Judah. They pitched camp at Ephes Dammim, between Sokoh and Azekah. 2 Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines. 3 The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them.

4 A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. 5 He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; 6 on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. 7 His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels. His shield bearer went ahead of him.

8 Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, “Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. 9 If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us.” 10 Then the Philistine said, “This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other.” 11 On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified.

Goliath, the evil philistine, challenges the Israelis to an honorable duel, a chance to prevent a mass of death on both sides and to prove the righteousness of their cause. The King of the Israelites and all of his men were dismayed and terrified. Germanics and Celts faced the onslaught of the Roman war machine zealously, Romans and Macedonians charged literal elephants on the field of battle, but not one of gods chosen people had the courage to face either the philisitines or their champion. They lack honor and courage, and will only be saved by their faith in god, the ultimate plot armor. Keep in mind for the duration of the story that these chosen warriors of god probably looked like this except even less white

16 For forty days the Philistine came forward every morning and evening and took his stand.

17 Now Jesse said to his son David, “Take this ephah of roasted grain and these ten loaves of bread for your brothers and hurry to their camp. 18 Take along these ten cheeses to the commander of their unit. See how your brothers are and bring back some assurance from them. 19 They are with Saul and all the men of Israel in the Valley of Elah, fighting against the Philistines.”

20 Early in the morning David left the flock in the care of a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. 21 Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. 22 David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and asked his brothers how they were. 23 As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. 24 Whenever the Israelites saw the man, they all fled from him in great fear.

25 Now the Israelites had been saying, “Do you see how this man keeps coming out? He comes out to defy Israel. The king will give great wealth to the man who kills him. He will also give him his daughter in marriage and will exempt his family from taxes in Israel.”

The Israelites flee and scurry whenever the proud warrior comes out. Nobody has the dignity or honor to face him, and the king even offers his daughter, and more importantly tax exemption (LOL), to whoever will face him

26 David asked the men standing near him, “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?”

Weird obsession with foreskin

27 They repeated to him what they had been saying and told him, “This is what will be done for the man who kills him.”

28 When Eliab, David’s oldest brother, heard him speaking with the men, he burned with anger at him and asked, “Why have you come down here? And with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know how conceited you are and how wicked your heart is; you came down only to watch the battle.”

29 “Now what have I done?” said David. “Can’t I even speak?” 30 He then turned away to someone else and brought up the same matter, and the men answered him as before. 31 What David said was overheard and reported to Saul, and Saul sent for him.

Read this in a Jew York accent and it'll be clear as day. If that doesn't click with you, notice how the brothers snarl at one another, especially over something of monetary value like their flock. This is just treated as a normal response. Skipping forward a few lines for the sake of brevity.

40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.

41 Meanwhile, the Philistine, with his shield bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David. 42 He looked David over and saw that he was little more than a boy, glowing with health and handsome, and he despised him. 43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals!”

45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. 49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

The philistine is insulted by the perceived lack of seriousness of the Israelites. He doesn't laugh at David or underestimate him, instead, he is disappointed and angry that the Israelites would send a boy with no arms to battles. I'll touch on David's promise soon.

51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.

When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran. 52 Then the men of Israel and Judah surged forward with a shout and pursued the Philistines to the entrance of Gath and to the gates of Ekron. Their dead were strewn along the Shaaraim road to Gath and Ekron. 53 When the Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines, they plundered their camp.

The ending. The noble, righteous Israelis slaughter every single Phillsitine despite accepting the duel. They honored zero of the conditions, cut off the champion's head to show off and later take it as a trophy. They killed everyone, chased them in various directions just to kill them, and looted their camps, leaving the dead everywhere across the lands of the Philistines.

The Jews accepted a deal, then weaseled out of their deal, were cowards in the face of danger, sent a boy in their stead, and then became bloodthirsty butchers the moment they didn't have to risk their own hides, and plundered with glee. They've been doing this shit since 1000 BC

I think you take a bit of liberty on the sides you summarize for intent and condition. Did you read all of Samuel? Do you know about the conflict between them? The Philistines were known for their aggressive encroachment on Israel territory. They were known for being idolaters and soothsayers. Did you also not read in the beginning of Samuel where the Philistines slaughtered the Israelites? Not sure how this is "Jewish" though. Israel and Judah both are considered "Israelites", but only Judah is Jewish.

[Nammu Archag]

This isn't the contradiction that people think it is, and honestly is just one tier above "Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock heavier than he can lift?" type arguments.
Some scheming Jews were trying to set up a situation to force Jesus' hand as a 'gotcha' moment, and he used it to teach a lesson instead.

Although to be fair, it is one of the more difficult passages to fully wrap your head around. I'm not 100% sure that I get it myself. Suffice it to say that Jesus' mission here was one of forgiveness and redemption (judgement and damnation are for next time) -- and this anecdote serves to remind us to be merciful in our own lives. This doesn't mean that adultery is suddenly okay, or that it isn't still the purview of the authorities to punish adulterers.

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

What is the issue?

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this...

I don't think there's any point in responding to this. You don't want to understand the Bible. You want to intentionally make the most malicious interpretation of the quoted passages possible, and then laugh at the foolishness of the opinions of idiots on the side you hate. I like to do that too.

The fact you have to interpret what's already apparent says enough. There's no interpretation. They slaughtered the Philistines and plundered them. Did that not happen according to the Bible? They didn't honor the deal they agreed to in their own holy texts. Did that not happen in the Bible? When presented with what the actual bible says, and the biological reality that the Israelites were a Semitic, Middle Eastern-derived people, the same as the jews, you just insult me despite having provided a clear and well-known example as asked.

[Nammu Archag]

I think you take a bit of liberty on the sides you summarize for intent and condition. Did you read all of Samuel? Do you know about the conflict between them? The Philistines were known for their aggressive encroachment on Israel territory. They were known for being idolaters and soothsayers. Did you also not read in the beginning of Samuel where the Philistines slaughtered the Israelites? Not sure how this is "Jewish" though. Israel and Judah both are considered "Israelites", but only Judah is Jewish.

I've read the Bible. However, I wasn't going to cite the entire book when you asked for an example for obvious reasons. "Idolaters and soothsayers" describes everyone the Israelites face, including themselves at many points. Why did the Jews not fight the Philistines if they were so untrustworthy? Why wait for someone to accept the duel and cower in the meantime? Were they not dismayed and terrified, was that a lie? They sat around and cowered, and let an unknown boy fight in their stead. They still gleefully slaughtered fleeing men (and likely women and children), they still cut off the honorable champions head, and they still plundered. Even if the Philistines slaughtered and plundered in the past, they didn't do so in circumstances like this. And they chased them into Ekran and Gath, which wasn't just firmly Phillsitine land but far into it. To their own towns and homes. The most obvious moral from this story is that its okay to slaughter, lie, and plunder in the most slimy way as long as you are a member of this group that believes in this god.

How casually you dismiss this behavior solely because the Jews said the enemy deserved it is telling.

[Xenich]

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

What is the issue?

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this...

I don't think there's any point in responding to this. You don't want to understand the Bible. You want to intentionally make the most malicious interpretation of the quoted passages possible, and then laugh at the foolishness of the opinions of idiots on the side you hate. I like to do that too.

The fact you have to interpret what's already apparent says enough. There's no interpretation. They slaughtered the Philistines and plundered them. Did that not happen according to the Bible? They didn't honor the deal they agreed to in their own holy texts. Did that not happen in the Bible? When presented with what the actual bible says, and the biological reality that the Israelites were a Semitic, Middle Eastern-derived people, the same as the jews, you just insult me despite having provided a clear and well-known example as asked.

You are being dishonest though. You claim to read literally, but then ignore most of Samuel and who the Philistines were not only in the Bible, but through secular historical means which affirm the Bibles description. This is why discussing this with people who are not simply non-believers, but obviously have a negative intent is pointless. You can't be bothered to look at the facts completely, or when lacking information, seek additional means to clarify because you have already made up your mind with your original intent. You have it all figured out, and nothing anybody says can reason that to a different possible understanding.

[Nammu Archag]

What is the issue?




I don't think there's any point in responding to this. You don't want to understand the Bible. You want to intentionally make the most malicious interpretation of the quoted passages possible, and then laugh at the foolishness of the opinions of idiots on the side you hate. I like to do that too.

The fact you have to interpret what's already apparent says enough. There's no interpretation. They slaughtered the Philistines and plundered them. Did that not happen according to the Bible? They didn't honor the deal they agreed to in their own holy texts. Did that not happen in the Bible? When presented with what the actual bible says, and the biological reality that the Israelites were a Semitic, Middle Eastern-derived people, the same as the jews, you just insult me despite having provided a clear and well-known example as asked.

You are being dishonest though. You claim to read literally, but then ignore most of Samuel and who the Philistines were not only in the Bible, but through secular historical means which affirm the Bibles description. This is why discussing this with people who are not simply non-believers, but obviously have a negative intent is pointless. You can't be bothered to look at the facts completely, or when lacking information, seek additional means to clarify because you have already made up your mind with your original intent. You have it all figured out, and nothing anybody says can reason that to a different possible understanding.

Can you give the actual facts? Instead of claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, can you prove me wrong? It should be easy if I'm just being malicious.

[OnTilt]

This is why discussing this with people who are not simply non-believers, but obviously have a negative intent is pointless

Pearls before swine.

[Xenich]

I think you take a bit of liberty on the sides you summarize for intent and condition. Did you read all of Samuel? Do you know about the conflict between them? The Philistines were known for their aggressive encroachment on Israel territory. They were known for being idolaters and soothsayers. Did you also not read in the beginning of Samuel where the Philistines slaughtered the Israelites? Not sure how this is "Jewish" though. Israel and Judah both are considered "Israelites", but only Judah is Jewish.

I've read the Bible. However, I wasn't going to cite the entire book when you asked for an example for obvious reasons. "Idolaters and soothsayers" describes everyone the Israelites face, including themselves at many points. Why did the Jews not fight the Philistines if they were so untrustworthy? Why wait for someone to accept the duel and cower in the meantime? Were they not dismayed and terrified, was that a lie? They sat around and cowered, and let an unknown boy fight in their stead. They still gleefully slaughtered fleeing men (and likely women and children), they still cut off the honorable champions head, and they still plundered. Even if the Philistines slaughtered and plundered in the past, they didn't do so in circumstances like this. And they chased them into Ekran and Gath, which wasn't just firmly Phillsitine land but far into it. To their own towns and homes. The most obvious moral from this story is that its okay to slaughter, lie, and plunder in the most slimy way as long as you are a member of this group that believes in this god.

I didn't ask for the entire bible. I just asked a couple questions for you to clarify and then you proceeded to false summarize with partial information. Again, as I said, you are ignoring the history of the Philistines and their aggressive nature and then you continue to dismiss generally them being Idolaters and soothsayers. They worshiped idols literally and practiced mysticism (much like the fake Jews today do). They slaughtered 4000 of the Israelites prior to this incident, it wasn't like the good ole Philistines were just minding their own business and then came along these evil Israelites who decided to pillage them, like I said... they consistently razed the borders of the Israelites and if you look more closely at the secular history, you can see a lot of what they were like and they were not the innocent here.

As for why they didn't fight? They were scared due to the past and David was brought courage due to Gods influence on him. Again, you need to read the whole book instead of picking and choosing looking for your "I gotcha" moment. Which, is why I say, it becomes pointless to discuss this as you have no interest in being correct, only right.

Can you give the actual facts? Instead of claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, can you prove me wrong? It should be easy if I'm just being malicious.

Already did several times, you skipped over and summarized to your intent.

Anyway, not much reason to go on anymore. Believe as you will.

[Nammu Archag]

I think you take a bit of liberty on the sides you summarize for intent and condition. Did you read all of Samuel? Do you know about the conflict between them? The Philistines were known for their aggressive encroachment on Israel territory. They were known for being idolaters and soothsayers. Did you also not read in the beginning of Samuel where the Philistines slaughtered the Israelites? Not sure how this is "Jewish" though. Israel and Judah both are considered "Israelites", but only Judah is Jewish.

I've read the Bible. However, I wasn't going to cite the entire book when you asked for an example for obvious reasons. "Idolaters and soothsayers" describes everyone the Israelites face, including themselves at many points. Why did the Jews not fight the Philistines if they were so untrustworthy? Why wait for someone to accept the duel and cower in the meantime? Were they not dismayed and terrified, was that a lie? They sat around and cowered, and let an unknown boy fight in their stead. They still gleefully slaughtered fleeing men (and likely women and children), they still cut off the honorable champions head, and they still plundered. Even if the Philistines slaughtered and plundered in the past, they didn't do so in circumstances like this. And they chased them into Ekran and Gath, which wasn't just firmly Phillsitine land but far into it. To their own towns and homes. The most obvious moral from this story is that its okay to slaughter, lie, and plunder in the most slimy way as long as you are a member of this group that believes in this god.

I didn't ask for the entire bible. I just asked a couple questions for you to clarify and then you proceeded to false summarize with partial information. Again, as I said, you are ignoring the history of the Philistines and their aggressive nature and then you continue to dismiss generally them being Idolaters and soothsayers. They worshiped idols literally and practiced mysticism (much like the fake Jews today do). They slaughtered 4000 of the Israelites prior to this incident, it wasn't like the good ole Philistines were just minding their own business and then came along these evil Israelites decided to pillage them, like I said... they consistently razed the borders of the Israelites and if you look more closely at the secular history, you can see a lot of what they were like and they were not the innocent here.

As for why they didn't fight? They were scared due to the past and David was brought courage due to Gods influence on him. Again, you need to read the whole book instead of picking and choosing looking for your "I gotcha" moment. Which, is why I say, it becomes pointless to discuss this as you have no interest in being correct, only right.

Anyway, not much reason to go on anymore. Believe as you will.

"2 The Philistines deployed their forces to meet Israel, and as the battle spread, Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand of them on the battlefield." - Literally destroyed soldiers ON the battlefield, not on the roads and at the gates of towns far from it. Did you even read your own source?

They were so aggressive that they. didn't slaughter the Israelites, and instead only passed laws preventing them from rebelling (1 Samuel 13)? Why did the Philistines not just kill them all if they were such evil butchers? Does the worship of idols by people, who couldn't even worship Yahweh if they wanted to, mean they deserve rape and murder? Remember god killed men women and children in the city of Gath. What of the Amalekites, who were completely wiped out? Are these your values?

As for why they didn't fight? They were scared due to the past and David was brought courage due to Gods influence on him. Again, you need to read the whole book instead of picking and choosing looking for your "I gotcha" moment

- prove it. Show me where the bible makes that claim. Everything I said has been backed up by the direct word of 1 Samuel.

[Xenich]

You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering. You "win", you are "right". Enjoy!

[Nammu Archag]

You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering. You "win", you are "right". Enjoy!

I ask for proof > "You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering". I don't even know what "as you were" meant but okay. Instead of educating me, a sinner, and providing an example for anyone reading that may be on the fence, you devolve to this for everyone to see. Not sure why I expected more of you. Disappointing.

[ArcaneLurker]

This isn't the contradiction that people think it is, and honestly is just one tier above "Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock heavier than he can lift?" type arguments.
Some scheming Jews were trying to set up a situation to force Jesus' hand as a 'gotcha' moment, and he used it to teach a lesson instead.

Although to be fair, it is one of the more difficult passages to fully wrap your head around. I'm not 100% sure that I get it myself. Suffice it to say that Jesus' mission here was one of forgiveness and redemption (judgement and damnation are for next time) -- and this anecdote serves to remind us to be merciful in our own lives. This doesn't mean that adultery is suddenly okay, or that it isn't still the purview of the authorities to punish adulterers.

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

What is the issue?

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this...

I don't think there's any point in responding to this. You don't want to understand the Bible. You want to intentionally make the most malicious interpretation of the quoted passages possible, and then laugh at the foolishness of the opinions of idiots on the side you hate. I like to do that too.

Ask yourself why @maidenhaver was able to respond clearly & honestly, yet you can't.

The point is about the contradiction. Everything else is irrelevant. I'm tired of dishonesty, whether it's from the religious or from Leftwing political zealots.
I should only need to point out a single contradiction to prove the claim "there are no contradictions" false.

Isn't it God's prerogative to be lenient with his own laws?

Wouldn't it be God's prerogative to clarify how the only form of communication form him has been corrupted by the people he selected out of all the peoples in the world?
Shouldn't Jesus be saying "I have come to abolish the law which was corrupted"?

There was a prophet a generation or two before Jesus, the one the pharisees killed, and John the Baptist was around in his own day. Why would he also need to say he's abolishing the corrupted law, if he's said he's fulfilling the actual law?

Is it not obvious why? What's the purpose of the passage if not to communicate such things honestly?
He's directly saying he has not come to abolish the law that they know as the law.

[Vergil]

I hope my enemies fart themselves to death personally.

[Xenich]

You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering. You "win", you are "right". Enjoy!

I ask for proof > "You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering". I don't even know what "as you were" meant but okay. Instead of educating me, a sinner, and providing an example for anyone reading that may be on the fence, you devolve to this for everyone to see. Not sure why I expected more of you. Disappointing.

Read the whole book of 1st Samuel. Know the entire story, did you? I said numerous times why, you disregarded as if I was telling you a lie. I am not going to sit here and tit for tat versus with you. At least be honest and do your own homework before you start spouting off about being scorned because I didn't answer in the manner that works for your argument.

And cut out the poor whiny victim routine. Read if you want to learn because your questions are answered if you simply read what I asked.

[Xenich]

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

What is the issue?

You could honestly pick almost any story and see stereotypically Jewish behavior and values. By Jewish I mean ethnic, the Semitic peoples that inhabited Judea, shared similar languages and worshipped Yahweh.

David and Goliath is a classic one though. It is presented to whites and others as a story of underdogs and so on. In reality, it goes like this...

I don't think there's any point in responding to this. You don't want to understand the Bible. You want to intentionally make the most malicious interpretation of the quoted passages possible, and then laugh at the foolishness of the opinions of idiots on the side you hate. I like to do that too.

Ask yourself why @maidenhaver was able to respond clearly & honestly, yet you can't.

The point is about the contradiction. Everything else is irrelevant. I'm tired of dishonesty, whether it's from the religious or from Leftwing political zealots.
I should only need to point out a single contradiction to prove the claim "there are no contradictions" false.

Wouldn't it be God's prerogative to clarify how the only form of communication form him has been corrupted by the people he selected out of all the peoples in the world?
Shouldn't Jesus be saying "I have come to abolish the law which was corrupted"?

There was a prophet a generation or two before Jesus, the one the pharisees killed, and John the Baptist was around in his own day. Why would he also need to say he's abolishing the corrupted law, if he's said he's fulfilling the actual law?

Is it not obvious why? What's the purpose of the passage if not to communicate such things honestly?
He's directly saying he has not come to abolish the law that they know as the law.

The problem is that you want to constrain the argument to a specific, then argue the point within your defined context. The Bible builds on itself. You are talking about a concept that began with Abraham and ended with Christs death. So when you narrow the discussion to a specific, and dismiss all elements that place it into the proper context concerning the law and its fulfillment, it becomes a problem and to be honest (if we are being honest here) this is exactly what attackers of Christianity do as they are not interested in learning, but affirming their own opinion on the matter and so like the crazy left, they go into circular logic routines of a narrow evaluation to proclaim victory.

Imagine the arguments you have had with people concerning Germany and Hitler? How they pick, exclude, narrowly define, etc.. to proclaim him what he was not. Would you waste your time with one of those types who do the same with that topic? It becomes pointless as they have no interest in learning the true points of the position, only need to establish their bias as dominate.

This isn't a new thing, this is why the bible teaches to not waste time on non-believers who would fervently argue scripture in this manner (that is the whole pearls before swine verse), so I can hope you understand why some are a bit trepidatious about wading into some discussion which will likely produce nothing more than wasted time and self proclaimed victory.

[ArcaneLurker]

The problem is that you want to constrain the argument to a specific, then argue the point within your defined context.

I do want to 'constrain' the discussion to my point, yes, because that's what an honest, logical discussion would involve.

The Bible builds on itself. You are talking about a concept that began with Abraham and ended with Christs death.

Is the OT law corrupt when it tells people to stone the sexually immoral? That's what Maidenhaver is saying.
You're trying to hand-wave the contradiction away by saying that law became totally irrelevant once Christ arrived, but I am saying the fact that it existed at all, and allegedly came from the same God that supposedly later told you to do a mutually exclusive thing, should strike you as a contradiction.

So when you narrow the discussion to a specific, and dismiss all elements that place it into the proper context concerning the law and its fulfillment, it becomes a problem and to be honest (if we are being honest here) this is exactly what attackers of Christianity do as they are not interested in learning, but affirming their own opinion on the matter and so like the crazy left, they go into circular logic routines of a narrow evaluation to proclaim victory.

Can you stop whining and answer honestly & directly regarding the point?

Imagine the arguments you have had with people concerning Germany and Hitler? How they pick, exclude, narrowly define, etc.. to proclaim him what he was not. Would you waste your time with one of those types who do the same with that topic? It becomes pointless as they have no interest in learning the true points of the position, only need to establish their bias as dominate.

Do you know what "sophistry" means? How is the comparison even relevant? What's it supposed to communicate to me?
The issue ought to be a simple one if I am mistaken. 'Constraining' the topic to the point is to avoid this kind of never ending tangents that never tackle the point.

This isn't a new thing, this is why the bible teaches to not waste time on non-believers who would fervently argue scripture in this manner (that is the whole pearls before swine verse), so I can hope you understand why some are a bit trepidatious about wading into some discussion which will likely produce nothing more than wasted time and self proclaimed victory.

You're just talking to yourself then, aren't you? Whatever.

Not interested in pilpul. There is either a contradiction or there is not.
Tackle the point directly. If you can't, blame yourself, not others.

[Nammu Archag]

You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering. You "win", you are "right". Enjoy!

I ask for proof > "You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering". I don't even know what "as you were" meant but okay. Instead of educating me, a sinner, and providing an example for anyone reading that may be on the fence, you devolve to this for everyone to see. Not sure why I expected more of you. Disappointing.

Read the whole book of 1st Samuel. Know the entire story, did you? I said numerous times why, you disregarded as if I was telling you a lie. I am not going to sit here and tit for tat versus with you. At least be honest and do your own homework before you start spouting off about being scorned because I didn't answer in the manner that works for your argument.

And cut out the poor whiny victim routine. Read if you want to learn because your questions are answered if you simply read what I asked.

I only know what 1 Samuel says - the source passed down from the Israelites, and certain aspects displayed in the archaeological record, which I haven't included because we are just discussing the values of these people based on their own text. That's all I'll add.

[Xenich]

The problem is that you want to constrain the argument to a specific, then argue the point within your defined context.

I do want to 'constrain' the discussion to my point, yes, because that's what an honest, logical discussion would involve.

Is it honest to take things out of context? This is what is happening when you refuse to accept outside your constraints. The Bible is constantly referencing past, present, and future through many of the verses. This why cross referencing becomes very important and certainly in the discussion you were having to understand what Christ was talking about.

I understand this point to a level that it makes sense by how it was explained to me, and by my reading affirming it. The thing is, to fully explain this to you, to the level you wish to argue it would take cross references from across the bible to build them to show you why what Christ said makes sense and will help you to understand the various questions you have in other areas. I am not prepared for this level of scrutiny (as opposed to the other discussion which is more easily established as the questions brought are all specifically answered within the book that is being questioned).

What I would suggest is if you are truly interested, read up on the subject with various internet searches asking those very questions. Compare, contrast, cross reference and look through various versions of the Bible to see if it is consistent (original Authorized 1611 KJV, 1560 Geneva, etc.. are good versions imo). I do this when I research religions to first get a base primer from their internal perspective before I being questioning someone to such levels of discussion. You may find that such a search answers your own question. That is, if you are truly interested?

[Kalarion]

The fact you have to interpret what's already apparent says enough. There's no interpretation. They slaughtered the Philistines and plundered them. Did that not happen according to the Bible? They didn't honor the deal they agreed to in their own holy texts. Did that not happen in the Bible? When presented with what the actual bible says, and the biological reality that the Israelites were a Semitic, Middle Eastern-derived people, the same as the jews, you just insult me despite having provided a clear and well-known example as asked.

I didn't interpret anything for you, for exactly this mendacious attitude. As I said, you don't want to understand the Bible, and certainly not the Israelites or God. You just want to spit on them. QED:

I've read the Bible. However, I wasn't going to cite the entire book when you asked for an example for obvious reasons. "Idolaters and soothsayers" describes everyone the Israelites face, including themselves at many points. Why did the Jews not fight the Philistines if they were so untrustworthy? Why wait for someone to accept the duel and cower in the meantime? Were they not dismayed and terrified, was that a lie? They sat around and cowered, and let an unknown boy fight in their stead. They still gleefully slaughtered fleeing men (and likely women and children), they still cut off the honorable champions head, and they still plundered. Even if the Philistines slaughtered and plundered in the past, they didn't do so in circumstances like this. And they chased them into Ekran and Gath, which wasn't just firmly Phillsitine land but far into it. To their own towns and homes. The most obvious moral from this story is that its okay to slaughter, lie, and plunder in the most slimy way as long as you are a member of this group that believes in this god.

How casually you dismiss this behavior solely because the Jews said the enemy deserved it is telling.

...

Can you give the actual facts? Instead of claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, can you prove me wrong? It should be easy if I'm just being malicious.

Again, I like to do the same thing. Of course I won't "give the actual facts", because the problem isn't that you don't have command of them (or at least, of enough of them to be able to form an opinion). The facts you've put forth so far were never in dispute, but just to be clear, I believe I agree on all of them. My issue is your interpretation of the facts, which is clearly malicious and which you clearly have no desire to change.

Again, QED:

I ask for proof > "You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering". I don't even know what "as you were" meant but okay. Instead of educating me, a sinner, and providing an example for anyone reading that may be on the fence, you devolve to this for everyone to see. Not sure why I expected more of you. Disappointing.

Now you're just straight cringe. Massive



vibes here.

There's no point talking. Barring some unforeseen attitude shift I have nothing else to say to you on this subject.