The Couch

Jesus was a raging homo sexual.
Exposure

Comments on Jesus was a raging homo sexual.

robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#501 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/25/16 - 10:36 AM:

robpocket wrote:


So you are saying that jesus was a sinner comitting detestable acts. Mmm well hanging around deserts with his mates waiting to rape young men is detestable. How come it took you so long to grasp that fact.

Do you think god is being a bit hard on homosexuals. After all they dont all behave as detestable as jesus and is disciples.


Actually reading the above a thought crossed my mind about jesus getting naked to wash his disciples feet. So jesus was the one who bent down to pick up the soap. laughing we hear prison tales and know the symbolism surrounding bending over to pick up the soap. So that must be where the phrase came from.

Surely even a dopey troll like you must see that behaviour of stripping naked to wash mens feet is weird behaviour not normal in society. Yet in gay communities it would be seen normal as a prelude to sex amongst foot fetishers.

Is this some kind of christian ritual that troll christians like you get up to on sundays. ?

You can see how such act of bending down to pick up the soap while naked amongst homosexuals could be seen as a little queer. What do you say about jesuses strange behaviour. You can understand why Starjade made such accusations cant you.

After all there is no smoke without fire. Why was jesus getting naked and picking up the soap. It is very very strange behaviour. That is what the new testament says clearly.

Obviously jesus wanted some willy action. There can be no other explanation. Everyone knows the meaning of bending over for the soap. It is an open invitation for homo sex. Weirder still was the writers portraying jesus with a creepy obsessive foot fetish. Such things are known today but years ago did they know foot fetish was a kink of homosexuals Obviously it was on someones mind. What an odd thing to write in something they claimed to be holy scripture. takes a bow maybe this bowing action is a similar prelude to the soap incident. Christians do seem obsessive about people bending over. One should keep an eye on the vicar if you do. Ieek

I am sure no god real or imaginary gives a damn about homosexuals despite new testament writers obsessions with them.

We are what we are. Havent you listened to the wisdom of sexy goddess lady gaga. Instead of condemnation it is far more enlightened to simply have understanding and acceptance. Christian priests dont seem to be worried as they butt fuck young choir boys. So why would the ordinary man in the street be concerned. Unless he is asked to pick up the soap. blushlaughing

Edited by robpocket on 02/25/16 - 11:28 AM
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#502 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/25/16 - 10:52 AM:

Starjade wrote:
Clearly the Romans testament shows Jesus as a homosexual who goes cruising out in the desert looking for sex with strangers and his claimed disciples and was also depicted as raping and gang banging an unfortunate young man who was passing by them. Also the Romans Testament states that this imaginary character the false prophet Jesus had a foot fetish yet a foot fetish that involved the sandals of the males he hung around with.

The Question we all want to know from the idol worshippers of this homosexual character Jesus was he a "Cross" Dresser. laughingclap

Of course the sad thing for the idol worshippers on this forum is that the Romans testament is written and so it is a matter of history that they are in no position to dispute. That must cause their teeth to gnash. laughingclap


I just found this hahaha a cross dresser do you get it jesus was on a cross and homo. hahaha now that is funny.

Can you imagine Starjade going on telly exposing jesus for being gay and calling jesus a cross dresser. It would cause outrage. I reckon he would say that as well for Starjade does not seem to comprehend bounderies.

I pity any religious preachers opening their mouths against Starjade. Those religious preachers would be devastated not knowing what hit them. I hope im there to see that. Christians have no hope against Starjade. I hear muslims are in just as much shit neck deep.

Starjade should be on the telly and might be yet. He is without doubt the most controversial person I have heard about and hasa answer for everything. He puts it out there in a very cold unphased blunt way.

He is sensational and isnt tied down by political correctness. Whats more he is damd funny. What a cool sense of humour especially considering who he has proclaimed himself to be. Imagine it, a Saviour with a gob like that.

That will wake people up. The weeks news headline gossip will always be about "Did he just say that" ?

Blockbusting news. Little old ladies dying in shock. Gay pride would have marches while the religious communities hide away in churches. Afraid to show their ugly heads and face him. Rather like you dumbass trolls.

I can see why you didnt like him. He constantly put you and other dumb ass trolls on the spot. Thats the price you pay for taking religion so seriously.

Starjade claims to have evidence to be the most religious figure of all time yet it is obvious despite being so serious he takes religion with a pinch of salt (so to speak) laughing All hail King Starjade. Hallelujah. laughing

Imagine him being the real son of god. And you trolls begged for him to be banned from this forum. You are such ASS trolls. You squandered talking to a son of god eh. There was a wasted opportunity of a lifetime.


Still you could go back to trolling your crap across this forum with nobody to talk too and for a lonely troll like you that must be bliss.


Edited by robpocket on 02/25/16 - 12:03 PM
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#503 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/25/16 - 5:55 PM:

Of course if jesus and his disciples lived in these times and hung about places waiting to pounce on young men gang banging them. The police would catch those perverts and send them to jail where those sorts should be. Then they would all be forced to pick up the soap by other evil inmates. Karma then would come and bite those evil monsters in the ass. You trolls who worship such beasrs could always apply for conjacul visits. I am sure such beasts would want you to continue to bow down for them. Jesus no doubt would get a rush if you kissed his feet. laughing
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#504 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/16 - 7:32 AM:

quote the dim witted one .


Either way jesus is still portrayed as being gay...........

but your learned friend starjade would not agree with that portrayal because he wrote that JESUS did not exist


haha ha laughing nodclap

Edited by SUNLIGHT on 02/26/16 - 7:39 AM
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#505 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/26/16 - 3:22 PM:

robpocket wrote:
Of course if jesus and his disciples lived in these times and hung about places waiting to pounce on young men gang banging them. The police would catch those perverts and send them to jail where those sorts should be. Then they would all be forced to pick up the soap by other evil inmates. Karma then would come and bite those evil monsters in the ass. You trolls who worship such beasts could always apply for conjacul visits. I am sure such beasts would want you to continue to bow down for them. Jesus no doubt would get a rush if you kissed his feet. laughing


And I actually have been convinced by him. He does seem to know what he is talking about and is without any doubt more of a religious expert than I am. But he is not here to speak in this conversation at least not in person. So what he thinks dont matter. I am simply commenting on my views of the new testament. I dont like rapists even worse when they act as a gang. You cannot imagine the things I think should be done to such beasts.

Your new testament clearly say's jesus and his disciples gang raped young men. It clearly depicts jesus as being a homosexual who raped young men. That is a thing you brag is your idol. So there is clearly something wrong with you and your thinking.

How can you explain why you would idolise such an evil thing. Have you no shame,no guilt. Jesus does exist in your head. You and every other christian needs to know just what king of monsters you are following. A beast destined to bend over for soap in a jail cell someplace. The new testament says so. shaking head


Edited by robpocket on 02/27/16 - 3:07 AM
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#506 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 9:02 AM:

QUOTE ROBPOCKET

more of a religious expert than I am......................

and this religious EXPERT does not know who JESUS is ?

BIG JOKE !!! grin
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#507 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 9:15 AM:

QUOTE ROB POCKET
"he is more of a religious expert than I am

I would say more of a JOKE than you are but be encouraged day by day your statements are becoming more and more hilarious ..tell us again about the man called JESUS who your religious EXPERT friend said does not exist but is going round sexually abusing young men .
kooky

SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#508 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 9:26 AM:

QUOTE THE LIAR

How can you explain why you would idolise such an evil thing. Have you no shame,no guilt. Jesus does exist in your head. You and every other christian needs to know just what king of monsters you are following. A beast destined to bend over for soap in a jail cell someplace. The new testament says so. ...............

its so easy for every Christian to see where all the LIES are coming fromnod




Edited by SUNLIGHT on 02/27/16 - 9:34 AM
SUNLIGHT
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2012
Location: united kingdom

Total Topics: 64
Total Comments: 931
#509 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 9:31 AM:

JOHN 8;44

King James Bible
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#510 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 2:02 PM:

robpocket wrote:


Actually reading the above a thought crossed my mind about jesus getting naked to wash his disciples feet. So jesus was the one who bent down to pick up the soap. laughing we hear prison tales and know the symbolism surrounding bending over to pick up the soap. So that must be where the phrase came from.

Surely even a dopey troll like you must see that behaviour of stripping naked to wash mens feet is weird behaviour not normal in society. Yet in gay communities it would be seen normal as a prelude to sex amongst foot fetishers.

Is this some kind of christian ritual that troll christians like you get up to on sundays. ?

You can see how such act of bending down to pick up the soap while naked amongst homosexuals could be seen as a little queer. What do you say about jesuses strange behaviour. You can understand why Starjade made such accusations cant you.

After all there is no smoke without fire. Why was jesus getting naked and picking up the soap. It is very very strange behaviour. That is what the new testament says clearly.

Obviously jesus wanted some willy action. There can be no other explanation. Everyone knows the meaning of bending over for the soap. It is an open invitation for homo sex. Weirder still was the writers portraying jesus with a creepy obsessive foot fetish. Such things are known today but years ago did they know foot fetish was a kink of homosexuals Obviously it was on someones mind. What an odd thing to write in something they claimed to be holy scripture. takes a bow maybe this bowing action is a similar prelude to the soap incident. Christians do seem obsessive about people bending over. One should keep an eye on the vicar if you do. Ieek

I am sure no god real or imaginary gives a damn about homosexuals despite new testament writers obsessions with them.

We are what we are. Havent you listened to the wisdom of sexy goddess lady gaga. Instead of condemnation it is far more enlightened to simply have understanding and acceptance. Christian priests dont seem to be worried as they butt fuck young choir boys. So why would the ordinary man in the street be concerned. Unless he is asked to pick up the soap. blushlaughing


The only joke here is a troll like you. Do you reckon jimmy saville is a christian and is bending over for the soap for jesus in hell. ?
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#511 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 2:10 PM:

Speaking of errors and bad mistakes. How do you account for these mistakes in the new testament. Obviously the new testament is not so gospel truth. Its a roman paedophile book for grooming children.



Starjade wrote:
Matthew confused two Old Testament characters

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

The incident that Jesus is alluding to is recorded in II Chronicles.

II Chronicles 24:20-21 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the Lord.

However, the Old Testament records that this Zechariah was the son of Jehoidah, not Berechiah. Berechiah was actually the father of the prophet Zechariah, who lived several decades after the death of his namesake.

Zechariah 1:1 In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, came the word of the Lord unto Zechariah, the son of Berechiah...

When Luke quotes this event, Jesus does not give the name of the father of Zechariah.

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.


Matthew refers to an unknown prophecy

Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This prophecy is not recorded anywhere in the Old Testament.
Some have speculated that Matthew may have been referring to a passage in Isaiah.

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots...

The Hebrew word translated 'branch' is the word 'netzer', and may have been the root of the name 'Nazareth'. If this is true, it raises an interesting possibility. The location and even existence of the town called Nazareth has long been problematic. (The place that is called 'Nazareth' today has not been verified by archaeology, and in fact does not fit the description of the town given in the Gospels).

The name is never referred to in the Old Testament, nor by any of the contemporary historians. Even the early church fathers, such as Origen and Eusebius, who were familiar with the area, could not point out the location of Nazareth.

This has led some to speculate that there never was a place called Nazareth. The theory is that Jesus was called 'Jesus the Branch' by the early Christians, as a reference to Isaiah 11:1. In the years between Christ's death and the writing of the Gospels, the origin of the phrase was confused, and some thought that 'netzer' referred to a location, thus 'Jesus of Nazareth'. If correct, this theory would explain the lack of any historical witness to the town called Nazareth, and Matthew's puzzling reference to a nonexistent prophecy.


Matthew misunderstood an Old Testament prophecy
In Matthew 21, Jesus tells his disciples to fetch an ass and a colt, to fulfill and Old Testament prophecy.

Matthew 21:2,4,5,7 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

In actual fact, the prophecy that Matthew quoted only refers to one animal.

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

The word 'and' in this sense means 'even', and should be translated as an interpretation of the first object.

Zechariah 9:9 (NIV) Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Zechariah 9:9 (RSV) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.

Matthew misunderstood the meaning of the passage, and has Christ riding on two animals. The other gospel writers only mention one animal.

Mark 11:2,7 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

Luke 19:30, 35 Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.

John 12:14,15 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.

Matthew misapplies an Old Testament passage

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Firstly, the Old Testament passage that Matthew referred to (Isaiah 7:14) does not contain the word 'virgin' in Hebrew. It uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply denotes a young female, and does not necessarily connote sexual purity. The Hebrew word for 'virgin' was bethulah, which is used by Isaiah in 62:5. Matthew followed the lead of the Greek Septuagint in mistranslating almah.

Although Fundamentalist scholars assert that almah is never used in a sense which does not connote sexual purity, a quick survey of the Old Testament reveals a different story. Whenever we find the word, it is always used to denote a young female. Often, the question of whether the woman was a virgin or not is not relevant to the issue. In at least one instance, however, a good case could be made for the position that almah does not imply sexual purity. This is in Proverbs 30:19, which reads as follows:

Proverbs 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.

The word translated 'maid' in the King James Version is the Hebrew almah. Many scholars understand the phrase '...the way of a man with a maid' as a euphemism for the sex act, especially in the light of the context of Proverbs 30 (see especially verse 20, which speaks of adultery).

Even if Proverbs 30:19 does not speak of the sex act, there is still another issue to consider. This is the fact that whenever the Old Testament speaks unambiguously of a sexually pure woman, it consistently uses the word bethulah, not almah. Consider the following two examples:

Genesis 24:16 And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her...

Judges 21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male...

In both cases, the word translated 'virgin' is bethulah. Thus, had Isaiah intended to claim that the woman who would give birth to the child was a virgin, he should have used bethulah. The word that he did use, almah, is ambiguous in this context.

The second point about this alleged prophecy is that it has immediate application in its own context. Isaiah used the sign of a young, pregnant woman, whom both he and King Ahaz knew. He prophesied that before the child reached the age of accountability (7:16) both Syria and Israel would be conquered. Isaiah thus limited the time span of his prophecy to no more than eight years. There is no indication in the text that this prophecy would have a future fulfillment.

Finally, Jesus was never called 'Emmanuel' by his parents, nor anyone else.


When was the First Temple built?

I Kings explicitly states that Solomon began building the Temple 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt.

I Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord.

In Acts 13, Paul delivers a sermon during which he gives a chronology of Israelite history after the Exodus.

Acts 13:18-22 And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness...And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet....And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years...And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king...

Paul thus puts the start of the reign of David at 530 years after the Exodus. David reigned forty years (II Samuel 5:4), and work began on the Temple in the fourth year of Solomon (I Kings 6:1). This puts the start of the temple at 573 years after the exodus, according to Paul. This is almost a century later than the date given in the Old Testament.


When did Terah die?
In Acts 7, Stephen claimed that Abraham left Haran after his father, Terah, died.

Acts 7:4 (NIV) So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living.

According to Genesis, Terah was about seventy years old by the time he had Abraham.

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Abraham was seventy-five when he left Terah, at God's command.
Genesis 12:4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

This means that Terah was, at most, 145 years old when Abraham left Haran. However, Genesis states that Terah lived much longer than that.

Genesis 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

Thus, according to Genesis, Terah lived at least sixty years after Abraham left Haran. Stephen (or the author of Acts) may have been misled by the fact that Genesis records the death of Terah before the story of Abraham's departure, and simply assumed that Terah was dead by this time, without stopping to check the math.

Where was Jacob buried?

According to a sermon given by Stephen in the book of Acts, Jacob and Joseph were buried in Shechem.

Acts 7:15,16 (NIV) Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money.

However, it was in fact only Joseph and his sons who were buried in Shechem. Jacob was buried in Machpelah, near Mamre, with his fathers.

Genesis 50:13 For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.

Furthermore, it was Jacob who bought the field from the sons of Hamor, not Abraham.

Joshua 24:32 And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

It appears that Stephen (or, more likely, the author of Acts) has confused these two incidents, and has Abraham buying the wrong field. The transaction wherein Jacob bought the field of Shechem is recorded in Genesis 33:19.

Genesis 33:19 And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money.

Abraham was already dead by this time (Genesis 25:8), and thus could not possibly have purchased the field, as Stephen claimed.

Does God cause confusion?
Writing to the Corinthians, Paul claimed that God does not cause confusion.

.I Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..

This quote takes place in the context of speaking in tongues, i.e. speaking in a foreign, or unknown language. However, the Old Testament, while relating the myth of the Tower of Babel, states that God did indeed cause confusion.

Genesis 11:9 (NIV) That is why it was called Babel --because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world...
This passage contains a play on words. 'Babel' in the ancient Babylonian language means 'the gate of God', while in Semitic it means 'confusion'.

Can God be seen?

John 1:18 is quite emphatic that God has never been seen.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time...

Later in John's Gospel, Jesus is even more explicit.

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

The Old Testament prescribed dire consequences for anyone who saw God's face.

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

However, earlier in the same chapter, Exodus contradicts itself (and John) by claiming that Moses did indeed see God's face.

Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

It seems that Moses was not the only person to be granted this privelege.

Isaiah 6:1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne...

Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

How many sons did Abraham have?
According to the Old Testament, Abraham already had one son, Ishmael, when he had Isaac.

Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Genesis 21:3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

However, the book of Hebrews refers to Isaac as Abraham's 'only-begotten' son.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son...

The Greek word here translated 'only-begotten' (monogene) is the same word that John used of Christ (John 1:18, John 3:16). Therefore, any re-interpretation of the word to allow for more than one son in Hebrews 11:17 can also be applied to Christ.

A close examination of the Old Testament sources will reveal that the author of Hebrews cannot really be faulted for claiming that Abraham had only one son. The book of Genesis itself repeatedly refers to Isaac as Abraham's 'only son' (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16), despite having recorded the birth of Ishmael only a few chapters earlier.

These sort of side-by-side contradictions occur with some frequency in the earlier historical part of the Old Testament (i.e. Genesis through Judges).

It was this phenomenon that led to the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the early part of the Old Testament was pieced together from a collection of separate narratives by a number of unknown editors. Often, these stories contradicted one another, but the editors nonetheless included them with a minumum of rewriting, a practice which has resulted in a large number of confusing and contradictory statements in the Old Testament.

Was {cough} Jesus the first to ascend into Heaven?

Speaking to Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus claimed that no man had ascended into Heaven before him.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
However, the Old Testament records that Elijah was taken to Heaven in a fiery chariot.

II Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

The Old Testament (and the New) also seem to imply that Enoch was taken directly to Heaven although this is not explicitly stated. (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5)

Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead?

During a sermon delivered before king Agrippa, Paul claimed that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead...

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul repeated this claim.
I Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

It appears, however, that Paul was not very well versed in his Old Testament history at this point. The Old Testament records several incidents of people being raised from the dead.

In I Kings 17, the prophet Elijah restored a dead boy to life in Zarephath.

I Kings 17:20-22 ...hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son? And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

The second book of Kings records an incident of an unintentional resurrection.

II Kings 13:21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

The New Testament, too, records a number of resurrections that preceded that of Jesus. Mark 5, for example, records that Jesus himself raised to life a young girl. And, of course, John writes that Jesus restored Lazarus to life after he had been dead for four days.

John 11:43,44 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth...

What was Balaam's error?

The Canaanite prophet Balaam seems to have come in for some heavy criticism in the New Testament.

II Peter 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Jude 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel...

It is a little difficult to see what all the fuss was about, however, because the Old Testament reveals a completely different story.

The story of Balaam is recorded in Numbers 22 through 24. The Moabite King Balak, concerned about the impending Hebrew invasion, asks Balaam to curse the Israelites. Despite numerous pleas, and promises of great reward, Balaam refuses, and instead obeys God, and blesses the Israelites.

Numbers 24:10-11 And Balak's anger was kindled against Balaam, and he smote his hands together: and Balak said unto Balaam, I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them these three times.

Therefore now flee thou to thy place: I thought to promote thee unto great honour; but, lo, the Lord hath kept thee back from honour.

Note that all three of the New Testament passages cited claim that Balaam accepted a large reward to curse the Israelites. The Old Testament tells a completely different story, however.

Numbers 22:16-18 And they came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus saith Balak the son of Zippor, Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me: For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people. And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more.

The Old Testament indicates that Balaam refused the reward, and instead said that he would say only that which God commanded him to speak. Does this sound like the same person who was so roundly abused in the New Testament?

Hebrews incorrectly quotes the Psalms

In Hebrews 10, the author appeals to one of the Psalms while arguing that Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of mankind.

Hebrews 10:5-7 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

The problem is that the verse does not appear in the Psalms as quoted.

Psalms 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God...

Note that the crucial phrase '...a body hast thou prepared me...' does not appear in the Hebrew version of Pslam 40:6. The author of Hebrews depended on this phrase for his argument.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

The phrase quoted in Hebrews 10:5 actually comes from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. This raises the troubling question of textual reliability. We now have no idea which text (Hebrew or Greek) is supposed to be reliable. If the Hebrew reading is correct, then the argument produced here in Hebrews 10 is invalidated; if the Septuagint version is correct, it casts a shadow on the reliability of the entire Hebrew Old Testament.

Mark incorrectly attributed a prophecy

Early in Mark's gospel, he quotes an Old Testament verse when introducing John the Baptist:

Mark 1:2 (NIV) It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"...

Actually, the phrase comes from Malachi, not Isaiah.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me...

It seems that the ancient scribes who copied the New Testament manuscripts were aware of this problem, because a number of later Greek manuscripts remove the reference to Isaiah, and simply substitute "the prophets" (as in the KJV).

Abiathar and Ahimelech

While responding to a charge of profaning the Sabbath, Jesus referred to an incident from David's life, recorded in the Old Testament:

Mark 2:25-26 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

This incident is recorded in I Samuel 21. However, the story indicates that Ahimelech was the high priest, not Abiathar.

I Samuel 21:1,6 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest...So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

Abiathar was in fact Ahimelech's son, who is referred to as a priest some time after this event.

I Samuel 22:20 And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

There is no external support for Herod's murder of the children
In Matthew 2:16, Matthew records that Herod ordered the execution of all children under two years of age in Bethlehem. This event is not recorded in secular history. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his book Antiquities of the Jews, has a long history of Herod and his crimes. The massacre at Bethlehem is not among them.
Click here for a longer analysis of the birth narratives.

When was Jesus born?

Matthew places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, when Herod was still king.

Matthew 2:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king...

Matthew goes on to record how Joseph fled with Mary and Jesus to Egypt, where they remained until the death of Herod. He also states that Archelaus, Herod's son, was the ruler of Judaea when they returned from Egypt.

Matthew 2:19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt... Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee...

By comparing this narrative with the history of Judaea, as recorded by Josephus, it is possible to come up with an estimate for the year of Jesus birth. Josephus records that Herod died a short while after an eclipse, which can be dated to about 4 BC (Antiquities, Book 17, Chapter 6:4). Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus was born sometime around the year 3 or 4 BC, when Herod died and Archelaus became ruler of Judaea in his place.

Antiquities 17 8:1. And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus...When he had done those things, he died...

Luke, however, places Jesus' birth in a different time period. According to Luke 2, Jesus was born during the first census under Cyrenius, governor of Syria.

Luke 2:1,2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

This census was also recorded by Josephus, but it took place quite some time after Herod's death. Josephus records that Archelaus reigned ten years before being banished to Vienna. Cyrenius was appointed governor of Syria at this time, to wrap up the affairs of Archelaus.

Antiquities 17 13:2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judaea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar...Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and...both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.

Antiquities 17 13:5 ...So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.

Josephus goes on to record that Cyrenius took a census of Judaea at this time.

Antiquities 18 1:1. Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator...came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to...take an account of their substance...Cyrenius came himself into Judaea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it...

Since Archelaus reigned for ten years after the death of Herod, this would put the time of the census at about 6 or 7 AD. Matthew, then, states that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, no later than 3 or 4 BC. Luke states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which did not take place until at least ten years after Herod's death.

It has been proposed that Luke was referring to an earlier census, and the Luke 2:2 should be translated '...this taxing was first made before Cyrenius became governor of Syria...'.

There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, it stretches the plain meaning of Luke 2:2 a little. Secondly, as it stands, Luke 2:2 is in harmony with Josephus, who records no census before this point, and seems to imply that this was, in fact, the first taxation of Judaea by the Romans.

Finally, Matthew mentions no census in his birth narrative. Instead, he begins his story in Bethlehem, where Jesus was already claimed to have been born.

In fact, the census conducted by the Roman, Cyrenius, would necessarily have had to be the first. Up to this point, Syria was under the jurisdiction of Herod and his family. It was only after the banishment of Archelaus that Syria became a Roman province. The Roman historian Dio, who wrote about AD 200, independently confirms 6 AD as the year of Archelaus' exile, and the year in which Syria came under direct Roman rule.


Did Jesus return in the first century?

A number of New Testament passages indicate that Christ was supposed to return before his generation had died. This would have been sometime in the first century AD.

First, there is the testimony of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus instituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It is important to note that Jesus' long discourse on the end of the world, recorded in

Matthew 24 and 25, was spoken in private to his own disciples.
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

In this discourse, Jesus makes a number of assertions about the fate of his disciples. One of the signs of the end would be the persecution of his disciples.

Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

While tradition records that the disciples were persecuted and martyred, this was not followed by the return of Christ, as he promised.

The Apostle Paul, too, seemed to think that Christ would return for his generation.

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Note that Paul twice uses the phrase '...we which are alive and remain...'. This seems to preclude the theory that Paul was speaking of some far future generation. Paul made a similar assertion in First Corinthians.

I Corinthians 15:51,52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Note that Paul said that '...we shall not all sleep...'. In other words, he expected that at least some of his generation would not see death. Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate the Paul was speaking about some far future generation.
Paul reiterated his belief in a soon return of Christ in the Book of Romans.

Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

The other New Testament writers had similar thoughts about the iminence of the return of the new Testament character Jesus.

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

I John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#512 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 2:24 PM:

There really is a whole lot of errors in the new testament that trolls like you cannot explain away. Whoeverwrote the romans new testament clearly did not know what the hell they were talking about. The price paid for trying to steal the jews religion. Obviously roman chrian preachers skipped over all these new testament mistakes which is why so called religious scholars missed them.

Starjade didnt miss them.

That makes him a lot smarter and more religious than a troll like you.

Starjade pointed out those errors.

While all a troll like you can do is copy and paste that religious crap across the forum.


Starjade wrote:
The genealogies of Matthew and Luke contradict each other


Matthew's genealogy of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:1-16, and Luke's is recorded in Luke 3:23-38. It has long been known that these two records do not agree with each other. Specifically, they diverge after Solomon, converge at Shealtiel (the father of Zerubbabel), diverge after Zerubbabel and do not converge again until Joseph, the father of Jesus.

Note that this also means that the genealogy of Zerubbabel is contradictory. Matthew makes him a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were full blood brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel.

In fact, both genealogies are pointless, since both Matthew and Luke then go on to claim that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Since Mary was probably of the tribe of Levi (see Luke 1:5 in conjunction with Luke 1:36), it is therefore impossible for Jesus to have been the 'Son of David' as was required for the Messiah (Matthew 22:42).

There is another problem with Matthew's list. Matthew includes Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11), even though the Old Testament records that God cursed Jeconiah, and prophesied that he would never have a descendant upon the throne of Judah. (Jeremiah 22:28-30)

Bible scholars have, over the centuries, proposed several solutions to this difficulty. Among these are -

· Luke records the lineage of Mary, and Matthew that of Joseph.

The problem with this solution is that both genealogies explicitly end with Joseph. Further, Jewish genealogies were almost always traced via the paternal line. There is nothing in either text to warrant such a conclusion. This solution also fails to explain the inconsistent lineages of Zerubbabel.

Another problem with this approach is that the genealogy listed in Luke is derived from David, whereas Mary belonged to the tribe of Levi, not Judah.

· Matthew's genealogy is not complete - he skips generations.

In fact, this is true. Joram was actually the great-great-grandfather of Ozias (Matthew 1:8. Ozias was spelled Uzziah in the Old Testament), and Josiah was actually the grandfather of Jechoniah (Matthew 1:11). However, this solution creates more problems than it solves.

Firstly, it again still does not explain the divergent genealogies of Zerubbabel, and secondly it means that Matthew's assertion that there are fourteen generations from the captivity to Jesus is wrong. (Matthew 1:17). In fact, in Matthew's list, there are only thirteen generations from the captivity to Jesus, not fourteen as he claimed.

· One or both genealogies include maternal deviations.

This is possible, but unlikely. The Jews almost always traced genealogies via the paternal line. Again, there is no hard evidence from either text to indicate that this is true. Matthew mentions four females (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Beth-Sheba), but only together with their husbands in the paternal line.
· Levirate marriage.

This term refers to the practice whereby a man was required by the Law to marry his brother's widow, provided that she had no children. Any offspring from the marriage would then be placed in the lineage of the deceased for the purposes of inheritance. Some have speculated that this might explain the divergences in the genealogies. There are two problems with this explanation.

Firstly, there is no indication that a Levirate marriage took place at the divergent points. Solomon, for example, did not die childless, and there is no indication in the Old Testament that he married Nathan's widow. Secondly, the one indisputable case of Levirate marriage in these two passages (that of Boaz to Ruth) is recorded in the same manner in both genealogies. It does not produce a divergence.

· Adoption.

Logically, the only way for a person to have two fathers is if he had been adopted into another family. Some apologists have invoked this scenario as a solution to the problem of the discrepant geneaologies. There is, however, no indication that Joseph or Shealtiel were adopted. This fact is not mentioned by Matthew or Luke, nor can it be sustained from the Old Testament. It is basically an argument from silence.

Where did Joseph take Jesus from Bethlehem?

While recording the birth of Jesus, Matthew states that Joseph and his family left Bethlehem and headed for Egypt in order to escape Herod.

Matthew 2:13,14,15 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod...

From Egypt, Joseph and his family travelled to Nazareth.

Matthew 2:21,23 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth...

The only other gospel that records Jesus' birth, that of Luke, not only fails to mention the flight to Egypt, but specifically states that Joseph travelled to Jerusalem (to the Temple) from Bethlehem, and then to Nazareth.

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord...

Luke 2:39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.

The reference to the Law refers to the ceremonial cleansing required of Jewish women after giving birth. This would have required a period of about forty days. There is simply no time in Luke's narrative for a journey to and from Egypt, and an extended stay in that country.


Where did Jesus go after his baptism?

The three synoptic gospels are unanimous in recording that Jesus went into the wilderness for forty days, immediately following his baptism.

Mark 1:12,13 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

John's gospel, on the other hand, has Jesus in Galilee following his baptism, and in Cana two days later.

John 1:32,35,36 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him...Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

In fact, John never mentions the temptation in the wilderness at all. In fairness, it should be noted that the wording in John is vague enough to allow for the possibility that John the Baptist was referring to an earlier time, although this does seem to be stretching the text a little.


Did Jesus speak to the Centurion?

Matthew 8 records the miracle of Jesus healing a Roman Centurion's servant. The Centurion visits Jesus personally to ask for a healing.

Matthew 8:5,6 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

In the parallel passage in Luke 7, the Centurion sends a group of Jewish elders to represent him.


Luke 7:2,3 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

Luke 7:10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

In Luke's account, Jesus never met the Centurion at all.


Where did Jesus heal the maniac?

In Matthew 8, Jesus meets two men possessed by devils in the country of the Gadarenes. He drives out the demons, which then enter into a herd of swine.

Matthew 8:28 (NIV) When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him.

They were so violent that no one could pass that way.

Matthew 8:32 He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.

Mark and Luke both tell the same story, except that they mention only one man, in the country of the Gerasenes.

Mark 5:1,2 (NIV) They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him.

Mark 5:13 He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

Although Gadara and Gerasa are both close to Galilee, they are not the same place. Gadara is 10 Km (6 miles) southeast of the Sea of Galilee, Gerasa is 30 Km (19 miles) east of the Jordan, midway between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee. (New Concise Bible Dictionary, pgs 181 and 188).

It seems that various scribes have attempted to harmonize these two passages over the centuries. Some manuscripts read 'Gergesenes' in Matthew 8:28, and 'Gadarenes' in Mark 5:1.

robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#513 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 2:30 PM:

robpocket wrote:
Of course if jesus and his disciples lived in these times and hung about places waiting to pounce on young men gang banging them. The police would catch those perverts and send them to jail where those sorts should be. Then they would all be forced to pick up the soap by other evil inmates. Karma then would come and bite those evil monsters in the ass. You trolls who worship such beasrs could always apply for conjacul visits. I am sure such beasts would want you to continue to bow down for them. Jesus no doubt would get a rush if you kissed his feet. laughing



Of couse you dont dare respond to such errors in your romans new testament because a troll like you is no religious expert. Starjade shocked you with his knowledge. Clearly he is the absolute religious expert.

No doubt he makes trolls like you jealous.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#514 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/27/16 - 4:12 PM:

robpocket wrote:


And I actually have been convinced by him. He does seem to know what he is talking about and is without any doubt more of a religious expert than I am. But he is not here to speak in this conversation at least not in person. So what he thinks dont matter. I am simply commenting on my views of the new testament. I dont like rapists even worse when they act as a gang. You cannot imagine the things I think should be done to such beasts.

Your new testament clearly say's jesus and his disciples gang raped young men. It clearly depicts jesus as being a homosexual who raped young men. That is a thing you brag is your idol. So there is clearly something wrong with you and your thinking.

How can you explain why you would idolise such an evil thing. Have you no shame,no guilt. Jesus does exist in your head. You and every other christian needs to know just what king of monsters you are following. A beast destined to bend over for soap in a jail cell someplace. The new testament says so. shaking head


When Starjade spoke he dealt with actual facts. For someone claiming to be a prophet from god it was refreshing to read factual data in a constructive way. He did not harp on about god loves you crap that so many preachers waffle on about. Instead he pointed out the liars and frauds chapter and verse backing up his mouth all the way with data that can be checked out by disbelievers.

And what do you offer? By who,s authority does a worthless troll like you think you had some right to speak? All you do is troll the pages copying text and offerings of copy pastes from biblical text as if you think nobody has seen a bible.

Your the asstroll jackass with nothing worthwhile to say or offer. You worship a man who is claimed to attack and rape young men and who suffered from some kind of foot fetish. So how sad does that make you. No wonder your so bitter.

Edited by robpocket on 02/27/16 - 4:17 PM
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#515 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 1:20 AM:

robpocket wrote:
Of course if jesus and his disciples lived in these times and hung about places waiting to pounce on young men gang banging them. The police would catch those perverts and send them to jail where those sorts should be. Then they would all be forced to pick up the soap by other evil inmates. Karma then would come and bite those evil monsters in the ass. You trolls who worship such beasrs could always apply for conjacul visits. I am sure such beasts would want you to continue to bow down for them. Jesus no doubt would get a rush if you kissed his feet. laughing


A point that has been made by the holy ghost Starjade laughing is that all claims of the new testament are made by unknown obscure writers saying this or that happened or this or that was claimed to have been said. I thought that was a relevant point. Why should we believe things said by people who were not witness to any of those events. They could say anything they wanted. It is easy for a writer to claim someone walked on water yet another thing for them to prove it.

My neighbours cat pixie for example is holy and gods cat. It walked on water the other day then pissed Into a bucket and hallelujah it turned into wine.

No doubt a thousand years from now christians will want to worship it just like the Egyptions. Ilaughing

YouI use the cat as a metaphor because if I said a human some jackass troll would believe the tale. Even worse if the cat was called jesus. The point being made is obvious. Who says so? Who are they. People believe allsorts of things still that does not make it true.

It is true the new testament states jesus was gay with a foot fetish. And he and some pals hung around deserted places laying in wait for young males to pass by. And when those young males passed by jesus and his mates would pounce on him ripping off his clothes obviously intending to gang rape him. Now why would any writer comment on that sort of aggressive sexual behaviour and do so at length.

All christians who believe the words of the new testament must also accept that their main idol was gay kinky and a dangerous sexual preditor. Monkey see monkey do. As christian priests show by their example. They use the biblical text to groom young children.

Clearly the new testament is dangerous and should be burned and its preachers crucified. Yes bring back crucifixion it was said to have worked before bringing down the crime rate.

One has to wonder about jesus. Which does he prefer? Sucking on a cock or a toe. Bit of a choice. Either way any christian would be reaching for a bar of soap.

How the hell did those stories get believed by obvious lonely fanatics and become a religion. Sounds goofy to me.

Tell us all ass troll have you been munching on a sweaty toe or do you prefer cock first wink are these like christian rituals that you lot have to do each sunday. / is that what your vicar told you? I suppose its too late and pointless now. Your a christian troll so your not going to listen to my opinion.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#516 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 1:28 AM:

Reading what you said about Sodom and Gomora. Are you making a claim that jesus was born in sodom not bethlehem as some claimed. Did you say that because jesus was a Sodomite? laughingclap

Arent you lucky the holy ghost Starjade isnt here to hear you admit to that one. So now your saying jesus was a sodomite. Clearly your not taking the piss then.

Can you prove that claim or is it a foregone conclusion.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#517 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 5:36 AM:

robpocket wrote:
Reading what you said about Sodom and Gomora. Are you making a claim that jesus was born in sodom not bethlehem as some claimed. Did you say that because jesus was a Sodomite? laughingclap

Arent you lucky the holy ghost Starjade isnt here to hear you admit to that one. So now your saying jesus was a sodomite. Clearly your not taking the piss then.

Can you prove that claim or is it a foregone conclusion.



If your gay idol jesus rose from the dead. Wouldnt he become famous by becoming soap star. grin. Or becoming a cobbler laughing you know because of the foot fetish thing jesus was afflicted with making him a social outcast. I am surprised new testament writers didnt think of that cobbler thing in the first place considering they exposed jesus as having a kinky foot fetish. grin

One does suppose as mainly sandals were worn in those roman days that the term cobbler might not have been invented then. I wonder what they would call someone who made sandals? Jesus I suppose.

Styled as open range shoes, sandals were created first by foot fetishers sandal inc ltd. They could drool over the feet of passers leading them onto bigger crimes like gay gang rapes.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#518 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 5:41 AM:

robpocket wrote:



If your gay idol jesus rose from the dead. Wouldnt he become famous by becoming soap star. grin. Or becoming a cobbler laughing you know because of the foot fetish thing jesus was afflicted with making him a social outcast. I am surprised new testament writers didnt think of that cobbler thing in the first place considering they exposed jesus as having a kinky foot fetish. grin

One does suppose as mainly sandals were worn in those roman days that the term cobbler might not have been invented then. I wonder what they would call someone who made sandals? Jesus I suppose.

Styled as open range shoes, sandals were created first by foot fetishers sandal inc ltd. They could drool over the feet of passers leading them onto bigger crimes like gay gang rapes.


It occured to me that you pointing out that jesus came from that town called Sodom and was then a natural born sodomite. Instead of being born in bethlehem as the romans claim. Should be added onto that vast list of errors found to exist in the new testament. grin
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#519 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 5:47 AM:

We have noticed ass troll that you have not made any comments about those serious errors found existing in the new testamentgrinlaughing. Havent you got some glib copy paste that could explain them away from your point of view.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#520 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 6:00 AM:

robpocket wrote:
We have noticed ass troll that you have not made any comments about those serious errors found existing in the new testamentgrinlaughing. Havent you got some glib copy paste that could explain them away from your point of view.


Of course now your saying jesus was born in the town of Sodom and was then a Sodomite. Well that could change the geniology of jesus the Sodomite.

Adolph hitler would have had to change the name of the S.S. from Nazi because of the claim jesus was a Nazirene and them all being christians. You know the old monkey see monkey do scenario.

ADOLPH WUDDA KUDDA called them sodo"s after jesus the Sodomite. So where is this town of Sodom and why didnt Hitler invade it. Why are christians trying to hide this fact you claim that jesus was really born in the Town of Sodom. Is it cos of the sodomite connection?

Wait a minute didnt those twins come from there with that hit song, "we are the botty boys""we are the botty boys" popular among the gay community it is rumoured. nod
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#521 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 6:05 AM:

You should write to that gay pride movement or go trolling on their website to let them know jesus was a sodomite and liked young men. Rumours say they have been getting grief from the christians church over them being gay. Of course learning jesus was a sodomite then the christian church would have to back down and let those gays into heaven. heart
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#522 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 6:12 AM:

robpocket wrote:
You should write to that gay pride movement or go trolling on their website to let them know jesus was a sodomite and liked young men. Rumours say they have been getting grief from the christians church over them being gay. Of course learning jesus was a sodomite then the christian church would have to back down and let those gays into heaven. heart



How funny is that heads of a christian church thinking that they had the power to stop gay people getting into heaven. Especially as jesus the sodomite was gay and in a bad way.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#523 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 6:26 AM:

robpocket wrote:



How funny is that heads of a christian church thinking that they had the power to stop gay people getting into heaven. Especially as jesus the sodomite was gay and in a bad way.



Do you reckon the head of your christian church the pope guy has allowed his preachers into heaven but not ordinary gay people? That would all have to change. This is no dou t the news scandal of tommorow. Hey its sunday. Are you doing christian rituals ? You know like what we talked about. Well according to the pope guy he wont allow you into heaven for followin christian rituals. According to the pope guy gays are barred from heaven. They Ll have togo to the other place to find jesus.

According to your scriptures. Jesus is not in your heart. Jesus the sodomite is after getting into another part of your anatomy. I suppose. That is the way they will get you christians to scream out the name of jesus. clap
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#524 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 6:42 AM:

robpocket wrote:



Do you reckon the head of your christian church the pope guy has allowed his preachers into heaven but not ordinary gay people? That would all have to change. This is no dou t the news scandal of tommorow. Hey its sunday. Are you doing christian rituals ? You know like what we talked about. Well according to the pope guy he wont allow you into heaven for followin christian rituals. According to the pope guy gays are barred from heaven. They will have to go to the other place to find jesus.

According to your scriptures. Jesus is not in your heart. Jesus the sodomite is after getting into another part of your anatomy. I suppose. That is the way they will get you christians to scream out the name of jesus. clap


Have you gone to church and gone into a small dark room with the vicar to confess your many sins. laughing

Have you told him your a troll? Trolling forums telling people jesus was a sodomitewho came from sodom. ? It does make us all wonder you know what you christians get up to in that small dark room with the vicar. Does he get you to bend over to pray by pretending he dropped a bar of soap? Is he one of those laying of hands preachers? We have heard all about them. Does he mutters in a weird tongues. Do those speaking in tongue sessions sound a bit like a porn studio except for times when the name of jesus is screamed out like the wailing of a banshea.

Well just another sunday eh. At a christian church. At least now jesus the sodomite is known to be gay it is all out in the open and that gives you somthing to talk about while your locked in a dark room with a christian vicar. What an odd way to spend a Sunday.
robpocket
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 11, 2015

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 115
#525 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/28/16 - 6:51 AM:

robpocket wrote:


A point that has been made by the holy ghost Starjade laughing is that all claims of the new testament are made by unknown obscure writers saying this or that happened or this or that was claimed to have been said. I thought that was a relevant point. Why should we believe things said by people who were not witness to any of those events. They could say anything they wanted. It is easy for a writer to claim someone walked on water yet another thing for them to prove it.

My neighbours cat pixie for example is holy and gods cat. It walked on water the other day then pissed Into a bucket and hallelujah it turned into wine.

No doubt a thousand years from now christians will want to worship it just like the Egyptions. Ilaughing

YouI use the cat as a metaphor because if I said a human some jackass troll would believe the tale. Even worse if the cat was called jesus. The point being made is obvious. Who says so? Who are they. People believe allsorts of things still that does not make it true.

It is true the new testament states jesus was gay with a foot fetish. And he and some pals hung around deserted places laying in wait for young males to pass by. And when those young males passed by jesus and his mates would pounce on him ripping off his clothes obviously intending to gang rape him. Now why would any writer comment on that sort of aggressive sexual behaviour and do so at length.

All christians who believe the words of the new testament must also accept that their main idol was gay kinky and a dangerous sexual preditor. Monkey see monkey do. As christian priests show by their example. They use the biblical text to groom young children.

Clearly the new testament is dangerous and should be burned and its preachers crucified. Yes bring back crucifixion it was said to have worked before bringing down the crime rate.

One has to wonder about jesus. Which does he prefer? Sucking on a cock or a toe. Bit of a choice. Either way any christian would be reaching for a bar of soap.

How the hell did those stories get believed by obvious lonely fanatics and become a religion. Sounds goofy to me.

Tell us all ass troll have you been munching on a sweaty toe or do you prefer cock first wink are these like christian rituals that you lot have to do each sunday. / is that what your vicar told you? I suppose its too late and pointless now. Your a christian troll so your not going to listen to my opinion.



Dont forget to mention my cat pixie walking on water and pissing out wine. Those christians like to log miracles. Pixie also began farting out the national anthem in tune yesterday. Methinks it could be a sign. Would you go ask your vicar what it might mean. They speak in tongues and know all about signs being blown out of the ass. Oh but be tactful because ass is a touchy thing for christian preachers. nod
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.