Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ: The Teenage Years

[mycoldyourdone]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Mycoldyourdone

jesus was avg to above avg height, slim white male. how generic can you get.

if anything, he was probably just a magician. on some penn and teller steez.

Jesus was middle eastern, are you being sarcastic? Jesus looked like Osama Bin Laden. Europeans have done an excellent job in portraying dude as the blonde haired blue eyed savior of all races.

isnt he jewish?  either way, even if most of the world has the wrong image of jesus, story still defies logic.

 

[falcon4567]

Which is why its a matter of faith -- its kinda the whole point

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by Mycoldyourdone

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by Mycoldyourdone

jesus was avg to above avg height, slim white male. how generic can you get.

if anything, he was probably just a magician. on some penn and teller steez.

Jesus was middle eastern, are you being sarcastic? Jesus looked like Osama Bin Laden. Europeans have done an excellent job in portraying dude as the blonde haired blue eyed savior of all races.

isnt he jewish?  either way, even if most of the world has the wrong image of jesus, story still defies logic.

He looked Palestinian/Isreali, which is essentially Middle Eastern.

 

[Sir San Diego]

My brother studied religion and he told me that Jesus was supposedly a rebel during those years. I guess he used to get into a lot of fights and raise, ahem, hell.

 

[antonlavey]

19KShare

200diggsdigg



Cracked.com's new book is now on sale. What follows is one of 18 brand new articles written for the book.

The Gospels that made it into the Bible pretty much skip from the birth of Jesus Christ to his adulthood, but there are other documents that chronicle the adventures of Jesus Christ: Boy Wonder. They're part of something called the New Testament Apocrypha, a series of books deemed unfit for inclusion due to concerns over the message they'd send or, in some cases, the number of faces they'd melt with their sheer awesomeness. Most of the stories are pretty normal fare -- healing lepers and raising the dead -- but some are so insane that we learn that the answer to, What would Jesus do? is Whatever the hell he wants.

#5.

Jesus Christ: Dragonmaster

The New Testament didn't just descend from the skies onto newsstands the morning after Jesus ascended up to heaven. The 27 books in modern Christian Bibles weren't declared official until over 300 years after Jesus walked the earth. By that time, thousands of sayings and stories about Jesus' life had to be left on the cutting-room floor. Such was the case of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. The name comes from the fact that it's basically an extended director's cut of the Gospel of Matthew that made the Bible, covering most of the same territory save for one regrettably deleted scene.

No, not this one.

Two years after Jesus was born, King Herod got word of a child being called the "king of the Jews" and ordered that all two-year-old male children in Bethlehem be killed to protect his throne (making Herod the first, and last, member of the controversial "kill all babies" political platform). But God managed to warn Joseph in time, and the family fled before Herod's men arrived. You probably knew all that. What you may not have known is that on their way to Egypt, Jesus and his family stopped to rest in a cave, which, to their surprise, was populated by a herd of dragons. (What do you call a group of dragons? A flock? A pride? A concert?) Actual scaly, fire-breathing, winged lizard-dragons.

These $+@%$%$#.

And, lo, suddenly there came forth from the cave many dragons; and when the children saw them, they cried out in great terror. Then Jesus went down from the bosom of His mother, and stood on His feet before the dragons; and they adored Jesus, and thereafter retired.

-- The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Chapter 18

That's right: The Bible could have included a passage detailing how Jesus Christ totally gave the cold shoulder to a dragon army. At first glance, this seems like a pretty baffling omission. Jesus Christ, dragon tamer, would have been pretty effective when converting metalheads and 14-year-old boys.

This doesn't have quite the same draw.

It makes a lot more sense if you believe that God was handling editorial duties. Jesus totally could have used his dragon-taming powers to sic an invincible hell-beast armada on Herod's %%$. That's what the God from the Old Testament would have done. If our son squandered powers that awesome, and we were editing his biography, we'd probably skip that part too.

"I should have taken him hunting or something."

#4.

Jesus Takes Pools of Water Very Seriously

Written in the early second century, around the same time most scholars date the four Gospels in the Bible, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas picks up the story a few years after the dragon taming. Back in Nazareth now, five-year-old Jesus was playing beside a small brook with some other children, forming pools of water to make clay. (Fun had yet to be invented.) Jesus formed some sparrows out of the clay and, since he was not the figurine-collecting type, decided to give the sculptures life, and off they flew on his command. One of the children playing with Jesus saw this and, rather than thinking, "Holy *%@%! That kid can create life with a word -- I should probably not walk up behind him and start splashing his pools with a stick," instead walked up behind him and started splashing his pools with a stick. And Christ just goes apes$$t:

Above: An appropriate response.

"O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? Behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit." And straightway that lad withered up wholly.

-- Infancy Gospel of Thomas 3:2-3

It doesn't say that the Lamb of God took trophies, but it's probably safe to assume.

And, like the Nazi archaeologist in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the boy started aging rapidly and withered away. Sure, it would've been easier just to kill the kid, but this is Jesus Christ we're talking about here. He's not just gonna up and waste some kid.

#3.

Jesus Christ Up and Wastes Some Kid

In Thomas' version of events, later that same day as Jesus was casually strolling around town, running divine errands, another boy accidentally bumped into him on the street. So what would Jesus do? He'd probably use his divine presence to heal the boy of being friggin' clumsy, right? Let's see:

Jesus was provoked and said unto him, "Thou shalt not finish thy course." And immediately he fell down and died.

-- Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1

And you don't want to know what happened when he lost the school science fair.

We ... He probably ... No. Wait. He just murdered a kid for brushing against him? Was Jesus a Crip? Far be it from us to question the judgment of the Son of God, but being sentenced to death for scuffing Christ's sandals seems excessive. Maybe if the kid had been walking exceedingly slow right in the center of the sidewalk so he couldn't get past him and was just obliviously yakking away on his cell phone while, like, eight people stuck behind him were trying to get somewhere and seriously if you would just move four inches to one side we could get past and GODDAMN IT DON'T STOP SO THAT WE ALMOST RUN INTO YOU. OH, AND JUST TO STARE SLACK-JAWED AT A TABLOID ON THE NEWSPAPER KIOSK, YOU SON OF A !@#!* -- maybe that's a walking crime worthy of divine capital punishment. But wasting a kid because he touches your arm? Jesus was like a bully in an 80s high school movie, if they had been able to murder people with words.

He rolled kids for lunch money before he whaled on money changers.

Read more: 5 Real Deleted Bible Scenes In Which Jesus Kicks Some %%$ | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/ar...hich-jesus-kicks-some-%%$.html#ixzz1Su3kW4tH

 

[antonlavey]

[article=""][h1]5 Real Deleted Bible Scenes In Which Jesus Kicks Some @##
[/h1]
By:Brian Thompson,  CRACKED Staff December 28, 20101,166,761 views
Add to Favorites

19KShare

200diggsdigg



#2.

Jesus Christ: Snake Exploder

By now Jesus is dominating Nazareth like Lord Humungus dominates The Road Warrior's wasteland. The local children feared him so intensely that they adopted him as their king and acted as his bodyguards -- forcing everyone who passed through town to come and worship him. One day a group of men came by carrying a small child, and they refused to follow a group of terrified children just for the honor of worshipping their bully king. Jesus catches wind of this and asks exactly what it is they're doing that's so important they can't reserve some time for random child worship. They explain that the boy they're carrying was bitten by a snake and is near death, and would he terribly mind taking his boot off their necks, because they're so, so sorry? Jesus Christ (more sci-fi warlord than beacon of forgiveness in this version of the Bible), says simply, "Let us go and kill that serpent," and storms off into the woods to do what he does best: extravagant murder.

Snakes ain't nothing but a thing.

Then the Lord Jesus calling the serpent, it presently came forth and submitted to him; to whom he said, "Go and suck out all the poison which thou hast infused into that boy"; so the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again. Then the Lord Jesus cursed the serpent so that it immediately burst asunder, and died.

-- First Gospel of Infancy 18:13-16

Even after it acquiesces to Jesus' demands, the snake is still blown to crap by the power of God for doing what's in its nature? Holy %+@%!

You should see what he did when the donkey crapped on his carpet.

#1.

And Then Jesus Said Unto Them: Snitches Get Stitches

By now the parents of Nazareth were understandably upset: Jesus was walking around town ruining little kids like a bad divorce. So they gave Joseph an ultimatum: Either Jesus learns to use his powers for good, or the family has to leave town. Considering that, by this point, Jesus has killed more kids than a Willy Wonka tour group, that sounded pretty reasonable. But Christ ain't tolerating no narcs up in yore:

Jesus said, "I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment." And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness.

-- Infancy Gospel of Thomas 5:1

At some point, he reversed his stance on blindness.

And that was the last straw: Joseph finally decided to discipline his son. But what do you do in response to a list of crimes more befitting a Grand Theft Auto sequel than a holy child? Grounding? Caning? Imprisonment?

None of the above.

This?

Joseph "grabbed [Jesus'] ear" and "wrung it til it was sore." You may laugh, but in the end Jesus does end up uncursing everybody; just not out of some well-deserved sense of remorse or the slightest hint of empathy or anything. Eventually, a local teacher starts frantically screaming to everybody that Jesus Christ is probably God, after a Good Will Hunting-style display of intelligence at his Nazareth grade school. (Funny, you'd think the boy's ability to kill with words would have clued everyone in sooner.)

So now that the secret's out (the kid laying siege to entire countries with his superpowers is-- surprise -- extraordinary), Jesus figures he may as well reverse all the death and destruction because, hey, once you get your propers, there's just no reason to blast them %%#@+## no more.

We guess they just give halos out to anyone these days.

If you take one thing away from this, let it be that Jesus Christ wasn't born the Gandhi-like paragon of peace you know him as. He's more like a reformed con: sick of the game because he lived it too hard for too long.

If there are two things that you take away from this, let the second be that the power of Christ is terrifying. Sure, miracles like bread splitting or wine making might seem a bit dull, but that's just because the church decided that the part where Jesus became the snake-melting dragonmaster was a little too terrifying for your delicate sensibilities. You straight up can't handle that much Jesus.

We haven't even gotten into his vampire days.

Read more: 5 Real Deleted Bible Scenes In Which Jesus Kicks Some %%$ | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_1894...ch-jesus-kicks-some-ass_p2.html#ixzz1Su460TFu
[/article]

 

[mecks]

Um .... no chicks in the bible? You don't know about the story where the owner of a motel didn't have space for soldiers, so he let them gang rape his daughter?


And the story of david? He has an affair and smashes that lady, then loses his powers, that's why he loses the throne and his first born ...

 

[|A-Man|]

The "authors" didn't feel it was necessary to write anything about him then that's why he goes from like 3 to 30 in the bible and all other books touching on his adolescence or teenage years were redacted or destroyed.

Looking at it from the most logical standpoint, fiction, it'd be cool to see some ppl cook up some stories.

EDIT

The common depiction labeled as Jesus is really Cesare Borgias not the actual Jesuss christ, if he ever existed but being vague about what he looks like since he's allegedly coming back was probably a smart move. All of the descriptions in the bible of him look nothing like the pictures the church portray him as. It's one of the reasons Christianity is dubbed the white man's religion.

Nice find Anton. Should make a movie out of it

@ Jesus being like Penn and Teller. *Goes to watch Bull !$$**

 

[thisismyvibe]

I've always sort of thought that Jesus existed, but not being a Christian, I didn't think he was the son of G-d or a miracle worker or anything like that. But it turns out that if you do a little digging, he might not have existed at all...

First, there is no contemporary evidence what so ever. Not a single shred of documentation exists written in the time frame that mentions this person. Not a single Roman document ordering his death and not a single mention from any historian writing at the time, and 1st century Judea is a very well documented area where we have descriptions of multiple low level preachers claiming to be a messiah. The biographers of Herod never once mention him slaughtering children and the biographers of Pilate never mention him allowing a mob to grant immunity to a barbaric zealot while condemning Jesus, an act that was unprecedented in ancient times.

Second, even the Gospel accounts are demonstrably incompatible and historically inaccurate. In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but in Luke, he is born during the Census of Quirinis, which occurred during 4-5 CE. One of those has to be wrong, so we cannot accept either as true. Beyond that, the simple removal of Jesus from the cross is historically inaccurate. Roman crucifiction was used as much as a warning to others as a punishment to the condemned. As such, bodies were not removed from the cross. They were left there to rot as a warning to others to keep in line. There is no way, the Roman authorities would have allowed the condemned to be removed from the cross on the same day of his execution. I know the Bible works in a cover about the bodies needing to be down before Passover, but the Romans wouldn't have done it.

Third, the earliest writings of Jesus we have come from Saul/Paul, a person who admittedly never met Jesus, and who's writings never actually refer to Jesus as an actual person who once walked the Earth, they are written to depict Jesus as someone who only existed in the Spirit World.

Fourth, the Gospels were all written at least 40 years after Jesus' death, so they provide no useful first hand information. We also have no idea who the actual authors were, so we cannot verify anything. Also, the earliest known copies of Mark (the first gospel written) don't even mention the resurrection, that wasn't added until later, which brings into question the whole resurrection story. Since the other 3 Gospels are mostly just copied from Mark (with some changes and embellishment) they are just as flawed.

Lastly, the "proofs" that Christians trot of ancient writings about Jesus have been mostly proven to be forgeries (see Josephus).

Not trying to troll or aggravate believers/non-believers/beliebers/whomever, just stating what's there...

 

[i am that dude]

Originally Posted by MECKS

Um .... no chicks in the bible? You don't know about the story where the owner of a motel didn't have space for soldiers, so he let them gang rape his daughter?


And the story of david? He has an affair and smashes that lady, then loses his powers, that's why he loses the throne and his first born ...

and Delilah, but I mean Jesus didn't get any. Maybe if he got laid, he would have a better personality

 

[uptownsdotnetstacky]

Do you know how hard it was for them to make up what they did, tho?

 

[i am that dude]

Originally Posted by UptownsDotNetStacky

Do you know how hard it was for them to make up what they did, tho?

Easy. They just copied the entire story from other religions and Gods

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Thisismyvibe

I've always sort of thought that Jesus existed, but not being a Christian, I didn't think he was the son of G-d or a miracle worker or anything like that. But it turns out that if you do a little digging, he might not have existed at all...

First, there is no contemporary evidence what so ever. Not a single shred of documentation exists written in the time frame that mentions this person. Not a single Roman document ordering his death and not a single mention from any historian writing at the time, and 1st century Judea is a very well documented area where we have descriptions of multiple low level preachers claiming to be a messiah. The biographers of Herod never once mention him slaughtering children and the biographers of Pilate never mention him allowing a mob to grant immunity to a barbaric zealot while condemning Jesus, an act that was unprecedented in ancient times.

Second, even the Gospel accounts are demonstrably incompatible and historically inaccurate. In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but in Luke, he is born during the Census of Quirinis, which occurred during 4-5 CE. One of those has to be wrong, so we cannot accept either as true. Beyond that, the simple removal of Jesus from the cross is historically inaccurate. Roman crucifixion was used as much as a warning to others as a punishment to the condemned. As such, bodies were not removed from the cross. They were left there to rot as a warning to others to keep in line. There is no way, the Roman authorities would have allowed the condemned to be removed from the cross on the same day of his execution. I know the Bible works in a cover about the bodies needing to be down before Passover, but the Romans wouldn't have done it.

Third, the earliest writings of Jesus we have come from Saul/Paul, a person who admittedly never met Jesus, and who's writings never actually refer to Jesus as an actual person who once walked the Earth, they are written to depict Jesus as someone who only existed in the Spirit World.

Fourth, the Gospels were all written at least 40 years after Jesus' death, so they provide no useful first hand information. We also have no idea who the actual authors were, so we cannot verify anything. Also, the earliest known copies of Mark (the first gospel written) don't even mention the resurrection, that wasn't added until later, which brings into question the whole resurrection story. Since the other 3 Gospels are mostly just copied from Mark (with some changes and embellishment) they are just as flawed.

Lastly, the "proofs" that Christians trot of ancient writings about Jesus have been mostly proven to be forgeries (see Josephus).

Not trying to troll or aggravate believers/non-believers/beliebers/whomever, just stating what's there...

Regarding the 3rd point about the crucifixion, they removed him from the cross due to the sabbath.  Yes, typically they would have kept them there for the reason you stated.  However, Jude was on the verge of revolt.  As any good politician would do he made concessions to appease the populous and thus allowed the 3 bodies to be removed from the crosses.

Two of the gospel authors were direct disciples of Jesus and heard his words directly (Matthew & John).  Yes, historical thinking has Mark writing the original gospel but more modern accounts state that it may have been the opposite and that Mark wrote his gospel after Matthew & Luke since his accounts are far more brief and thus would not require a more detailed description since the other two authors were fairly thorough in their accounts.  FYI... John's gospel is nothing like the other 3.  Check it out

That also brings us back to the point that the gospels were not written until 30 years after Jesus death.  Jewish culture was very much an oral one.  Although every child went to school to learn the scriptures, only the more talented ones continues in school and eventually became pharisees.  That is why most of the written accounts from that time were associated with the Torah.

Lastly... Paul never stated that he didn't meet Jesus.  On the contrary.  In Acts 9 Luke gives account of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus to kill more Christians.

 

[whywesteppin]

Are you trying to be funny? Or do you have an agenda? Or are you asking a serious question?

If you are asking a serious question, and I think it's a potentially interesting one, under which supposition are you operating? That the story of Jesus was completely fabricated? That Jesus had all kinds of superpowers (as in those stories Anton posted)? That Jesus was not really God's son, so his life was later exaggerated? Or the canonical view of his life is accurate?


Please spare us the justification for whichever one you choose. Just pick one to demonstrate your goodwill towards having a real discussion.

 

[i am that dude]

E) All of the above

 

[whywesteppin]

nvm then. The Thisismyvibe-crcballer discussion is interesting though.

 

[devilinanewdress]

Take a New Testament Survey class like they FORCE you to do at my college.....you will find all the answers you seek. They only put in the parts they felt were necessary in conveying the general purpose of the Bible. Knowing Jesus' childhood, they felt, is not important in helping someone grow in their faith or have a "better" relationship with G-d. Look at Exodus for example...the first 2 chapters covers hundreds of years, where as the rest of the book covers a span of only 40 years. All these councils who arranged the Bible inserted what they felt was important and ommited what they felt was not.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by DevilinaNewDress

Take a New Testament Survey class like they FORCE you to do at my college.....you will find all the answers you seek. They only put in the parts they felt were necessary in conveying the general purpose of the Bible. Knowing Jesus' childhood, they felt, is not important in helping someone grow in their faith or have a "better" relationship with G-d. Look at Exodus for example...the first 2 chapters covers hundreds of years, where as the rest of the book covers a span of only 40 years. All these councils who arranged the Bible inserted what they felt was important and ommited what they felt was not.

The words/passages in the bible were carefully chosen. How doesn't this bother people?

 

[devilinanewdress]

AntonLaVey wrote:

The words/passages in the bible were carefully chosen. How doesn't this bother people?

This question I asked in my class....the answer: "One can still find and read these omitted books. Just because they are omitted doesn't mean they are hidden." 
my face at this response-------

.

Actually did go and read the "missing books of the bible"....some gave me more questions than answers. Talked to my Old Testament professor (another class one is FORCED ti take) about and he tried to instruct me to learn Hebrew because one can get the full CONTEXT off what the writers were saying 

.

Taking Christian Theology and Tradition this summer (the last of the Christianity classes I have to take to get my degree from this college) hoping to raise alot more questions to this professor.

Think I'm just a lil salty about having to take 9 hours of Christianity in order to finish my BioChem degree....

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by DevilinaNewDress

Take a New Testament Survey class like they FORCE you to do at my college.....you will find all the answers you seek. They only put in the parts they felt were necessary in conveying the general purpose of the Bible. Knowing Jesus' childhood, they felt, is not important in helping someone grow in their faith or have a "better" relationship with G-d. Look at Exodus for example...the first 2 chapters covers hundreds of years, where as the rest of the book covers a span of only 40 years. All these councils who arranged the Bible inserted what they felt was important and ommited what they felt was not.

The words/passages in the bible were carefully chosen. How doesn't this bother people?

If you read a biography on anyone, are they going to tell you everything about their lives, or just the important parts?  Is it important to know how many tables that Jesus built between the time he went to Jerusalem when he was 10 and when he turned water into wine when he was 30?  He very likely lived a very normal life in a small Judean town.  If his journal were included in the Bible, would it really make a difference to most people in their belief of who he was?  Either a person believes that he was God like he said he was multiple times, or they believe he was a lunatic who was willing to die for his lie and did so identically to what how the prophet Isaiah said it would almost a millennium earlier.

 

[thisismyvibe]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by Thisismyvibe

I've always sort of thought that Jesus existed, but not being a Christian, I didn't think he was the son of G-d or a miracle worker or anything like that. But it turns out that if you do a little digging, he might not have existed at all...



First, there is no contemporary evidence what so ever. Not a single shred of documentation exists written in the time frame that mentions this person. Not a single Roman document ordering his death and not a single mention from any historian writing at the time, and 1st century Judea is a very well documented area where we have descriptions of multiple low level preachers claiming to be a messiah. The biographers of Herod never once mention him slaughtering children and the biographers of Pilate never mention him allowing a mob to grant immunity to a barbaric zealot while condemning Jesus, an act that was unprecedented in ancient times.



Second, even the Gospel accounts are demonstrably incompatible and historically inaccurate. In Matthew, Jesus is born during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BCE, but in Luke, he is born during the Census of Quirinis, which occurred during 4-5 CE. One of those has to be wrong, so we cannot accept either as true. Beyond that, the simple removal of Jesus from the cross is historically inaccurate. Roman crucifixion was used as much as a warning to others as a punishment to the condemned. As such, bodies were not removed from the cross. They were left there to rot as a warning to others to keep in line. There is no way, the Roman authorities would have allowed the condemned to be removed from the cross on the same day of his execution. I know the Bible works in a cover about the bodies needing to be down before Passover, but the Romans wouldn't have done it.



Third, the earliest writings of Jesus we have come from Saul/Paul, a person who admittedly never met Jesus, and who's writings never actually refer to Jesus as an actual person who once walked the Earth, they are written to depict Jesus as someone who only existed in the Spirit World.



Fourth, the Gospels were all written at least 40 years after Jesus' death, so they provide no useful first hand information. We also have no idea who the actual authors were, so we cannot verify anything. Also, the earliest known copies of Mark (the first gospel written) don't even mention the resurrection, that wasn't added until later, which brings into question the whole resurrection story. Since the other 3 Gospels are mostly just copied from Mark (with some changes and embellishment) they are just as flawed.



Lastly, the "proofs" that Christians trot of ancient writings about Jesus have been mostly proven to be forgeries (see Josephus).



Not trying to troll or aggravate believers/non-believers/beliebers/whomever, just stating what's there...

Regarding the 3rd point about the crucifixion, they removed him from the cross due to the sabbath.  Yes, typically they would have kept them there for the reason you stated.  However, Jude was on the verge of revolt.  As any good politician would do he made concessions to appease the populous and thus allowed the 3 bodies to be removed from the crosses.

Two of the gospel authors were direct disciples of Jesus and heard his words directly (Matthew & John).  Yes, historical thinking has Mark writing the original gospel but more modern accounts state that it may have been the opposite and that Mark wrote his gospel after Matthew & Luke since his accounts are far more brief and thus would not require a more detailed description since the other two authors were fairly thorough in their accounts.  FYI... John's gospel is nothing like the other 3.  Check it out

That also brings us back to the point that the gospels were not written until 30 years after Jesus death.  Jewish culture was very much an oral one.  Although every child went to school to learn the scriptures, only the more talented ones continues in school and eventually became pharisees.  That is why most of the written accounts from that time were associated with the Torah.

Lastly... Paul never stated that he didn't meet Jesus.  On the contrary.  In Acts 9 Luke gives account of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus to kill more Christians.

I'm on the run, so this reply will have to be short (I'll be sure to fill out a more lengthy response later). I guess the question I'd have for you regards Saul meeting Jesus. Really go back through Acts and make sure there aren't any contradictions in there.

I also think that, while looking back at Jesus possibly being a historical figure, it is important to do the research not from the standpoint of faith, but from that of historians, who regard the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament as an important source of evidence requiring careful sifting and criticism, since their authors were propagating religious beliefs rather than conveying dispassionate historical information.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by DevilinaNewDress

Take a New Testament Survey class like they FORCE you to do at my college.....you will find all the answers you seek. They only put in the parts they felt were necessary in conveying the general purpose of the Bible. Knowing Jesus' childhood, they felt, is not important in helping someone grow in their faith or have a "better" relationship with G-d. Look at Exodus for example...the first 2 chapters covers hundreds of years, where as the rest of the book covers a span of only 40 years. All these councils who arranged the Bible inserted what they felt was important and ommited what they felt was not.

The words/passages in the bible were carefully chosen. How doesn't this bother people?

If you read a biography on anyone, are they going to tell you everything about their lives, or just the important parts?  Is it important to know how many tables that Jesus built between the time he went to Jerusalem when he was 10 and when he turned water into wine when he was 30?  He very likely lived a very normal life in a small Judean town.  If his journal were included in the Bible, would it really make a difference to most people in their belief of who he was?  Either a person believes that he was God like he said he was multiple times, or they believe he was a lunatic who was willing to die for his lie and did so identically to what how the prophet Isaiah said it would almost a millennium earlier.

I understand that, but this isn't the biography of just anyone. If you claim to be the son of God I want to know everything about you. Everything about a being of his magnitude is important.

 

[i am that dude]

The words/passages in the bible were carefully chosen. How doesn't this bother people?smiley: nerd
and thus not making it the Word of God?

And CRC, yes I would possibly feel more likely to believe if the story were more complete. Ignoring the &#*$ton of holes already present in Christianity and my inherent problem with it as a black dude, stemming obviously from the way it was forced/sold upon "us," but that's a huge omittance. He's the main character, of the book and the religion! It's not like I'm asking for more information on somebody insignificant to the story and belief system.

Life would be much better if people just appreciated the Bible as a work of fiction and moral guideline, instead of a history textbook.

I do to an extent, have it somewhere right below Aesop's Fables. You want a book with colorful stories, talking animals, magic, and all of it with a nice moral that you can learn from, THAT's how you do that there.

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Life would be much better if people just appreciated the Bible as a work of fiction and moral guideline, instead of a history textbook.

 

[orfiyus]

He went to westchester NY and enrolled in charles Xaviar school for the gifted where he was tutored by Wolverine on how to use his powers. Im pretty sure he hooked up a 3 way with storm and jean grey while he was there to lose his virginity.


The rest is history (as documented by Mel Gibson in Passion of the Christ)