Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Jesus originally just claimed to be "The Son of Man" for the first few years of his fake ministry. That just meant he was claiming to be a human being.
Then he changed his story and started claiming to be Virgin Born for a while.
Then both Jesus and his disciples changed their stories again, but Luke and John's versions of the new origin story also contradict one another and contradict both of Jesus' original claims.
John claimed the "Father" member of the Trinity was Jesus father due to fucking mary. "Begotten" in John 3:16 is a direct claim to believe that "the father" fucked Mary.
Luke instead directly claimed the holy spirit trinity member was Jesus father, and Luke instead claimed the holy spirit overshadowed Mary and she "conceived" which means he's claiming the holy spirit fucked Mary to produce Jesus.
So either way, Jesus new story of his origin is that he is the Son of God. So if he is the Son of God, he could not be co-eternal with God, because a Begotten Son is a Created being, not the Creator.
Then a few chapters after John 3:16, Jesus instead claims that he was co-eternal with God and then claims to be "I AM THAT I AM" at the same time. So then the Jews try to stone jesus, and he quotes a FAKE scripture that is not in the book of Psalms, and claims everyone is a god in the flesh, contrary to Numbers 23:19, the First Commandment, and Isaiah, who said there is no God besides the Creator Yahweh. So the Jews again try to stone him, and he being a coward hid in the crowd and used the crowd as a human shield.
Later, the faked resurrected Jesus instead claims to actually be "the father" member of the alleged trinity, which is yet another lie and a contradiction again.
Then years later, Paul makes up an even bigger lie, and claims you can be saved by Faith alone, without the Good works of the Law, which is preposterous. How do you even define what Goodness is without a Law?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
Because we are not ignorant like you.
Dont get your bible summary second hand from dawkins summary!
read the books itself. Also John the baptist said stuff.
Hmmm…I will pray for you. 💜
The First Rule of Logic states that The Truth cannot contradict The Truth.
Even your Pope had to admit that some of the Biblical claims in both the OT and NT are either totally false or at best a metaphor, because he said "The Truth cannot contradict The Truth," so then the Catholics had to formally admit that human evolution was real, and that human beings had been around thousands of times longer than a literal reading of the Bible could explain.
It's in your Catechism if you're a catholic, and if you're a protestant you're just being hard-headed if you haven't admitted that yet. It even tells you in the Bible to reject "false sciences", so if you find something that contradicts the Bible in reality, then you are required to reject the Bible itself, because it literally tells you to reject false sciences, including its own claims even, once you prove they are in fact false sciences.
I am not even Catholic. lol
Well, I did cover all bases.
I once saw a teaching video from a PhD level Biologist who was a Roman Catholic explaining that the Bible was at best a metaphor, because DNA evidence showed that a literal reading of the Creation of life, especially humans, was not true at all. He showed DNA evidence which proves humans and Chimpanzees are co-evolved from a common ancestor, and that humans kept evolving forward in intelligence, while Chimpanzees "de-evolved" in intelligence. He then stated that he still believed in an Almighty God, but that he had to accept human evolution as the Truth, because a rational, loving God could not be planting faked evidence in the fossil record and DNA record. That if God did anything to deceive us about our origins, that would make God a liar, and he did not believe God was a deceiver, so he said the DNA and fossil evidence must be true, and a literal reading of Genesis must be false.
Paul in the Nt admitted Genesis was not literally true and admitted it was an Allegory.
That makes me take issue with the authors of Genesis, because a valid Allegory is required to be true in every respect. Both the parable itself in metaphor form is supposed to be true, AND the interpretation of the parable is supposed to be true. So if Genesis is an allegory, it's at best a very flawed allegory.
Def pray for him