3 ms·
im explaining it poorly. What i mean is that the principle is "if jesus didn't have that much to say,who is this guy that he talks for thousands of hours?"
by justanotherjoe 3y ago
im explaining it poorly. What i mean is that the principle is "if jesus didn't have that much to say,who is this guy that he talks for thousands of hours?"
- Almondsetat 3y agoYours is a bad example. Jesus said that the old law was still valid, which means that in fact you have to study the entire OT to get the full message. He just left it to the reader as an exercise
- justanotherjoe 3y agoThat's my point though. He didn't need to say it again cause he wouldnt add anything to it.
- Almondsetat 3y agoYou are again making a mistake. Jesus didn’t have to add much because it was implicit that everything written in the OT was the truth. Unfortunately if you don’t believe in Christianity there is no book or philosopher that has told the whole “truth” about the universe, so any new kid on the block might indeed have many things to say
- justanotherjoe 3y agoMy statement was about information content. It was really never about Jesus at all. My point is that it's really rare to have so many interesting or new things to say, and anyone who says interesting and novel things all the time for a long time(not jesus) would either have to be redundant, bs-ing, or trying to say things beyond their ken.
- badcppdev 3y agoWell imho you have to study the OT in the light of his new message. If you're a Christian then your priority is the message of Christ which seems quite broad and sweeping in a good way. And therefore contradicts all the intolerant teachings from the OT. (Disclaimer: not a Christian. Constantly amazed at people who have faith)
- its-summertime 3y agoDeferring to others seems fine, no? Going on a weekly podcast to recite the entire OT over and over is what influencers-that-are-not-jesus are doing.