Someone please hack this to only return Torah quotes and only in Aramaic.
Ask him what that hole in his hand do
Why would Jesus quote Paul, a pharisee who hijacked Christ’s words to turn anarchistic personal salvation back into controllable religion?
Facts
So how is this not blasphemy? Not that I care, mind you, but they’re supposed to
Who are these “they” you speak of? Do you mean the small handful of christians that actually adhere to their own religious texts?
“They” are supposed to do and be many things, which they usually do or are the opposite of. But covertly.
How is it blasphemy to text with Jesus? It’d be an honor.
Afaik these things are not approved of by any churches or religious organizations.
If you ask them if Jesus would suck a dick to save a soul none of them give the correct answer.
And thus far, neither have you. Neither have you.
Jesus wouldn’t quote the Bible. It was written hundreds of years after his death.
The old testament did exist, and Jesus misquoted and misunderstood the fuck out of it.
Matthew 22:41-45
Jesus asks the pharisees how the messiah can be the son of David when David calls the holy spirit “lord,” referring to psalm 110 whish starts “the lord said to my lord.” It’s a ridiculous claim to start with, but it’s not even the correct understanding. The narrator is not David, they’re recounting what happened to David. The lord (God) said to my lord (king David). At no time does David even speak in psalm 110.
And not in English
yeah but he’s quoting from heaven
didn’t they teach you anything in science class?
The cloud. Didn’t they teach you anything in IT class?
Merely providing Bible quotes is probably the better decision though.
Yeah. Basically just acting as a pretty good search engine to find relevant quotes.
Also wasn’t white
He would and did quote the old testament. The prophets books were written at least a few hundred years before he lived, and those were the latest of the old testament to be written.
The new testament was written about 100 years after he lived, and canonized a few hundred years later.
Let’s be correct here: the Christian Bible was canonized centuries after Jesus’s death. That’s not the same thing as being written.
I still appreciate the point you’re making, though.
Some parts of the bible are shown to have been written about 400 years later
I don’t see where I said otherwise.
The implication is incorrect.
What is it that you think I was implying with my post?
This is the post you replied to
Jesus wouldn’t quote the Bible. It was written hundreds of years after his death.
The implication was that it was not correct because of a reply that starts with:
Let’s be correct here:
The original post says that “the Bible” was written “hundreds of years after [Jesus’s] death.” I consider this to be an incorrect statement. When someone says “the Bible,” I wouldn’t think of only the most recently composed passages, but as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation.
This doesn’t mean that those recent passages weren’t written hundreds of years after Jesus died, only that I wouldn’t identify that point in history as “when the Bible was written.”
The New Testament was written after his death too, some parts of it earlier than others. I think it’s also a pretty safe bet that there was a lot of editorializing over the centuries, since AFAIK the earliest surviving copies of anything are from the 2nd or 3rd centuries CE.
There’s probably less editorializing than you’d think. At least less that was successful in being hidden. There are verses that we know we’re added in later that seem like they fit in perfectly. Example: “for yours is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever” at the end of the Lord’s prayer. That verse feels right at home there, but based on early copies and differences between copies as Christianity spread, we know that wasn’t original.
Well, the gospels themselves are an example of editorializing. None of the gospels are written by the disciples themselves, most if not all of them were written after all the apostles would have been dead, and it is widely agreed that two of them (Matthew and Luke) are basically fanfiction spin-offs of Mark and a second, long lost source.
To clarify, I think by the time the stories were canonized, the narrative was likely more or less established. But in the 2-3 centuries before that I expect it to have been quite varied. We have no real way of knowing either way because there are very few surviving scraps of manuscripts from that early on.
‘this fan fiction is now mainstream’.
He might quote himself, which was then put in the Bible, tho.
The image looks rather a lot like the “Buddy Christ” from Dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buddy_christ.jpg
I see Christian bale
The literal peak of AI psychosis, in your hands
This just makes me want to try to get it to hallucinate a Bible verse that doesn’t exist… but it’s not worth giving them the traffic to try.
I have a neighbor down the street named Jesus I gab with sometimes but he hasn’t been out much because the government is trying to human traffick him into torture.
Why did they use a picture of Christian Bale?
I see they went with “white Jesus” instead of what he actually looked like.
MmMmmMmm! hot blonde, whippings and crucifixions!
First the pope throws a rave, now this 🤦
