Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because Jesus as presented on the Cross would never destroy anyone, period! Jude, like all our ancestors, interpreted EVERYTHING that happened as what God was doing. If any unbelievers were destroyed, he would automatically attribute that to God's wrath! He was incapable of seeing it any other way.
Jude walked and talked with Jesus. He wasn't some goat herder living 5000 years ago. He sat and listened to Jesus teach. He saw Jesus crucified. You did not. I take his word for it over your word, as should any reasonable person. Jude actually SPOKE to Jesus, he didn't just read about it, or watch from afar and wonder.
Jude walked and talked with Jesus. He wasn't some goat herder living 5000 years ago. He sat and listened to Jesus teach. He saw Jesus crucified. You did not. I take his word for it over your word, as should any reasonable person. Jude actually SPOKE to Jesus, he didn't just read about it, or watch from afar and wonder.
Let's start with objectivity. From your point of view, everything that Jude wrote was absolutely true. Well let's see. Was Jude an impartial observer? Not if he was a relative of Jesus. Not if he was a follower of Jesus. Maybe everything he said was true. But we can't know that.
But let's use your argument...that "Jude actually SPOKE to Jesus" and that makes what he said fact. That logic would also say that anyone who wrote about any other religious or philosophic leader -- who actually talked to them or were related to them -- must be telling the truth, a truth that is factual. So you accept those who were close associates of Joseph Smith (just as one example)?
Don't get me wrong. If you want to believe Jude. Go right ahead.
But don't be shocked that some of the rest of us do not. And that there are those of us who don't accept what is written does not make us 'unreasonable' people. You don't accept Zoroastrianism...do you? You don't accept the teachings of Rishabhanatha...do you? Guru Nanak...do you? Confucius? Krishna? Siddhartha?
Just because someone doesn't believe what you believe in, doesn't make them unreasonable.
Because Jesus as presented on the Cross would never destroy anyone, period! Jude, like all our ancestors, interpreted EVERYTHING that happened as what God was doing. If any unbelievers were destroyed, he would automatically attribute that to God's wrath! He was incapable of seeing it any other way.
That is why our ancestors attributed the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus to God's wrath despite the fact that it was our ancestors' wrath and vengeance that was responsible. They were incap[able of seeing it any other way despite knowing Jesus and His love and forgiveness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Jude walked and talked with Jesus. He wasn't some goat herder living 5000 years ago. He sat and listened to Jesus teach. He saw Jesus crucified. You did not. I take his word for it over your word, as should any reasonable person. Jude actually SPOKE to Jesus, he didn't just read about it, or watch from afar and wonder.
You are not trying to understand. The God they believed Jesus represented SHOULD have smote every Roman who was involved with trying to scourge and crucify Jesus. When God did not, they had an irreconcilable conflict and had to interpret it in a way that made sense to them. Since God's wrath was NOT directed at the Romans, it had to be directed at Jesus and all humans.
You are allowing this primitive and ignorant misinterpretation based on their belief in a wrathful War God to be YOUR interpretation. That is what is unreasonable for a modern-day mind to accept.
One of the best ads I have ever seen is the Master Class ad featuring Neil Degrasse Tyson.
I haven't taken any of the Master Class classes -- and don't intend to since you have to buy the whole package -- but that's not my point. Just in the ad he talks about: "One of the greatest challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think that you are right, but not enough about a subject to know that you are wrong".
And that applies to so much that we see in religion.
The ad lasts several minutes (you can Google it), and it's more interesting than most things I see on You Tube.
Fellow Christians constantly tell me that I interpret passages wrong even if it is a mainstream interpretation of my denomination.
You are not trying to understand. The God they believed Jesus represented SHOULD have smote every Roman who was involved with trying to scourge and crucify Jesus. When God did not, they had an irreconcilable conflict and had to interpret it in a way that made sense to them. Since God's wrath was NOT directed at the Romans, it had to be directed at Jesus and all humans.
You are allowing this primitive and ignorant misinterpretation based on their belief in a wrathful War God to be YOUR interpretation. That is what is unreasonable for a modern-day mind to accept.
Again we tend to agree. I go back a little further. Why would god allow his chosen people to be enslaved by the Egyptians (with all the terrible suffering and death that went along with that)? Why would he allow (or force) his chosen people to wander in the desert for 40 years?
Although I don't believe in god, I leave the door open. But I don't believe that a real god would behave as he did in the bible.
You are not trying to understand. The God they believed Jesus represented SHOULD have smote every Roman who was involved with trying to scourge and crucify Jesus. When God did not, they had an irreconcilable conflict and had to interpret it in a way that made sense to them. Since God's wrath was NOT directed at the Romans, it had to be directed at Jesus and all humans.
You are allowing this primitive and ignorant misinterpretation based on their belief in a wrathful War God to be YOUR interpretation. That is what is unreasonable for a modern-day mind to accept.
You're not trying to understand. The God that they believed in actually walked and talked with him. Jude walked and talked with Jesus. Jesus wasn't just a concept to him. Jesus was a man that walked and talked with him. Jesus told him this. So you are saying we should believe you over what Jesus told is brother. Sorry. I don't buy it.
You're not trying to understand. The God that they believed in actually walked and talked with him. Jude walked and talked with Jesus. Jesus wasn't just a concept to him. Jesus was a man that walked and talked with him. Jesus told him this. So you are saying we should believe you over what Jesus told is brother. Sorry. I don't buy it.
Again we tend to agree. I go back a little further. Why would god allow his chosen people to be enslaved by the Egyptians (with all the terrible suffering and death that went along with that)? Why would he allow (or force) his chosen people to wander in the desert for 40 years?
Although I don't believe in god, I leave the door open. But I don't believe that a real god would behave as he did in the bible.
Obviously, I agree, but it goes further back than that to the Garden of Eden story itself. The interpretation was erroneously based on the context that God was angry and wrathful at the disobedience. But they did not even yet have the ability to know what was wrong.
Their disobedience was the very SOURCE of their Knowledge of Good and Evil (right and wrong). The wrathful God context has been wrong from the very beginning and has just gotten worse over time.
Obviously, I agree, but it goes further back than that to the Garden of Eden story itself. The interpretation was erroneously based on the context that God was angry and wrathful at the disobedience. But they did not even yet have the ability to know what was wrong.
Their disobedience was the very SOURCE of their Knowledge of Good and Evil (right and wrong). The wrathful God context has been wrong from the very beginning and has just gotten worse over time.
Jude walked and talked with Jesus. He wasn't some goat herder living 5000 years ago. He sat and listened to Jesus teach. He saw Jesus crucified. You did not. I take his word for it over your word, as should any reasonable person. Jude actually SPOKE to Jesus, he didn't just read about it, or watch from afar and wonder.
Only in later tradition. There is nothing in Jude that says this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
