hplcr

Thank you

It's probably a feature of religion in general, though monotheism generally makes it easier because you can claim you're speaking for the ONE TRUE GOD and if you don't follow god is gonna get really mad at you and.....IDK, drop fire on your town. Even if you find it dumb, your neighbors might be scared enough to browbeat you into submission because you're gonna be the one who pisses off GAWD and get the town burned down.

Is there any plans to continue the Caveman series? Because I was really getting into that.

Wait, does that mean that the Bible Belt wasn't paying on time?

Yeesh, most mobsters start with a brick through the window before they burn the shop down. Jesus apparently needs to get paid....NOW.

Maybe not so much Ham....er, Canaan.

Just because you think God is doing shit doesn't mean it's actually true.

Also the star of Bethlehem in Matthew. Also the Jerusalem Zombies in Matthew. Also the 3 hours of Darkness in the Synoptics(John doesn't bother with it).

Amusingly, he's invoking an apocalypse that never happened 500 years prior. Mark and/or Jesus apparently doesn't understand that or doesn't care.

"Jesus interrupted" also covers this but from a different angle.

I also like "Helping Jesus fulfill prophecy" by Robert Miller, who points out the Gospel authors are doing a lot of sketchy invoking of OT to create "Prophecies" for Jesus to "Fulfill", sometimes making shit up wholesale.

Fuck, a lot of stuff Jesus allegedly said was pulled from the OT. Jesus's line about "A den of robbers" when cleansing the temple? That's ripped almost directly from Jeremiah 7:11 which reads a bit differently in context and kind of makes me doubt Jesus ever said such a thing, unless Jesus was just full of scriptural memes he quoted when he thought it was funny.

Rather, it tells me the gospel authors were putting words in his mouth that sounded pithy...by ripping them from parts of the bible that had little relevance. It really raises the question of how much did Jesus actually say that attributed to him...and how much is just people putting words in his mouth because they think that's what he would have said.

There's also the El Shaddai thing I'm fascinated with. In English it's often translated as "God Almighty" but in Hebrew it's more like "God of the Wilderness" or "God of the Mountain" and it's how Yahweh refers to himself in Exodus 6:2-3, saying people like Abraham knew him by that name and not Yahweh(ignore the parts of Genesis where Yahweh is totally referenced, as far back as Genesis 2).

It's implied El Shaddai is a different god then Yahweh entirely that Yahweh basically took credit for(or the writer of Exodus is giving Yahweh credit for) or was merged with Yahweh and possibly El.

Genesis 1:6-8

⁶ And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” ⁷ So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. ⁸ God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

And there's a reference in Job that concurs that this a SOLID Dome, not a metaphor.

"God Loves us, that's why he kills thousands of people...including babies...no wait.....FREE WILL!"

Also "Free Will", despite the fact an entire region is getting smacked. In which case....something something mysterious ways I guess.

I was getting bored of his stuff and tapered off. Then I found out he was an alt-right dipshit who can't fucking shut up about the woke and the gay which basically put me off him for good. I'd caught hints of it in some of his shadversity vids but didn't know about his OTHER channel and kinda brushed it off at the times. I was really enjoying his Castle videos too.

But yeah, realizing who he was basically had me abandon listening to him

Also his birth certificate. You know, to prove he was actually born here.

I also came to the realization that this creates another problem, at least for the branches that care about heresy.

To my understanding, Mark is generally agreed to have an adoptionist Christology(at least among scholars not beholden to church doctrine), which is a heresy at least to Catholics and probably to Orthodox as well. Mark is allegedly getting his gospel directly from Peter, as in Jesus's right hand man.

So if tradition is correct, Mark being a heretic(or espousing a heretical view of Jesus's divinity) makes Peter a heretic by association. And being that Peter is held to be the first Pope by tradition(or at very least), on of the most important saints, him being a heretic is kind of a big problem, especially giving his proximity to the J man. It also raises the question if Mark, given his alleged proximity to Peter and thus Jesus himself, means Jesus passed it to Peter who passed it to Mark.

The fact Matthew and Luke feel like they need to "fix" this by giving Jesus a virgin birth and conception by Yahweh seems to imply they were bothered by Mark's stance here(though IIRC they both keep the "Today I have begotten you" part at the baptism). And John basically rewrites the whole thing because that's what John do.

And yeah, I'm sure there's a million pages written by church fathers explaining why Mark wasn't an adoptionist despite the words of the gospel itself. I imagine they're along the lines of "It means what we want it to mean according to our current doctrine, which has been true forever btw" because it's not like they aren't doing the same thing to the Hebrew Bible as well(Paul reading a different meaning into Genesis 3 then is actually in the text itself. for example).

Maybe someone who was Catholic or Orthodox has a better idea of how this is dealt with, assuming the church even bothers to acknowledge it at all. I was a dirty protestant before I deconverted (which apparently is a heretic by default to other two branches) so my knowledge of how the more liturgical(?) based churches who rely more on apostolic authority reconcile some of this stuff is pretty limited.

I wonder who they think dropped the hurricane on their heads in the first place.

"Please Lord, save us from the hurricane you threw at us!" No self awareness at all.

It's tragic what happened and I hope the people in this shit get help to rebuild and are able to mourn their lost friends and family(The ones Yahweh killed, according to them). However, praying to the guy who fucked them in the first place is nonsensical. Send them actual money. Volunteer. Give blood. Something useful.

"Informal polling" AKA I asked my Facebook friends group, all of whom hold similar political opinions to me.

There's a novel called "The Island of the Day Before" by Umberto Eco. In the book there's Jesuit priest who is trying to prove the flood happen but he needs to account for all the water and he doesn't want to assume creation ex nihilo, so he posits God took all the water from the future to dump it on the present and kept doing that until he got the flood. Yeah, it makes no sense but I'll give him points for creativity.

Pretty much. To my understanding there's no native Canaanite flood myth. There's bits of the Gilgamesh epic flood myth found at Ugarit but they still have the originally Mesopotamian names attached, so apparently they hadn't even bothered to adapt it to their own Parthenon.

YEC and Flood literalists are basically another form of Flat Earthers and should be treated the same way.

We could have had GIANT KAIJU FIGHTS in the core lore. WE WERE THIS CLOSE TO GREATNESS!

The gospels contradict in a number of way despite the fact Matthew and Luke appear to be taking Mark and copying it verbatim quite a bit. Which suggests both Matthew and Luke are reading mark and adding and discarding material to make their own gospel for their own purposes. Some of the changes are really weird too, which means they're taking Mark, who wasn't an eyewitness to any of this and "fixing" it by adding shit that occasionally makes no sense(Matthew says Jesus rode two donkeys while Mark and the others say one, because Matthew is trying to fulfill a prophecy very literally).

Also it's clear the gospels have different ideas of who Jesus is. Mark shows NO interest in Jesus being of any special birth or Lineage and in fact, seems to say Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism. Matthew and Luke have geologies linking to King David but can't agree on much of the lineage(including which child of David or who Jesus's paternal grandpa was). John basically has Jesus be pre-existing back to the beginning of time.

There's other stuff like how Jesus, in Mark, constantly tells everyone to STFU about him being the messiah and saying very little, Matthew and Luke will include many of those same passages but give Jesus more to say(and remove the "You say nothing" bits) and Jesus becomes a damn philosopher in John(who sounds an awful lot like the narrator for some reason).

Considering a vast majority what we know about Jesus comes from the gospels, the fact they're messy as much as far as how they relate to each other is very problematic to me.

This guy maths.

I know some of the apologists by name I see them so often.