the Christian religion is generally about love and tolerance (if you read the Bible)
No, if you read the Bible you’ll see a vengeful, genocidal, jealous, petulant god who’s very ok with slavery and rape. Not much love and tolerance there.
No you clearly have no idea the difference between old and New Testament and the importance of that to Christians. You also have no idea what scholar consider actually written by the apostles and not. Go do some research about that.
The old testament justifies the “new”. Also, the character of Jesus says that “not one jot or tittle” thing.
I was raised with red letter xtianity; but if you really do look closer, it’s easy to see that xtianity is truly a Rorschach’s blot, and for good reason. You can cherry-pick extreme right, white nationalist stuff out of there, or you could just still to the red letters and be radically leftist.
Why does it matter if scholars don’t think something is written by the apostles? Mark is not considered an apostle and people seem fine with him having his own sections. Even so, is the Bible not the word of god? Do we need entire history departments dedicated to tracking down who wrote what to declare what parts of the Bible are “real”? Isn’t that in itself an issue? Also, plenty of obvious issues with the New Testament even if you only take from books by apostles theoretically written close to their own time. Enjoy Matthew 15:21-28 where Jesus refuses to help a woman’s sick daughter because the woman was not Israeli/appropriately Jewish and refers to her and non-Israeli/jews as dogs. He eventually helps her once she says “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Cool dude I’m sure, provided you were from the right place and followed his exact religion. Gee, I wonder if that reminds you of anyone?
No, if you read the Bible you’ll see a vengeful, genocidal, jealous, petulant god who’s very ok with slavery and rape. Not much love and tolerance there.
No you clearly have no idea the difference between old and New Testament and the importance of that to Christians. You also have no idea what scholar consider actually written by the apostles and not. Go do some research about that.
The old testament justifies the “new”. Also, the character of Jesus says that “not one jot or tittle” thing.
I was raised with red letter xtianity; but if you really do look closer, it’s easy to see that xtianity is truly a Rorschach’s blot, and for good reason. You can cherry-pick extreme right, white nationalist stuff out of there, or you could just still to the red letters and be radically leftist.
Why does it matter if scholars don’t think something is written by the apostles? Mark is not considered an apostle and people seem fine with him having his own sections. Even so, is the Bible not the word of god? Do we need entire history departments dedicated to tracking down who wrote what to declare what parts of the Bible are “real”? Isn’t that in itself an issue? Also, plenty of obvious issues with the New Testament even if you only take from books by apostles theoretically written close to their own time. Enjoy Matthew 15:21-28 where Jesus refuses to help a woman’s sick daughter because the woman was not Israeli/appropriately Jewish and refers to her and non-Israeli/jews as dogs. He eventually helps her once she says “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Cool dude I’m sure, provided you were from the right place and followed his exact religion. Gee, I wonder if that reminds you of anyone?
To be fair, there is a decent amount of Christians who have weirdly attached themselves to the old testament.
A lot of them seem to fixate on Paul’s writings, too. As well as the “old”.
Yeah I definitely do find that to be a bit strange lol