I do not like Paul's description of Heaven. I do not want to be separated from my wife.
>>18051208>having a wifeDon't worry, you won't be going there anyway.>Jesus said to them, "Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage." (Luke 20:34-35)
>>18051224>and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrectionhmm is he talking about before or after resurrection here?
>>18051252If you take Luke's Jesus by himself and don't try to harmonize him with the other gospels, it looks like he thinks divorcing your wife if you have one and then remaining celibate is the way to go.https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2016/12/18/lukes-surprising-and-oft-ignored-views-on-marriage-and-resurrection/
>>18051266or I could just look at the verse which is right next to another verse saying the unmarried will never die.
>>18051333For a while early Christians seem to have had the idea that they had already died and been resurrected and were already inmortal in some sense.Offhand I can think of these verses showing the idea:Colossians 3:1-4>So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that are on earth, for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory.John 6:47-51>Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it *and not die*. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.Possibly this wasn't really a new development but just totally consistent with their thinking of ordinary death as sleep rather than "real" death, which goes back to the beginning.
>>18051379Consistent with Luke's Jesus having a partially realized eschatology like this is that he says, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among [or within] you." (Luke 17:20-21)
>>18051397The Gospel of Thomas also goes that way for what it's worth, as far as it can be counted as quite early despite being apocryphal, since it begins with "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
>>18051208If one of you is dead, and the other is alive, then obviously you are separated
>>18051266>don't try to harmonize him with the other gospelsSo in other words if you read the bible wrong
>>18051424It's a billion times more interesting to read the Bible while allowing for the possibility that different authors disagree with each other than to try to reconcile every apparent discrepancy.
>>18051208Don't worry bro you will be the wife! With an intact hymen too. Enjoy the Paulian plowing
>>18051429If by "more interesting" you mean more unbelieving. It is impossible for the different biblical authors to disagree with each other because the books of scripture also have one common author who can make no mistakes. Unbelievers fundamentally misperceive themselves when they suppose they have a per se opposition to harmonization itself. It is normal common sense to interpret apparently contradictory statements by one author in multiple writings as non-contradictory because people don't tend to contradict themselves all the time for no reason. The human mind abhors inconsistency. For instance, if there was a statement Bart Ehrman made in Misquoting Jesus which in its immediate context seemed to contradict a statement in the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, it would be reasonable to interpret them in such a way as to not contradict, that would just be giving the benefit of the doubt to Bart Ehrman. So, the unbeliever's difference from the believer is not so much a per se rejection of harmonization as a practice but a presuppositional conflict concerning the ontology of the text.
>>18051447Having the history discussion board and the religion discussion board be the same was certainly an interesting choice.
>>18051447>It is impossible for the different biblical authors to disagree with each other because the books of scripture also have one common author who can make no mistakes.No person in the trinity authored any book in your bible. If your deity authored them then why do they tell the same events in different ways? So much so the numbers are wrong.
>>18051561Syrians fought 10 men to a chariot, so there's no contradiction there. The 40,000 were the ancient equivalent of dragoons, qualifying as both horsemen and footmen once they dismounted.
>>18051433>Paulian plowingKek
>>18051433Scary
>>18051447>one common author who can make no mistakes.One of the very first things that author did was make a mistake, though.>The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.So why did he make him be alone originally if it was not good?
>>18051208Your Christian marriage contract literally says "Till death do us part".
>>18053108Christians don't die, they are just relocated to heaven
>>18053028demiurge moment
>>18051224No wonder Marcion loved Luke so much...>>18051266>In the Acts of Thomas, the apostle Thomas travels to India where he similarly convinces wives to leave their husbands>On one occasion, Jesus himself appears to a couple in their bedroom on their wedding night, to explain that sex is foul and that they should never consummate their marriage.Kek
>>18051208Once you are in heaven you will be in a state of perfect bliss regardless.
>>18051208Begom Mormon and be sealed to her for eternity, then.
>>18051208Acts 22:7 "And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’"Paul was a Pharisee and a liar to his core. He never once met Christ, and actively persecuted him while alive. A liar, a thief, a Jew. (acktchually "Josephus Flavius" IRL)
>>18051208Over half of "Paul's Letters(tm)" are known forgeries and can be ignored outright, and over half of the NT is just Paul's Letters. Not a good look for the book. I gotta say.
>>18051429No it isn't. "The authors disagreed with each other."........mmmmkay, so what? They can't all be right, and if you don't want the "Facts and just the facts", your just in it for the entertainment value. Besides, if all of this is very real and true, then the facts of the matter really shouldn't be that hard to come by. The factual Truth is "interesting", some idiot's idiotic "interpretation" of events are not. "Truth is stranger than fiction".
>>18051584"The stupid parts are what make it so clever!"Imagine having this much brain rot COPE in your head all day. It must be exhausting and embarrassing.
>>18053922These self-hating faiths always have to temper that as otherwise you just exterminate yourselves. Christian's idiosyncrasy is milder than Judaism's or Islam but it is a shame it is is so integral to the human experience as sex. An islamic/Jewish kind of "Making love with your wife/husband is a gift of god, anything else is vile and a perversion" would have made it pretty spotless.>>18051584Absolutely not. The largest chariot crews got was 4. 40 thousand horsemen in any period is wild and at the very dawn of cavalry even existing is impossible. And 4 men in 7000 chariots is 1750 chariots. The top one is a bit, BIT more plausible.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_QarqarQarqar (later than David) and Israel is supposed to have 2000 chariots. Which still feels unrealistic for Israel to be able to field that many but Assyria doesn't normally do herodotus style ridiculous numbers so it's semi-plausible. However, four man chariotry only appeared well after David and even three man chariotry wasn't really a thing in Syria until well after David. So the 7000 charioteers would have to be either 7k/3 = 2333 chariots or 3500 chariots. So for a coalition of Syrian states 2-3 thousand chariots is plausible. But the narrative of the United Kingdom of Israel being this great big superpower isn't, we'd have more proof of it in the actual archaeologies. More likely is at some point the historical David was first among equals in the city-states. To use the greek city metaphor David's dominion was like Spartan hegemony rather than Roman rule.
>>18054711>Absolutely not. The largest chariot crews got was 4. 40 thousand horsemen in any period is wild and at the very dawn of cavalry even existing is impossible. And 4 men in 7000 chariots is 1750 chariots. The top one is a bit, BIT more plausibleCorrect, and most "chariot" crews were only 2 people. The number 4, 40, etc.....all have very deep esoteric meaning to the Jews, so they use them symbolically, rather than literally. "4"-ness representing "great change"(for good or ill). This is why the number 40 occurs over 140 times in the Bible and is associated with major events of change, such as the Flood, Christ in the Wilderness, etc....it's all "40 days and 40 nights". The Bible is 100% bullshit as History, but once you decode the schizo "code" shit it becomes more obvious what the intent of the stories really are. It's all about muh gematria n' sheeit and the Greeks did a lot of the same stuff too because numbers and letters were essentially the same thing, and they still are in upper Mathematics. The "alpha-numerical" values also add up to "mean stuff" and contribute to the rhythm, rhyme, meter, etc....Suffice it to say, whenever you see an explicit number like this, it has a purpose to the initiated reader, such as myself.
