Re: Anyone know of documentaries about the history of the bible
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:54 pm
I grew up In a dysfunctional Baptist family who couldn't answer my questions.Jack McOck wrote:I'm more interested in why you want this...
I grew up In a dysfunctional Baptist family who couldn't answer my questions.Jack McOck wrote:I'm more interested in why you want this...
If my knowledge of the bible is not up to scratch, I must apologise, but I do not recall Jesus ever promoting central banking, bloody revolution or child labor.Funk N. Furter wrote:Even in the surviving Bible Jesus and co are clearly sort of primitive communists, and he lived in a time and place where many Jewish sects had a revolutionary position, so it's very likely.Forge. wrote:I They were saying Paul was originally a Roman spy deliberately trying to spread disinformation, and Jesus & co. were actually much more militant, but Paul made them look much more passive so people didn't get the idea to be militant.


And you need a movie to tell you that most of the bible is symbolic?nathannn wrote:I grew up In a dysfunctional Baptist family who couldn't answer my questions.Jack McOck wrote:I'm more interested in why you want this...
I dont need anything to explain symbolism what I want to know is where the bible came from. Who/how many people wrote the old testament who wrote the new testament, where are the original scrolls... Was the Bible just something made up by the Church of England to create order? If so is there evidence for this? There is only so much you can get from Wikipedia.Jack McOck wrote:And you need a movie to tell you that most of the bible is symbolic?nathannn wrote:I grew up In a dysfunctional Baptist family who couldn't answer my questions.Jack McOck wrote:I'm more interested in why you want this...
2 out of 3. See Matthew 10:34.Jack McOck wrote:I must apologise, but I do not recall Jesus ever promoting central banking, bloody revolution or child labor.
It is not "symbolic". It is simply WRONGJack McOck wrote:And you need a movie to tell you that most of the bible is symbolic?nathannn wrote:I grew up In a dysfunctional Baptist family who couldn't answer my questions.Jack McOck wrote:I'm more interested in why you want this...
Point ten of Marx's communist manifesto clearly calls for the "combination of education with industrial production" for kids. Marx also explains that since parents exploit their children, children should be entrusted to the state. As for bloody revolution, you yourself have admitted that your precious revolution would require force, because (and I paraphrase) people, not wanting their property to be confiscated, would most likely fight back, causing bloodshed.Funk N. Furter wrote:Now then, Marx did mention centralised banking, but he did not mention bloody revolution or child labour. He did expect some bloodshed, originating from the capitalist class of course.
Indeed, you can't take what others have not yet produced. The true communist waits for hard-working entrepreneurs to do all the work for him, and then, when he believes that enough has been produced to satisfy his "basic needs", such as food, water and mouseless input methods, he takes it.Funk N. Furter wrote:I said primitive communist. Communism would not have been possible in Jesus' day. Even in Marx's day it would need the most advanced countries. Lack of that was why the Russian revolution deteriorated.
Living in harmony and sharing is not the communist way. The communist way, as I have previously stated and as you have confirmed, is to violently take what is not rightfully yours, remove children from their parents, and destroy civilisation. This is what Marxy Marx preached, it is what every modern government is currently practicing, and as you may have noticed, civilisation is currently collapsing.Funk N. Furter wrote:Maybe Jesus was clever enough to know that communism per se was impossible back then. Even so, his disciples created a communist-type lifestyle after he was executed. They had no personal property and shared everything didn't they? This was the closest they could get to communism at the time really.
lowshelf wrote: 2 out of 3. See Matthew 10:34.
To answer both of you, Matthew 10:34 ("I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword") doesn't make any mention of central banking, but rather uses the term "sword" to symbolically mean ideological conflict or division.myrnova wrote: It is not "symbolic". It is simply WRONGThe Church added "symbolic" after 1792, actually.
don't talk crap. It is referred to old egyptian rituals, regarding stars. They copied all the ancient egyptian magic rituals. The sword had nothing to do with "division" or such. It was simply a magic ritual, as every "religion" it is simply connected to solar system cycles (planets). The rest is propaganda.Jack McOck wrote:lowshelf wrote: 2 out of 3. See Matthew 10:34.To answer both of you, Matthew 10:34 ("I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword") doesn't make any mention of central banking, but rather uses the term "sword" to symbolically mean ideological conflict or division.myrnova wrote: It is not "symbolic". It is simply WRONGThe Church added "symbolic" after 1792, actually.
For my closing comments, I refer you both to my signature.

Guess why the apostles are 12... and the Christ 1... How comes it reminds 12 planets and 1 sun?...Jack McOck wrote: