Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
112. The New Testament contains far more than the Gospels.
Sun Sep 3, 2017, 12:20 PM
Sep 2017

And much of the New Testament, in my opinion, is allegorical.

Zahnd was talking about Jesus as the living example of the message. And Zahnd said:


Perfect theology is not a book; perfect theology is the life that Jesus lived.


So I feel you are conflating the message of Jesus contained in the Gospels with the entirety of the New Testament.
Ignore the awful crap! Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #1
You have an interesting viewpoint. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #2
Take a look at where Christianity was at before Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #4
Where was Christianity in 30CE? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #8
If you are claiming no one else teached peace edhopper Aug 2017 #14
Not what I claimed. Not what I said either. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #15
Then I have no idea what you were saying edhopper Aug 2017 #16
I said that I found the opinion interesting. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #49
I mean about where Christianity was 30 CE? edhopper Aug 2017 #62
I explained to another poster in #53 guillaumeb Aug 2017 #64
Nowhere. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2017 #20
It existed in the message of Jesus. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #53
Composition fallacy. Act_of_Reparation Aug 2017 #54
The message of Jesus is the message of Christianity. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #55
Well the point is that for the next 1600 years Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #65
Violence has occurred in all of recorded history. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #67
I blame humans. Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #78
The evidence for the message of Jesus? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #80
Well there is ample disagreement on even what those alleged words might be. Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #83
Well, as you know, the post represents one person's opinion. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #87
So we are down to "that's just your opinion,man"? Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #90
Again, a composition fallacy. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2017 #92
Nowhere and all over the planet. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #37
Talking about an actual year with Christianity is not very useful muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #100
I am accepting the narrative of 30CE as the beginning of the public ministry. eom guillaumeb Sep 2017 #102
That isn't so, for centuries Christianity was largely persecuted and hidden away, and very braddy Sep 2017 #127
Not historically accurate. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #134
You seem to be mostly in agreement with what I posted, people ignore the first centuries of braddy Sep 2017 #137
Er no I think we disagree. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #138
I'm not aware of any Christian wars or Christian nations from the early centuries that you keep braddy Sep 2017 #142
You're looking for the wrong things in the wrong places. Act_of_Reparation Sep 2017 #143
There weren't Christian nations until Rome. Voltaire2 Sep 2017 #144
You seem to have your very own history. braddy Sep 2017 #145
That's what it pretty much boils down to Bradical79 Sep 2017 #108
Command it? Committed it. MineralMan Aug 2017 #3
I find your quote interesting Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #5
It's a very well-known verse. MineralMan Aug 2017 #22
The god of the bible created satan, and allows it to continue to exist. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #36
Well, it's all mythology, as far as I'm concerned, MineralMan Aug 2017 #39
Agreed AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #40
Choice zipplewrath Aug 2017 #41
That we have the ability to chose is not in question. MineralMan Aug 2017 #42
Well, now you're talking in circles zipplewrath Aug 2017 #45
It is one verse I missed ........... plan to use it often Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #47
There are apologetics for that verse, of course. MineralMan Aug 2017 #48
+1 HubbleSN Aug 2017 #6
If one is a Biblical literalist, one will insist on a literal interpretation. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #7
I'm not such a literalist, but MineralMan Aug 2017 #23
I do not read it literally. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #51
OK. Whatever you say. MineralMan Aug 2017 #52
There's a middle ground between 'this is true word for word' and 'hey the first half of this entire AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #57
A Biblical literalist generally accepts that each word of the Bible is the inspired guillaumeb Aug 2017 #59
I get allegory. What I don't get is classifying everything one doesn't like AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #68
You provided a quotation: guillaumeb Aug 2017 #71
It is an interesting choice of idea, if that's the case. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #75
To figuratively separate the Christian from the non-Christian. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #79
So he came to divide, not unify. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #82
No, He came with a message that not all would accept. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #86
Not required. AtheistCrusader Sep 2017 #93
I don't accept that humans are deeply flawed creatures who must beg for forgiveness from a god, trotsky Sep 2017 #94
Yep. Marketing 101 Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #95
So true! trotsky Sep 2017 #96
Nor do I. eom guillaumeb Sep 2017 #97
Without the notion of sin and forgiveness, Christianity has no foundation. trotsky Sep 2017 #135
Your question PJMcK Sep 2017 #105
Like most deities, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one is MineralMan Sep 2017 #107
Millions of Christians are. trotsky Aug 2017 #25
It would be difficult to be a literalist. raven mad Aug 2017 #28
Actually, it's pretty easy. trotsky Aug 2017 #30
LOL!................ I used to argue this stuff with a Jesuit........... raven mad Aug 2017 #31
No you don't Lordquinton Aug 2017 #32
Now, just how many giggles do I have to post? raven mad Aug 2017 #34
Wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle Lordquinton Aug 2017 #43
Feeble deflection. There are whole books in the bible that are nothing but bloodshed on behalf of or AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #38
True, but remember it was NOT worldwide - raven mad Aug 2017 #46
Actually that isn't quite what it means. Voltaire2 Aug 2017 #69
So nothing in the Bible is literally true edhopper Aug 2017 #9
See #7 for my view. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #10
The author is a edhopper Aug 2017 #11
I disagree with your reading. eom guillaumeb Aug 2017 #12
I have no doubt of that edhopper Aug 2017 #13
You are shying away from the main point of the article you posted muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #109
I would say that you missed the point entirely. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #110
You said in #12 that you disagree that Zahnd is a New Testament literalist muriel_volestrangler Sep 2017 #111
The New Testament contains far more than the Gospels. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #112
I think he's pointing out the arbitrary nature Bradical79 Sep 2017 #121
Belief is the reason. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #124
Well done, you justified every version of Christianity equally. trotsky Sep 2017 #136
In fairness to guillaumeb marylandblue Sep 2017 #139
I of course am not disputing that in any way. trotsky Sep 2017 #140
Yes Martin Luther opened a big can of worms marylandblue Sep 2017 #141
you make nothing clear in your posts Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #17
What clarity do you expect in this group? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #50
Plenty of clarity is to be found in reason, fact-based historical research and an open mind Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #56
"Original intent" is a subject that inspires guillaumeb Aug 2017 #58
Some would be wrong Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #60
And, as I have stated before this, faith demands no proof. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #61
You are certainly entitled to that belief Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #63
I mentioned in the original post that I found this to be an interesting opinion. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #66
Except that it's not up to non-believers to prove anything Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #72
It is not incumbent on anyone to prove any beliefs. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #73
Never said it was - as long as they admit it is just belief and not fact based Bradshaw3 Aug 2017 #85
I do spend time here, and interestingly enough, many non-theists devote far more time here. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #89
As you have stated incorrectly in prior conversations Lordquinton Sep 2017 #113
And, as I have pointed out repeatedly, guillaumeb Sep 2017 #114
But I have no belief edhopper Sep 2017 #115
Just out of curiosity, I have to ask: Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #116
In hopes of satisfying your curiosity, guillaumeb Sep 2017 #117
You keep using that word. Wikipedia does not think it means what you think it means. Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #118
But the definition that you cite as evidence guillaumeb Sep 2017 #119
Technically, that's the definition you cited when you went to Wikipedia. I just used the right word Pope George Ringo II Sep 2017 #120
No one believes as anyone else Angry Dragon Aug 2017 #70
And what's true about Jesus Igel Aug 2017 #19
Except he kinda did. beam me up scottie Aug 2017 #18
Inconvenient, that, isn't it? MineralMan Aug 2017 #24
I suggest a rereading of the entire article. guillaumeb Aug 2017 #76
(Sarcasm On) Sure he didn't...(Sarcasm Off) NeoGreen Aug 2017 #21
No, see, it's simple. trotsky Aug 2017 #26
Nuts... NeoGreen Aug 2017 #29
I'm kind of weird. raven mad Aug 2017 #44
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm - raven mad Aug 2017 #27
Only 2/3 crazy? ;-) trotsky Aug 2017 #33
Well, you have to make allowances. raven mad Aug 2017 #35
Book of Revelations anybody?... uriel1972 Aug 2017 #74
And? guillaumeb Aug 2017 #77
rivers of fire, extermination of mankind... uriel1972 Sep 2017 #98
The use of allegory is an important part of the article. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #99
So what's your position on Jesus himself? marylandblue Sep 2017 #101
It is allegory, and truth at the same time. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #103
fair enough. marylandblue Sep 2017 #104
No he COMMITTED genocide tymorial Aug 2017 #81
If it is believed is the key. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #106
What is it an allegory for? Lordquinton Sep 2017 #122
The meaning is "God's Gonna Getcha for That" MineralMan Sep 2017 #123
This might help: guillaumeb Sep 2017 #126
My interpretation? guillaumeb Sep 2017 #125
That took a lot of words to say not much of anything Lordquinton Sep 2017 #128
If you read the entire article, guillaumeb Sep 2017 #129
I did read the entire article Lordquinton Sep 2017 #130
It is one interpretation. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #131
What would this group be like Lordquinton Sep 2017 #132
A different group. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #133
Symbolic cleansing Lordquinton Sep 2017 #146
It does make allegorical sense. guillaumeb Sep 2017 #147
It's a good allegory Lordquinton Sep 2017 #148
Looks like you found a better forum for this post bobbieinok Aug 2017 #84
Hello. The Religion Group is a very busy place. Many of the responders are non-theists, guillaumeb Aug 2017 #88
Thanks for the reply bobbieinok Sep 2017 #91
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Brian Zahnd: No, God didn...»Reply #112