Jesus forbade the calling of people "fool(s)" on pain of going to hell,  yet he himself called people fools not once but twice.  Take a look at the bible passages below:

Matthew 5:

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,  and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

---

Luke 11:

39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

Luke 24:

23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


This Jesus fellow was quite an ignoramus and hypocritical imposter, who ironically characterised others as hypocrite without first examining himself.  Why did he not take his own advice and remove the plank from his eyes before point fingers at others.

---

Some importance references:

Sins of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9O6SgGZ9G0&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xao6K02Tjo&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMGjV4OlMY&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabI9zOXsLg&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYoog2kkYHw&feature=channel_page

Huxley. You're starting to sound like the very people you despise - fanatical.

The passages are totally different from each other.
Bear in mind for a start that they are English translations and that fool has a different meaning in them and a differing value of relevance.

In Matthew, it's basically saying that having any hatred in your heart for someone is "evil".
In Luke, it's used as an admonishment to describe ignorance. It's not used in hatred. The word used could just as well have been "ignoramuses".

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. It's just the way you read it.
A strange way to read it when you are totally aware that Jesus didn't speak English and that you also know semantics of English words in the Bible are a waste of time arguing over and also why I accuse you of being a little fanatical.

Bastage:

Huxley. You're starting to sound like the very people you despise - fanatical.

The passages are totally different from each other.
Bear in mind for a start that they are English translations and that fool has a different meaning in them and a differing value of relevance.

In Matthew, it's basically saying that having any hatred in your heart for someone is "evil".
In Luke, it's used as an admonishment to describe ignorance. It's not used in hatred. The word used could just as well have been "ignoramuses".

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. It's just the way you read it.
A strange way to read it when you are totally aware that Jesus didn't speak English and that you also know semantics of English words in the Bible are a waste of time arguing over and also why I accuse you of being a little fanatical.

OK, you make assertion without providing any material to substantiate your position. This kinda smacks of the approach so beloved of the religionist faith-heads. Can you provide evidence that this word "fool" means different things in the various passages?

Come on now. You can read. It's plain that the passages are in different contexts. Even plainer still is the fact that Jesus wouldn't have even used the word "fool". Do you really need me to go digging for the original Latin and Aramic/Copt versions that it was translated from?

Let me give you an example of how the two passages differ by giving you two imaginary conversations that someone emailed you.

Charles: What do you think of Huxley?
Bastage: Huxley is nothing but a fool.

Huxley: Jesus was a hypocrite.
Bastage: With that assertion you are being a fool.

See the difference in relevance and context? In the first, I'm stating that I have a very low opinion of you. In the second I'm merely stating that I have a low opinion of your assertion. They're two totally different things and, like I said, that's not even taking into account that I probably used a different word than fool in at least one of those conversations.

This kinda smacks of the approach so beloved of the religionist faith-heads.

Heh!! And you know me better than that.
But use your own words as an example there. You're not actually calling me a "faith-head" there. You're saying that I "sound" like one. Different context and therefore different impact of the word "faith-head", see?

It's like me accusing you of being out and out fanatical instead of merely stating that you're starting to sound fanatical as I did above. The word "fanatical" has a different impact. Used in the context I've used it in my first sentence it does not give you the impression I don't like you, right? But if I'd have started out just saying "Huxley, you're a fanatic", wouldn't your impression be that I don't have much time for you?

Finally, let's not forget that the same words can have different meanings - fool itself is an example:

1. a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
4.     an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm

Would you say that 1 and 4 are descriptive of the same thing?

Don't let your dislike of religion cloud your view of the Bible, Huxley. It's just a book. Sometimes we can see things that aren't there (just as religionists do). The Bible can't take your freedom away - only other men can do that. Remember that.

In Matthew the greek word used is μωρέ (more). Moros means foolish but would be used more like a diss.

In luke 11:40 the word used is aphrones which means to not be wise but is not used in the sense of a diss. It just suggests that someone isn't being sharp or being intelligent.

In Luke 24:25 the word translated as fool is different again. This time it is anoetoi which again just suggests that someone is slow to get the gist.

I hope this resolves things for you Huxley.

For you, Huxley.  

The Luke translations in Latin:

stulti nonne qui fecit quod de foris est etiam id quod de intus est fecit

The two words we're looking at are "stulti nonne". "Stulti" is foolish and "nonne" means "not" or "don't". They translate as "Dont be foolish".

et ipse dixit ad eos o stulti et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae

Again, "stulti" which refers to foolishness and not the actual accusation of being a fool.
The copy of the KJV I'm looking at translates it as:

Then he said to them: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things, Which the prophets have spoken.

The Matthew translation has a totally different word:

ego autem dico vobis quia omnis qui irascitur fratri suo reus erit iudicio qui autem dixerit fratri suo racha reus erit concilio qui autem dixerit fatue reus erit gehennae ignis

What we're looking at here is "fatue". It's root is the word "fatuus" and it's the extreme way of saying fool in Latin.


Edit: Note I was writing this without even seeing Pastor AIO's Greek (glad he did it and not me!!!).
It shows we are both in agreement and that my original assertion was correct.

brother there are many contradictions in the bible, and if you search hard enough , you will find them all. but beware that there will always be someone to come up with a reason or excuse. People will always find excuses from wrong translations to misquotations, the fact is: THE BIBLE HAS MANY CONTRADICTING PASSAGES.
Use your own head, dont listen to what people want you to believe. believe what YOU want to believe because thats all that matters.

Jesus Did Contradict Himself

- Luke says that Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples. (Luke 24:33, 35, 37)
- Matthew says it was at Galilee on a mountain. (Matthew 28:16)

- Christ’s first sermon was in the plain. (Luke 6:17, 20)
- Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5: 1, 2).

And you wonder why Christianity is divided into so many sects, and no one know their destiny ??

MRbrownJAY:

brother there are many contradictions in the bible, and if you search hard enough , you will find them all. but beware that there will always be someone to come up with a reason or excuse.

Although I agree with you that there are many contradictions in the Bible, there are also times when passages just need a little bit of clarification - this being one of them.

The 3 passages Huxley posted are not contradictory in any way as both myself and PastorAIO have shown. The Greek and Aramaic show that Jesus was not a hypocrite in this instance.

As I've already stated, one has to be careful. The fact that you might not believe in Christianity does not mean that the pages of the Bible are riddled with lies and deceit. Sure, believe what you want to believe but you should always base that belief on a logical thought process - otherwise you're no different from the average extremist.

Pastor AIO:


In luke 11:40 the word used is aphrones which means to not be wise but is not used in the sense of a diss.  It just suggests that someone isn't being sharp or being intelligent.

As almost everybody knows the prefix a- in greek means the negative or opposite of the word following.  The word phresin means to think in greek as in 1cor 14:20 Brothers, don't be children in thoughts, yet in malice be babies, but in thoughts be mature.

So to call someone A-phrones would simply that the person was without thought.  In other words Jesus was telling them to think, rather than be thoughtless.

Pastor AIO:


In Luke 24:25 the word translated as fool is different again.  This time it is anoetoi which again just suggests that someone is slow to get the gist.  

Again we have A- and then Noetoi.  Noetoi is derived from Nous which in greek is often translated as Mind.  Noetoi is to exercise the Mind.  There is even a guy on Nairaland called Noetic which suggests that he is a guy who likes to exercise his mind.  Put A- in front of this and you have anoetoi which is someone that is Not exercising his mind.  

This is all different from Fool as a put down or a suggestion that someone is unworthy.

Bastage:

Although I agree with you that there are many contradictions in the Bible, there are also times when passages just need a little bit of clarification - this being one of them.

The 3 passages Huxley posted are not contradictory in any way as both myself and PastorAIO have shown. The Greek and Aramaic show that Jesus was not a hypocrite in this instance.

As I've already stated, one has to be careful. The fact that you might not believe in Christianity does not mean that the pages of the Bible are riddled with lies and deceit. Sure, believe what you want to believe but you should always base that belief on a logical thought process - otherwise you're no different from the average extremist.

I totally agree with you which is why I've told Huxley in the past that he starts with a bias and then looks around for evidence to support this bias.  This is not a logical process.  If this was regarding one of his Humanist philosophy books I'm sure that Huxley would have done more background research into the works used.  Heck, if this was any other matter I'm sure Huxley would look into it deeper rather than clutch at straws just to diss Jesus.  This is what makes it hard to trust any information that Huxley may present about christianity.  It seems when it comes to Christianity Huxley becomes totally Anoetic.

bros,

trying to defend any of these ac-certions is equally fanatical.

the best way you can worship God Ur creator is in spirit and in truth.
which Jesus as one of the people that devoted and worship GOD asserted.
he brought a revolution against Judaism as practised by the pharisee and scribes who claimed they knew the law. of moses and where fanatical about it. hence those criticism like washing outside of a cup and leaving inside or washing hands before anything. he even scatted tables in the temple.
nobody has monopoly of the direct way to God cause you have a soul which is the in plant of God in you that connects you to him and he reveals himself to you just as the manner and way you have sought him and that's why God means many things to many people.

the best way to God is through sacrifice and the consciousness of a sancrosant being. that's spirit and truth.

Bastage:

For you, Huxley.  

The Luke translations in Latin:

The two words we're looking at are "stulti nonne". "Stulti" is foolish and "nonne" means "not" or "don't". They translate as "Dont be foolish".

Again, "stulti" which refers to foolishness and not the actual accusation of being a fool.
The copy of the KJV I'm looking at translates it as:

The Matthew translation has a totally different word:

What we're looking at here is "fatue". It's root is the word "fatuus" and it's the extreme way of saying fool in Latin.


Edit: Note I was writing this without even seeing Pastor AIO's Greek (glad he did it and not me!!!).
It shows we are both in agreement and that my original assertion was correct.

I treat the bible as just any other ordinary book out there, with no special reverence.  And just like any other book,  I expect internal consistency in its core ideas. And where I don't find this, I have every right to come down hard on it just as I would if I were reading a book of literature, philosophy or politics.

Bastage:

Huxley. You're starting to sound like the very people you despise - fanatical.

The passages are totally different from each other.
Bear in mind for a start that they are English translations and that fool has a different meaning in them and a differing value of relevance.

In Matthew, it's basically saying that having any hatred in your heart for someone is "evil".

How the hell did you get this meaning out of the Matt passage.  If anything, this was an injunction against insulting others with hurtful and demeaning epithets.    How did you go from there to "hatred in your heart for someone is "evil"" ?  This is an adhoc conclusion without a shred of evidence connecting them together.


I sudmit that the main spirit of Matt 5: 22 is to warn people against using hurtful, insulting and disrespectful words against others.  In this regards "fool"  is a placeholder for other insulting words like dickhead, bastard,  nigger,  dumphead, stupid, ignoramus etc, etc.    Use of these words against your brother is apt to injure his spirit/pride/humanity, etc.

Bastage:


In Luke, it's used as an admonishment to describe ignorance. It's not used in hatred. The word used could just as well have been "ignoramuses".

There is no contradiction or hypocrisy. It's just the way you read it.
A strange way to read it when you are totally aware that Jesus didn't speak English and that you also know semantics of English words in the Bible are a waste of time arguing over and also why I accuse you of being a little fanatical.

Then, as if Jesus had forgetten about his statement in Matt 5:22, he goes ahead in Luke and uses words that have similar effect, as you say, ignoramus.   Had he forgetten that he just forbade people from using such in Matt 5: 22?  What a jerk!

Idahsteve:

bros,

trying to defend any of these ac-certions is equally fanatical.

the best way you can worship God Ur creator is in spirit and in truth.
which Jesus as one of the people that devoted and worship GOD asserted.
he brought a revolution against Judaism as practised by the pharisee and scribes who claimed they knew the law. of moses and where fanatical about it. hence those criticism like washing outside of a cup and leaving inside or washing hands before anything. he even scatted tables in the temple.
nobody has monopoly of the direct way to God cause you have a soul which is the in plant of God in you that connects you to him and he reveals himself to you just as the manner and way you have sought him and that's why God means many things to many people.

the best way to God is through sacrifice and the consciousness of a sancrosant being. that's spirit and truth.

[size=18pt]Jesus Did Contradict Himself[/size]

- Luke says that Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples. (Luke 24:33, 35, 37)
- Matthew says it was at Galilee on a mountain. (Matthew 28:16)

- Christ’s first sermon was in the plain. (Luke 6:17, 20)
- Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5: 1, 2).

And you wonder why Christianity is divided into so many sects, and no one know their destiny ??

Pastor AIO:

In Matthew the greek word used is μωρέ (more).  Moros means foolish but would be used more like a diss.

In luke 11:40 the word used is aphrones which means to not be wise but is not used in the sense of a diss.  It just suggests that someone isn't being sharp or being intelligent.

In Luke 24:25 the word translated as fool is different again.  This time it is anoetoi which again just suggests that someone is slow to get the gist.  

I hope this resolves things for you Huxley.

Matt 5: 22 in Greek :

egw de legw umin oti paV o orgizomenoV tw adelfw autou eikh enocoV estai th krisei oV d an eiph tw adelfw autou raka enocoV estai tw sunedriw oV d an eiph mwre enocoV estai eiV thn geennan tou puroV

and English

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.



And as you pointed out, the relevant word is  mwre, mean which has the following;

probably from the base of musthrion - musterion 3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e. heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd:--fool(-ish, X -ishness).


Source:   Strongs Greek Dictionary : http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK34.htm#S3474

This confirms the view that Matt 5: 22 was meant to warn against using injurious words against your "brother".


Luke 11:  40 in Greek:



afroneV ouc o poihsaV to exwqen kai to eswqen epoihsen

and English


[Ye] fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

The relevant word here is "afroneV", which according to the Strongs Greek dictionary has the following meaning;

from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and frhn - phren 5424; properly, mindless, i.e. stupid, (by implication) ignorant, (specially) egotistic, (practically) rash, or (morally) unbelieving:--fool(-ish), unwise.

Source:  Strong Greek Dictionary:  http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK8.htm#S878

So accroding to the Strongs Greek dictionary, "afrone" has amonsgt other meaning the following 1)  fool(ish),  stupid, mindless, ignorant, etc, etc.    Are any of these words calculated to inspire love and respect if use against someone?



In Luke 24: 26, the relevant word is anoetos, which has the translation:

from a - a 1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of noiew - noieo 3539; unintelligent; by implication, sensual:--fool(-ish), unwise.


Further, why have bible translators through the ages, translated "afrone"  as "fool"  when they could have used an alternative word?  Would an alternative word capture the essense of what Jesus meant?

huxley:


How the hell did you get this meaning out of the Matt passage.  If anything, this was an injunction against insulting others with hurtful and demeaning epithets.    How did you go from there to "hatred in your heart for someone is "evil"" ?  This is an adhoc conclusion without a shred of evidence connecting them together.

Don't be so obtuse, Huxley. I don't believe for one moment that you are taking the passage in isolation and haven't looked at the whole chapter.

21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Verse 23 begins with the word "therefore". It is a continuation of 22. 22 does not stand alone as you are implying. " rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee" and "first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come offer thy gift" would be pretty illogical if it was only referring to name-calling wouldn't it?

"Hey nigger".
"Get bleeped".
"Sorry. Here's a present."

That's basically what you are stating it says.

My reading of it is that it goes like this:

"I hate you".
"Get bleeped".
"I'm sorry. I didn't mean it. I love you".

If you're assuming it's literal when it plainly isn't we'd have to say that the Jews used the British currency of the Farthing too, wouldn't we?

Then, as if Jesus had forgetten about his statement in Matt 5:22, he goes ahead in Luke and uses words that have similar effect, as you say, ignoramus.   Had he forgetten that he just forbade people from using such in Matt 5: 22?  What a jerk!

That's simply not true Huxley and both myself and PastorAIO have pointed out the difference between the Greek and Latin words, as well as the KJV which refers to foolishness and does not call anyone a fool.
I've also given you an example of context so there's no excuse for your beligerence on this one.

I could also point out to you that the word "moros" that PastorAIO translated as fool also can be translated as "godless". If this is the case (and there's no reason why it isn't) that would also blow your claim out of the water.

Also, you ask - "why have bible translators through the ages, translated "afrone" as "fool" when they could have used an alternative word?". A lot of the contradictions we see in there are due to translations and some of those are completely out there and change whole meanings. Remember we're taling about a massive book being translated from one language to another to yet another in a time when the vast majority of people couldn't even read or write. They also wouldn't have had any awareness of cultures, societies, contexts, history so is it any wonder things get screwed up? Personally, I'm amazed that there's anything that agrees between any of the books in the NT!! Does that make the original scripture wrong though? Does everyone have to pay for these contradictions even if they're aware of them and can see past them?

As you know Huxley, I rarely try to defend the indefensible - it simply isn't worth the bother. But in this case, you are wrong. Logic and the translations prove you to be so.

huxley:



Further, why have bible translators through the ages, translated "afrone"  as "fool"  when they could have used an alternative word?  Would an alternative word capture the essense of what Jesus meant?

So much is lost in translation, Huxley, it is also important to bear in mind the intentions of the translator as well as the intentions of the original writer.  I cannot really answer your question as to why they had to use the word fool.  Perhaps they were trying to be insultive to the critics of Jesus.  

It is also important to note not only what the denotation of words are but also the connotations.  Connotations are so mercurial, they change so fast.  If I saw a car I liked in 1966 and I said 'that's groovy baby!' I am merely expressing my approval but there are other connotations, eg that I am a young hip guy.  If I said the same thing in 2009 it is still an expression of approval but also connotes that I'm an old fogey out of touch with the times.  Or I could be saying it like that as a reference to the style of the car which could be 60's car.  Context is very important to understanding and translating words.

What connotations did the word anoetic carry in Jesus' time?  Or in the time of the person writing Luke's gospel.  What connotation did the word moros carry?  It helps if you could reference other contemporary texts and consider the sense in which these words were used.  
I laugh to myself, Huxley, cos something tells me that you don't care enough to do all that research.  But you've got to admit that it would be an interesting line of inquiry if someone could do it.

Bastage ? Pastor AIO,

You guys are far too triumphalist which detracts from the argumentation. Pls, let's stick to the facts about the text and stop shouting I "win you lose". The facts should speak for themselves. And like I posted earlier, the facts suggest in all three instance, insult was meant. The facts also suggest that bible translator over the centuries have found it fit to render the english version in a way that means insult.

Can you show me any contemporary translation that detracts from this view?

huxley:

Bastage ? Pastor AIO,

You guys are far too triumphalist which detracts from the argumentation. Pls, let's stick to the facts about the text and stop shouting I "win you lose". The facts should speak for themselves. And like I posted earlier, the facts suggest in all three instance, insult was meant. The facts also suggest that bible translator over the centuries have found it fit to render the english version in a way that means insult.

Can you show me any contemporary translation that detracts from this view?

I don't know what is biting you, or who you're fighting with. Nobody is triumphing over anybody else. Me, I'm just having a a conversation/debate. If I'm wrong and you demonstrate that I will accept it without feeling lesser in any way. If I demonstrate that you are wrong, trust me, I don't take that to mean that you are lesser, or I've triumphed over you.

Triumphalist?

No.

Can you show me any contemporary translation that detracts from this view?

Not only should the onus be on you to provide the proof as you're the one who made the original claim but asking others to prove a negative is pretty silly, don't you think?

And to tell the truth, I'm past caring what you think on this particular subject and have no further wish to debate it.

Bastage:

Triumphalist?

No.

Not only should the onus be on you to provide the proof as you're the one who made the original claim but asking others to prove a negative is pretty silly, don't you think?

And to tell the truth, I'm past caring what you think on this particular subject and have no further wish to debate it.

Actually, my claim is that these verse have been translated over the years to implied insult by using the word "fool". And historically, my position is very well supported. Your claim is that they mean something else. So the onus is no YOU to show why they mean something else and whether contemporary translator have rendered said passages in the sense which you consider is more correct.

I have shown that only one word means fool.
The others mean foolish.
Go look up the translations yourself.

I have explained the difference in context between doing something foolish and being a fool.
Go look up the definitions yourself.

It's not a "claim" as you state. It's just common sense.

So the onus is no YOU to show why they mean something else and whether contemporary translator have rendered said passages in the sense which you consider is more correct.

I have already pointed out that at least one of the passages you've posted does not even use the word "fool" as you state but "foolish" in English.
Go look it up in the KJV yourself.

hi horus

i like the way you pick the bible and assume it contradict itself. well am sorry to inform u that it might (seriously) you reason that contradicts the scripture. however i dont intend to answer you contradictions in huxley's contradiction. can you create a link/thread for the following false contradiction which u claim. and then i will answer you perfectly there,


Jesus Did Contradict Himself

- Luke says that Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples. (Luke 24:33, 35, 37)
- Matthew says it was at Galilee on a mountain. (Matthew 28:16)

- Christ’s first sermon was in the plain. (Luke 6:17, 20)
- Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5: 1, 2).

And you wonder why Christianity is divided into so many sects, and no one know their destiny ??

esensed:

hi horus
Jesus Did Contradict Himself

- Luke says that Jesus first appeared in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples. (Luke 24:33, 35, 37)
- Matthew says it was at Galilee on a mountain. (Matthew 28:16)

- Christ’s first sermon was in the plain. (Luke 6:17, 20)
- Christ preached his first sermon on the mount. (Matthew 5: 1, 2).

And you wonder why Christianity is divided into so many sects, and no one know their destiny ??

@esensed

This part (Above) is right in your Bible,you dont need a link just look in the book

yes i need a thread not a link, can you make it then?

yes i need a thread not a link, can you make it then?

Did Jesus contradict himself? The answer is an emphatic NO.

ok as i can see that this thread was still going on i will put a few of the 50or more contradicting passages of the bible, BUT REMEMBER, there will always be someone coming with the right "excuses", "misquotation" or "bad translation" as a reason for it. TO EACH THEIR OWN. peace!!!!!


Does every man sin?
(a)   Yes. “There is no man who does not sin” (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
(b)   No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. “Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God,  (I John 5:1). “We should be called children of God; and so we are” (I John 3: 1). “He who loves is born of God” (I John 4:7). “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God” (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:Cool

Does God change his mind?
(a)   Yes. “The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I repent that I have made Saul King, ” (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)
(b)   No. God “will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (I Samuel 15:29)
(c)   Yes again. “And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel” (I Samuel 15:35).
Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book!
In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:
“The Lord was sorry that he made man” (Genesis 6:6)
“I am sorry that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7)
“And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people” (Exodus 32:14).

Did Judas kiss Jesus?
(a)   Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
(b)  No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

Did Jesus bear his own cross?
(a)   Yes (John 19:17)
(b)  No (Matthew 27:31-32)

Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?
(a)   On the cross (Mark 15:23)
(b)  In Pilate’s court (John 19:14)

Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?
(a)   Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43)
(b)  No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, “I have not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17)

How did Judas die?
(a)  After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
(b)  After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)

Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
(b) Heli (Luke 3:23)

Jesus descended from which son of David?
(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
(b) Nathan(Luke3:31)

Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?
(a) Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
(b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

What was the exact wording on the cross?
(a)  “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37)
(b)   “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26)
(c)   “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38)
(d)   “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19)

Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?
(a)  Thaddaeus (Matthew 10: 1-4; Mark 3:13 -19)
(b)  Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Luke’s gospel (Luke 6:12-16)

How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?
(a)  By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
(b)  His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?
(a) By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
(b)  On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
(a)  Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
(b)  No. (John 12:27)

According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died?
(a)   “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46)
(b)  "It is finished" (John 19:30).

Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?
(a)   No (John 3:13)
(b)  Yes. “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11)

According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?
(a)   “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:3 1)
(b)  “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)

When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same da[/b]y?
(a)   Yes (Matthew 21:12)
(b)  No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17).

[b]Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?
(a)  Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b)  No(John 1:19-21)

What was the name of King Abijah’s mother?
(a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
(b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

THE INDISPENSABLE TRUTH FOR TODAY !!! (2 COR. 4:6-17; MATT. 16:24-27) http://credoexperience..com/2014/07/the-indispensable-truth-for-today-2-cor.html

huxley: Jesus forbade the calling of people "fool(s)" on pain of going to hell, yet he himself called people fools not once but twice. Take a look at the bible passages below:

Matthew 5:

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

---

Luke 11:

39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

Luke 24:

23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


This Jesus fellow was quite an ignoramus and hypocritical imposter, who ironically characterised others as hypocrite without first examining himself. Why did he not take his own advice and remove the plank from his eyes before point fingers at others.

---

Some importance references:

Sins of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9O6SgGZ9G0&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xao6K02Tjo&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMGjV4OlMY&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabI9zOXsLg&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYoog2kkYHw&feature=channel_page

atheist with zero thinking.

Bible say, to him who know what is right and fail to do it, to him it is sin.
The scribe and pharrassie no the right thing to do but they fail to do it, they are fool.

You can't just walk to someone and call him fool, that is sin, and you put your self in danger of hell. Jesus even make it clear that you can't called your BROTHER fool.