We both can’t prove any view on that topic. What’s your view tho? Also I think bible holds a lot of truth if not the biggest/all truth(s), most people just see it to surface levelled

My interpretation is Jesus the person realised his true self. He realised that he and his father (God) were one.

Meaning, he was God experiencing being man but not God the boundless, infinite formless being.

So he called himself the Son.

When he spoke about going to him all that talk. He didn't mean follow him and worship his being. He meant follow his path, realise your true self just like he did and reside in the kingdom of heaven like he did.

I interpret the kingdom of heaven as this eternal present moment. Free from the thoughts and sufferings of the ego.

He said be like children. Very young children all exist in the present moment, the kingdom of heaven. Free from the burdens and fears that he world tries to force unto us.

Died at the hands of his people
People who believe he's boiling in a cauldron full of s*** btw

because it was supposedly announced by Angel Gabriel to Mary Magdalene, that she will remain impregnated with the son of God
(but that's all a metaphore for some astrological events, the Bible explains it in a more 'traditional' way so everyone and their mother undertands the concept)

Can you explain why Christians should be mad?

Pertaining to the Birth of Jesus and the House of David, I recommend reading Psalm 110 & follow that up with Matthew 22:41-46.

God continuously kills people in the Bible either for problems he caused or arbitrary s***.

I love how twilight is what you chose for comparison

Well, alotta Christians understand that 'the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.'

That's Romans 6:23.. Everything has its balance.

Many of us that die in Christ meaning we believed that God sent Jesus to die for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day.. we understand that when we "die" we aren't dead but are sleep. We're sleep until the 2nd coming.

In movies, I do wonder if Zombies are an allusion to this image of the Dead in Christ shall rise first. Same with UFO invasions, which details what's known as "The Rapture"

i think a lot of it is also just simply answered by stating that the entire view of morality is fundamentally different between abrahamic religions; there's a reason covenants (the religious/ritualistic reasoning for the root of epistemology) are considered to be ended/started anew with each faith (or reaffirmed by continuity).
for the house of david & judaic vs christian interpretations, it's complicated. there's divergences based on chronology of hebrew/israelite history (and relative christian understanding). it's murky both theologically and historically regardless of apologetics. technically islam fills in many of the gaps in terms of history and logical explanations of these theological concepts (in regard to both judaism & christianity), but it's a vicious cycle in terms of consistency if you overthink it, you're going to be like putting up pictures and torn up pages on your wall and drawing red lines between them lol

OP got some dents in his brain

this is gonna make his brain explode

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

The word God in Hebrew is Elohim. It's the Father, Word (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. They all separately bear witness on every account and are on the same page similar to a 3 vocalist chorus.

The Holy Spirit means The Truth. Truth meaning, biblical truth, not our own understanding.

What up Krish! Yo I meant to mention ya in the post prior referring to the Birth of Christ & House of David.

Yea, Western Christianity aka GMO Jesus teaches contradictory towards the scriptures, especially pertaining to the law.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" - Jesus Matt 5:17 (will reference below)

He's fulfilled many things of the Law but during the 2nd coming and future Millennial reign, he will fulfill all things 100%.

In Jesus' first coming, he transferred the Priesthood into His hands. Known as the Melchizedek Order. (Psalm 110) Hence why we don't sacrifice animals. Those in Israel that do, are Talmudic Jewish ppl. They practice a man tradition based teaching and can be known by Colossians 2:16 because the Pharisees during that time would want folks to sacrifice animals. The Talmudic Jewish ppl still practice that dead doctrine to this day.

2nd Coming, Jesus will do all of the sacrificing of animals (people tbh) during the Gathering of All Nations. He will separate the sheep and goats, as the levitical priests do on the Day of Atonement. He will gather all animals (people) just as Noah did before the flood.

Once everything is completed, we can then see the fulfilment of Matthew 5:17 which is Matthew 5:18

17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

This New Heaven & Earth will happen in Rev 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

@krishna_bound

Well I didn't necessarily mean wider christian practice but even eschatology in new testament vs old testament. One of the main issues with Christianity as a religious movement vs others (abrahamic or not), is that it lacks secondary texts - virtually all secondary texts outside of the new testament are basically just apologetics more than they are canonical.
This is a lot different than say, Judaism, where on top of the Old Testament you have the Talmud, Rabbinical Literature, Grimoires, etc. - it's not inherently bad but it does mean that the room for how Christianity is to be interpreted is a lot more compressed and open to apologetic arguments. If you take the new testament at face value, you really need to rely on faith in Jesus as the messiah to override contradictions with Judaism (hence why his words/logic would have authority). While this somewhat makes sense if you ignore some of the post-secondary text chronology (i.e. Talmud coming later), even in the context of what the pre-rabbinical era jews would have had by the time of Jesus I don't know is enough to override new/old contradictions.
It also gets murkier because post-Gospels virtually all of the new testament is based on the presumption, but it is also still cited with the same eschatological law (in christianity). If you don't have faith in Jesus to take the Gospels at faith value, there's too many contradictions with older Judaic tradition; albeit you can see how Jesus fulfilled most of the tenets setup in the messianic framing throughout the old testament (especially book of enoch for example). However I think a lot of this is complicated because even throughout the actual old testament, in regards to historical framing, the issue is that the context needs to be understood in parallel to the development of the religion. Second Temple Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism only emerged later - however the Judaism Jesus theoretically fulfills is the post-Seocnd Temple, post-Hellenistic Judaism. That's kind of the issue, that divergence is hard to reconcile in relation to the text and also in relation to any exegesis or reconciliation between new/old testament.
Now Islam attempts to basically patch this, and again most of this basically makes sense - I'd argue that in terms of continuations of theology and religious law and history, Islam arguably makes more sense as a continuation of Judaism than Christianity, especially in regards to reconciling Jesus's position. However, you'd have to make a lot of the assumptions most exegesis and secondary texts are not just incorrect but fundamentally flawed - however the issue with doing so in this is many of the reasons why these other religions (in this case Islam rather than Christianity) as a successor originate in the midrashes of the Talmud rather than in the bible itself. I have always personally found this specific stickling point interesting however because islamic law in a way cross-cites (inadvertently or otherwise) ideas and concepts which are Talmudic. There is midrashic influence on some extrapolations of islam which is interesting if you go by this interpretation

come get your issue, we got mags - God

because no one has an actual concrete answer for anything religious so it's an ideological free for all

Niggas posts looking like actual bible pages itt

Most churches stick to The Bible because Sunday Services are about Salvation.

Why in religious circles, people teach to abstain from extra sources, I'm certain some of that is intentional. Someone like a Josephus, or Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian texts to bring light to eschatological events could help immensely.

Growing up and hearing people reference Daniel and the abomination of desolation as a doomsday point of fear, only to learn that it was an event that happened during the Maccabees, maybe 160 years prior to Christ really pissed me off but helped me understand that there's levels to education.

I think alot of this one source (not just biblical text but 'Good Christian' writings) is to deculturalize the Apostles teachings and further political gains. We can grow and be more in line with the knowledge of Christ by reading about the early church and the Churches life under Rome and learning Rome's relationship in Romans 9. Reading the Book of Maccabees strengthened my understanding of prophecy, persecution etc.

In terms of using extra books, everything has to be precepted back into the scriptures. It's what brings everything to light.

Depending on one's perspective and purpose of using the text, it can be a stumbling block to some. One can be advocating the wrong message if not properly taught and around folks that have your same perspective

Religion and ideology are not the same thing.

What a horrendous thing to say

He does what he does out of love