from the same pararagraph you just quoted:
:dubious: Because I think people who lie to thenmselves, and stupid people are funny, and deserved to be mocked. :dubious:
No, but really, I think that willfull ignorance is open to derision. Isiah, and Jeremiah say nothing that any sane, uncoerced person who has read and understood the torah, would think reffers to Jesus.
I would be curious to know how many people who don’t read the Bible believe in literal transubstantiation, the veneration of the Virgin Mary, the Rapture, etc., none of which appear in the Bible as they are commonly perceived. Or how many believe that Jesus’s teachings were limited to love and compassion (they weren’t), or believe that the NT says that some OT laws were ceremonial but others are still standing (it says nothing of the kind), or even realize that Jesus himself condemned divorce & remarriage, or that the Gospels disagree on Jesus’s genealogy, last words, birth, etc… Homophobia and other forms of religious based nonsense begin to make more sense.
The man who doesn’t read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.
Mark Twain
Again and again and again, how can you justify NOT reading (and if you answer “All I have to do is say the magic words and I’m a Christian”, explain HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU HAVEN’T READ THE INSTRUCTION MANUAL?).
NOTHING?
He will be a great leader, and from the House of King David (Jeremiah 23:5).
He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5).
He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15).
No sane, uncoerced person could possibly think any of those descriptions refered to Jesus Christ? Really?
Since I never said it was critical to read “every… single… word…”, I’m wrong exactly how? My point is that if it were the Holy Book of my belief system, I’d want to read it in its entirety. Are you saying I’m wrong, that I wouldn’t want that? How do you know what I would hypothetically want, more than I do?
Uphill battle indeed.
I have read the whole thing (in English). In your view, is that sufficient? Yes, or no?
I couldn’t care less whether you personally have read it or haven’t or whether you become the next Pope or turn into a cockroach. I’m arguing against the assertion that Christians don’t have a responsibility to read and thoroughly understand the Bible when it is the single basis of the Christian religion. Whether you practice willful ignorance or not, you certainly seem to be supporting it.
To how many others did they refer? Can you prove that Jesus was of “the House of David” (his genealogists didn’t seem to agree even which son he descended from, and this was almost certainly a tack-on)? Why couldn’t they refer to John the Baptist, or Hillel, or Akiva? What specifically refers to Jesus?
Look, I’m not saying that Jeremiah wrote: “The moshiach will be called Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, and he’ll reside at 187 Carpenter’s Lane in Nazareth. Go three houses past the village well and turn left - you can’t miss it.”
I’m saying that since some tradition has it that Joseph was of the House of David, then one possible interpretation of Jeremiah 23:5 is that it refers to Jesus. Not that it’s rock-solid… but I’ not saying it’s rock solid. I am refuting the characterization that NOTHING in Isaiah or Jeremiah could POSSIBLY be seen as referring to Jesus.
But what I’m asking has relevance: do Christians, in your view, meet that obligation by thoroughly reading the King James version of the Old and New Testaments? Yes, or no?
Hell, for that matter they can’t even agree on the name of his grandfather, besides which they trace his ancestry through JOSEPH, which if his father was God means it doesn’t matter what son of David begat Joseph many generations later. Mary’s lineage is not mentioned whatever in any of the Gospels or even the apocryphal gospels (that she was the immaculately conceived daughter of Joachim and Joanna is completely non-canonical)- why do you say Jesus was of the House of David?
I have more respect for the ones who have read the King James version than for those who have not read any. If I were a Christian I would prefer to read the best translation available to me, which would in 99.999% of circumstances would certainly not be King James (one of the poorest translations), but it is certainly better than not reading it at all.
SOME scholars believe Joseph was of the House of David. Yes, or no?
In my example, the person is a Jew, considering Jesus as the moshiach. That means he doesn’t believe God was the Father of jesus, or that Jesus had divine origins. He believes Jesus was a man, the son of Joseph and Mary. Therefore Joseph’s lienage is very relevant.
TRADITION, TRADITION… TRADITION! is a great showtune and dance, but it does not prove or even indicate that Jesus was the fulfilment of any prophecies.
Was that a yes? Or a no? I can’t tell which way you’re answering.
For more on tradition (bottom link).
I don’t have to read every single word to find an example of a passage that is not “a law”. Once I have found that example…I’ve pretty much shot the notion of the book as “just a collection of laws from an omnipotent being”…
Well hard to disagree with that…I think (as I said earlier) that reading scripture should be considered “a good thing” for religious folks to do (just as reading the Federalist Papers etc… should be considerd a “good thing” for citizens to do) . The more, the better generally.
It is a very heavily qualified yes.
You know that feeling you get when someone has stated your line of reasoning in a more coherant manner than you yourself did?
Well I do. 
You did it better than me.