Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on March 08, 2009, 02:37:47 PM
-
I think its a good question. ;)
Because i seriously doubt that 100% of "christians" believe the bible is the 100% word of god.
-
I think its a good question. ;)
Because i seriously doubt that 100% of "christians" believe the bible is the 100% word of god.
100% the word of god...this is a fact...get with it Oz! ;D
-
Dude you seem to go out of your way to attack Christianity but are shot down each time. I’m guessing you are atheist. People have been brainwashed to think atheism is peaceful but the reality is atheists are the most blood thirsty monsters in history. Here are the present and past murderers you support when you back atheism:
North Korea currently run by atheist savages, Russia (tens of millions murdered under atheism), Cambodia, Eastern Europe countries, China suffered a blood bath at the hands of atheist fanatics in the last 100 years with over 100 million murdered conveniently ignored by the media. Even now Tibet is suffering under atheist China. This is just the surface.
Our current masters and controllers in society promote atheism in schools, science and music. Why do you suppose this is? These are the same people that hijacked Christianity and murdered under the guise of religious crusades. Albert Pike (33 degree mason like most world leaders) stated atheism is “the origins of savagery and most bloody turmoil”. We are being railroaded into something very dangerous with the shit that is occurring today. Best you figure out why. I can’t debate anyone into finding the truth, you have to find it within yourself. You're kidding yourself if the world would be better off without God.
-
Dude you seem to go out of your way to attack Christianity but are shot down each time. I’m guessing you are atheist. People have been brainwashed to think atheism is peaceful but the reality is atheists are the most blood thirsty monsters in history. Here are the present and past murderers you support when you back atheism:
North Korea currently run by atheist savages, Russia (tens of millions murdered under atheism), Cambodia, Eastern Europe countries, China suffered a blood bath at the hands of atheist fanatics in the last 100 years with over 100 million murdered conveniently ignored by the media. Even now Tibet is suffering under atheist China. This is just the surface.
Our current masters and controllers in society promote atheism in schools, science and music. Why do you suppose this is? These are the same people that hijacked Christianity and murdered under the guise of religious crusades. Albert Pike (33 degree mason like most world leaders) stated atheism is “the origins of savagery and most bloody turmoil”. We are being railroaded into something very dangerous with the shit that is occurring today. Best you figure out why. I can’t debate anyone into finding the truth, you have to find it within yourself. You're kidding yourself if the world would be better off without God.
This old red herring. Even if true, which it is not, as the communist and fascist regimes you cite are nothing more than political religions that happen to be secular and did not kill in the NAME OF ATHEISM, it does not add a shred of evidence to support any of the fantastical claims and propositions that most religions make.
-
Dude you seem to go out of your way to attack Christianity but are shot down each time. I’m guessing you are atheist. People have been brainwashed to think atheism is peaceful but the reality is atheists are the most blood thirsty monsters in history. Here are the present and past murderers you support when you back atheism:
North Korea currently run by atheist savages, Russia (tens of millions murdered under atheism), Cambodia, Eastern Europe countries, China suffered a blood bath at the hands of atheist fanatics in the last 100 years with over 100 million murdered conveniently ignored by the media. Even now Tibet is suffering under atheist China. This is just the surface.
Our current masters and controllers in society promote atheism in schools, science and music. Why do you suppose this is? These are the same people that hijacked Christianity and murdered under the guise of religious crusades. Albert Pike (33 degree mason like most world leaders) stated atheism is “the origins of savagery and most bloody turmoil”. We are being railroaded into something very dangerous with the shit that is occurring today. Best you figure out why. I can’t debate anyone into finding the truth, you have to find it within yourself. You're kidding yourself if the world would be better off without God.
This old red herring. Even if true, which it is not, as the communist and fascist regimes you cite are nothing more than political religions that happen to be secular and did not kill in the NAME OF ATHEISM, it does not add a shred of evidence to support any of the fantastical claims and propositions that most religions make.
You're both right. But, there’s one caveat to Deicide’s statement.
“Atheism”, technically, is the lack of belief in a supernatural deity. But, in practice, far too many atheists have more than a mere disbelief in God. They are deliberately and methodically ANTAGONISTIC towards religious beliefs and people of faith.
In short, a lot of “atheists” are actually (and would be more appropriately titled) “anti-theists”.
A "political religion" would basically back the statement that I've made on numerous occasions, regarding atheism, at least as practiced, is effectively man worshipping himself.
-
it's a yes or no question.......No is my answer...next.
-
No is my answer.
I agree w/big L dawg. No.
-
I agree w/big L dawg. No.
NO? HUH? ???
-
I agree w/big L dawg. No.
.
I’d go with “Yes”. And this is a good question indeed.
But, the reason Ozmo is asking it is the heart of the matter.
He mentioned his Christian upbringing and cites a good hunk of his values on such. He also likes the “nuggets of wisdom” (as he calls it) about Scripture.
His pickle, however, is that he can’t come to terms with the fact that the same God who sent Jesus Christ (who is the source of his Christian upbringing, and perhaps, any Christian faith he may currently have or aspire to obtain) to die for our sins is the EXACT SAME GOD who ordered the complete destruction of Amalek, for their continued attacks on Israel for over 300 years.
In short, it's the classic justice vs. mercy argument with regards to the Bible and to Christian faith.
My take is a simple one. God blesses individually; He punishes individually; He blesses corporately; He punishes corporately.
That is how He can put the sins of mankind of Jesus (who knew no sin), to have Him die and pay the penalty that belongs to us.
That's also why he can destroy an entire people (man, woman, and child) for the sins of a king or ruler.
And, it's also how he can bless an entire people (man, woman, and child) for the righteous behavior of a king or ruler.
-
Dude you seem to go out of your way to attack Christianity but are shot down each time. I’m guessing you are atheist. People have been brainwashed to think atheism is peaceful but the reality is atheists are the most blood thirsty monsters in history. Here are the present and past murderers you support when you back atheism:
North Korea currently run by atheist savages, Russia (tens of millions murdered under atheism), Cambodia, Eastern Europe countries, China suffered a blood bath at the hands of atheist fanatics in the last 100 years with over 100 million murdered conveniently ignored by the media. Even now Tibet is suffering under atheist China. This is just the surface.
Our current masters and controllers in society promote atheism in schools, science and music. Why do you suppose this is? These are the same people that hijacked Christianity and murdered under the guise of religious crusades. Albert Pike (33 degree mason like most world leaders) stated atheism is “the origins of savagery and most bloody turmoil”. We are being railroaded into something very dangerous with the shit that is occurring today. Best you figure out why. I can’t debate anyone into finding the truth, you have to find it within yourself. You're kidding yourself if the world would be better off without God.
I couldn't disagree with you more on most every count.
I'm not trying to back atheism, I'm not an atheist. Do most christians believe the Bible is the 100% WOG? I think not.
Has many many people died in the name of religion? YES. They are dying now and all through out history.
Interesting how the crusades is explained by some. Fact is, this was "gods" church that was hijacked. He allowed millions to die under his name.
But he's into that kind of thing.
-
McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up?
Or is this just personal interpretation? ;)
PS: I'm not in a pickle.....lol I don't worship a child murderer.
-
McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up?
Or is this just personal interpretation? ;)
PS: I'm not in a pickle.....lol I don't worship a child murderer.
McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up?
Or is this just personal interpretation? ;)
PS: I'm not in a pickle.....lol I don't worship a child murderer.
Yet, you credit your morals and values (a significant portion, at least) to your “Christian upbringing” the foundation of which comes from this same “child murderer”.
But to answer your question..........
2 Tim. 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Yet, you credit your morals and values (a significant portion, at least) to your “Christian upbringing” the foundation of which comes from this same “child murderer”.
-
Yet, you credit your morals and values (a significant portion, at least) to your “Christian upbringing” the foundation of which comes from this same “child murderer”.
But to answer your question..........
No not at all. Never was this brought up when i was growing up. In fact, I'd be willing to bet my parents, aunts, uncles, etc... Don't even know of the instances where God ordered the murder of children.
2 Tim. 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That doesn't answer the original question of the thread.
-
McWay or Stella, is there scripture to back it up?
Or is this just personal interpretation? ;)
The way I see the question is this: Do you have to believe the Bible is 100% the word of God to be a Christian?
The reason I said no is because there are people that I do believe are Christians that haven't read all of the bible.
To be a Christian: Recognize your need for a Savior and accept Jesus Christ as such.
Now that is a very brief definition which does encompass much more in it's meaning.
But do I think a person that hasn't read (and thus wouldn't have made a decision on if they believe) that The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei cannot be a Christian? No.
-
The way I see the question is this: Do you have to believe the Bible is 100% the word of God to be a Christian?
The reason I said no is because there are people that I do believe are Christians that haven't read all of the bible.
To be a Christian: Recognize your need for a Savior and accept Jesus Christ as such.
Now that is a very brief definition which does encompass much more in it's meaning.
But do I think a person that hasn't read (and thus wouldn't have made a decision on if they believe) that The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei cannot be a Christian? No.
If they read the whole Bible and didn't truly believe someone survived 3 days in a whale are they still a Christian?
-
No not at all. Never was this brought up when i was growing up. In fact, I'd be willing to bet my parents, aunts, uncles, etc... Don't even know of the instances where God ordered the murder of children.
Did they really not know about it? Or, did they simply determine that, in their day-to-day lives (dealing with the issues of the time, like feeding, clothing, and raising you), the fate of the Amalekites some 3000 or so years ago just wasn’t that important?
Furthermore, while they may not have been as aware of the Amalekites, it’s safe to say that they WERE familiar with the far-more-frequently-cited examples of judgment, such as that on Sodom and Gommorah, and the plagues on Egypt that lead to the Exodus and, of course, the Ten Commandments.
But, the point wasn’t whether your parents brought up the issue, involving the Amalekites, or not. The point was that (regardless of whether they knew about it or mentioned it, if they did), the Christian upbringing which they used to raise you is based on the same God that judged the Amalekites
That doesn't answer the original question of the thread.
That's because I answered the original question of the thread, with my initial post.
"I’d go with 'Yes'. And this is a good question indeed."
-
If they read the whole Bible and didn't truly believe someone survived 3 days in a whale are they still a Christian?
LOL. ;D
-
Christians are believers in and followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ believed that the Old Testament was The Word of God and quoted it constantly. Jesus Christ's apostles believed that the Old Testament was The Word of God. Why wouldn't a Christian believe that all of the Bible is The Word of God?
Even Richard Dawkins said that if Christians who believe all of the Bible betray reason, those Christians who do not believe all of the Bible betray both, reason and faith. How do you pick and choose what is from God and what isn't? Richard Dawkins asked. He's got a good point.
By the way, OzmO, why do you exclude Jews? Many religious Jews today believe that all of the Old Testament is 100% The World of God. Why do you hate Christians so much?
-
If they read the whole Bible and didn't truly believe someone survived 3 days in a whale are they still a Christian?
I do not believe accepting the story of Jonah as true is a prerequisite for becoming a Christian.
I believe being a Christian doesn't focus upon a whale story but focuses on Jesus as Savior (which includes who He is and what He has done for us), and accepting Him as that.
Romans 3:23-24:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus
-
If they read the whole Bible and didn't truly believe someone survived 3 days in a whale are they still a Christian?
Jesus Christ Himself said
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Matthew 12:40 (New International Version)
-
Christians are believers in and followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ believed that the Old Testament was The Word of God and quoted it constantly. Jesus Christ's apostles believed that the Old Testament was The Word of God. Why wouldn't a Christian believe that all of the Bible is The Word of God?
Even Richard Dawkins said that if Christians who believe all of the Bible betray reason, those Christians who do not believe all of the Bible betray both, reason and faith. How do you pick and choose what is from God and what isn't? Richard Dawkins asked. He's got a good point.
Good points, indeed!!! I've asked Ozmo a similar question multiple times, with regards to the fact that either the God, who sent Jesus Christ (the source of his Christian upbringing) to die for our sins, is the same One who brought judgment on the Amalekites; or He is not.
By the way, OzmO, why do you exclude Jews? Many religious Jews today believe that all of the Old Testament is 100% The World of God. Why do you hate Christians so much?
I didn't consider that!!!
-
Good points, indeed!!! I've asked Ozmo a similar question multiple times, with regards to the fact that either the God, who sent Jesus Christ (the source of his Christian upbringing) to die for our sins, is the same One who brought judgment on the Amalekites; or He is not.
I didn't consider that!!!
Correct, they are both the same One!
-
The way I see the question is this: Do you have to believe the Bible is 100% the word of God to be a Christian?
The reason I said no is because there are people that I do believe are Christians that haven't read all of the bible.
To be a Christian: Recognize your need for a Savior and accept Jesus Christ as such.
Now that is a very brief definition which does encompass much more in it's meaning.
But do I think a person that hasn't read (and thus wouldn't have made a decision on if they believe) that The sons of Pedaiah were Zerubbabel and Shimei cannot be a Christian? No.
I agree with you, STella! But I believe OzmO is talking about a Christian who has read and understood the entire Bible, and after that picks and chooses what is and what isn't The Word of God within the Bible.
-
Dude you seem to go out of your way to attack Christianity but are shot down each time. I’m guessing you are atheist. People have been brainwashed to think atheism is peaceful but the reality is atheists are the most blood thirsty monsters in history. Here are the present and past murderers you support when you back atheism:
North Korea currently run by atheist savages, Russia (tens of millions murdered under atheism), Cambodia, Eastern Europe countries, China suffered a blood bath at the hands of atheist fanatics in the last 100 years with over 100 million murdered conveniently ignored by the media. Even now Tibet is suffering under atheist China. This is just the surface.
Our current masters and controllers in society promote atheism in schools, science and music. Why do you suppose this is? These are the same people that hijacked Christianity and murdered under the guise of religious crusades. Albert Pike (33 degree mason like most world leaders) stated atheism is “the origins of savagery and most bloody turmoil”. We are being railroaded into something very dangerous with the shit that is occurring today. Best you figure out why. I can’t debate anyone into finding the truth, you have to find it within yourself. You're kidding yourself if the world would be better off without God.
Attention...Nutjob alert!
-
That doesn't answer the original question of the thread.
It may not directly answer the question, but it's certainly relevant: 2 Tim. 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
It doesn't say "some," or "most," it says all.
But to answer the question, I agree with Stella: I know some people who are "Christian" who haven't really read the Bible. I don't think reading it is a prerequisite to being a Christian.
-
I do not believe accepting the story of Jonah as true is a prerequisite for becoming a Christian.
I believe being a Christian doesn't focus upon a whale story but focuses on Jesus as Savior (which includes who He is and what He has done for us), and accepting Him as that.
Romans 3:23-24:
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus
I really doubt a great many professed Christians have read the bible cover to cover or have read it in such a way they understand each verse. It's not a Dean Koontz style of writing for sure. I think most at some point tune it out even as they read it because it is difficult to read.
Further more I'd be willing to bet a great number of professed christians believe in evolution.
-
Christians are believers in and followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ believed that the Old Testament was The Word of God and quoted it constantly. Jesus Christ's apostles believed that the Old Testament was The Word of God. Why wouldn't a Christian believe that all of the Bible is The Word of God?
Even Richard Dawkins said that if Christians who believe all of the Bible betray reason, those Christians who do not believe all of the Bible betray both, reason and faith. How do you pick and choose what is from God and what isn't? Richard Dawkins asked. He's got a good point.
By the way, OzmO, why do you exclude Jews? Many religious Jews today believe that all of the Old Testament is 100% The World of God. Why do you hate Christians so much?
I don't hate Christians. I question the christian beliefs so much because there are IMO stark contradictions. And that's the religion i know most about and am surrounded most with. Also, Is the Jewish Bible just the books of the OT? I pretty sure it isn't if i remember correctly. Don't have things like the book of Enoch?
I agree with you. How do you pick and choose which is god an which isn't god in the bible. For me, it's obvious that certain instances are not god.
-
Jesus Christ Himself said
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Matthew 12:40 (New International Version)
really he said that huh.how do you know?....oh because the bible tells you so. ;D
-
The question asked is, "Do you have (to) believe the Bible is the 100% word of God to be a Christian?" It's not asking have you read the entire Bible or do you understand all of it, but rather do you believe. I say absolutely! If we do not believe it to be 100% true, what part do we dismiss? What percentage do believe?
OzmO, you speak as though you have trouble with God because you feel as though He has wrong some people. Let me share something with you, but first I ask that you open your mind to hearing it. If your willing read on, if not, may God still Bless you. I say that you must first pause and look at God for who He really is. Imagine a Spiritual being that is perfection in every sense of the word. Imagine a being that is incapable of lying or committing sin. This is God. Someone once asked me if God is perfection and created everything, then why did he create evil? God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God. We (humans) do things that separate us from God or put us in an evil state. Most are not aware that there are some things that we do that causes generationals curses. In other words, it's possible that my great great great great grandfather committed a sin that I have to pay for. We break the generational curses, and those we start by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.
I'll give you the greatest example of God separating Himself from man's sin. Do you recall when Christ was on the cross? He cried out (paraphrasing) Father, why have thou forsaken me? Most understand that Christ died for our sins. However, most don't realize that he became sin....not that he sinned....for us. This is how He defeated sin. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death. When Christ rose on the third day, He defeat sin and death. When He became sin for us, God had to forsake Him because He can not be with evil. He does the same with us. We sin and bring evil into our lives. This is why it's important for a Christian to pray constantly. I do not believe God will hold us accountable when we unknowingly commit sin, but the rules still apply. You may not be kept out of Heaven under these circumstances, but you will be without the full protection of God.
If is truly your desire to know and understand God, PM me. We can talk. There is much I have to learn, but there are some things that have been revealed to me. The most important being, God is God and the only way to Him is through Christ.
-
The question asked is, "Do you have (to) believe the Bible is the 100% word of God to be a Christian?" It's not asking have you read the entire Bible or do you understand all of it, but rather do you believe. I say absolutely! If we do not believe it to be 100% true, what part do we dismiss? What percentage do believe?
OzmO, you speak as though you have trouble with God because you feel as though He has wrong some people. Let me share something with you, but first I ask that you open your mind to hearing it. If your willing read on, if not, may God still Bless you. I say that you must first pause and look at God for who He really is. Imagine a Spiritual being that is perfection in every sense of the word. Imagine a being that is incapable of lying or committing sin. This is God. Someone once asked me if God is perfection and created everything, then why did he create evil? God did not create evil. Evil is the absence of God. We (humans) do things that separate us from God or put us in an evil state. Most are not aware that there are some things that we do that causes generationals curses. In other words, it's possible that my great great great great grandfather committed a sin that I have to pay for. We break the generational curses, and those we start by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.
I'll give you the greatest example of God separating Himself from man's sin. Do you recall when Christ was on the cross? He cried out (paraphrasing) Father, why have thou forsaken me? Most understand that Christ died for our sins. However, most don't realize that he became sin....not that he sinned....for us. This is how He defeated sin. Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death. When Christ rose on the third day, He defeat sin and death. When He became sin for us, God had to forsake Him because He can not be with evil. He does the same with us. We sin and bring evil into our lives. This is why it's important for a Christian to pray constantly. I do not believe God will hold us accountable when we unknowingly commit sin, but the rules still apply. You may not be kept out of Heaven under these circumstances, but you will be without the full protection of God.
If is truly your desire to know and understand God, PM me. We can talk. There is much I have to learn, but there are some things that have been revealed to me. The most important being, God is God and the only way to Him is through Christ.
First off, I acknowledge and appreciate your intentions.
God has not wronged me in anyway or IMO wronged anyone I know. I understand Christian salvation. My issues stem from Bible literalists and that most people who profess to be Christians either don't know the OT, the murdering, suffering, slavery etc.. at the hands of God or aren't literalists.
What I'm starting to get from some of you here, not all, is that you must be Bible literalist to be a Christian. Is this true?
-
First off, I acknowledge and appreciate your intentions.
God has not wronged me in anyway or IMO wronged anyone I know. I understand Christian salvation. My issues stem from Bible literalists and that most people who profess to be Christians either don't know the OT, the murdering, suffering, slavery etc.. at the hands of God or aren't literalists.
What I'm starting to get from some of you here, not all, is that you must be Bible literalist to be a Christian. Is this true?
Yes, a Christian person, without doubt, must believe that the Bible is literally true. I disagree that God committed murder or commissioned slavery. The "slavery" mentioned in the OT is often confused with slavery as we know it today. It truly means servant. There are scriptures that tells how a servant is supposed to be treated. It's nothing like "slavery" as we know it. As for murder and suffering, it wasn't murder or suffering just for the sake of suffering. These are things the result of man's disobedience. The price of sin has always been suffering and death. There are two instances that come to mind whereby suffering was allowed and it wasn't the result sin. The first is Job. God allowed him to be tormented by the enemy, though Job was a righteous man. Also, Christ was once asked what sin a certain man, or his ancestors, had committed that caused him to be born blind. Christ told him (paraphrasing) that he had committed no sins, but rather he had been born blind so that the wonder of God could be seen.
It is wise to note that God is a jealous God. When the Pharaoh refused to free God's people, the Bible tells us that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. He did this because Pharaoh had proclaimed himself to be a god. Had Pharaoh free the people when Moses requested, the people would have seen it as the Pharaoh's decision to do so. I had a friend tell me once that he would not want to serve such a Petty God. I say, I do not want to be on the wrong side of Him.
-
Yes, a Christian person, without doubt, must believe that the Bible is literally true. I disagree that God committed murder or commissioned slavery. The "slavery" mentioned in the OT is often confused with slavery as we know it today. It truly means servant. There are scriptures that tells how a servant is supposed to be treated. It's nothing like "slavery" as we know it. As for murder and suffering, it wasn't murder or suffering just for the sake of suffering. These are things the result of man's disobedience. The price of sin has always been suffering and death. There are two instances that come to mind whereby suffering was allowed and it wasn't the result sin. The first is Job. God allowed him to be tormented by the enemy, though Job was a righteous man. Also, Christ was once asked what sin a certain man, or his ancestors, had committed that caused him to be born blind. Christ told him (paraphrasing) that he had committed no sins, but rather he had been born blind so that the wonder of God could be seen.
It is wise to note that God is a jealous God. When the Pharaoh refused to free God's people, the Bible tells us that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. He did this because Pharaoh had proclaimed himself to be a god. Had Pharaoh free the people when Moses requested, the people would have seen it as the Pharaoh's decision to do so. I had a friend tell me once that he would not want to serve such a Petty God. I say, I do not want to be on the wrong side of Him.
Well then i would imagine a great many "professed christians" are not really Christians (maybe 70-80%) and that to be a Christian you must accept Jesus as your savior AND believe the bible is the 100% word of god. Which doesn't make much sense because the Bible wasnt even entirely written when Jesus sacrificed his life for our sins and Jesus did not at anytime say you must believe that this chosen collection (400 some years later) of jewish holy books are the WOG to get to heaven.
Additionally, I've read the passages on slavery in the Bible, it was the topic of another thread a month or two ago. It looks like just like slavery to me. It even uses the word slavery, NOT servant. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe because in addition to being describe as slavery in the verses, it was slavery NOT servitude. Otherwise wouldn't you think that after thousands of years it would have been changed? Or maybe people are just stupid.
Also, God killed innocent children on several occasions in the OT making him a hypocrite and a murderer, if the god identified in those verses is in fact god which based the assertions that god is just and true, merciful and loving, it makes those verses false, putting into question every other verse in the bible, effectively taking away fire and brimstone, arrogant judgement, and over righteousness from every pastor, bible thumper and holy roller in the world. :)
-
Yes, a Christian person, without doubt, must believe that the Bible is literally true. I disagree that God committed murder or commissioned slavery. The "slavery" mentioned in the OT is often confused with slavery as we know it today. It truly means servant. There are scriptures that tells how a servant is supposed to be treated. It's nothing like "slavery" as we know it. As for murder and suffering, it wasn't murder or suffering just for the sake of suffering. These are things the result of man's disobedience. The price of sin has always been suffering and death. There are two instances that come to mind whereby suffering was allowed and it wasn't the result sin. The first is Job. God allowed him to be tormented by the enemy, though Job was a righteous man. Also, Christ was once asked what sin a certain man, or his ancestors, had committed that caused him to be born blind. Christ told him (paraphrasing) that he had committed no sins, but rather he had been born blind so that the wonder of God could be seen.
And, as mentioned on other occasions, the wors part about the price of sin is that, too often, the transgressor isn't the only one who pays that price. People in certain positions can commit sin, with the consequences not only affecting them but everyone else under their authority.
It is wise to note that God is a jealous God. When the Pharaoh refused to free God's people, the Bible tells us that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart. He did this because Pharaoh had proclaimed himself to be a god. Had Pharaoh free the people when Moses requested, the people would have seen it as the Pharaoh's decision to do so. I had a friend tell me once that he would not want to serve such a Petty God. I say, I do not want to be on the wrong side of Him.
Regarding what you said about Pharoah and the whole Exodus thing, some folks just have to learn the hard way. Remember that God gave Pharoah NINE chances to release Israel, before hitting Egypt with the one thing that finally got him to crack. To me the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was simply giving Pharaoh a little bit of wiggle room to doubt whether the plagues were really from God or just mere coincidence.
It reminds me of that scene in "The Ten Commandments", when Pharoah gets mad at his priests and Moses. He accused them of making up the gods to prey upon man's fears, later handing them a parchment with a report of "red mud", coming from a mountain and into the waters. He deduces that this was the source of the previous plagues and had nothing to do with Moses. Thus, he won't free the Israelites.
Monarchs in the ancient world tend to get a big ego, some to the point where they think they are gods, due to their unchecked earthly power. It took the tenth plague (slaying of the firstborn) to get it in Pharoah’s head, that he is not the Almighty; God is.
As for your friend's statement about God being petty and his not wanting to serve Him, my response would have been that I would want to serve Him, because He keeps His covenant. When the time came to free the Israelites, He did just that and there wasn't a darn thing that Pharoah could do about it.
It wasn't a matter of IF he would free them; it was a matter of when he would (and how many lumps he'd have to take before doing so).
-
There's another good example of God's (the false God of the OT) lust for killing children.
An ordinary egyptian citizen, goes to work every day, works hard to feed his family, has a new born baby son. Has NO SAY in what the pharaoh does.
But God murders his innocent son.
All hail, god the loving, just and merciful!
-
There's another good example of God's (the false God of the OT) lust for killing children.
An ordinary egyptian citizen, goes to work every day, works hard to feed his family, has a new born baby son. Has NO SAY in what the pharaoh does.
But God murders his innocent son.
All hail, god the loving, just and merciful!
Let us just agree to disagree.
-
Let us just agree to disagree.
Children who never did anything to anyone, innocent babes, were not murdered by the hand of GOD?
-
Children who never did anything to anyone, innocent babes, were not murdered by the hand of GOD?
In one of my recent posts, I spoke of how actions of our ancestors can cause generational curses. This is Scripture. As I have said before, I would not call the wages of sin murder. If you say God committed these murders, does that mean you believe He exists and that you do not agree with these "murders" He committed?
-
In one of my recent posts, I spoke of how actions of our ancestors can cause generational curses. This is Scripture. As I have said before, I would not call the wages of sin murder. If you say God committed these murders, does that mean you believe He exists and that you do not agree with these "murders" He committed?
According to what you believe did he not murder innocent children?
-
In one of my recent posts, I spoke of how actions of our ancestors can cause generational curses. This is Scripture. As I have said before, I would not call the wages of sin murder. If you say God committed these murders, does that mean you believe He exists and that you do not agree with these "murders" He committed?
Fitt@40 hit it on the head. The wages of sin is death. Unfortunately, that’s not just limited to the sinner. It goes back to what I just said. People in authority can commit transgressions that affect everyone under their authority. A king’s sin can ruin (and some cases, end) the lives of his subjects, as was the case with Pharoah.
According to what you believe did he not murder innocent children?
I'll take a guess and say the 2nd commandment. Again, when people's sins are aggregious enough, they can have long-reaching effects, hence the generational curses mentioned earlier.
-
Bump.
Still haven't any scripture that says a person needs to the believe the Bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.
-
Bump.
Still haven't any scripture that says a person needs to the believe the Bible is the 100% WOG to be saved.
I can work with you on this, however, not in the same demeanor that has been displayed in this forum over the last few weeks. In a nut shell, we have to believe what Jesus taught, eh?
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
Jesus Christ Himself said
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Matthew 12:40 (New International Version)
wait... Jesus called a whale a fish? :-\
-
I can work with you on this, however, not in the same demeanor that has been displayed in this forum over the last few weeks. In a nut shell, we have to believe what Jesus taught, eh?
CG/DEA_AGENT
We don't have to believe anything. It is or it isn't.
And the Bible either says it or it doesn't. right?
Also, much of what you see here on this forum is long discussions years old. The exchanges are escalations. No worries. I'll keep it civil. :)
-
I really doubt a great many professed Christians have read the bible cover to cover or have read it in such a way they understand each verse. It's not a Dean Koontz style of writing for sure. I think most at some point tune it out even as they read it because it is difficult to read.
Further more I'd be willing to bet a great number of professed christians believe in evolution.
Darwin's Birthday Poll: Fewer Than 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found that only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in that explanation for the development of life on Earth.
The Gallup survey, released Wednesday, found a quarter of those polled do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent said they don't have an opinion either way.
Another survey by the Pew Research Center got similar results.
The Gallup poll of 1,018 American adults found strong ties between education level and belief in the theory of evolution.
"Among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it," Gallup found. "For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief."
Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees.
Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief, wrote that attitudes were shaped to an even greater degree by religion.
"Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution," he said.
Among weekly churchgoers, only 24 percent said they believe in evolution, while 41 percent do not and 35 percent have no opinion.
Inversely, 55 percent of those who seldom or never attend church expressed belief in evolution, while 11 percent do not, and 34 percent have no opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=263995.0
-
We don't have to believe anything. It is or it isn't.
What I meant was, that we have to believe what Jesus taught if we want to have his blessing. I say this because, the Scriptures say that even the demons believe. (James 2:19) "You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder". So, I was getting that even if one believes that Jesus exist and died for us, we still have to do more.
If Jesus quotes and acknowledges that the Hebrew Scriptures are valid shouldn't we follow that teaching also?
And the Bible either says it or it doesn't. right?
Yes my friend, it does. Although sometimes the Bible might not spell things out directly.
Also, much of what you see here on this forum is long discussions years old. The exchanges are escalations. No worries. I'll keep it civil. :)
Thank you friend, I do appreciate that.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
What I meant was, that we have to believe what Jesus taught if we want to have his blessing. I say this because, the Scriptures say that even the demons believe. (James 2:19) "You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the demons believe and shudder". So, I was getting that even if one believes that Jesus exist and died for us, we still have to do more.
Yeah, you have to accept him in your heart right? Simply believing in him doesn't save you right?
If Jesus quotes and acknowledges that the Hebrew Scriptures are valid shouldn't we follow that teaching also?
That's implied, not directly said. Should we only follow the ones he quoted? Did he say to follow them? Did he say to follow all of them?
Yes my friend, it does. Although sometimes the Bible might not spell things out directly.
I haven't seen anything that's even indirect.
-
wait... Jesus called a whale a fish? :-\
Where does it say whale?
-
That's implied, not directly said. Should we only follow the ones he quoted? Did he say to follow them? Did he say to follow all of them?
I haven't seen anything that's even indirect.
Proof right there that you have not even read the Gospels.
-
Proof right there that you have not even read the Gospels.
Still out to get me eh drama queen?
::)
-
Still out to get me eh drama queen?
::)
No, you name caller! Read the four Gospels, highlighting everything Jesus says about the scripture, God's word being the truth, obeying God's word, etc. as you read them. Then come back and look at what your are saying now.
-
No, you name caller! Read the four Gospels, highlighting everything Jesus says about the scripture, God's word being the truth, obeying God's word, etc. as you read them. Then come back and look at what your are saying now.
when you become an educated adult.theres no need to keep reading fairytails.
-
No, you name caller! Read the four Gospels, highlighting everything Jesus says about the scripture, God's word being the truth, obeying God's word, etc. as you read them. Then come back and look at what your are saying now.
::)
-
when you become an educated adult.theres no need to keep reading fairytails.
Let's pretend I'm not. What do I have to do to become an educated adult?
Francis Collins reads and believes the Gospels too.
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes, and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).
He became an evangelical Christian after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.
-
Very mature and insightful responses from big L dawg and OzmO!
-
Very mature and insightful responses from big L dawg and OzmO!
You mean like attacking someone when the post doesn't involve you?
Proof right there that you have not even read the Gospels.
You need to build a bridge and get over it already, DQ.
-
You mean like attacking someone when the post doesn't involve you?
You need to build a bridge and get over it already, DQ.
Attacking? Do you have a persecution complex or something like that?
Look who is calling others Drama Queen! ::)
You are the one who has been falsely accusing Bible believing Jews and Christians of genocide and infanticide. That's what I call a personal attack. Why so touchy now? Don't give others crap if you can't take it like a man.
-
Attacking? Do you have a persecution complex or something like that?
Look who is calling others Drama Queen! ::)
You are the one who has been falsely accusing Bible believing Jews and Christians of genocide and infanticide. That's what I call a personal attack. Why so touchy now? Don't give others crap if you can't take it like a man.
::)
Oh brother here we go again..........
You came into the conversation attacking. And it's a fact Jews and God are guilty of genocide and infanticide, per your book of stories.
-
::)
Oh brother here we go again..........
You came into the conversation attacking. And it's a fact Jews and God are guilty of genocide and infanticide, per your book of stories.
I have not attacked you, nor is that my intention. I simply questioned your statement and your knowledge of Jesus Christ's teachings about the Old Testament. You responded with the name calling.
You, on the other hand, have falsely accused Bible believing Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide.
-
wait... Jesus called a whale a fish? :-\
Back then whales were fish... ;D
-
I have not attacked you, nor is that my intention. I simply questioned your statement and your knowledge of Jesus Christ's teachings about the Old Testament. You responded with the name calling.
You, on the other hand, have falsely accused Bible believing Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide.
Go back to your English class or just re-read what I wrote on the pages of posts. I have accused Christians on this board of worshiping a God who ordered genocide. (Also mass murderer and slaver)
As for "not" attacking me, fine. I accept your explanation and apologize for attacking you in turn in this particular instance.
-
Go back to your English class or just re-read what I wrote on the pages of posts. I have accused Christians on this board of worshiping a God who ordered genocide. (Also mass murderer and slaver)
As for "not" attacking me, fine. I accept your explanation and apologize for attacking you in turn in this particular instance.
Go get a rod and beat your kid Oz, as long as he doesn't die, it's all good. ;D
-
Go get a rod and beat your kid Oz, as long as he doesn't die, it's all good. ;D
Hmmmm, Maybe i should add: "supports child abuse" to the list. :D
-
Go back to your English class or just re-read what I wrote on the pages of posts.
Go ahead, continue with your condescending, racist remarks and insults. My feelings are really hurt! ::)
I have accused Christians on this board of worshiping a God who ordered genocide. (Also mass murderer and slaver)
OzmO to MCWAY
No need for outrage, I know what it is to believe the literal word of the bible as the word of God. It means you advocate genocide and slavery among many other things.
What you suggested here tells me that YOU have no problem killing those children, which also suggests you might have happily done it yourself. And since you have already admitted you would do it on "gods" orders speaks volumes.
You should seek counseling.
BTW, OzmO, still waiting for your response to MCWAY's post to you:
Nope! But, perhaps you need one to Afghanistan. Let's see you on the front lines with your arms wide open, waiting to take the now-desceased terrorists' sons over to America, to feed them, clothe them, and pay for their education. I just hope that on their 21st birthday, they don't repay your kindness with a car bomb, or have a sudden desire to detach your head from your body.
-
-
Go ahead, continue with your condescending, racist remarks and insults. My feelings are really hurt! ::)
How is this racist? You are expressing trouble understanding what i wrote and english is your second language.
Here's proof:
You, on the other hand, have falsely accused Bible believing Christians on this board of genocide and infanticide
.
This means I said THEY (Christians on this board) committed Genocide and infanticide
Here's what i said:
What you suggested here tells me that YOU have no problem killing those children, which also suggests you might have happily done it yourself. And since you have already admitted you would do it on "gods" orders speaks volumes.
You should seek counseling.
I missed a "'d" on that sentence. Which is obvious considering those children were killed thousands of years ago by Jews. Even then......
Let's break down what i said:
"What you suggested here tells me that YOU('d) have no problem killing those children,"
Now, if i were to accuse McWay of being a child murderer I'd say: You kill children. Or you have killed children.
Another one:
Which also suggests you might have happily done it yourself.
Now, if i were to accuse McWay of being a child murderer I'd say: You KILLED children.
More lessons:
"And since you have already admitted you would do it on "gods" orders speaks volumes."
this sentence is based in part on the preceding sentence.
Loco, I understand now why you are hyper sensitive when I talk about your lack of understanding english. Cause i many cases like these, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. So i can see why i can come across as condecending to you when i point this stuff.
I mean really, you actually understood what wrote there as me accusing christians on this forum of genocide and infanticide?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA And you wonder why i call you a DQ? ::)
Nope! But, perhaps you need one to Afghanistan. Let's see you on the front lines with your arms wide open, waiting to take the now-desceased terrorists' sons over to America, to feed them, clothe them, and pay for their education. I just hope that on their 21st birthday, they don't repay your kindness with a car bomb, or have a sudden desire to detach your head from your body
So, loco, are you of opinion that these children are sure to grow up violent and evil and therefore should be killed anyway?
-
How is this racist? You are expressing trouble understanding what i wrote and english is your second language.
Here's proof:
.
This means I said THEY (Christians on this board) committed Genocide and infanticide
Here's what i said:
I missed a "'d" on that sentence. Which is obvious considering those children were killed thousands of years ago by Jews. Even then......
Let's break down what i said:
"What you suggested here tells me that YOU('d) have no problem killing those children,"
Now, if i were to accuse McWay of being a child murderer I'd say: You kill children. Or you have killed children.
Another one:
Which also suggests you might have happily done it yourself.
Now, if i were to accuse McWay of being a child murderer I'd say: You KILLED children.
More lessons:
"And since you have already admitted you would do it on "gods" orders speaks volumes."
this sentence is based in part on the preceding sentence.
Loco, I understand now why you are hyper sensitive when I talk about your lack of understanding english. Cause i many cases like these, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. So i can see why i can come across as condecending to you when i point this stuff.
I mean really, you actually understood what wrote there as me accusing christians on this forum of genocide and infanticide?
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHA And you wonder why i call you a DQ? ::)
So, loco, are you of opinion that these children are sure to grow up violent and evil and therefore should be killed anyway?
OzmO, are you fluent in more than one language? Where in the world did you get the stupid idea that just because English is not my native language, my English cannot be as good as yours, or even better? What gives you the stupid idea that my English cannot be as good, or even better than my Spanish?
Ignorant assumptions on your part! Stop embarrassing yourself.
Not only that, but your hatred for Hispanics in your country has clearly shown in other posts of yours. If my English is not good enough for you now, nothing those Hispanics in your country do about their English will ever be good enough for you.
I understand perfectly what you posted. Who are you trying to fool? You were attacking MCWAY and trying to trap him and to discredit him, insinuating that he would commit infanticide or that he would commit genocide, and that he would have no problems with it. You were trying to portray Bible believing Christians and Jews as dangerous time bombs that are capable at any moment of committing infanticide and genocide, just because we believe in the Old Testament.
And then you call other people Drama Queen. ::)
Still waiting for your response to MCWAY. Stop dancing around it and respond!
-
LMAO!
OzmO, are you fluent in more than one language? Where in the world did you get the stupid idea that just because English is not my native language, my English cannot be as good as yours, or even better? What gives you the stupid idea that my English cannot be as good, or even better than my Spanish?
I just outlined what gives me the idea why your English isn't as good as your Spanish.
Still having problems understanding written English i see.
Ignorant assumptions on your part! Stop embarrassing yourself.
You mean like when you said I accused Christians on the board of genocide and infantcide and i showed i said nothing of the sort? Or when you feebly tried to back it what you said and I showed you didn't understand the written English?
Which one is it?
Not only that, but your hatred for Hispanics in your country has clearly shown in other posts of yours.
Interesting..... I'm part Hispanic. But then since you can't seems to understand written English i kind of see why you could come to that conclusion.... ::)
If my English is not good enough for your now, nothing those Hispanics in your country do about their English will ever be good enough for you.
Now you think I'm saying your English isn't good enough for me? oh please ::). It's your understanding of English that's in question here. this is more proof of my point.
I understand perfectly what you posted. Who are you trying to fool? You were attacking MCWAY and trying to trap him and to discredit him, insinuating that he would commit infanticide or that he would commit genocide, and that he would have no problems with it. You were trying to portray Bible believing Christians and Jews as dangerous time bombs that are capable at any moment of committing infanticide and genocide, just because we believe in the Old Testament.
He said he's kill a child on God's orders. That's what is related to. Had he not said that it wouldn't apply.
You said i accused Christians on this board (McWay) of genocide and infantcide.
That means, dearest loco, you are saying that i said he KILLED a large group of people and or children.
I did not EVER say he did.
And you still haven't showed me where i did.
What's a matter poor loco?
nothing those Hispanics in your country do about their English will ever be good enough for you.
What would be good enough for me is that they speak passable English in the country they live in. Otherwise they need to leave the country if they don't want to put forth the effort. Every other nationality that comes to this country at the very least seems to get that. You are far beyond passable English BTW.
And also, just like a DQ, to scream racist at someone's insistence that they speak the alnguage of the country they live. Grow up.
Still waiting from your response to MCWAY. Stop dancing around it and respond!
First off, he didn't ask a question. Second I gave a response. Re-read it.
In fact re-read everything I wrote at least 6 or 7 times so maybe you'd understand.
-
Still waiting for someone to show me where you have the believe the Bible is the 100% word of God to be a Christian and or saved.
-
LMAO!
I just outlined what gives me the idea why your English isn't as good as your Spanish.
Still having problems understanding written English i see.
Again, where in the world did you get the stupid idea that just because English is not my native language, my English cannot be as good as yours, or even better? What gives you the stupid idea that my English cannot be as good, or even better than my Spanish?
You mean like when you said I accused Christians on the board of genocide and infantcide and i showed i said nothing of the sort? Or when you feebly tried to back it what you said and I showed you didn't understand the written English?
Which one is it?
It's infanticide, not "infantcide." ::)
You did and you've been doing this for a long time, portraying Bible believing Christians and Jews as dangerous simply because we believe that the Bible is the word of God.
Interesting..... I'm part Hispanic. But then since you can't seems to understand written English i kind of see why you could come to that conclusion.... ::)
Now you think I'm saying your English isn't good enough for me? oh please ::). It's your understanding of English that's in question here. this is more proof of my point.
He said he's kill a child on God's orders. That's what is related to. Had he not said that it wouldn't apply.
You said i accused Christians on this board (McWay) of genocide and infantcide.
That means, dearest loco, you are saying that i said he KILLED a large group of people and or children.
I did not EVER say he did.
And you still haven't showed me where i did.
What's a matter poor loco?
What would be good enough for me is that they speak passable English in the country they live in. Otherwise they need to leave the country if they don't want to put forth the effort. Every other nationality that comes to this country at the very least seems to get that. You are far beyond passable English BTW.
And also, just like a DQ, to scream racist at someone's insistence that they speak the alnguage of the country they live. Grow up.
First off, he didn't ask a question. Second I gave a response. Re-read it.
In fact re-read everything I wrote at least 6 or 7 times so maybe you'd understand.
It's language, not "alnguage." ::)
How are you "part Hispanic"? And how does that have anything to do with this?
You always bring up my English when you run out of arguments, to distract from the discussion.
-
OzmO, are you fluent in more than one language? Where in the world did you get the stupid idea that just because English is not my native language, my English cannot be as good as yours, or even better? What gives you the stupid idea that my English cannot be as good, or even better than my Spanish?
Ignorant assumptions on your part! Stop embarrassing yourself.
Not only that, but your hatred for Hispanics in your country has clearly shown in other posts of yours. If my English is not good enough for you now, nothing those Hispanics in your country do about their English will ever be good enough for you.
I understand perfectly what you posted. Who are you trying to fool? You were attacking MCWAY and trying to trap him and to discredit him, insinuating that he would commit infanticide or that he would commit genocide, and that he would have no problems with it. You were trying to portray Bible believing Christians and Jews as dangerous time bombs that are capable at any moment of committing infanticide and genocide, just because we believe in the Old Testament.
And then you call other people Drama Queen. ::)
Still waiting for your response to MCWAY. Stop dancing around it and respond!
All religious differences aside. I think your English is great. It is much better than my Spanish. It is very difficult beyond the critical period (ages 0-14) to acquire native competency in a foreign language, perhaps .00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000000001% of the world's population can do that. I am reasonably gifted in languages and I can't. Having said that near-native competency is very plausible and I think you are a near native speaker though I have never heard you speak. Given the fact that most Americans are monoglots (including Ozmo), I wouldn't worry too much about comments about your English, as I said, from what I have seen, it is excellent (and I am/was an English teacher).
-
All religious differences aside. I think your English is great. It is much better than my Spanish. It is very difficult beyond the critical period (ages 0-14) to acquire native competency in a foreign language, perhaps .00000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 00000000001% of the world's population can do that. I am reasonably gifted in languages and I can't. Having said that near-native competency is very plausible and I think you are a near native speaker though I have never heard you speak. Given the fact that most Americans are monoglots (including Ozmo), I wouldn't worry too much about comments about your English, as I said, from what I have seen, it is excellent (and I am/was an English teacher).
Muchas gracias, maestro! :)
-
Again, where in the world did you get the stupid idea that just because English is not my native language, my English cannot be as good as yours, or even better? What gives you the stupid idea that my English cannot be as good, or even better than my Spanish?
Again for the second or third time. It's NOT ABOUT mine being better than yours or vise versa. Would you get that through your thick skull already? It's about you not understanding written english 100% as i outlined in the previous posts.
It's infanticide, not "infantcide."
You did and you've been doing this for a long time, portraying Bible believing Christians and Jews as dangerous simply because we believe that the Bible is the word of God.
Pretty pathetic that you now are pointing out typos and spelling errors.
And AGAIN, SHOW me were I've accused Christians on this board of genocide.
Also, when some one says they would kill a child on God's i consider that dangerous. Just like the mother who drowned her kids on God's orders.
You always bring up my English when you run out of arguments, to distract from the discussion
Running out of arguments? You're the one who accused me of something you can't back up.
I have to bring up your english when you accuse me of something and cite something i said as evidence that in no way validates your accusation.
If you didn't do that i wouldn't have to bring it up. Because there's really no other explanation other than you are just desperate.
so AGAIN, SHOW me were I've accused Christians on this board of genocide.
Waiting.........
-
Again for the second or third time. It's NOT ABOUT mine being better than yours or vise versa. Would you get that through your thick skull already? It's about you not understanding written english 100% as i outlined in the previous posts.
Half of getbig native speakers have the reading and writing skills of a 3rd grader.
-
Half of getbig native speakers have the reading and writing skills of a 3rd grader.
I'm no way trying to insinuate I'm an English expert. I'm very very far from that. But the issue here is that the evidence presented doesn't match the accusation. I'm only left to think, as loco seems to be an educated man, that sometimes the full comprehension of what's written is sometimes lost in translation. Because of that, and who's knows why else, I've also been also accused of hating hispanics and are a racist.
-
I'm no way trying to insinuate I'm an English expert. I'm very very far from that. But the issue here is that the evidence presented doesn't match the accusation. I'm only left to think, as loco seems to be an educated man, that sometimes the full comprehension of what's written is sometimes lost in translation. Because of that, and who's knows why else, I've also been also accused of hating hispanics and are a racist.
Well I agree with your points about the bible. It is clearly man made and mostly fabricated.
-
I think its a good question. ;)
Because i seriously doubt that 100% of "christians" believe the bible is the 100% word of god.
that is why we have muslims ...lol...they say the original bible ws lost so they r just going along with gods latest publishing ...the Koran ::)
-
that is why we have muslims ...lol...they say the original bible ws lost so they r just going along with gods latest publishing ...the Koran ::)
lol, actually "Baha’i" would be god's latest set of instructions ;D
-
lol, actually "Baha’i" would be god's latest set of instructions ;D
I thought it was the Mormons...
-
I thought it was the Mormons...
Nah they are Old School now
-
lol, actually "Baha’i" would be god's latest set of instructions ;D
wtf is a baha "i"
sounds like a cocktail...
-
that is why we have muslims ...lol...they say the original bible ws lost so they r just going along with gods latest publishing ...the Koran ::)
that is true, only it wasn't lost it was banned by the council in nicea ( the first meeting held by the roman church to decide which stories would be suitable to give them most power + wealth). the actual gospels that were the actual words of jesus were banned from being mentioned, and all records were ordered to be destroyed. thankfully a few sensible priests realised this was wrong and hid copies, i.e. the dead sea scrolls + others.
-
None of this matters: the Quran is the final revelation of God, peace be to his prophet Mo-ham-head....
-
that is true, only it wasn't lost it was banned by the council in nicea ( the first meeting held by the roman church to decide which stories would be suitable to give them most power + wealth). the actual gospels that were the actual words of jesus were banned from being mentioned, and all records were ordered to be destroyed. thankfully a few sensible priests realised this was wrong and hid copies, i.e. the dead sea scrolls + others.
I beg to differ. The words of Jesus are recorded in the 4 gospels. What started the Reformation was the fact that, when people studied Scripture for themselves, they found that what it actually said and what the Roman Catholic Church CLAIMED it said were quite different.
That's why inventions like the printing press were such a good thing (and Loco mentioned this earlier, I think). The common man could read the Bible for himself (in his own language), not have it mumbled in Latin to him by Catholic priests.
-
I beg to differ. The words of Jesus are recorded in the 4 gospels. What started the Reformation was the fact that, when people studied Scripture for themselves, they found that what it actually said and what the Roman Catholic Church CLAIMED it said were quite different.
That's why inventions like the printing press were such a good thing (and Loco mentioned this earlier, I think). The common man could read the Bible for himself (in his own language), not have it mumbled in Latin to him by Catholic priests.
LMFAO... :D
-
none of the 4 gospels were written by anyone that was around at the time of jesus. The documents that did directly quote him, or tell of his deads were removed and rewritten to best suit the catholic church. That was my point, as the true deeds and teachings of jesus are in total conflict with what the catholic church preaches i.e. confession only to god and no need for churches.
-
none of the 4 gospels were written by anyone that was around at the time of jesus. The documents that did directly quote him, or tell of his deads were removed and rewritten to best suit the catholic church. That was my point, as the true deeds and teachings of jesus are in total conflict with what the catholic church preaches i.e. confession only to god and no need for churches.
And these "true deeds and teachings of Jesus" that aren't in the 4 Gospels and are in conflict with the Catholic church would be.......
Scripture teaches us to not forsake the assembly of the brethren (i.e. gathering together for corporate and collective worship), as Christians are called to bear one another's burdens.
But, that teaching in no way has any impact on individual prayer and personal worship with God, which Jesus taught as well, based on His words recorded in the Gospels.
As for your claim that none of the Gospels were written by anyone around the time of Jesus, that claim is disputed BIG TIME by traditional Biblical scholars.
But, that is another issue for another time.
-
And these "true deeds and teachings of Jesus" that aren't in the 4 Gospels and are in conflict with the Catholic church would be.......
Scripture teaches us to not forsake the assembly of the brethren (i.e. gathering together for corporate and collective worship), as Christians are called to bear one another's burdens.
But, that teaching in no way has any impact on individual prayer and personal worship with God, which Jesus taught as well, based on His words recorded in the Gospels.
As for your claim that none of the Gospels were written by anyone around the time of Jesus, that claim is disputed BIG TIME by traditional Biblical scholars.
But, that is another issue for another time.
::)
none of the 4 gospels were written by anyone that was around at the time of jesus. The documents that did directly quote him, or tell of his deads were removed and rewritten to best suit the catholic church. That was my point, as the true deeds and teachings of jesus are in total conflict with what the catholic church preaches i.e. confession only to god and no need for churches.
the areas highlighted give the roman catholic church power and knowledge of all crime/sin over every christian, the power to forgive sin or not and hence control who gets into heaven. Jesus said the opposite - only god can judge, and the church of god is within. However the catholic church would have zero power if they preached that sort of message ::)
::) ok, i'll play along. The compilation and editing was decided upon by romans at the council of Nicaea around 400 AD. the earliest of the gospels - scholars estimate 'marks' was written at the earliest 65-70 ad, because he does not mention the sacking of jerusalem by the romans in around 70ad ( a prediction of christ). matthew and luke used the gospel of mark for their gospels, and john's is totally different again. ::)
also the dead seas scrolls and the gospel of thomas in particular ( one that was removed by the council) would have totally undermined the power of the church funnily enough ::)
oh and neither matthew, mark, luke, or john were apostles who personally witnessed christ ::)
-
none of the 4 gospels were written by anyone that was around at the time of jesus. The documents that did directly quote him, or tell of his deads were removed and rewritten to best suit the catholic church. That was my point, as the true deeds and teachings of jesus are in total conflict with what the catholic church preaches i.e. confession only to god and no need for churches.
That is, if you believe there ever was a Jesus; I for one, do not and do not think there is enough evidence to suggest there was a Jesus of Nazareth. Very unlikely and being unlikely that he ever was around, then it follows that the gospels are all artful fabrications.
-
That is, if you believe there ever was a Jesus; I for one, do not and do not think there is enough evidence to suggest there was a Jesus of Nazareth. Very unlikely and being unlikely that he ever was around, then it follows that the gospels are all artful fabrications.
Plenty of proof.
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
Plenty of proof.
CG/DEA_AGENT
This has been debated quite a few times here. I think it is unlikely there was a historical Jesus for various reasons; wild impossibilites to historical inaccuracies in the gospels, NO solid extra-biblical documentation attesting to such a figure and the cut and paste nature of the gospels mirroring passages from the OT. Nevermind all the contradictions...
-
That is, if you believe there ever was a Jesus; I for one, do not and do not think there is enough evidence to suggest there was a Jesus of Nazareth. Very unlikely and being unlikely that he ever was around, then it follows that the gospels are all artful fabrications.
i believe he existed, but i do not believe for 1 sec that the Jews chose to have the Romans kill him - it was the Romans that wanted him dead, and killed him because he was a threat to their control of the area.
Jews have never crucified anyone.
-
i believe he existed, but i do not believe for 1 sec that the Jews chose to have the Romans kill him - it was the Romans that wanted him dead, and killed him because he was a threat to their control of the area.
Jews have never crucified anyone.
Why do you believe he existed?
-
Why do you believe he existed?
there are too many written records of him to be a totally fictional character - greek, arabic, aramaic, roman, gnostic, etc all say he existed, all different sources all different time periods.
is this a jewish thing deicide ? do you feel shame for killing the king of kings ?
-
there are too many written records of him to be a totally fictional character - greek, arabic, aramaic, roman, gnostic, etc all say he existed, all different sources all different time periods.
is this a jewish thing deicide ? do you feel shame for killing the king of kings ?
Contemporaneous written records? No. There are NONE of those. All are 40 years or later, much later in some cases. Julius Caesar had contemporay commentaries written about him AND he penned his own commentaries. People have written much about King Arthur as well; are any of them good attestations to his existence? No. If you look at the Gospels, not only will you see they are carbon copied from passages in the OT but you will also see that they copy each other and there is NOT A SINGLE secular, contemporary biography of Jesus. You could write much about anyone 200 years after his purported time and given people's credulity, they would likely believe you, especially back then.
-
Contemporaneous written records? No. There are NONE of those. All are 40 years or later, much later in some cases. Julius Caesar had contemporay commentaries written about him AND he penned his own commentaries. People have written much about King Arthur as well; are any of them good attestations to his existence? No. If you look at the Gospels, not only will you see they are carbon copied from passages in the OT but you will also see that they copy each other and there is NOT A SINGLE secular, contemporary biography of Jesus. You could write much about anyone 200 years after his purported time and given people's credulity, they would likely believe you, especially back then.
that is not correct, there are many written records of the time of jesus carbon dated to have been written around his time.
also the amount of later reports and records are so vast and varied that there must have been a massive exodus of word of mouth about jesus spreading all over the middle east, the east, and southern europe. The only way it would have spread so much and so fast is for him to have existed.
-
that is not correct, there are many written records of the time of jesus carbon dated to have been written around his time.
also the amount of later reports and records are so vast and varied that there must have been a massive exodus of word of mouth about jesus spreading all over the middle east, the east, and southern europe. The only way it would have spread so much and so fast is for him to have existed.
Carbon dated written records? Please show me some of these; I have never heard of them and word of mouth 40+ years after his alleged death, well not convincing.
Christ a Fiction (1997)
Robert M. Price
I remember a particular Superboy comic book in which the Boy of Steel somehow discovers that in the future, he is thought to be as mythical as Peter Pan and Santa Claus. Indignant at this turn of events, he flies at faster than light speed and enters the future to set the record straight. He does a few super-deeds and vindicates himself, then comes home. So Superboy winds up having the last laugh --or does he?
Of course, it is only fiction! The people in the future were quite right! Superboy is just as mythical as Santa Claus and Peter Pan.
This seems to me a close parallel to the efforts of Christian apologists to vindicate as sober history the story of a supernatural savior who was born of a virgin, healed the sick, raised the dead, changed water into wine, walked on water, rose from the grave and ascended bodily into the sky.
I used to think, when I myself was a Christian apologist, a defender of the evangelical faith, that I had done a pretty respectable job of vindicating that story as history. I brought to bear a variety of arguments I now recognize to be fallacious, such as the supposed closeness of the gospels to the events they record, their ostensibly use of eyewitness testimony, etc. Now, in retrospect, I judge that my efforts were about as effective in the end as Superboy's! When all is said and done, he remains a fiction.
One caveat: I intend to set forth, briefly, some reasons for the views I now hold. I do not expect that the mere fact that I was once an evangelical apologist and now see things differently should itself count as evidence that I must be right. That would be the genetic fallacy. It would be just as erroneous to think that John Rankin [?] must be right in having embraced evangelical Christianity since he had once been an agnostic Unitarian and repudiated it for the Christian faith. In both cases, what matters is the reasons for the change of mind, not merely the fact of it.
Having got that straight, let me say that I think there are four senses in which Jesus Christ may be said to be a "fiction."
First (and, I warn you, this one takes by far the most explaining): It is quite likely, though certainly by no means definitively provable, that the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual. Put simply, not only is the theological "Christ of faith" a synt hetic construct of theologians, a symbolic "Uncle Sam" figure. But if you could travel through time, like Superboy, and you went back to First-Cen tury Nazareth, you would not find a Jesus living there. Why conclude this? There are three reasons, which I must oversimplify for time's sake.
1) In broad outline and in detail, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels corresponds to the worldwide Mythic Hero Archetype in which a divine hero's birth is supernaturally predicted and conceived, the infant hero escapes attempts to kill him, demonstrates his precocious wisdom already as a child, receives a divine commission, defeats demons, wins acclaim, is hailed as king, then betrayed, losing popular favor, executed, often on a hilltop, and is vindicated and taken up to heaven.
These features are found world wide in heroic myths and epics. The more closely a supposed biography, say that of Hercules, Apollonius of Tyana, Padma Sambhava, of Gautama Buddha, corresponds to this plot formula, the more likely the historian is to conclude that a historical figure has been transfigured by myth.
And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities.
There may have been an original King Arthur, but there is no particular reason to think so. There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was.
2) Specifically, the passion stories of the gospels strike me as altogether too close to contemporary myths of dying and rising savior gods including Osiris, Tammuz, Baal, Attis, Adonis, Hercules, and Asclepius. Like Jesus, these figures were believed to have once lived a life upon the earth, been killed, and risen shortly thereafter. Their deaths and resurrections were in most cases ritually celebrated each spring to herald the return of the life to vegetation. In many myths, the savior's body is anointed for burial, searched out by holy women and then reappear alive a few days later.
3) Similarly, the details of the crucifixion, burial and resurrection accounts are astonishingly similar to the events of several surviving popular novels from the same period in which two lovers are separated when one seems to have died and is unwittingly entombed alive. Grave robbers discover her reviving and kidnap her. Her lover finds the tomb empty, graveclothes still in place, and first concludes she has been raised up from death and taken to heaven. Then, realizing what must have happened, he goes in search of her. During his adventures, he is sooner or later condemned to the cross or actually crucified, but manages to escape. When at length the couple is reunited, neither, having long imagined the other dead, can quite believe the lover is alive and not a ghost come to say farewell.
There have been two responses to such evidence by apologists. First, they have contended that all these myths are plagiarized from the gospels by pagan imitators, pointing out that some of the evidence is post-Christian 2E But much is in fact preChristian. And it is significant that the early Christian apologists argued that these parallels to the gospels were counterfeits in advance, by Satan, who knew the real thing would be coming along later and wanted to throw people off the track. This is like the desperate Nineteenth-Century attempts of fundamentalists to claim that Satan had created fake dinosaur bones to tempt the faithful not to believe in Genesis! At any rate, and this is my point, no one would have argued this way had the pagan myths of dead and resurrected gods been more recent than the Christian.
Second, in a variation on the theme, C.S. Lewis suggested that in Jesus' case "myth became fact." He admitted the whole business about the Mythic Hero archetype and the similarity to the pagan saviors, only he made them a kind of prophetic charade, creations of the yearning human heart, dim adumbrations of the incarnation of Christ before it actually happened. The others were myths, but this one actually happened.
In answer to this, I think of an anecdote told by my colleague Bruce Chilton, how, staying the weekend at the home of a friend, he was surprised to see that the guest bathroom was festooned with a variety of towels filched from the Hilton, the Ramada Inn, the Holiday Inn, etc. Which was more likely, he asked: that representatives from all these hotels had sneaked into his friend's bathroom and each copied one of the towel designs? Or that his friend had swiped them from their hotels?
Lewis's is an argument of desperation which no one would think of making unless he was hell-bent on believing that, though all the other superheroes (Batman, Captain Marvel, the Flash) were fictions, Superboy was in fact genuine.
3) The New Testament epistles can be read quite naturally as presupposing a period in which Christians did not yet believe their savior god had been a figure living on earth in the recent historical past. Pail, for instance, never even mentions Jesus performing healings and even as a teacher. Twice he cites what he calls "words of the Lord," but even conservative New Testament scholars admit he may as easily mean prophetic revelations from the heavenly Christ. Paul attributes the death of Jesus not to Roman or Jewish governments, but rather to the designs of evil "archon," angels who rule this fallen world. Romans and 1 Peter both warn Christians to watch their step, reminding them that the Roman authorities never punish the righteous, but only the wicked. How they have said this if they knew of the Pontius Pilate story?
The two exceptions, 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy, epistles that do blame Pilate or Jews for the death of Jesus, only serve to prove the rule. Both can easily be shown on other grounds to be non-Pauline and later than the gospels.
Jesus was eventually "historicized," redrawn as a human being of the past (much as Samson, Enoch, Jabal, Gad, Joshua the son of Nun, and various other ancient Israelite gods had already been). As a part of this process, there were various independent attempts to locate Jesus in recent history by laying the blame for his death on this or that likely candidate, well known tyrants including Herod Antipas, Pontius Pilate, and even Alexander Jannaeus in the first century BC! Now, if the death of Jesus were an actual historical event well known to eyewitnesses of it, there is simply no way such a variety of versions, differing on so fundamental a point, could ever have arisen!
And if early Christians had actually remembered the passion as a series of recent events, why does the earliest gospel crucifixion account spin out the whole terse narrative from quotes cribbed without acknowledgement from Psalm 22? Why does 1 Peter have nothing more detailed than Isaiah 53 to flesh out his account of the sufferings of Jesus? Why does Matthew supplement Mark's version, not with historical tradition or eyewitness memory, but with more quotes, this time from Zechariah and the Wisdom of Solomon?
Thus I find myself more and more attracted to the theory, once vigorously debated by scholars, now smothered by tacit consent, that there was no historical Jesus lying behind the stained glass of the gospel mythology. Instead, he is a fiction.
Rejoinders:
1) We deem them myths not because of a prior bias that there can be no miracles, but because of the Principle of Analogy, the only alternative to which is believing everything in The National Inquirer. If we do not use the standard of current-day experience to evaluate claims from the past, what other standard is there? And why should we believe that God or Nature used to be in the business of doing things that do not happen now? Isn't God supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and forever?
2) The apologists' claim that there was "too little time between the death of Jesus and the writing of the gospels for legends to develop" is circular, presupposing a historical Jesus living at a particular time. 40 years is easily enough time for legendary expansion anyway, but the Christ-Myth Theory does not require that the Christ figure was created in Pontius Pilate's time, only that later, Pilate's time was retrospectively chosen as a location for Jesus.
a) See Jan Vansina, Oral Tradition as History on the tendency in oral tradition to keep updating mythic foundational events, keeping them always at a short distance, a couple of generations before one's own time.
b) And even if there were a historical Jesus and we knew we had eyewitness reports, the apologists fail to take into account recent studies which show that eyewitness testimony, especially of unusual events, is the most unreliable of all, that people tend to rewrite what they saw in light of their accustomed categories and expectations. Thus Strauss was right on target suggesting that the early Christians simply imagined Jesus fulfilling the expected deeds of messiahs and prophets.
3) It is special pleading to dismiss all similar stories as myths and to insist that this case must be different. If you do this, admit it, you are a fideist, no longer an apologist (if there is any difference!).
Second, the "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs. (Of course, every biblicist does the same! "I said it! God believes it! That settles it!"). Today's Politically Correct "historical Jesuses" are no different, being mere clones of the scholars who design them.
C.S. Lewis was right about this in The Screwtape Letters: "Each 'historical Jesus' is unhistorical. The documents say what they say and cannot be added to." But, as apologists so often do, he takes fideism as the natural implication when agnosticism would seem called for. What he imagines the gospels so clearly to "say" is the mythic hero! When, in his essay, "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism," Lewis pulls rank as a self-declared expert and denies that the gospels are anything like ancient myths, one can only wonder what it was he must have been smoking in that ever-present pipe of his!
My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
Third, Jesus as the personal savior, with whom people claim, as I used to, to have a "personal relationship" is in the nature of the case a fiction, essentially a psychological projection, an "imaginary playmate." It is no different at all from pop-psychological "visualization" exercises, or John Bradshaw's gimmick of imagining a healing encounter with loved ones of the past, or Jean Houston leading Hillary Clinton in an admittedly imaginary dialogue with Eleanor Roosevelt.
I suppose there is nothing wrong with any of this, but one ought to recognize it, as Hillary Clinton and Jean Houston, and John Bradshaw do, as imaginative fiction. And so with the personal savior.
The alternative is something like channeling. You have "tuned in" to the spirit of an ancient guru, named Jesus, and you are receiving revelations from him, usually pretty trivial stuff, minor conscience proddings and the like. Some sort of imaginary telepathy.
In fact I don't believe most evangelical pietists mean anything by "having a personal relationship with Christ" than a fancy, overblown name for reading the Bible and saying their prayers. But if they did really refer to some kind of a "personal relationship," it would in effect be a case of channeling. I suspect this is why fundamentalists who condemn New Age channelers do not dismiss it as a fraud pure and simple (though obviously it is), but instead think that Ramtha and the others are channeling demons. If they said it was sheer delusion, they know where the other four fingers would wind up pointing!
Especially in view of the fact that the piety of "having a personal relationship with Christ" and "inviting him into your heart" is alien to the New Testament and is never intimated there as far as I can see, it is amazing to me that evangelicals elevate it to the shibboleth of salvation! Unless you have a personal relationship with Jesus, buster, one day you will be boiling in Hell. Sheesh! Talk about the fury of a personal savior scorned!
No one ever heard of this stuff till the German Pietist movement of the Eighteenth Century. To make a maudlin type of devotionalism the password to heaven is like the fringe Pentecostal who tells you can't get into heaven unless you speak in tongues. "You ask me how I know he lives?" asks the revival chorus. "He lives within my heart." Exactly! A figment.
Fourth, Christ is a fiction in that Christ functions, in an unnoticed and equivocal way, as shorthand for a vast system of beliefs and institutions on whose behalf he is invoked. Put simply, this means that when an evangelist or an apologist invites you to have faith "in Christ," they are in fact smuggling in a great number of other issues. For example, Chalcedonian Christology, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Protestant idea of faith and grace, a particular theory of biblical inspiration and literalism, habits of church attendance, etc. These are all distinct and open questions. Theologians have debated them for many centuries and still debate them. Rank and file believers still debate them, as you know if you have ever spent time talking with one of Jehovah's Witnesses or a Seventh Day Adventist. If you hear me say that and your first thought is "Oh no, those folks aren't real Christians," you're just proving my point! Who gave Protestant fundamentalists the copyright on the word Christian?
No evangelist ever invites people to accept Christ by faith and then to start examining all these other associated issues for themselves. Not one! The Trinity, biblical inerrancy, for some even anti-Darwinism, are non-negotiable. You cannot be genuinely saved if you don't tow the party line on these points. Thus, for them, "to accept Christ" means "to accept Trinitarianism, biblicism, creationism, etc." And this in turn means that "Christ" is shorthand for this whole raft of doctrines and opinions, all of which one is to accept "by faith," on someone else's say-so.
When Christ becomes a fiction in this sense he is an umbrella for an unquestioning acceptance of what some preacher or institution tells us to believe. And this is nothing new, no mutant distortion of Christianity. Paul already requires "the taking of every thought captive to Christ," already insists on "the obedience of faith." Here Christ has already become what he was to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, a euphemism for the dogmatic party line of an institution. Dostoyevsky's point, of course, was that the "real" Jesus stands opposed to this use of his name to sanction religious oppression. But remember, though it is a noble one, Dostoyevsky's Jesus is also a piece of fiction! It is, after all, "The Parable of the Grand Inquisitor."
So, then, Christ may be said to be a fiction in the four senses that 1) it is quite possible that there was no historical Jesus. 2) Even if there was, he is lost to us, the result being that there is no historical Jesus available to us. And 3) the Jesus who "walks with me and talks with me and tells me I am his own" is an imaginative visualization and in the nature of the case can be nothing more than a fiction. And finally, 4) "Christ" as a corporate logo for this and that religious institution is a euphemistic fiction, not unlike Ronald McDonald, Mickey Mouse, or Joe Camel, the purpose of which is to get you to swallow a whole raft of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors by an act of simple faith, short-circuiting the dangerous process of thinking the issues out to your own conclusions.
-
the shroud of turin is one artifact carbon dated to the time of christ, there are other documents i have read about, but i cannot remember off the top of my head the names. Google will no doubt help you.
-
the shroud of turin is one artifact carbon dated to the time of christ, there are other documents i have read about, but i cannot remember off the top of my head the names. Google will no doubt help you.
The Shroud of Turin was dated to the 11th century as far as I know. If you actually take the time to look at the arguments for a historical Jesus, you will see that they generally all fail the test of probablity.
-
::)
the areas highlighted give the roman catholic church power and knowledge of all crime/sin over every christian, the power to forgive sin or not and hence control who gets into heaven. Jesus said the opposite - only god can judge, and the church of god is within. However the catholic church would have zero power if they preached that sort of message ::)
What's with the eye-rolling? The Gospels NEVER indicated that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other body, for that matter) were given the power to forgive sins and control who gets into heaven. In fact, per the Gospels, we have the words of Jesus who taught His disciples how to pray and give supplication DIRECTLY to the Father. The prototype for this is what we commonly know as the "Lord's Prayer", which contains the words, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors".
Jesus gave no indication that church gathering should be forsaken; otherwise, He would have never gone to the synagogues, Himself.
::) ok, i'll play along. The compilation and editing was decided upon by romans at the council of Nicaea around 400 AD. the earliest of the gospels - scholars estimate 'marks' was written at the earliest 65-70 ad, because he does not mention the sacking of jerusalem by the romans in around 70ad ( a prediction of christ). matthew and luke used the gospel of mark for their gospels, and john's is totally different again. ::)
NONE of the Gospels mentions that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, not even John's Gospel. His Gospel isn't "totally different", but it has unique testimony that the others do not. That can be said for the other three as well.
also the dead seas scrolls and the gospel of thomas in particular ( one that was removed by the council) would have totally undermined the power of the church funnily enough ::)
Again, I don't get the eye-rolling. The canonical Gospels say absolutely NOTHING that would give the RCC any of the power about which you're complaining. As stated earlier, the Reformation started, NOT due to some mysterious books being found, but by the fact that people read the BIBLE (i.e. the 66 books we've come to know) for themselves and discovered that the teachings of THOSE BOOKS were in stark contrast to what the RCC was claiming.
Plus, the Dead Sea Scrolls are, by and large, nothing more than ancient copies of the VERY SAME Bible books (particularly those of the Old Testament).
oh and neither matthew, mark, luke, or john were apostles who personally witnessed christ ::)
Mark and Luke were not (Luke states from the beginning of his Gospel, that he interviewed eyewitnesses to Christ); Matthew and John, however, were.
-
The Shroud of Turin was dated to the 11th century as far as I know. If you actually take the time to look at the arguments for a historical Jesus, you will see that they generally all fail the test of probablity.
that is incorrect, more recent more accurate tests have confirmed it to be from the time of Jesus. I have read the arguments, but as i said there are too many reports from too vast an area to be false IMO. i respect your views though, and it's a pity we will never know for certain.
-
that is incorrect, more recent more accurate tests have confirmed it to be from the time of Jesus. I have read the arguments, but as i said there are too many reports from too vast an area to be false IMO. i respect your views though, and it's a pity we will never know for certain.
Unfortunately, even it if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was from the time of Jesus, it still would be impossible to prove it was from him.
-
that is incorrect, more recent more accurate tests have confirmed it to be from the time of Jesus. I have read the arguments, but as i said there are too many reports from too vast an area to be false IMO. i respect your views though, and it's a pity we will never know for certain.
Well, where I stand is: we cannot know for certain and I think it improbable there was a historical Jesus; there may have been but we will never know.
And I think the dating for the Schroud is still controversial.
-
What's with the eye-rolling? The Gospels NEVER indicated that the Roman Catholic Church (or any other body, for that matter) were given the power to forgive sins and control who gets into heaven. In fact, per the Gospels, we have the words of Jesus who taught His disciples how to pray and give supplication DIRECTLY to the Father. The prototype for this is what we commonly know as the "Lord's Prayer", which contains the words, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors".
Jesus gave no indication that church gathering should be forsaken; otherwise, He would have never gone to the synagogues, Himself.
NONE of the Gospels mentions that the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, not even John's Gospel. His Gospel isn't "totally different", but it has unique testimony that the others do not. That can be said for the other three as well.
Again, I don't get the eye-rolling. The canonical Gospels say absolutely NOTHING that would give the RCC any of the power about which you're complaining. As stated earlier, the Reformation started, NOT due to some mysterious books being found, but by the fact that people read the BIBLE (i.e. the 66 books we've come to know) for themselves and discovered that the teachings of THOSE BOOKS were in stark contrast to what the RCC was claiming.
Plus, the Dead Sea Scrolls are, by and large, nothing more than ancient copies of the VERY SAME Bible books (particularly those of the Old Testament).
Mark and Luke were not (Luke states from the beginning of his Gospel, that he interviewed eyewitnesses to Christ); Matthew and John, however, were.
i typed out a loooong reply to this including references, then the page refreshed and i lost everything :(
so i can't be bothered tracking them all down again. here are the cliff notes:
I'm afraid you are wrong on most of what you have claimed.
1. i agree the bible does not say the church has the power to forgive sin ( how could it, it wasn't formed yet) since however the catechism has give the church power to forgive sin and hear confession - i.e. granting them power and wealth.
2. Jesus never spoke about giving confession either, but there you go - the church was created, and became the most powerful rich force in the world, all the while spreading a religion that its founder - Jesus taught to feed he hungry, and have no money :-\
3. i never said the bible talks about the sacking of Jerusalem, i was making the point that scholars used that omission to better estimate the date of the gospels - nothing more.
4. i never claimed the reformation happened due to a mysterious book being found either. Although the reformation wasn't about power to forgive either as you claim, it was about abuse of power, and double standards i.e. adultery, indulgence, bribery etc forgiveness of sin is still widely accepted as a power of the church today too.
5. the dead seas scrolls contain much more than the standard bible texts - perhaps you should read more about them.
6. scholars have not agreed that matthew and john were apostles, johns age alone makes it virtually impossible for it to be the same man as the apostle. if they were the same man he would have been well over 100 years old when he wrote the gospel.
i seem to have offended you with my roll eyes, for that i am sorry. However i sense more hostility than that. If you are a proud Christian i again am sorry if i offended your beliefs, but i believe in facts and like to read and weight the evidence before me. What i have read leads me to my beliefs regarding the church. I was raised a catholic, but years of reading books has revealed much to me.
i am now proud to call myself a Buddhist.
-
I think it is unlikely there was a historical Jesus for various reasons; NO solid extra-biblical documentation attesting to such a figure and the cut and paste nature of the gospels mirroring passages from the OT.
I haven't found this to be true. However, I would like to read what your thoughts are on it.
Nevermind all the contradictions...
I can't find any; which ones are you referring too?. If you do list, start with one at a time if you don't mind.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Bump!
Still no one can show that to be a christian/saved you must believe the KJV Bible is the word of God.
-
Bump!
Still no one can show that to be a christian/saved you must believe the KJV Bible is the word of God.
What do you mean? How do you "show" this? It's an individual decision.
-
Bump!
Still no one can show that to be a christian/saved you must believe the KJV Bible is the word of God.
there is much evidence to suggest that jesus himself was a gnostic - who believe that knowledge and salvation lie within. They also place much belief on meditation as a key to enlightenment - much like hindu's and buddists. There are a few really good gnostic sites on the web that you would find interesting i beieve.
http://gnosticteachings.org/
to me the kjb was just a exercise in power by the monarchs, very similar to the original roman bible - both shams due to missing gospels and edited the gospels that were put in to further their agenda for power and lust.
on a similar note the bible/jesus/moses have always spoke about the serpant being the devil and evil yet the crest of the vatican has always been a dragon ::)
The vatican has always called other religions - heathens, pagans, devil worshipers etc, yet the vatican is full of artifacts, statues, books etc from these 'heathen religions' ::)
-
What do you mean? How do you "show" this? It's an individual decision.
How does one show how to be saved? They show the verses that say how don't they? And give testimony right?
-
i typed out a loooong reply to this including references, then the page refreshed and i lost everything :(
so i can't be bothered tracking them all down again. here are the cliff notes:
I'm afraid you are wrong on most of what you have claimed.
1. i agree the bible does not say the church has the power to forgive sin ( how could it, it wasn't formed yet) since however the catechism has give the church power to forgive sin and hear confession - i.e. granting them power and wealth.
What catechism is that? John writes in one of his later books (1 John, I believe) that “If we confess our sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, the “HE” being Christ. That ties right into the example of the “Lord’s Prayer”: the confession of sin is to Jesus Christ.
Even in the OT, the priests took up sin offerings on behalf of the people and presented then before the Lord and it was HE who forgave people of sin. Nowhere, in either Testament, does it declare or indicate that the priests themselves had such authority.
2. Jesus never spoke about giving confession either, but there you go - the church was created, and became the most powerful rich force in the world, all the while spreading a religion that its founder - Jesus taught to feed he hungry, and have no money :-\
The issue wasn't the presence or absence of money. Many rich people (the centurion, Nicodemus, Zaccheus, etc.) became followers of Jesus. And, it took rich (or at least, well-to-do) folk to fund Paul's multiple trips to other countries to preach the Gospel. The issue was where people put their priorities.
3. i never said the bible talks about the sacking of Jerusalem, i was making the point that scholars used that omission to better estimate the date of the gospels - nothing more.
Agreed. And traditional scholars cite that as evidence support the Gospels being written 1st century A.D. Dr. Paul Meier, from the University of Western Michigan mentioned that, when addressing the authorship of Matthew. He cites Matthew's tendency for recording anything perceived as fulfillment of prophecy. Per his words, "Can you imagine that, if (the Gospel of) Matthew were written anytime after 70 A.D., wild horses couldn't have stopped Matthew from saying, 'And Jesus' words were fulfilled when Jersualem was destroyed'. He doesn't say that; and that's very unlike Matthew."
4. i never claimed the reformation happened due to a mysterious book being found either. Although the reformation wasn't about power to forgive either as you claim, it was about abuse of power, and double standards i.e. adultery, indulgence, bribery etc forgiveness of sin is still widely accepted as a power of the church today too.
For Catholics, maybe, NOT for Protestants. That was my point on why the Reformation started. All that you listed here was fueled by the fact that, once the common man was able to read Scripture for himself, he saw the HUGE gulf that existed between what the RCC taught and what was in "Thus saith the Lord!"
5. the dead seas scrolls contain much more than the standard bible texts - perhaps you should read more about them.
I know that, hence the reason I used the phrast, "By and large".
6. scholars have not agreed that matthew and john were apostles, johns age alone makes it virtually impossible for it to be the same man as the apostle. if they were the same man he would have been well over 100 years old.
Traditional and "liberal" (for lack of a better term) scholars don't agree with the date of the Gospels or their respective authors. In fact, we'll hear more about that over the next few weeks with Resurrection Day/Easter on the horizon. I recorded a show, back in 2005, that deals with this very subject: "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" from Coral Ridge Ministries, founded by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. Actually, I had a thread here with clips from that show on YouTube. I can bring it up, if you wish to check it out.
As for John's age, I see little suggesting he'd have been over a century old, if he were the author of the 4th Gospel (as well as those other three books and Revelation). It's my understanding that John was in his early 80s, when he penned his works.
i seem to have offended you with my roll eyes, for that i am sorry. However i sense more hostility than that. If you are a proud Christian i again am sorry if i offended your beliefs, but i believe in facts and like to read and weight the evidence before me. What i have read leads me to my beliefs regarding the church. I was raised a catholic, but years of reading books has revealed much to me.
i am now proud to call myself a Buddhist.
It's not so much that I'm "offended". It's that the basis of your statements is that the canonical Gospels were picked because they contain something that supposedly gives the RCC the authority to commit those abuses you cited, while the books that were left out would have counter that.
My argument is that, regardless of the non-Biblical books, the Gospels themselves contain nothing that would give way to things like indulgences, priests forgiving sins, or any other issue you cited earlier. If anything, they teach the exact OPPOSITE of that. The RCC's power-and-wealth grab (if you will) had little to do with the verses between Genesis and Revelation.
We're both in agreement that the Catholic Church taught/teaches a lot of stuff that is quite contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The only semantics here is the Canon.
-
Forgive me for not reading all 5 pages on this topic and possibly repeating what someone else may have suggested on this topic. I think the question should be revised to say: "How can one claim to be a Christian if he/she does not believe the the bible (as we know it) is 100% the word of God?
The Canon of scripture is the only revelation to mankind that we have for the redeemption of the world through Jesus Christ.
God (The Holy Spirit) enables one to believe in the word of God. The Holy Spirit inspired the entire Canon of Scripture unto salvation in Christ. That said, if you don't believe in what is written of him how can you have the salvation which is provided through him, i.e. Christ Jesus?
HM
-
Forgive me for not reading all 5 pages on this topic and possibly repeating what someone else may have suggested on this topic. I think the question should be revised to say: "How can one claim to be a Christian if he/she does not believe the the bible (as we know it) is 100% the word of God?
The Canon of scripture is the only revelation to mankind that we have for the redeemption of the world through Jesus Christ.
God (The Holy Spirit) enables one to believe in the word of God. The Holy Spirit inspired the entire Canon of Scripture unto salvation in Christ. That said, if you don't believe in what is written of him how can you have the salvation which is provided through him, i.e. Christ Jesus?
HM
Good point, "IF" the all of the bible was written before Jesus outlined the path to salvation. But it wasn't that way and also, nothing in the bible says you must believe 100% of it to be saved. It simply says in so many words, believe in me, accept me as your savior, repent, and you will be saved, right?
Does it say you must also believe in a collection of scriptures and letters dubiously assembled 300 years later to be the 100% WOG to be saved?
-
i typed out a loooong reply to this including references, then the page refreshed and i lost everything :(
so i can't be bothered tracking them all down again. here are the cliff notes:
I'm afraid you are wrong on most of what you have claimed.
1. i agree the bible does not say the church has the power to forgive sin ( how could it, it wasn't formed yet) since however the catechism has give the church power to forgive sin and hear confession - i.e. granting them power and wealth.
2. Jesus never spoke about giving confession either, but there you go - the church was created, and became the most powerful rich force in the world, all the while spreading a religion that its founder - Jesus taught to feed he hungry, and have no money :-\
3. i never said the bible talks about the sacking of Jerusalem, i was making the point that scholars used that omission to better estimate the date of the gospels - nothing more.
4. i never claimed the reformation happened due to a mysterious book being found either. Although the reformation wasn't about power to forgive either as you claim, it was about abuse of power, and double standards i.e. adultery, indulgence, bribery etc forgiveness of sin is still widely accepted as a power of the church today too.
5. the dead seas scrolls contain much more than the standard bible texts - perhaps you should read more about them.
6. scholars have not agreed that matthew and john were apostles, johns age alone makes it virtually impossible for it to be the same man as the apostle. if they were the same man he would have been well over 100 years old when he wrote the gospel.
i seem to have offended you with my roll eyes, for that i am sorry. However i sense more hostility than that. If you are a proud Christian i again am sorry if i offended your beliefs, but i believe in facts and like to read and weight the evidence before me. What i have read leads me to my beliefs regarding the church. I was raised a catholic, but years of reading books has revealed much to me.
i am now proud to call myself a Buddhist.
Near zero evidence to support an historical Buddha as well; I'd say even less than for Jesus.
-
How does one show how to be saved? They show the verses that say how don't they? And give testimony right?
There are many ways to "show how to be saved." One way is Bible study. Another is to be "lifestyle evangelist," which means the way you live your life provides an example or "witness" to others. Everyone's life is a testimony (either good or bad).
-
There are many ways to "show how to be saved." One way is Bible study. Another is to be "lifestyle evangelist," which means the way you live your life provides an example or "witness" to others. Everyone's life is a testimony (either good or bad).
But when it comes down to it, one must believe that Jesus is god and Savior to be saved. Good works alone is not enough to get saved right?
-
But when it comes down to it, one must believe that Jesus is god and Savior to be saved. Good works alone is not enough to get saved right?
Good works do not get people saved IMO. You don't work your way into heaven. I live my life a certain way because it’s the right thing to do and because I’m a role model for my kids and others, not because I’m trying to earn my ticket.
I don't think a person necessarily has to believe in Jesus to be saved. It depends on the level of knowledge and exposure the person has. Someone who has never been exposed to the Bible, etc. isn't accountable for what they don't know. I think it's only those who are old enough, competent enough, and have undertaken their study who "must" believe in Jesus.
Like me. There is no way I could turn my back on what I have learned throughout my life. And I have studied enough about other "gods" and religions, and experienced enough in my own life, to know that there is only way to heaven for me.
-
Good works do not get people saved IMO. You don't work your way into heaven. I live my life a certain way because it’s the right thing to do and because I’m a role model for my kids and others, not because I’m trying to earn my ticket.
I don't think a person necessarily has to believe in Jesus to be saved. It depends on the level of knowledge and exposure the person has. Someone who has never been exposed to the Bible, etc. isn't accountable for what they don't know. I think it's only those who are old enough, competent enough, and have undertaken their study who "must" believe in Jesus.
Like me. There is no way I could turn my back on what I have learned throughout my life. And I have studied enough about other "gods" and religions, and experienced enough in my own life, to know that there is only way to heaven for me.
From what i understand, according to the bible, its the only way.
I live my life a certain way because it’s the right thing to do and because I’m a role model for my kids and others, not because I’m trying to earn my ticket.
I believe that of you. no doubt.
-
From what i understand, according to the bible, its the only way.
I believe that of you. no doubt.
Thanks. What the Bible actually says is you are only accountable for what you know.
-
But when it comes down to it, one must believe that Jesus is god and Savior to be saved. Good works alone is not enough to get saved right?
All about Jebus!
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/Jebus-1.jpg)
-
All about Jebus!
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z25/Todesfick/Jebus-1.jpg)
yep...gotta love the my religion is the right one.and everyone elses religion is the wrong one mentality.haha to funny
-
Thanks. What the Bible actually says is you are only accountable for what you know.
Yes, it may, however, accepting Jesus as your savior is or isn't enough to be saved? Must you also believe a book assembled 300 years after his death is the 100% WOG to be saved?
That's the contention here.
-
Yes, it may, however, accepting Jesus as your savior is or isn't enough to be saved? Must you also believe a book assembled 300 years after his death is the 100% WOG to be saved?
That's the contention here.
It is enough IMO.
I'm sure it's possible to be a Christian and not believe everything in the Bible is God's word, but it certainly sounds like a contradiction. What I do see often are disagreements on how to interpret the Bible, but not whether it's actually God's word.
I think you really have to use common sense and your conscience as your guide. Even my wife and I don't agree on how to interpret all parts of the Bible, but we both believe it's God's word. Same with my best friend. We don't agree on how to interpret everything.
-
All about Jebus!
watch that spelling dumbass
-
It is enough IMO.
I'm sure it's possible to be a Christian and not believe everything in the Bible is God's word, but it certainly sounds like a contradiction. What I do see often are disagreements on how to interpret the Bible, but not whether it's actually God's word.
I think you really have to use common sense and your conscience as your guide. Even my wife and I don't agree on how to interpret all parts of the Bible, but we both believe it's God's word. Same with my best friend. We don't agree on how to interpret everything.
i agree with you there, so in essence you think one doesn't have to?
-
The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, look at (Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23).
Josephus (Jewish historian) referred to the stoning of James, who was the brother of Jesus. This same Jesus was referred to as the "Christ" by Josephus.
Another secular source was Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century. He also referred to Christ.
Even the The New Encyclopedia Britannica admits that these sources are legit and that OPPONENTS of Christianity did not doubt the existence of Jesus.
What's your take on this info Decide? Just asking? :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
i agree with you there, so in essence you think one doesn't have to?
I could give you some Scriptures to go by, but I'm not sure which ones you believe in? ;D :P
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
but we both believe it's God's word.
Me too! I don't see how a Christian can't believe that the Bible isn't the Word Of God. This Scripture does it for me. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I could give you some Scriptures to go by, but I'm not sure which ones you believe in? ;D :P
GC/DEA_AGENT
Show me where it says one must believe a book assembled 300 years after Jesus's death and much of which was written 50 years after his death to be saved.
Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly. He didn't included the bible in it.
-
i agree with you there, so in essence you think one doesn't have to?
No, within the parameters I already discussed. It's really up to the individual. It's clear to me that the Bible is God's word. I'm not conflicted about it at all. There are parts I question and parts I'm not all that crazy about it, but I've spent enough time reading the Bible and experienced God in my life to be comfortable with the entire Bible as God's word.
I don't think the Bible should serve as a stumbling block to anyone's relationship with God. If it bothers anyone to read the Bible, or accept it, then they shouldn't read it. That said, I think refusing to read it is inconsistent with Christianity, and a true, meaningful relationship with God, but at the end of the day a person has be comfortable with their own beliefs. It's really not for me to say that you or anyone else isn't a true Christian because you reject the Bible.
This puts me at odds with a lot of Christians, because the Bible is very clear about the entire Bible being God's word, and much of Christianity will teach you that you can't reject the Bible and maintain a genuine relationship with God. I think on balance that this teaching is correct, but I'm not comfortable questioning the sincerity of a person's relationship based solely on problems they might have with parts of the Bible.
-
Me too! I don't see how a Christian can't believe that the Bible isn't the Word Of God. This Scripture does it for me. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
GC/DEA_AGENT
I pretty much agree.
-
No, within the parameters I already discussed. It's really up to the individual. It's clear to me that the Bible is God's word. I'm not conflicted about it at all. There are parts I question and parts I'm not all that crazy about it, but I've spent enough time reading the Bible and experienced God in my life to be comfortable with the entire Bible as God's word.
I don't think the Bible should serve as a stumbling block to anyone's relationship with God. If it bothers anyone to read the Bible, or accept it, then they shouldn't read it. That said, I think refusing to read it is inconsistent with Christianity, and a true, meaningful relationship with God, but at the end of the day a person has be comfortable with their own beliefs. It's really not for me to say that you or anyone else isn't a true Christian because you reject the Bible.
This puts me at odds with a lot of Christians, because the Bible is very clear about the entire Bible being God's word, and much of Christianity will teach you that you can't reject the Bible and maintain a genuine relationship with God. I think on balance that this teaching is correct, but I'm not comfortable questioning the sincerity of a person's relationship based solely on problems they might have with parts of the Bible.
However, in the end, there is nothing in the Bible that says it. I agree it's a personal choice.
Regardless, to be saved, you need only to accept Jesus as you savior.
-
Regardless, to be saved, you need only to accept Jesus as you savior.
I agree with this.
-
what if you don't need to be saved because you practice a different religion.
-
Regardless, to be saved, you need only to accept Jesus as you savior.
Why do you believe this part of the Bible and not the rest? Just asking?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Why do you believe this part of the Bible and not the rest? Just asking?
GC/DEA_AGENT
Why should i believe the rest? What difference does it make? All that matters is I accept Jesus as my savior right?
All rest is....GC...... is man. a man made collection of books to set up doctrine.
-
The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, look at (Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23).
Indeed. William Ramsay, schooled during the so-called Enlightenment period, in which Scripture was severely ridiculed, did his investigation into the account of Luke and found his account to be quite accurate, which played a role into his becoming a Christian.
Josephus (Jewish historian) referred to the stoning of James, who was the brother of Jesus. This same Jesus was referred to as the "Christ" by Josephus.
Not quite. According to the Arabic version of Josephus' document (known as the Testimonium Flavinium), Josephus merely stated that Jesus was called Christ, not that Josephus himself thought Him to be the Christ.
Another secular source was Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century. He also referred to Christ.
Yep!! He even cited that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate.
Even the The New Encyclopedia Britannica admits that these sources are legit and that OPPONENTS of Christianity did not doubt the existence of Jesus.
What's your take on this info Decide? Just asking? :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
Stand by for more foolishness!! ;D
-
Bump!
Still no one can show that to be a christian/saved you must believe the KJV Bible is the word of God.
-
Why should i believe the rest? What difference does it make? All that matters is I accept Jesus as my savior right?
The difference is, it's in the Bible, the same one you reject on every other matter concerning it.
All rest is....GC...... is man. a man made collection of books to set up doctrine.
How do you come to the conclusion that the part u believe is not written by man?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Not quite. According to the Arabic version of Josephus' document (known as the Testimonium Flavinium), Josephus merely stated that Jesus was called Christ, not that Josephus himself thought Him to be the Christ.
Ooops! My bad. Thanx for the correction, friend.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
The difference is, it's in the Bible, the same one you reject on every other matter concerning it.
How do you come to the conclusion that the part u believe is not written by man?
GC/DEA_AGENT
In reality it was written by man. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't those gospels written many years after Jesus's death? Some experts thinking it was as much as 50 years after his death. 50 years of the beginning of a religion spread by word of mouth? Ever play that game in school where everyone stands in a line a message is sent though it?
The "rest of the bible" is used for power, used for church. In the bible as with many other religious works from other religions lies nuggets of wisdom from God. The bible has some great ones: Do on to others...... Very little to go wrong with living your life that way.
The rest of the raging mass murdering jealous insecure stuff is all man. Like beating your kid with a rod. Or a sending a bear to kill children for teasing a prophet. Or sending your daughters outside to get raped by an angry horny mob. I mean come on.
-
Ooops! My bad. Thanx for the correction, friend.
GC/DEA_AGENT
No problem. I've dealt with Deicide's silly claims before, regarding the alleged non-existence of Jesus Christ. It's a view that few hold, given the huge body of evidence we have today. Basically, any arguments about Christ center more around His divinity, not his mere existence.
In reality it was written by man. In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, weren't those gospels written many years after Jesus's death? Some experts thinking it was as much as 50 years after his death. 50 years of the beginning of a religion spread by word of mouth? Ever play that game in school where everyone stands in a line a message is sent though it?
The "rest of the bible" is used for power, used for church. In the bible as with many other religious works from other religions lies nuggets of wisdom from God. The bible has some great ones: Do on to others...... Very little to go wrong with living your life that way.
The rest of the raging mass murdering jealous insecure stuff is all man. Like beating your kid with a rod. Or a sending a bear to kill children for teasing a prophet. Or sending your daughters outside to get raped by an angry horny mob. I mean come on.
"Come on", indeed. The "beating your kid with a rod" is little more than the standard butt-whipping that most folks got as kids, when they got too far out of line.
As for the rest, there were TWO bears and (as explained multiple times before), Elisha was not confronted by a bunch of gummy-worm eating, Caprisun-sipping kindegarteners. Of course, when this was last brought up, you were still left to explain why a bunch of "little kids" would leave the confines of a city, go to a desert road, and confront a prophet, allegedly just to pick on his being bald.
Add to that, how many of these folks were there, if only 42 got jacked up by them grizzlies?
The daughters-angry-mob stuff.......that's a mere report of what happened in a scenario where a cowardly guy does that to save his own hide.
Basically, as stated before, you've simply cut-and-pasted from some Bible skeptic website(s), in which the authors are basically CLUELESS as to the context of the scenarios, which the skeptics decry. I believe it's called "argument by outrage".
Again, if you had a bunch of hooligans (rolling perhaps 100 deep) coming your way with intent to do you bodily harm, I don't think you'd be crying about a couple of bears coming to your rescue.
-
No problem. I've dealt with Deicide's silly claims before, regarding the alleged non-existence of Jesus Christ. It's a view that few hold, given the huge body of evidence we have today. Basically, any arguments about Christ center more around His divinity, not his mere existence.
"Come on", indeed. The "beating your kid with a rod" is little more than the standard butt-whipping that most folks got as kids, when they got too far out of line.
As for the rest, there were TWO bears and (as explained multiple times before), Elisha was not confronted by a bunch of gummy-worm eating, Caprisun-sipping kindegarteners. Of course, when this was last brought up, you were still left to explain why a bunch of "little kids" would leave the confines of a city, go to a desert road, and confront a prophet, allegedly just to pick on his being bald.
Add to that, how many of these folks were there, if only 42 got jacked up by them grizzlies?
The daughters-angry-mob stuff.......that's a mere report of what happened in a scenario where a cowardly guy does that to save his own hide.
Basically, as stated before, you've simply cut-and-pasted from some Bible skeptic website(s), in which the authors are basically CLUELESS as to the context of the scenarios, which the skeptics decry. I believe it's called "argument by outrage".
Again, if you had a bunch of hooligans (rolling perhaps 100 deep) coming your way with intent to do you bodily harm, I don't think you'd be crying about a couple of bears coming to your rescue.
Tell you what, call CPS and your local newspaper and tell them you are about to beat you child with a rod. see what happens.
-
The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, look at (Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23).
Luke is just as contrived and fictitious as the other Gospels, therein is contained the famous Luke/Matthew Jesus Birth Date contradiction
Josephus (Jewish historian) referred to the stoning of James, who was the brother of Jesus. This same Jesus was referred to as the "Christ" by Josephus.
Joesphus, an orthodox Jew would never have referred to 'Jesus' as the Christ and that passage you are referring to is talking about another Jesus, not Jesus of Nazareth.
Another secular source was Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century. He also referred to Christ.
Widely acknowledged to be an interpolation and even if not, writing nearly a century later, has little value, being mentioned no longer than a sentence.
Even the The New Encyclopedia Britannica admits that these sources are legit and that OPPONENTS of Christianity did not doubt the existence of Jesus.
What's your take on this info Decide? Just asking? :)
I find the evidence lacking and this has been discussed many times before.
GC/DEA_AGENT
Why do you always post this?
-
Bump!
Still no one can show that to be a christian/saved you must believe the KJV Bible is the word of God.
OzmO, the title of your thread refers to "the Bible" in general. I'm curious as to why you all of a sudden changed your question to refer only to the King James Version? What about all the other Bible versions in all the other languages?
-
OzmO, the title of your thread refers to "the Bible" in general. I'm curious as to why you all of a sudden changed your question to refer only to the King James Version? What about all the other Bible versions in all the other languages?
no reason
-
Bump!
Still no one can show that to be a christian/saved you must believe the KJV Bible is the word of God.
OzmO, the title of your thread refers to "the Bible" in general. I'm curious as to why you all of a sudden changed your question to refer only to the King James Version? What about all the other Bible versions in all the other languages?
no reason
That you have to believe that just the King James Version of the Bible is the Word of God to be a Christian, to be saved? I'd say No. :-\
-
Show me where it says one must believe a book assembled 300 years after Jesus's death and much of which was written 50 years after his death to be saved.
Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly. He didn't included the bible in it.
Where?
-
Where?
You don't know where?
-
That you have to believe that just the King James Version of the Bible is the Word of God to be a Christian, to be saved? I'd say No. :-\
What about the other main stream versions generally accepted by Christians?
-
You don't know where?
Where?
-
What about the other main stream versions generally accepted by Christians?
All versions of the Bible, in all languages, translated from the surviving Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are The Word of God, and that includes the King James Version.
-
All versions of the Bible, in all languages, translated from the surviving Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are The Word of God, and that includes the King James Version.
So it is your contention that one doesn't have to believe the bible is the 100% WOG to be a Christian and be saved?
-
Where?
Gee I'm very surprised you don't know where. ::)
-
Show me where it says one must believe a book assembled 300 years after Jesus's death and much of which was written 50 years after his death to be saved.
Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly. He didn't included the bible in it.
Where?
-
Where?
you don't know where?
-
Show me where it says one must believe a book assembled 300 years after Jesus's death and much of which was written 50 years after his death to be saved.
Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly. He didn't included the bible in it.
So you heard this little voice in your head that said it was from Jesus and this voice "outlined the path to salvation clearly" to you?
-
So you heard this little voice in your head that said it was from Jesus and this voice "outlined the path to salvation clearly" to you?
did you?
-
So it is your contention that one doesn't have to believe the bible is the 100% WOG to be a Christian and be saved?
Unless Jesus or any of his 12 Apostles speaks to you directly from Heaven, then yes, you do have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God in order to be saved through grace, by faith in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, you are not making any sense here.
-
did you?
No, not me. I believe the Bible is The Word of God.
-
Unless Jesus or any of his 12 Apostles speaks to you directly from Heaven, then yes, you do have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God in order to be saved through grace, by faith in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, you are not making any sense here.
No, because when Jesus said it the bible didn't even exist. You are the one not making any sense.
-
All versions of the Bible, in all languages, translated from the surviving Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are The Word of God, and that includes the King James Version.
So I ask you, do you have to believe: All versions of the Bible, in all languages, translated from the surviving Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are The Word of God to be a christian/saved?
-
No, because when Jesus said it the bible didn't even exist. You are the one not making any sense.
Oh, yes it did. What do you think Jesus kept quoting constantly about Himself? What do you think Jesus got up and read to the Jews at the synagogue about Himself?
Besides, when Jesus said it, Jesus was there saying it, and his apostles and other followers were there listening, and they wrote it down. I believe in what they wrote down by faith. So you either believe what they wrote down about what Jesus said or you must be hearing voices from Heaven.
-
So I ask you, do you have to believe: All versions of the Bible, in all languages, translated from the surviving Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts are The Word of God to be a christian/saved?
I believe you do, and I don't understand how you could otherwise.
-
Oh, yes it did. What do you think Jesus kept quoting constantly about Himself? What do you think Jesus got up and read to the Jews at the synagogue about Himself?
Besides, when Jesus said it, Jesus was there saying it, and his apostles and other followers were there listening, and they wrote it down. I believe what they wrote down by faith. So you either believe what they wrote down about what Jesus said or you must be hearing voices from Heaven.
Oh really he quoted and read the letters paul wrote before he wrote them?
-
Oh really he read the letters paul wrote before he wrote them?
He read the Bible. You said that when Jesus said "it" the bible didn't even exist.
-
Oh really he quote and read the letters paul wrote before he wrote them?
Paul saw and heard Jesus. Have you seen or heard Jesus?
-
Paul saw and heard Jesus. Have you seen or heard Jesus?
So did thomas and a bunch of other people. yet those accounts are not the WOG? By the same logic, which is flawed anyway, they should be too.
side note: was it Decide who said Paul never even met or saw Jesus or do i have thins wrong?
-
So did thomas and a bunch of other people.
side note: was it Decide who said Paul never even met or saw Jesus or do i have thins wrong?
Are you Thomas or any of those people?
Deicide has said that there is no Jesus, that there never was.
-
Are you Thomas or any of those people?
Deicide has said that there is no Jesus, that there never was.
Are you?
Point is, Jesus said what he said 300 years before the bible came into being. before that there were other gospels, other writings all after he said what he said.
the bible didn't exist when he said it.
-
Are you?
No, I'm not. I don't have Jesus here to tell me. I don't have those people who heard him here to tell me. But I have the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
Point is, Jesus said what he said 300 years before the bible came into being. before that there were other gospels, other writings all after he said what he said.
the bible didn't exist when he said it.
The Hebrew Bible had already been around for 400 years by the time Jesus was born, and it speaks about Jesus and about salvation and Jesus read it to the people and pointed out it was speaking of Him.
The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were already in circulation before all those who had heard and seen Jesus had passed away.
-
So did thomas and a bunch of other people. yet those accounts are not the WOG? By the same logic, which is flawed anyway, they should be too.
side note: was it Decide who said Paul never even met or saw Jesus or do i have thins wrong?
Paul wholly admits never having seen Jesus and only refers to him in visions, makes no concrete references to him or any of the events in the gospels which purportedly depict his life...just a phantasm. Later on the gospel writers would invent their stories...
-
No, I'm not. I don't have Jesus here to tell me. I don't have those people who heard him here to tell me. But I have the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
The Hebrew Bible had already been around for 400 years by the time Jesus was born, and it speaks about Jesus and about salvation and Jesus read it to the people and pointed out it was speaking of Him.
The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were already in circulation before all those who had heard and seen Jesus had passed away.
Is the Hebrew bible the ENTIRE bible?
Did the New Testament exist when Jesus was alive?
People who saw and heard Jesus were alive 300 years later?
-
Is the Hebrew bible the ENTIRE bible?
Makes up most of it.
Did the New Testament exist when Jesus was alive?
Jesus is alive
People who saw and heard Jesus were alive 300 years later?
No. Where do you get 300 years?
The written New Testament was in circulation within 40 years of Jesus' ministry.
-
2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV)
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Do christian realy believe this shit? God loves everyone but then he sends two bears to kill 42 children?! WTF..
LOL now lets say this did happen, 2 bears vs 42 children.. Are you telling me they all just stood around watching the bears kill them without even thinking once "oh shit lets run"??
-
Show me where it says one must believe a book assembled 300 years after Jesus's death and much of which was written 50 years after his death to be saved.
Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly. He didn't included the bible in it.
Where?
Gee I'm very surprised you don't know where. ::)
Why would I know where in the world you got your outlined path to salvation from Jesus if you don't believe in the authenticity of the Gospels and of the rest of the New Testament?
So let me ask you again. You claim that "Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly" and I ask you where?
-
Is the Hebrew bible the ENTIRE bible?
Did the New Testament exist when Jesus was alive?
People who saw and heard Jesus were alive 300 years later?
Was Jesus ever alive?
-
Makes up most of it.
Jesus is alive
No. Where do you get 300 years?
The written New Testament was in circulation within 40 years of Jesus' ministry.
Not all of it.
When Jesus was alive on earth?
When was the Bible put together? When did they decide which books were to be put in the bible? Did it happen during Jesus's life on earth? Did Paul write his letters while Jesus was "in the flesh" on Earth?
Heck, the Gospels weren't written yet.
Where?
Why would I know where in the world you got your outlined path to salvation from Jesus if you don't believe in the authenticity of the Gospels and of the rest of the New Testament?
So let me ask you again. You claim that "Jesus outlined the path to salvation clearly" and I ask you where?
I'm really surprised you don't know.
Maybe Johnny knows :D
-
Not all of it.
When Jesus was alive on earth?
When was the Bible put together? When did they decide which books were to be put in the bible? Did it happen during Jesus's life on earth? Did Paul write his letters while Jesus was on Earth?
Heck, the Gospels weren't written yet.
I'm really surprised you don't know.
I am surprised you don't look at the evidence that suggests there never was a Jesus.
-
I am surprised you don't look at the evidence that suggests there never was a Jesus.
I'm sure there's tons of it. But something got Christianity started, whether it was who we know as Jesus or someone else who became who we know as Jesus.
-
I'm sure there's tons of it. But something got Christianity started, whether it was who we know as Jesus or someone else who became who we know as Jesus.
We will never know and I think that is the major point; the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; it is a collection of pseudo-history, folklore and outright fabrication. As to what got Christianity started, politics and power my friend, pretty simple.
-
We will never know and I think that is the major point; the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; it is a collection of pseudo-history, folklore and outright fabrication. As to what got Christianity started, politics and power my friend, pretty simple.
I agree, but something sparked the movement.
-
I agree, but something sparked the movement.
money,power,and control.
-
money,power,and control.
Opportunities for money power and control always exist.
Something happened. Something Unique. Whether it's real or not is not the point. Something started it. Money, power and control may have help grow it. But something started it.
-
Opportunities for money power and control always exist.
Something happened. Something Unique. Whether it's real or not is not the point. Something started it. Money, power and control may have help grow it. But something started it.
opportunities yes...you can tax or rob a person and get money.but what can you do to get them to willing hand it over?hence church donation.and control.yea you can control people with police and army's and intimidation but..to own there mind is complete control.hence believe our religion for salvation.and when you are in a person's mind and pocket you have all the power...
-
opportunities yes...you can tax or rob a person and get money.but what can you do to get them to willing hand it over?hence church donation.and control.yea you can control people with police and army's and intimidation but..to own there mind is complete control.hence believe our religion for salvation.and when you are in a person's mind and pocket you have all the power...
Yep, you are preaching to the choir. ;D
But something started it. Real or not.
-
Yep, you are preaching to the choir. ;D
But something started it. Real or not.
Remember that in the 1st and 2nd centuries, there wasn't Christianity but CHRISTIANITIES, that is many different forms of it competing against each other and differing from each other. Probably to many to count...
-
Remember that in the 1st and 2nd centuries, there wasn't Christianity but CHRISTIANITIES, that is many different forms of it competing against each other and differing from each other. Probably to many to count...
And what sparked that?
There had to be something.
-
And what sparked that?
There had to be something.
That something was the person of Jesus Christ, whose existence is well-documented both inside and outside the Bible, contrary to Deicide's wacky claims to the contrary.
We will never know and I think that is the major point; the Bible is unreliable as a historical document; it is a collection of pseudo-history, folklore and outright fabrication. As to what got Christianity started, politics and power my friend, pretty simple.
Au contraire!!! We know, and that the problem that too many atheists can't seem to shake. Loco has pointed this out several times, as have I, the numerous times atheists have been burned when historical evidence support the accounts in the Bible.
Your claim is utterly false, as the Bible has been used for centuries as a reliable historical document. There were many events that, at one point, were known only in the pages of Scripture. Atheists erroneously and foolishly claimed that such events were fabricated. But as archaeological and historical events have been un-earth (SURPRISE, SURPRISE), they point squarely to the Bible's accuracy about such events.
It's gone to the point, where now certain scholars have now resorted to Biblical marginalism. Since they can no longer deny the historicity of the events, they must now revise it so that they can still downplay the divine aspects of the Biblical accounts. I've seen that happen several times on the History Channel.
-
That something was the person of Jesus Christ, whose existence is well-documented both inside and outside the Bible, contrary to Deicide's wacky claims to the contrary.
Au contraire!!! We know, and that the problem that too many atheists can't seem to shake. Loco has pointed this out several times, as have I, the numerous times atheists have been burned when historical evidence support the accounts in the Bible.
Your claim is utterly false, as the Bible has been used for centuries as a reliable historical document. There were many events that, at one point, were known only in the pages of Scripture. Atheists erroneously and foolishly claimed that such events were fabricated. But as archaeological and historical events have been un-earth (SURPRISE, SURPRISE), they point squarely to the Bible's accuracy about such events.
It's gone to the point, where now certain scholars have now resorted to Biblical marginalism. Since they can no longer deny the historicity of the events, they must now revise it so that they can still downplay the divine aspects of the Biblical accounts. I've seen that happen several times on the History Channel.
In your dreams MCWAY...well documented both inside and outside....freaking hilarious...keep them coming....
If you really think the Bible is a book of history then I have a bridge to sell you...oh and the Illiad is also a reliable historical document...
-
In your dreams MCWAY...well documented both inside and outside....freaking hilarious...keep them coming....
Yep, well-documented. I've mentioned this several times before now. But just to jar that short memory of yours.....
Actually, the life of Jesus is recorded in whole or in part, different segments, in about 20 different non-Christian sources--historically or archaeologically--outside the New Testament. And most of these are little snippets--a sentence here, a paragraph there--but you put them all together, and you get approximately 60 to 65 facts, concerning the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the earliest church. You can get an outline of His life and NEVER touch the New Testament." - Dr. Gary Habermas, "The Historical Jesus" (and "Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?")
If you really think the Bible is a book of history then I have a bridge to sell you...oh and the Illiad is also a reliable historical document...
I don't need a bridge. We have scholars who have said as much, regarding the accuracy of Biblical history.
With regards to one of my favorite subject items, Belshazzar, about whom skeptics have had to remove their feet from their mouths:
"Of all the non Babylonian records dealing with the situation at the close of the Neo-Babylonian empire the fifth chapter of Daniel ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events are concerned. The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom. Babylonian cuneiform documents of the sixth century B.C. furnish clear-cut evidence of the correctness of these three basic historical nuclei contained in the Biblical narrative dealing with the fall of Babylon.
Cuneiform texts written under Persian influence in the sixth century B.C. have not preserved the name Belshazzar, but his role as a crown prince entrusted with royal power during Nabonidus's stay in Arabia is depicted convincingly. Two famous Greek historians of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. do not mention Belshazzar by name and hint only vaguely at the actual political situation which existed in the time of Nabonidus. Annals in the Greek language ranging from about the beginning of the third century to the first century B.C. are absolutely silent concerning Belshazzar and the prominence he had during the last reign of the Neo-Babylonian empire. The total information found in all available chronologically-fixed documents later than the cuneiform texts of the sixth century B.C. and prior to the writings of Josephus of the first century A.D. could not have provided the necessary material for the historical framework of the fifth chapter of Daniel." R. P. Doughtery, "Nabonidus and Belshazzar". (Yale, 1929)
And, as he usually does, Loco will have no problem, displaying the long (but not exhaustive) list of events and figures that atheists claimed never happened or never existed, only to be refuted with historical and archaelogical evidence that verifies the Biblical accounts.
-
And what sparked that?
There had to be something.
Perhaps, you should check out the "Who is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" video on the thread I just brought back up.
"Christianity, of course, is based on a belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. Now how can you explain the expansion of this religion that exalted a man who suffered the ignominious death, the worst possible death, reserved for criminals and slaves---crucifixion---how can you explain the growth and expansion of this religion without the Resurrection? You cannot. Now, some scholars have tried to do that; but they do not offer any convincing explanation." Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami-Ohio (from "Who Is This Jesus Is He Risen?").
-
No.
-
therein is contained the famous Luke/Matthew Jesus Birth Date contradiction.
Have you ever read two biographies about the same famous person? If so, have you noticed that these biographies will differ without being necessarily contradictory? Often, it is because of the writer’s personal impressions or the sources he has used. It also depends on what the author feels is important to relate in his presentation, the angle he is developing, and having the audience in mind for whom the work is intended. Thus, accounts written with Gentile readers in mind would differ from those for Jewish readers, who already understood and accepted certain facts.
These are just a few examples of passages in the Bible that, without careful analysis, appear to contradict one another. But when carefully examined, keeping in mind the writer’s viewpoint and the context, they are not contradictions at all but simply passages that require additional research. Most people fail to put forth this necessary effort, however, finding it so much easier just to say: "The Bible contradicts itself."
Joesphus, an orthodox Jew would never have referred to 'Jesus' as the Christ and that passage you are referring to is talking about another Jesus, not Jesus of Nazareth.
Um, yeah, I acknowledge my mistake when "McWay" brought it out. What Josephus said was "the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ." (Jewish Antiquities, XX, [ix, 1].) Sorry for the confusion friend. :)
I'm not sure what you mean by me referring to another Jesus. I think you might be thinking of Acts 12:1,2 where it mentions the death of another James by sword. I was not referencing this James of the Bible. The James I referred to, is indeed, the brother of Jesus, or rather half-brother. Just for info, the other two James' mentioned in the Bible were the son's of Zebedee and Alphaeus.
There is no Biblical record of the stoning of Jesus' half-brother James. This was recorded only by a secular source, Josephus. Hope that clears up my confusing post. :)
Widely acknowledged to be an interpolation and even if not, writing nearly a century later, has little value, being mentioned no longer than a sentence.
Well, I guess everyone is different on what "floats their boat". It's plenty for me and most other Christians. He (Tacitus) , from what I've researched is well accepted as reliable. :o
I find the evidence lacking and this has been discussed many times before.
Sometimes, one has to open their mind and heart in order to see thru the lies. I'm sure with time and HONEST research you would find that the evidence is overwhelming! :)
Why do you always post this?
That's my I.D. on this board. ???
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
Perhaps, you should check out the "Who is This Jesus? Is He Risen?" video on the thread I just brought back up.
"Christianity, of course, is based on a belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. Now how can you explain the expansion of this religion that exalted a man who suffered the ignominious death, the worst possible death, reserved for criminals and slaves---crucifixion---how can you explain the growth and expansion of this religion without the Resurrection? You cannot. Now, some scholars have tried to do that; but they do not offer any convincing explanation." Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of Ancient History, University of Miami-Ohio (from "Who Is This Jesus Is He Risen?").
Thanks, I'll check it out soon.
I agree, something sparked it. Perhaps stories of a resurrection. However that does not prove a resurrection. I think it was Barbara Thering who had a interesting theory on that one, not that i agree.
-
2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV)
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Do christian realy believe this shit? God loves everyone but then he sends two bears to kill 42 children?! WTF..
LOL now lets say this did happen, 2 bears vs 42 children.. Are you telling me they all just stood around watching the bears kill them without even thinking once "oh shit lets run"??
You're WAAAAAAY late to the party. This has been discussed (and thoroughly refuted) some time ago.
First, the "little children" are anything but that. The Hebrew words that the KJV translators render as "little children" are more accurately translated as young men or young lads (i.e. teenagers).
Second (and this is a question asked several times before now), why are a bunch of folks leaving the confines of a city, to confront Elisha, just because he's bald?
Thirdly, if the bears hacked up 42 of them, it leads one to wonder just how many there actually were (and again, why they're messing with Elisha, in the first place).
Bible scholars have deduced that these "little children" were apprentices of Baal prophets, much as Elisha was an apprentice of Elijah (they knew who Elisha was, which is why they kept egging him to "Go up", as his mentor did, when he was translated into heaven).
They had bad intentions for Elisha. Fortunately for him, he had some backup in the form of those bears.
-
Luke is just as contrived and fictitious as the other Gospels, therein is contained the famous Luke/Matthew Jesus Birth Date contradiction
A "contradicton", which has been sliced to pieces by Biblical scholars long ago, most notably, Sir William Ramsay, whose historical investigaton into the matter not only cleared up this alleged "contradiction" but (as a result) caused this one-time Biblical skeptic, trained during the height of the "Enlightenment" period, to become a Christian himself.
Joesphus, an orthodox Jew would never have referred to 'Jesus' as the Christ and that passage you are referring to is talking about another Jesus, not Jesus of Nazareth.
Josephus didn't refer to him as the Christ. In Book XX of the Antiquities, he merely stated that Jesus was called Christ, using Him to identify James. And, he is NOT talking about another Jesus.
Widely acknowledged to be an interpolation and even if not, writing nearly a century later, has little value, being mentioned no longer than a sentence.
Dead wrong again, Deicide. In fact, per the words of Maurice Gougel, author of "Jesus the Nazarene", the reference in which Tacitus mentions Jesus is legit. As Goguel states, it is decidely not Jewish (because the average Jew would not have seen Jesus as the Christ), nor is it of a Christian source.
No Christian would make the implication that Christianity was "repressed for a time" (presumably due to Jesus' death); nor would such refer to the faith as a "pernicious supersition" or hurl the insults that Tacitus does toward Christians being part of things that were "wicked" and "shameful".
Tacitus apparently did his homework, when he investigated the source of these Christians, whom Nero was blaming for the damage done to Rome. He found out that they were named after Jesus Christ, who was executed by Pontius Pilate. If this were a mere myth, Tacitus would have pointed that out and that would have been the end of it.
I find the evidence lacking and this has been discussed many times before.
And, as has been discussed before, your claim about the evidence for Jesus' existence lacking is a shallow one, which makes it quite easy to refute, as has been done many times before.
-
You're WAAAAAAY late to the party. This has been discussed (and thoroughly refuted) some time ago.
First, the "little children" are anything but that. The Hebrew words that the KJV translators render as "little children" are more accurately translated as young men or young lads (i.e. teenagers).
Second (and this is a question asked several times before now), why are a bunch of folks leaving the confines of a city, to confront Elisha, just because he's bald?
Thirdly, if the bears hacked up 42 of them, it leads one to wonder just how many there actually were (and again, why they're messing with Elisha, in the first place).
Bible scholars have deduced that these "little children" were apprentices of Baal prophets, much as Elisha was an apprentice of Elijah (they knew who Elisha was, which is why they kept egging him to "Go up", as his mentor did, when he was translated into heaven).
They had bad intentions for Elisha. Fortunately for him, he had some backup in the form of those bears.
There's a mis-translation in the bible? Imagine that.
They have deduced? How have they deduced that?
A Prophet is coming to the city?........I'd be curious enough to see him as he approaches.
2 Bears hacking up 42 teenagers? doubt it. Hacking 42 children? much more possible.
They had bad intentions? And they started with teasing him about being bald? right. lol
-
do you guys really think there was a guy who died, was buried, and then floated up to the clouds in heaven? come on guys...come on...
-
There's a mis-translation in the bible? Imagine that.
They have deduced? How have they deduced that?
A Prophet is coming to the city?........I'd be curious enough to see him as he approaches.
2 Bears hacking up 42 teenagers? doubt it. Hacking 42 children? much more possible.
They had bad intentions? And they started with teasing him about being bald? right. lol
What so doubtful about 42 teenagers being mauled by bears? And, this happened as Elisha was leaving the city.
And again, why would a bunch of children leave a city, just to pick on prophet for being bald? I've lost count of how many times you've been asked that question yet provided no answer.
I explained the deduction earlier. The region in question is where a number of Baal prophets were. And, that group knew who Elisha was and who his mentor was (and what happened to him).
-
do you guys really think there was a guy who died, was buried, and then floated up to the clouds in heaven? come on guys...come on...
That's not how the account goes. So, NO, we don't believe that. ;D
-
What so doubtful about 42 teenagers being mauled by bears? And, this happened as Elisha was leaving the city.
And again, why would a bunch of children leave a city, just to pick on prophet for being bald? I've lost count of how many times you've been asked that question yet provided no answer.
I explained the deduction earlier. The region in question is where a number of Baal prophets were. And, that group knew who Elisha was and who his mentor was (and what happened to him).
An important man is coming into town, why wouldn't curious children go out to see him in?
What's doubtful about 42 "teenagers" being mauled by 2 bears is most would escape.
The Baal prophet thing is only a possibility.
-
An important man is coming into town, why wouldn't curious children go out to see him in?
This happened while Elisha was LEAVING a city (Jericho, I believe)
What's doubtful about 42 "teenagers" being mauled by 2 bears is most would escape.
Bears are a lot quicker than you think. And, as stated earlier, the bears go to 42 of them, which means there were more who confronted Elisha.
The Baal prophet thing is only a possibility.
A quite likely one, based on the surroundings and the context of the passage. Mere curiosity would hardly motivate a bunch of "little kids" to leave the confines of a city, just to mock Elisha for simply being bald.
-
This happened while Elisha was LEAVING a city (Jericho, I believe)
Bears are a lot quicker than you think. And, as stated earlier, the bears go to 42 of them, which means there were more who confronted Elisha.
A quite likely one, based on the surroundings and the context of the passage. Mere curiosity would hardly motivate a bunch of "little kids" to leave the confines of a city, just to mock Elisha for simply being bald.
They probably didn't leave the confines of a city because the prophets were bald. They may have been playing outside it if children, hanging outside if teenagers.
Also, the 2 Bears had to chase capture and kill each person. As that happened the others would have plenty of time to run away, unless they were little children.
-
They probably didn't leave the confines of a city because the prophets were bald. They may have been playing outside it if children, hanging outside if teenagers.
Also, the 2 Bears had to chase capture and kill each person. As that happened the others would have plenty of time to run away, unless they were little children.
From Biblical scholar, Gleason Archer (courtesy of Christian Thinktank):
A careful study of this incident in context shows that it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense." It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive towards respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course.
We don't know how their exact number. If they were 100 of them, 58 may have escaped while 42 got grizzlied. Plus, the passage states that they came from the city and confronted Elisha. So, they weren't just hanging out. They saw Elisha, knew who he was, and went after him with bad intentions in mind.
Again, you underestimate how quick bears actually are.
-
Mob of children Faftally Beats Man
October 2, 2002
MILWAUKEE — A man attacked by a mob of children and teens who savagely beat him with rakes, shovels and bats died yesterday, as authorities arrested 10 youths and sought six others.
The youths, ages 10 to 18, attacked Charlie Young Jr. late Sunday after a fight that started when one of the children tossed an egg at him, police said.
Young, 36, suffered severe brain injuries and was hospitalized in critical condition after the beating.
"It was unhuman what they did," the victim's brother, Keith Young, told WTMJ-TV.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20021002&slug=mob02
Jeering mob of children 'stoned father to death as he played cricket'
August 2007
A gang of children killed a father-of-two by stoning him as he played a makeshift game of cricket with his son, a court has heard.
They surrounded a tennis court where Ernest Norton and his teenage son had set up a wicket and hurled bricks and debris in a "completely unprovoked attack".
Mr Norton, 67, collapsed in a pool of blood after being hit by a piece of rock and died from heart failure, the Old Bailey was told.
The gang, some as young as ten, then ran away and allegedly a witness heard one say, "Did you get him?" and others replying: "Yeah I think so."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472069/Jeering-mob-children-stoned-father-death-played-cricket.html
Chanting mob of children killed boy 'to take his dog'
March 15, 2007
A boy of 16 was stabbed to death by a gang of teenage boys and girls for his dog, according to police.
The group of attackers were dressed in school uniforms and were shouting "kill him, kill him" as they pursued him.
They are said to have set two of their own dogs on the boy after he was stabbed in the heart and leg.
The victim was walking his Staffordshire bull terrier when he was chased along Hammersmith Grove by the group. Some were said to be as young as 14.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801391/posts
-
From Biblical scholar, Gleason Archer (courtesy of Christian Thinktank):
A careful study of this incident in context shows that it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense." It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive towards respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course.
We don't know how their exact number. If they were 100 of them, 58 may have escaped while 42 got grizzlied. Plus, the passage states that they came from the city and confronted Elisha. So, they weren't just hanging out. They saw Elisha, knew who he was, and went after him with bad intentions in mind.
Again, you underestimate how quick bears actually are.
Obviously it goes without saying that a mob of people can do harm.
So let's get back to the verses:
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
What is there to carefully study? The "little children" had let him passed (and he turned back to them) and he cursed them in thename of the lord. It's seems what has happened is embellishment, not careful study.
Also, I know bears are fast and what they can do. If the "little children" just stood there, then killing 42 is possible. But that's not the case as I'm sure many of these teenagers ran and could have gotten back to the safety of town.
-
So, who still believes in Zeus?
-
Hahaha mcway cmon, you're seriously being stupid now.
God sends 2 bears to kill 42 deluded children or "young men" as you claim for making fun of a dudes bald head, what kinda of a fucked up god is that? and this dude is suppose to love each and everyone of us?
You believe these kids are burning in hell right now??
I bet if the bible were to mention a talking bush, you'd probably believe that too.
...oh wait, it does. ::)
-
Obviously it goes without saying that a mob of people can do harm.
So let's get back to the verses:
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
What is there to carefully study? The "little children" had let him passed (and he turned back to them) and he cursed them in thename of the lord. It's seems what has happened is embellishment, not careful study.
Also, I know bears are fast and what they can do. If the "little children" just stood there, then killing 42 is possible. But that's not the case as I'm sure many of these teenagers ran and could have gotten back to the safety of town.
That may seem severe treatment for calling someone a bald head, but more than disrespect was involved. It was the taunt "Go up" that called for divine vengeance. It was telling Elisha to go up as he reported Elijah did. (2 Ki. 2:11) It showed disbelief in God's miracle in Elijah’s case, and was a taunt for Elisha to prove it by duplicating it. It could also indicate that Elisha should go up as did Elijah and in that way the community would be rid of him. It suggested that his presence was unwanted and for him to clear out of the territory. It is likely that adults were responsible for this delinquency, the childish taunting being a reflection of the adult attitude if it was not directly instigated by religiously opposed adults. At any rate, the children were punished for their blasphemy. As Proverbs 20:11 states: "Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right." Youthfulness alone does not save delinquents who blaspheme, as shown by the command given God's executional forces at Armageddon: "Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women." (Ezek. 9:5, 6).
This account should really make ALL be careful of what they say and do, regarding God. Unbelievers/believers are all accountable to God. I wouldn't want to push to far and wind up like these folks. Learning the hard way, that there is a God who will execute judgement swiftly, when one has went to far.
I remember my father telling me of a situation, in his day, in our home town. He and some friends were hanging out at the local "place". One of the guys was ranting and raving about how there was no God. He went as far as to curse and beg God to kill him if he did exist. He had a heart attack after he finished the sentence. He was in his 40's.
I know, that could have been coincidental, however, I thought it was worth mentioning. :)
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
That may seem severe treatment for calling someone a bald head, but more than disrespect was involved. It was the taunt "Go up" that called for divine vengeance. It was telling Elisha to go up as he reported Elijah did. (2 Ki. 2:11) It showed disbelief in God's miracle in Elijah’s case, and was a taunt for Elisha to prove it by duplicating it. It could also indicate that Elisha should go up as did Elijah and in that way the community would be rid of him. It suggested that his presence was unwanted and for him to clear out of the territory. It is likely that adults were responsible for this delinquency, the childish taunting being a reflection of the adult attitude if it was not directly instigated by religiously opposed adults. At any rate, the children were punished for their blasphemy. As Proverbs 20:11 states: "Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right." Youthfulness alone does not save delinquents who blaspheme, as shown by the command given God's executional forces at Armageddon: "Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women." (Ezek. 9:5, 6).
This account should really make ALL be careful of what they say and do, regarding God. Unbelievers/believers are all accountable to God. I wouldn't want to push to far and wind up like these folks. Learning the hard way, that there is a God who will execute judgement swiftly, when one has went to far.
I remember my father telling me of a situation, in his day, in our home town. He and some friends were hanging out at the local "place". One of the guys was ranting and raving about how there was no God. He went as far as to curse and beg God to kill him if he did exist. He had a heart attack after he finished the sentence. He was in his 40's.
I know, that could have been coincidental, however, I thought it was worth mentioning. :)
CG/DEA_AGENT
Well this God has some serious anger management and insecurity issues.
He sent bears and murdered 42 children for taunting a prophet. Children do stupid things, they make mistakes, that's what growing up is about. i can see punishing them as kids get typically punished. But sending Bear to rip them apart? Com on.
That sounds like he should go on Dr. Phil.
This all comes down the same thing anyway: FEAR GOD. He could blow a fuse and murder you for something stupid.
BTW: If god killed everyone who said anything in anger or against him, there would be practically no one left n earth to give him glory. :D
-
HAHAHAHA what a load of shit. A all mighty/powerfull, knowing God kills people because they make fun of him/ taunt him.
If GC, Mcway, Fitt@40 have convinced me of anything, its that they're gullible.
-
HAHAHAHA what a load. A all mighty/powerfull, knowing God kills people because they make fun of him/ taunt him.
If GC, Mcway, Fitt@40 have convinced me of anything, its that they're gullible.
YOU forgot humble, honest, and hungry too!
BTW, what would you do if someone disrespected your mother and not only that, but wished her dead?
I guess, you are another, who doesn't believe in design, by intelligence. And WE are gullible? I'm not laughing, but considering it. :)
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
Well this God has some serious anger management and insecurity issues.
Who are you to question God?
He sent bears and murdered 42 children for taunting a prophet. Children do stupid things, they make mistakes, that's what growing up is about. i can see punishing them as kids get typically punished. But sending Bear to rip them apart? Com on.
No, there was more to it, re-read.
That sounds like he should go on Dr. Phil.
Once again, are you questioning God?
This all comes down the same thing anyway: FEAR GOD.
I guess, Oz, you don't fear? Do you love anyone Oz? If so, do you fear them not loving you or maybe loosing them to some "chance" occurrence?
BTW: If god killed everyone who said anything in anger or against him, there would be practically no one left n earth to give him glory. :D
Not true. Plenty of people love Him. True Christians get angry at satan, not God. Satan is the one who is behind a lot of the atrocities man experiences, not God. There are people who don't want to live God's ways, just like satan didn't. Sure, they don't want God around, or for that matter to exist. Too bad for them!. I'm beginning to wonder if you really believe like you claim. :-\
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
Who are you to question God?
Who are you to decide for God?
No, there was more to it, re-read.
Like what?
Once again, are you questioning God?
I'm questioning your idea of God. A god that would, among other things, murder children because of teasing his prophet
I guess, Oz, you don't fear? Do you love anyone Oz? If so, do you fear them not loving you or maybe loosing them to some "chance" occurrence?
Sure, so what?
Not true. Plenty of people love Him. True Christians get angry at satan, not God. Satan is the one who is behind a lot of the atrocities man experiences, not God. There are people who don't want to live God's ways, just like satan didn't. Sure, they don't want God around, or for that matter to exist. Too bad for them!. I'm beginning to wonder if you really believe like you claim. :-\
But they also fear him. And it's how he's identified, in the OT in which it demonstrates his human like qualities. I believe in God in every bit of what I claim. I just don't worship a murderer. I don't believe God is a murderer. I believe God is perfect and does the right things always. Anyways, god is god, whether your belief is correct or mine. I believe in God. :)
-
It's okay to question God, to question Christianity and to question the Bible. In doing so, many skeptics have found faith in Jesus Christ: C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Francis S. Collins, just to name a few well known ones.
And, though not a Christian...yet, there is also Anthony Flew, a former strong atheist:
"Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew (born 11 February 1923) is a British philosopher. Belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, he is notable for his works on the philosophy of religion.
Flew was a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He has also criticised the idea of life after death, the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God. However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, and later wrote the book There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."
-
It's okay to question God, to question Christianity and to question the Bible. In doing so, many skeptics have found faith in Jesus Christ: C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Francis S. Collins, just to name a few well known ones.
the opposite happened for me.when I was young and naive I believed all the gibberish.the more research I did not just into Christianity but religion as a whole the more I started to realize it was all a bunch of lies and propaganda designed to get people to conform and obey.
-
the opposite happened for me.when I was young and naive I believed all the gibberish.the more research I did not just into Christianity but religion as a whole the more I started to realize it was all a bunch of lies and propaganda designed to get people to conform and obey.
It's okay. Nobody is perfect! :)
-
It's okay. Nobody is perfect! :)
take a look in the mirror and your statement is obvious.
-
take a look in the mirror and your statement is obvious.
First of all, it was a joke. Lighten up!
Second of all, I did say nobody is perfect. That includes me.
I do respect your opinion of God, Christianity and religion in general as long as you don't attack, slander and disrespect those who disagree with you.
-
First of all, it was a joke. Lighten up!
Second of all, I did say nobody is perfect. That includes me.
I do respect your opinion of God, Christianity and religion in general as long as you don't attack, slander and disrespect those who disagree with you.
I do unto others as they do unto me ;D
-
Hahaha mcway cmon, you're seriously being stupid now.
God sends 2 bears to kill 42 deluded children or "young men" as you claim for making fun of a dudes bald head, what kinda of a fucked up god is that? and this dude is suppose to love each and everyone of us?
You believe these kids are burning in hell right now??
I bet if the bible were to mention a talking bush, you'd probably believe that too.
...oh wait, it does. ::)
Apparently, you don't read very well.
This wasn't about Elisha's bald head. As I clearly stated, these dudes had evil intentions for Elisha. Loco posted earlier some clear examples of a bunch of rogue youths can do. From the context of the verses, Elisha was in danger.
If you get accosted in such in such a manner, I don't think you'd be complaining about two bears coming to your aid. But, of course, that thought never entered that skull of yours. You, like far too many skeptics here, simply regurgitated the same foolish drivel that has been refuted numerous times here (and elsewhere).
Come back, when you get something original.
-
Apparently, you don't read very well.
This wasn't about Elisha's bald head. As I clearly stated, these dudes had evil intentions for Elisha. Loco posted earlier some clear examples of a bunch of rogue youths can do. From the context of the verses, Elisha was in danger.
If you get accosted in such in such a manner, I don't think you'd be complaining about two bears coming to your aid. But, of course, that thought never entered that skull of yours. You, like far too many skeptics here, simply regurgitated the same foolish drivel that has been refuted numerous times here (and elsewhere).
Come back, when you get something original.
Why would god send bears to save Elisha, but not send bears to save little children who get molested or help save that little girl that was just found drowned in a suitcase?
That's awfully picky for a god and all.
-
I do unto others as they do unto me ;D
Did you attend a very charismatic church as a child? You said you believed all the "gibberish."
-
Obviously it goes without saying that a mob of people can do harm.
A mob of children can, and has done harm.
-
So, who still believes in Zeus?
Our Zeus is an awesome Zeus, he is.
-
A mob of children can, and has done harm.
Children are people too! ;D
-
anyone else think the bible is a great piece of literature with some good morals, values, and lessons...but not meant to be taken literally?
-
anyone else think the bible is a great piece of literature with some good morals, values, and lessons...but not meant to be taken literally?
yes
-
anyone else think the bible is a great piece of literature with some good morals, values, and lessons...but not meant to be taken literally?
Boring.
-
anyone else think the bible is a great piece of literature with some good morals, values, and lessons...but not meant to be taken literally?
No.
-
anyone else think the bible is a great piece of literature with some good morals, values, and lessons...but not meant to be taken literally?
No
-
anyone else think the bible is a great piece of literature with some good morals, values, and lessons...but not meant to be taken literally?
Yes.
-
Maverick, you just did an incredibly brave thing. What you should have done was land your plane! You don't own that plane, the taxpayers do! Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash. You've been busted, you've lost your qualifications as section leader three times, put in hack twice by me, with a history of high speed passes over five air control towers - and one admiral's daughter!
-