PDA

View Full Version : Understanding Christianity - Questions for Christians



Stelakh
01-28-2016, 08:51 AM
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

Jarod
01-28-2016, 09:14 AM
Much of Christianity has been hijacked (for centuries) for political and financial gain of a small group of individuals.

True and real Christianity can rarely be found in a "Church".

True and real Christianity comes from within oneself and can be shared with a community, but is often corrupted by a structure of greedy people.

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 09:17 AM
If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?


apparently you didn't read the part about Jesus fulfilling the Levitical laws.......did you mother explain that to you when you were growing up?.......

Celticguy
01-28-2016, 09:28 AM
Jewish law or perhaps lapses in following it presented a risk on your judgement day. Jews are judged on their own merits / failings. Christ offers himself as the recipient of your wages of sin if you accept him as your lord and savior.
You decide your fate.

evince
01-28-2016, 09:32 AM
I was raised Christian


I am an atheist


I could never make myself believe any of the religious myths.


Once I had science it was enough for me.



all organized religion is a tool for sociopaths to gain power over others

Jarod
01-28-2016, 09:53 AM
True Christianity is about freeing people, not enslaving or controlling them.

It has been corrupted in an attempt to manage large groups of people into judging non-conformists and being afraid to step outside the societal idea of "moral behavior".

evince
01-28-2016, 09:58 AM
jesus was awesome



what people have done in his name not so much

leaningright
01-28-2016, 01:38 PM
Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

Yes, I do believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. It is my guide in how I worship, how I believe the church is to work on the earth and how the church is to be organized. It is also my guide in how I see salvation in my life through the blood of Jesus Christ and what that means to how I should try to live....the latter meaning that I must exhibit self-control in certain areas of my life. There is right and there is wrong behavior and the Bible can show me what that is.


If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

I can only answer this for me. Short version: The Mosaic and Levitical codes/laws/ceremonies [as well as the Patriarchal law for the Gentiles] were taken out of the way and made of no effect when Jesus died on the cross. Basically everything before the book of Acts is history. Acts and beyond governs today. With Jesus death He ushered in a new law that included all of mankind. Jesus teaching is undoubtedly used in the new law, hence the importance of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but if you want to know how the church is to work or how to become a Christian or how a Christian is supposed to live...look to Acts and beyond. I will supply scripture to support my position if you desire but am away from my normal computer right now where I have ready access to an online bible.


Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

For the reason mentioned above. It becomes very obvious with a study of the New Testament that the old law with the command to "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. With Christ's resurrection upon the first day of the week being the crushing blow to Satan that God [bruising his head] told him about in Genesis 3, the first day of the week then became the day that Christ's followers was to observe by the examples in scripture. A couple of passages off the top of my head are Acts 20:7ff and I Cor. 16:1ff.


Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

No. See answer to 2nd question. In fact, trying to go back and do that would condemn a person. Look at (pardon me for not having the specific chapters and verses) the books of I Corinthians and Galatians particularly, as well as other places and you see that the former Jews who had been converted to Christianity were trying to bind circumcision on the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity. Such is condemned as perverting the Gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1-4)

Jarod
01-28-2016, 01:51 PM
Yes, I do believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God. It is my guide in how I worship, how I believe the church is to work on the earth and how the church is to be organized. It is also my guide in how I see salvation in my life through the blood of Jesus Christ and what that means to how I should try to live....the latter meaning that I must exhibit self-control in certain areas of my life. There is right and there is wrong behavior and the Bible can show me what that is.



I can only answer this for me. Short version: The Mosaic and Levitical codes/laws/ceremonies [as well as the Patriarchal law for the Gentiles] were taken out of the way and made of no effect when Jesus died on the cross. Basically everything before the book of Acts is history. Acts and beyond governs today. With Jesus death He ushered in a new law that included all of mankind. Jesus teaching is undoubtedly used in the new law, hence the importance of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but if you want to know how the church is to work or how to become a Christian or how a Christian is supposed to live...look to Acts and beyond. I will supply scripture to support my position if you desire but am away from my normal computer right now where I have ready access to an online bible.



For the reason mentioned above. It becomes very obvious with a study of the New Testament that the old law with the command to "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. With Christ's resurrection upon the first day of the week being the crushing blow to Satan that God [bruising his head] told him about in Genesis 3, the first day of the week then became the day that Christ's followers was to observe by the examples in scripture. A couple of passages off the top of my head are Acts 20:7ff and I Cor. 16:1ff.



No. See answer to 2nd question. In fact, trying to go back and do that would condemn a person. Look at (pardon me for not having the specific chapters and verses) the books of I Corinthians and Galatians particularly, as well as other places and you see that the former Jews who had been converted to Christianity were trying to bind circumcision on the Gentiles who had been converted to Christianity. Such is condemned as perverting the Gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1-4)

My biggest question upon reading the well reasoned and thought out discussion above is, how do you determine what is the Bible? Is it the King James Version, or one of the multitude of versions before or after KJV?

Stelakh
01-28-2016, 02:41 PM
There is something that has always bugged me about the essential dismissal of Levitical and Mosaic law, and that is what Jesus says himself.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

He's fulfilling law, but laws don't get fulfilled. They are obeyed, abolished or disobeyed, but they don't get fulfilled. So are we sure he means that the laws are henceforth null and void?

To complicate matters even further, in the next line (Matthew 5:18-20) he says:


18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 - Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 - For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So he says he's not there to destroy the law in 17, then that the law is still valid until heaven and earth pass in 18. In 19, he says that whoever breaks even the tiniest of the Commandments (there were over 600, by the way - the early Church whittled it down to 10) shall be called the "least" in heaven but those who follow the law shall be called "great." Then in 20, ye says that unless you're more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees (taken in the context of the previous statements, I'd interpret that as meaning you follow the laws better than they do), you're not getting into Heaven.

So from this alone it seems that Jesus actually doesn't set aside the Old Testament laws but in fact enforces their validity until Heaven and Earth are dead and gone, even though he "fulfills" the laws somehow.

How does that work?

J Craft
01-28-2016, 02:50 PM
The bad and aweful "bits" you rejected are what you would find in the Hebrew Bible, and what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Yet you chose the faith of the "bits" you don't like...odd.

J Craft
01-28-2016, 03:09 PM
There is something that has always bugged me about the essential dismissal of Levitical and Mosaic law, and that is what Jesus says himself.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:

He's fulfilling law, but laws don't get fulfilled. They are obeyed, abolished or disobeyed, but they don't get fulfilled. So are we sure he means that the laws are henceforth null and void?

To complicate matters even further, in the next line (Matthew 5:18-20) he says:



So he says he's not there to destroy the law in 17, then that the law is still valid until heaven and earth pass in 18. In 19, he says that whoever breaks even the tiniest of the Commandments (there were over 600, by the way - the early Church whittled it down to 10) shall be called the "least" in heaven but those who follow the law shall be called "great." Then in 20, ye says that unless you're more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees (taken in the context of the previous statements, I'd interpret that as meaning you follow the laws better than they do), you're not getting into Heaven.

So from this alone it seems that Jesus actually doesn't set aside the Old Testament laws but in fact enforces their validity until Heaven and Earth are dead and gone, even though he "fulfills" the laws somehow.

How does that work?

Christ's fulfillment is why Levitical and Ceremonial law, which point to a savior, Christ, can be done away with, as in not needed as a way to God. Christ is the mediator. Mosaic laThe fulfillment is why Leviticus and mosaic law, which poin to a savior, Christ, can be done away with" not needed as a way to God. Christ is THE mediator. Mosaic law is that law which still governs mans life. The OT is as relevant to faith and life as it ever was. But it's illuminated more clearly with Christs coming and victory over sin and death.

Stelakh
01-28-2016, 03:23 PM
Christ's fulfillment is why Levitical and Ceremonial law, which point to a savior, Christ, can be done away with, as in not needed as a way to God. Christ is the mediator. Mosaic laThe fulfillment is why Leviticus and mosaic law, which poin to a savior, Christ, can be done away with" not needed as a way to God. Christ is THE mediator. Mosaic law is that law which still governs mans life. The OT is as relevant to faith and life as it ever was. But it's illuminated more clearly with Christs coming and victory over sin and death.

But Jesus himself says that both Levitical and Mosaic law are still in full force and effect. I mean, he comes right out and says it is, and that he doesn't intend to change that. Whether it's needed or not, he says it's still there until Heaven and Earth are gone.

How is there a way out of this dichotomy?

Leonthecat
01-28-2016, 03:46 PM
The book is well named if it is spelled properly.
It is the BuyBull.

J Craft
01-28-2016, 03:55 PM
But Jesus himself says that both Levitical and Mosaic law are still in full force and effect. I mean, he comes right out and says it is, and that he doesn't intend to change that. Whether it's needed or not, he says it's still there until Heaven and Earth are gone.

How is there a way out of this dichotomy?

Christ was the fulfillment as THE priest. For a brief, but concise explanation on what the Christian bible says on the matter.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Levitical-Law.html

J Craft
01-28-2016, 04:18 PM
For further reading.

Question: "What is the difference between the ceremonial law, the moral law, and the judicial law in the Old Testament?"

Answer: The law of God given to Moses is a comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure that the Israelites' behavior reflected their status as God's chosen people. It encompasses moral behavior, their position as a godly example to other nations, and systematic procedures for acknowledging God's holiness and mankind's sinfulness. In an attempt to better understand the purpose of these laws, Jews and Christians categorize them. This has led to the distinction between moral law, ceremonial law, and judicial law.

Moral Law
The moral laws, or mishpatim, relate to justice and judgment and are often translated as "ordinances." Mishpatim are said to be based on God's holy nature. As such, the ordinances are holy, just, and unchanging. Their purpose is to promote the welfare of those who obey. The value of the laws is considered obvious by reason and common sense. The moral law encompasses regulations on justice, respect, and sexual conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. It also includes penalties for failure to obey the ordinances. Moral law does not point people to Christ; it merely illuminates the fallen state of all mankind.

Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of mishpatim in the church age. Some believe that Jesus' assertion that the law will remain in effect until the earth passes away (Matthew 5:18) means that believers are still bound to it. Others, however, understand that Jesus fulfilled this requirement (Matthew 5:17), and that we are instead under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is thought to be "love God and love others" (Matthew 22:36-40). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin (Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim.

Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation”; the words are often translated as "statutes." These laws are not obvious to common sense; for example, the destruction of perfectly good animals for sacrifice and the rejection of food sources such as pork and rabbit. Instead, these statutes seem to focus the adherent's attention on God. They include instructions on regaining right standing with God (e.g., sacrifices and other ceremonies regarding "uncleanness"), remembrances of God's work in Israel (e.g., feasts and festivals), specific regulations meant to distinguish Israelites from their pagan neighbors (e.g., dietary and clothing restrictions), and signs that point to the coming Messiah (e.g., the Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, and the redemption of the first-born). Some Jews believe that the ceremonial law is not fixed. They hold that, as societies evolve, so do God's expectations of how His followers should relate to Him. This view is not indicated in the Bible.

Christians are not bound by ceremonial law. Since the church is not the nation of Israel, memorial festivals, such as the Feast of Weeks and Passover, do not apply. Galatians 3:23-25 explains that since Jesus has come, Christians are not required to sacrifice or circumcise. There is still debate in Protestant churches over the applicability of the Sabbath. Some say that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments gives it the weight of moral law. Others quote Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5 to explain that Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath and become our Sabbath rest. As Romans 14:5 says, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it.

Judicial/Civil Law
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments. This includes everything from murder to restitution for a man gored by an ox and the responsibility of the man who dug a pit to rescue his neighbor's trapped donkey (Exodus 21:12-36). Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars.

The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God and define which laws church-age Christians are still required to follow. Many believe the ceremonial law is not applicable, but we are bound by the Ten Commandments. All the law is useful for instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), and nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories. Christians are not under the law (Romans 10:4). Jesus fulfilled the law, thus abolishing the difference between Jew and Gentile "so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross…" (Ephesians 2:15-16).
http://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 04:38 PM
I was raised Christian


I am an atheist


I could never make myself believe any of the religious myths.


Once I had science it was enough for me.



all organized religion is a tool for sociopaths to gain power over others

Desh content with the superiority of her own sociopathy.......

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 04:40 PM
My biggest question upon reading the well reasoned and thought out discussion above is, how do you determine what is the Bible? Is it the King James Version, or one of the multitude of versions before or after KJV?

there's only one Bible.......the question is whether the translation you are using is accurate........if an inaccuracy is identified, guess what you should do.........

here's an interesting follow up question, Jarod.........if all the translations say a text means the same thing, what do you have left to criticize the Bible with?........

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 04:43 PM
He's fulfilling law, but laws don't get fulfilled. They are obeyed, abolished or disobeyed, but they don't get fulfilled. So are we sure he means that the laws are henceforth null and void?


but you are wrong.......the Levitical codes regarding the attainment of righteousness through sacrifice WERE fulfilled.......no further sacrifices are necessary, thus there is no need to become righteous by performing them.........that should be obvious.......

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 04:45 PM
In 19, he says that whoever breaks even the tiniest of the Commandments (there were over 600, by the way

sorry, but that is simply an outright lie........perpetuated by those who want to disguise the truth........

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 04:50 PM
But Jesus himself says that both Levitical and Mosaic law are still in full force and effect.

another lie......no where does he say the Levitical codes are still in force and effect.......the laws he does say are still in force and effect are those which were summarized by two statements......"LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"......Those two statements summarized the same laws in the OT (Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18)......

if you are done lying about the law perhaps we can finish answering your question......

Leonthecat
01-28-2016, 04:50 PM
there's only one Bible.......the question is whether the translation you are using is accurate........if an inaccuracy is identified, guess what you should do.........

That is why it is called the BuyBull Pastor.
It is full of myth lies and superstitious nonsense.
If you believe it, you Buy the Bull.

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 04:55 PM
That is why it is called the BuyBull Pastor.
.

actually you sanctimonious imbecile.......it isn't called the BuyBull......

Leonthecat
01-28-2016, 05:11 PM
actually you sanctimonious imbecile.......it isn't called the BuyBull......

That depends on whether you ask a superstitious believer in magical sky daddy, or a sane person.

Stelakh
01-28-2016, 06:48 PM
sorry, but that is simply an outright lie........perpetuated by those who want to disguise the truth........

There were 611. I suggest you look to the Torah.

If you are willing to have a decent discussion without acting like an obstreperous ass, I invite you to quote for me passages where Jesus in fact states that he had come to usurp Old Testament law (Levitical OR Mosaic), because neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the Acts, Paul, Romans nor any other book contain Jesus saying he came to destroy, replace or void the Old Testament.

Finally, if you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head then kindly bugger off.

Nobody else in this thread - which is intended as a serious discussion - decided to go your route, except you.

Now silence your silliness, act like an adult, or leave.

J Craft
01-28-2016, 06:57 PM
There were 611. I suggest you look to the Torah.

If you are willing to have a decent discussion without acting like an obstreperous ass, I invite you to quote for me passages where Jesus in fact states that he had come to usurp Old Testament law (Levitical OR Mosaic), because neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, the Acts, Paul, Romans nor any other book contain Jesus saying he came to destroy, replace or void the Old Testament.

Finally, if you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head then kindly bugger off.

Nobody else in this thread - which is intended as a serious discussion - decided to go your route, except you.

Now silence your silliness, act like an adult, or leave.

Moral Law
The moral laws, or mishpatim, relate to justice and judgment and are often translated as "ordinances." Mishpatim are said to be based on God's holy nature. As such, the ordinances are holy, just, and unchanging. Their purpose is to promote the welfare of those who obey. The value of the laws is considered obvious by reason and common sense. The moral law encompasses regulations on justice, respect, and sexual conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. It also includes penalties for failure to obey the ordinances. Moral law does not point people to Christ; it merely illuminates the fallen state of all mankind.

Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of mishpatim in the church age. Some believe that Jesus' assertion that the law will remain in effect until the earth passes away (Matthew 5:18) means that believers are still bound to it. Others, however, understand that Jesus fulfilled this requirement (Matthew 5:17), and that we are instead under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is thought to be "love God and love others" (Matthew 22:36-40). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin (Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim.

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 07:06 PM
That depends on whether you ask a superstitious believer in magical sky daddy, or a sane person.

really?....... can you find a second idiot who calls it a BuyBull?.....

Phantasmal
01-28-2016, 07:10 PM
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

i believe that The message of Jesus is different from that of Paul. I think the author of Matthew and Paul would have had quite a debate and as we witness here, the debate continues.

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 07:11 PM
There were 611. I suggest you look to the Torah.

That of course, is why they are called the 611 Commandments........on the other hand, there were Ten......never more, never less.......you can find them in Deuteronomy......you can find them in Leviticus.....both are part of the Torah......


Finally, if you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head then kindly bugger off.
I'm sorry....but if you don't like being called a liar you should stick to the truth....its not as if what you said was a matter of opinion, you realize.....nobody with an inclination to honesty would say the same thing you posted.......

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 07:12 PM
or leave.
sorry, you forgot to thread ban me......

Stelakh
01-28-2016, 07:26 PM
sorry, you forgot to thread ban me......

I didn't forget.

I simply decided to let you carry on your silliness and let everyone see you for the rude, commiserable troll I've suspected you to be for quite some time.

Feel free to carry on, but if you have any respect for yourself, you are more than welcome to be an adult.

Stelakh
01-28-2016, 07:37 PM
That of course, is why they are called the 611 Commandments........on the other hand, there were Ten......never more, never less.......you can find them in Deuteronomy......you can find them in Leviticus.....both are part of the Torah......

You are simply wrong.

You refer to the 10 ha D'varim, which consists of the 10 items that Moses came down from Mount Sinai with, and which he smashed at the foot thereof. ha D'varim means "statement."

I am referring to the 611 mitzvot (plus the first two ha D'varim), which make up a total of 613. The 611 mitzvot are the Commandments. "Mitzvot" in fact MEANS "Commandment."

You may speak all you like of the "Ten Statements" which were co-opted by the Church, but there are in fact six hundred eleven COMMANDMENTS.

J Craft
01-28-2016, 07:41 PM
sorry, you forgot to thread ban me......

I'm pretty certain he's also being dishonest about his desire to understand with his OP.

Celticguy
01-28-2016, 07:57 PM
My biggest question upon reading the well reasoned and thought out discussion above is, how do you determine what is the Bible? Is it the King James Version, or one of the multitude of versions before or after KJV?

You ask the Holy Spirit to impart the truth to you. Eliminates translation purported manipulation.
But you have to want the truth.

Celticguy
01-28-2016, 08:01 PM
There is something that has always bugged me about the essential dismissal of Levitical and Mosaic law, and that is what Jesus says himself.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says:



He's fulfilling law, but laws don't get fulfilled. They are obeyed, abolished or disobeyed, but they don't get fulfilled. So are we sure he means that the laws are henceforth null and void?

To complicate matters even further, in the next line (Matthew 5:18-20) he says:



So he says he's not there to destroy the law in 17, then that the law is still valid until heaven and earth pass in 18. In 19, he says that whoever breaks even the tiniest of the Commandments (there were over 600, by the way - the early Church whittled it down to 10) shall be called the "least" in heaven but those who follow the law shall be called "great." Then in 20, ye says that unless you're more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees (taken in the context of the previous statements, I'd interpret that as meaning you follow the laws better than they do), you're not getting into Heaven.

So from this alone it seems that Jesus actually doesn't set aside the Old Testament laws but in fact enforces their validity until Heaven and Earth are dead and gone, even though he "fulfills" the laws somehow.

How does that work?

Jesus accepts responsibility for your sins.

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 08:50 PM
for quite some time.

you mean ever since you joined, 64 posts ago?.......or are you another Legion sock?......

PostmodernProphet
01-28-2016, 08:52 PM
but there are in fact six hundred eleven COMMANDMENTS.

sorry.....if you want to debate Christianity I will be glad to do so, including correcting your many errors.........if you wish to discuss some fictional religion you should start another thread to accommodate the discussion....I will of course refrain from participating, not being familiar with whatever religion that might be.........

Minister of Truth
01-29-2016, 05:05 AM
Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Do you mean the Catholic Church?

Leonthecat
01-29-2016, 07:18 AM
really?....... can you find a second idiot who calls it a BuyBull?.....

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i50/5/5/5/frabz-THE-BUYBULL-IS-TRUE-It-says-so-in-the-Buybull-3ad6dd.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ydLpcMBQL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buybull
buy bull

Another term for bible, used by people who think that the bible is a load of dog shit.
I enjoy rolling joints with my copy of the Holy Buy Bull.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Bull-Benn-Perry/dp/148205728X
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdTEKMu85sf_wTeZfIjfoYcXY76bVfE vfrgCrZKGYPi3okpT9TSw
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/4f/61/49/4f6149372d027ff480b8a357edc0106d.jpg

evince
01-29-2016, 07:45 AM
http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i50/5/5/5/frabz-THE-BUYBULL-IS-TRUE-It-says-so-in-the-Buybull-3ad6dd.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ydLpcMBQL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buybull
buy bull

http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Bull-Benn-Perry/dp/148205728X
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdTEKMu85sf_wTeZfIjfoYcXY76bVfE vfrgCrZKGYPi3okpT9TSw
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/4f/61/49/4f6149372d027ff480b8a357edc0106d.jpg

buybull


on my son is going to die laughing at that one.



the bible does have historic stuff in it and is a very important book for mankind in many ways.

But like any old time history recording can NOT be taken literally.


the problem is when someone tries to pretend its infallible.


certain myths claim It is


they are just myths and its just an old history book

PostmodernProphet
01-29-2016, 08:11 AM
never underestimate the ability of an idiot to find more like him.......

Leonthecat
01-29-2016, 08:19 AM
never underestimate the ability of an idiot to find more like him.......
I know. They all congregate, once a week, in magic houses, called churches.

PostmodernProphet
01-29-2016, 08:21 AM
do you go, looking for a BuyBrain?......

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 08:43 AM
I'm pretty certain he's also being dishonest about his desire to understand with his OP.

If you choose to make that assumption, that's up to you. I will say, however, that you are incorrect.

I literally do not understand certain things when it comes to Christianity and today's "Christians" and what they do and do not take as "gospel truth."

As someone who does not believe that the New Testament is the word of God, and who sees the Jesus of the New Testament as simply not the person prophesied to be the Messiah, I seek to understand why it is that Christians find it so easy to gloss over the issue, and to understand the idea that the New Testament somehow negates the Old when, from my point of view, beliefs and research, it certainly doesn't.

Everything was fine, and you were happy to participate, not suspecting that I had any ulterior motive for this thread, until postmodernprophet decided to act like an imbecile, saying that the fact that there are more than 600 commandments is a lie (which is patently untrue; I'll say it again and then I'll move on: There are 611 "Commandments," plus the first two of the ha D'varim ("Statements" or "Sayings"), to make a total of 613).

Now, with that hopefully settled, if you would like to continue with an actual conversation, I am certainly open to that.

If not, I hope that you will let others continue the conversation without interruption.

evince
01-29-2016, 08:50 AM
I know. They all congregate, once a week, in magic houses, called churches.

hey hey hey


I have known some brilliant wonderful people who were devout.


Religion does a lot of people a lot of good.




people who believe these myths have a right to do so with our respect.



When they begin to disrespect us because we are not joining them in these beliefs is when we have to come down on them.



that means they want to control everything.



It is none of anyones business If I speak to god or not.



It does not make me of less value to the world.


Myth believers need to set that in their spines forever or they make themselves the enemy of mankind

Celticguy
01-29-2016, 08:55 AM
So you understand that a messiah is coming but disagree with it already to have happened in the form of Jesus.
Unfortunately that would have to serve, at least hypothetically, as the starting point.
Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah.

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 08:58 AM
Do you mean the Catholic Church?

In essence, yes, the Roman Catholic Church, which emerged as the dominant Christian religion in about 250 CE.

But more specifically, I'm referring to the canon changes that took place in 170 CE in the Muratorian Canon (which actually established the first biblical canon), then again in 363 CE at the Council of Laodicea, then again at the Council of Hippo in 393 CE, then again at the Council of Carthage in 397 CE.

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 09:03 AM
So you understand that a messiah is coming but disagree with it already to have happened in the form of Jesus.
Unfortunately that would have to serve, at least hypothetically, as the starting point.
Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah.

That one's actually pretty easy.

According to the Prophecies, the Messiah should be:

• The direct scion, through is father, of David - and this will be absolutely irrefutable.
• Mortal, born from a normal man and woman, conceived the old-fashioned (and fun) way.
• Extremely righteous (meaning that he will follow the teachings of the Torah to the letter)
• He will be what would be considered the very best scholar of the Torah, knowing all of it and being very well versed in it.
• He will become the ruler of Israel and all of its people (all 12 Tribes).
• He will have a son (at least one) who will become King after the Messiah dies from a normal death, having lived a very long life.
• He will support and strengthen the Torah, and it will not be changed.
• The oppression, slavery, bigotry and hatred shown toward Jews by others will be gone. Hell, NOBODY will be being dicks to anyone else, regardless of faith/nationality/etc.
• The complete and full body of the Law will be restored by the Sanhedrin.
• The Messiah comes around once - there is no "second coming." Everything he seeks to accomplish according to propehcy he'll do without having to swing back around.

Things Jesus did that say he's not the Messiah foretold:

• Die on the cross (regardless of the reason)
• Challenge the Torah and its laws in any way whatsoever
• Rise from the dead
• Ascend into Heaven
• Redeem people for their sins
• Have a 'second coming"
• Be born of a virgin
• Be the son of God
• Remain a virgin
• Had no son

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 09:09 AM
you mean ever since you joined, 64 posts ago?.......or are you another Legion sock?......

No, I mean since the first time I joined. This is my second time registering for this forum (with the same name) - necessitated by coming back after a long absence due to being in an automobile accident and finding that my account no longer existed (I'm guessing due to inactivity).

evince
01-29-2016, 09:30 AM
So you understand that a messiah is coming but disagree with it already to have happened in the form of Jesus.
Unfortunately that would have to serve, at least hypothetically, as the starting point.
Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah.

do you think your belief makes you better than others who don't share your beliefs

evince
01-29-2016, 09:30 AM
No, I mean since the first time I joined. This is my second time registering for this forum (with the same name) - necessitated by coming back after a long absence due to being in an automobile accident and finding that my account no longer existed (I'm guessing due to inactivity).

glad to hear of your recovery

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 09:41 AM
You ask the Holy Spirit to impart the truth to you. Eliminates translation purported manipulation.
But you have to want the truth.

Have you ever had a conversation in your own head? One where you're just kind of doing some mental or intellectual exercise? Or when you're imaginitively having a conversation with some other person because you're wrangling an ethical or moral issue and - even though that other person in your head is giving answers supplied by you - you're just bouncing thoughts off that "other" and thinking things through? You know, you're just trying to convince yourself one way or the other?

I'm sure we all have done that at some point.

How do we know, when we're having the holy spirit impart something to us, that it's not just us answering ourselves and not any divine truth?

Celticguy
01-29-2016, 09:41 AM
So you see a messiah as something of a new King David.
Ergo the need to hold the pedigree. And that he will somehow effect world peace (among other things).
So perhaps you can tell me if jews recognize free will ?

J Craft
01-29-2016, 10:31 AM
If you choose to make that assumption, that's up to you. I will say, however, that you are incorrect.

I literally do not understand certain things when it comes to Christianity and today's "Christians" and what they do and do not take as "gospel truth."

As someone who does not believe that the New Testament is the word of God, and who sees the Jesus of the New Testament as simply not the person prophesied to be the Messiah, I seek to understand why it is that Christians find it so easy to gloss over the issue, and to understand the idea that the New Testament somehow negates the Old when, from my point of view, beliefs and research, it certainly doesn't.

Everything was fine, and you were happy to participate, not suspecting that I had any ulterior motive for this thread, until postmodernprophet decided to act like an imbecile, saying that the fact that there are more than 600 commandments is a lie (which is patently untrue; I'll say it again and then I'll move on: There are 611 "Commandments," plus the first two of the ha D'varim ("Statements" or "Sayings"), to make a total of 613).

Now, with that hopefully settled, if you would like to continue with an actual conversation, I am certainly open to that.

If not, I hope that you will let others continue the conversation without interruption.

I posted succinct explanations to your question- with links, you chose to ignore that, and instead dig into an opportunity to be a smart ass to PMP, who rightly saw through your pretenses.

But, OK, you can carry on your farcical way.

J Craft
01-29-2016, 10:35 AM
So you see a messiah as something of a new King David.
Ergo the need to hold the pedigree. And that he will somehow effect world peace (among other things).
So perhaps you can tell me if jews recognize free will ?

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=370

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 10:51 AM
So you see a messiah as something of a new King David.
Ergo the need to hold the pedigree. And that he will somehow effect world peace (among other things).
So perhaps you can tell me if jews recognize free will ?

It doesn't really matter what I see as much as it does that the Messiah as foretold is not the same person as Jesus. The requirement of being a Scion of David isn't something I came up with, it's what was written, as is the idea that the Messiah will bring about a change that ends the oppression and persecution of the Jews.

If you are pious and righteous (and as I mentioned in my opening post, I'm a "bad Jew", because frankly the whole prohibition against bacon is ), then you live your life according to the Law. Is there free will within the confines of the Law? Good question. I'd say that if you're going to be an adherent to a strict set of codes it limits your free will.

But whether or not everyone sees it that way is up to them. Some people may say they're expressing their free will by adhering to the Law. I suppose that's as fair a statement as anything else, at least to the person that makes it.

Jarod
01-29-2016, 10:58 AM
I am a big picture Christian. I don't think Christ was bothered much about premarital sex, or taking the lords name in vain kinda stuff. Christ was concerned about how we treat others and how we understand ourselves.

Primarily Christ came to provide a bridge between humans and God, a way of accessing truth and spiritual deliverance without the need of a priest or what has become the "Church". It can be boiled down to the idea that while we are all human and thus make mistakes, we can access spiritual everlasting life even if you chose to live outside the governmental, societal, or even religious structure of the time.

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 11:12 AM
I posted succinct explanations to your question- with links, you chose to ignore that, and instead dig into an opportunity to be a smart ass to PMP, who rightly saw through your pretenses.

But, OK, you can carry on your farcical way.

Actually, if you would care to re-read the thread, it was postmodernprophet who went on the attack. Regardless of how you try to paint this, I think you'll find that I responded with fact to being called a liar by someone who was simply wrong.

And then I told them to stop acting like an obsterperous ass (which they were), to act like an adult (which they weren't) and suggested they engage in an adult debate/conversation or bow out.

Whereupon you called the veracity of my intent into question, and now assume (erroneously) that I did not visit the links you provided.

But with or without links, I didn't ask for links to outside sources, I asked the people here for their opinions and answers; because it is more important to me to actually speak and have a dialogue with people than it is to read an article written by someone that I cannot have discourse with.

christiefan915
01-29-2016, 11:19 AM
No, I mean since the first time I joined. This is my second time registering for this forum (with the same name) - necessitated by coming back after a long absence due to being in an automobile accident and finding that my account no longer existed (I'm guessing due to inactivity).

Glad you're doing better. What happened is that the board crashed back in November and 18 months'-worth of posts were lost, also lost were the people who registered in that time period.

Celticguy
01-29-2016, 11:24 AM
Have you ever had a conversation in your own head? One where you're just kind of doing some mental or intellectual exercise? Or when you're imaginitively having a conversation with some other person because you're wrangling an ethical or moral issue and - even though that other person in your head is giving answers supplied by you - you're just bouncing thoughts off that "other" and thinking things through? You know, you're just trying to convince yourself one way or the other?

I'm sure we all have done that at some point.

How do we know, when we're having the holy spirit impart something to us, that it's not just us answering ourselves and not any divine truth?

To answer your question; no.
How will you know ? Only you and God know your heart. You will know if you were sincere in your request for understanding. I think it's easy enough to know the origin of one's understanding.

Stelakh
01-29-2016, 11:32 AM
I am a big picture Christian. I don't think Christ was bothered much about premarital sex, or taking the lords name in vain kinda stuff. Christ was concerned about how we treat others and how we understand ourselves.

Having read the bible a number of times, I'd actually agree with this.


Primarily Christ came to provide a bridge between humans and God, a way of accessing truth and spiritual deliverance without the need of a priest or what has become the "Church". It can be boiled down to the idea that while we are all human and thus make mistakes, we can access spiritual everlasting life even if you chose to live outside the governmental, societal, or even religious structure of the time.

I suppose Celticguy is the one who really got to the crux of the issue by saying, "Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah."

Perhaps this should have been my starting point all along, as he suggested.

So far as I am concerned, Jesus was simply not the Christ. He did not fit the prophecy of the Messiah in just about any way, and that means that while he may have been (and I think likely was) a real, historical person, I do not believe he was the son or representative of God.

I think Jesus was someone who wanted to have us all treat each other decently, to take care of each other and to enjoy peace and prosperity. In that regard, Jesus was laying on hippie stuff real heavily (and there's nothing wrong with that - anyone who says, "love each other, be kind to each other, help each other" is a BAD idea is a fairly poor example of a human, in my estimation). But I don't think he was a divine being sent so that he could by his death redeem us all from sin (which also doesn't make sense to me, but I'll save that for another time).

And maybe that means I should consider changing multiple ones into a single one, which at this time I'm debating doing (debating it, because it would be sure to turn the flames in this thread on high, and that is not my intent).

Celticguy
01-29-2016, 11:58 AM
It doesn't really matter what I see as much as it does that the Messiah as foretold is not the same person as Jesus. The requirement of being a Scion of David isn't something I came up with, it's what was written, as is the idea that the Messiah will bring about a change that ends the oppression and persecution of the Jews.

If you are pious and righteous (and as I mentioned in my opening post, I'm a "bad Jew", because frankly the whole prohibition against bacon is ), then you live your life according to the Law. Is there free will within the confines of the Law? Good question. I'd say that if you're going to be an adherent to a strict set of codes it limits your free will.

But whether or not everyone sees it that way is up to them. Some people may say they're expressing their free will by adhering to the Law. I suppose that's as fair a statement as anything else, at least to the person that makes it.

There seems to be a theme of 'lost in translation' surrounding the question of is he or not.
If one believes that true understanding of scripture is going to involve divine guidance as opposed to reading a lot then there exists the chance of some one exersizing free will on not accepting guidance. (Not saying this happened or not purely hypothetical.)
Given that this debate (if it can be called that) has been underway for a long time and between more learned people than me. Honestly I'm not seeing anything definitive in the argument. But that's just me.
It seems a bit like the evolution v intellegent design thing. I see zero conflict between the two. I'm fact I find they compliment themselves rather beautifully. (So everyone will hate me for that ! Hahahaha). Shoot, I also think the idea behind Chi blends in perfectly as well. I'm a freaking heretic !
Ok I've meandered enough.

PostmodernProphet
01-29-2016, 06:25 PM
Actually, if you would care to re-read the thread, it was postmodernprophet who went on the attack. Regardless of how you try to paint this, I think you'll find that I responded with fact to being called a liar by someone who was simply wrong.

I'm sorry you think so.....the fact remains you started this thread under the claim you wanted to discuss what Christianity believes........however, you have chosen to ignore what Christianity believes in doing so......that is a strange tactic.......

what religion is this that you have chosen to discuss instead?.......

NOVA
02-01-2016, 07:38 PM
The Old Testament....

The Bible was not written in one specific year or in a single location. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago. So let's start at the beginning of this fascinating story.

The first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses and are commonly called the Pentateuch (literally "five scrolls").
Moses lived between 1500 and 1300 BC, though he recounts events in the first eleven chapters of the Bible that occurred long before his time (such as the creation and the flood).
These earliest accounts were handed on from generation to generation in songs, narratives, and poetry.
In those early societies there was no writing as yet and people passed on these oral accounts with great detail and accuracy.
The earliest writing began when symbols were scratched or pressed on clay tablets. The Egyptians refined this technique and developed an early form of writing known as hieroglyphics. The Bible tells us that Moses was "educated in all the learning of the Egyptians", so he would have been familiar with the major writing systems of his time. We also read that God gave Moses "two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God"(Exodus 31:18 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/?osis=NIV:Exod.31.18)). All this leads to the conclusion that the earliest writings in the Bible were set down around 1400 BC.
The writings of the thirty or so other contributors to the Old Testament span a thousand years! They recount the times and messages from Moses' successor, Joshua, to the last of the Old Testament prophets, Malachi, who wrote his little tract around 450 BC.
Then there is a 500-year period when no writings were contributed to the Bible. This is the period between the testaments, when Alexander the Great conquered much of the world and when the Greek language was introduced to the Hebrews. Indeed, they began to use Greek so much that the Hebrew language was replaced by Greek and by another language, Aramaic, which was spoken all over that area of the world at that time.


Why is it even considered a part of the "Christian" Bible....These scrolls and other writings were the beliefs, customs, and myths of men long before Christ appeared.....

Darth Omar
02-01-2016, 08:16 PM
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

No, did you read the New Testament?

I kind of wince when people claim the bible is 'the hard coded word of God' that needs to be taken literally to a T. There's a lot of metaphor, allegory and historical accounts in both testaments. There's still no consensus on how the first chapters of Genesis should be interpreted or if they should be interpreted literally.

What was intended to be interpreted literally are the Gospel accounts: Christ literally died on the cross and literally rose from the dead. Jesus literally raised Lazarus and etc.

Where the bible differs from the Koran is the violence occured in a historical context: for example, the command to David to smite the Philistines meant just that, and was limited to David smiting the Philitines for a singular purpose at a single point in time.

In contrast, some parts of the Koran call for the open-ended slaying of infidels. Philistines no longer exist but there are plenty of infidels still around.

Stelakh
02-03-2016, 09:38 AM
No, did you read the New Testament?

I kind of wince when people claim the bible is 'the hard coded word of God' that needs to be taken literally to a T. There's a lot of metaphor, allegory and historical accounts in both testaments. There's still no consensus on how the first chapters of Genesis should be interpreted or if they should be interpreted literally.

What was intended to be interpreted literally are the Gospel accounts: Christ literally died on the cross and literally rose from the dead. Jesus literally raised Lazarus and etc.

Where the bible differs from the Koran is the violence occured in a historical context: for example, the command to David to smite the Philistines meant just that, and was limited to David smiting the Philitines for a singular purpose at a single point in time.

In contrast, some parts of the Koran call for the open-ended slaying of infidels. Philistines no longer exist but there are plenty of infidels still around.

I am well aware that the bible is not the "hard coded word of God," and asked the question in that format because I am trying to understand what it is when Christians (especially fundamentalists and/or evangelicals) say that they believe the bible is the word of God.

As leaningright said on the first page of this thread, many Christians believe that the bible is, "the infallible word of God". What I want to know is if they count the entire bible as such.

Allegory and metaphor are not alien to me, but for those who seem to believe that the bible is, in fact, "the infallible word of God," the allegorical nature of the bible seems to be lost. This is what I'm trying to understand.

Looking at it from a logical perspective, for example, there is absolutely no way that we would have had a viable human species from Adam, Eve, and their two sons. None. But there are people out there who will tell you that the story of Adam and Eve (which is clearly allegorical) is in fact 100% accurate and that we all stem from 3 men and one woman (which also means they're not actually familiar with the story because there was more to it than that).

It is this aspect, the belief of something as absolute fact when it simply could not be that I am trying to understand. It baffles me as to how that works.

Then there's the question of the Messiah, which came into the thread thanks to Celticguy, who quite rightly said, "Unfortunately that would have to serve, at least hypothetically, as the starting point. Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah."

Things kind of took a turn, there, because I suppose the validity of the New Testament hinges on whether or not Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah. As I have already stated, I don't believe he was because the Messiah foretold and Jesus don't match in just about any aspect.

evince
02-03-2016, 10:23 AM
there is no such thing as a real messiah


it is all man made myth

Celticguy
02-03-2016, 11:41 AM
Why is it even considered a part of the "Christian" Bible....These scrolls and other writings were the beliefs, customs, and myths of men long before Christ appeared.....
Jesus was a Jew not Christian. There is a rather obvious connection IMO.
By the way, there is no way of knowing the accuracy/consistancy of the oral passage.
I believe it was reasonably so but that's belief not knowledge.
I can see why jews may think it odd as they don't see Jesus as Christians do.

CFM
02-08-2016, 12:46 PM
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

Since you have to ask the question about why aren't the Levitical and Mosiac laws not followed, it shows your supposed reading of the Bible produced absolutely nothing in the way of understanding. If you had read it as many times as you claim, you wouldn't have to ask such a question. The Bible would have answered it for you.

Clearly on Saturday? To YOU?

As far as your last question, same thing as the first question applies. If you've read it so many times, one would think you would have that answer. Jesus was clear as to what it took to reach heaven. There is a book in the Bible with the name of John. It's the fourth book in the NT. Try reading chapter 14. It says how one reaches the Father and it's through Jesus. Jesus didn't say by following a set of procedures on how you were to cook your food, cut your hair, wear your clothes, etc.

I would have thought someone claiming to have read it would know something about it. Apparently you don't.

CFM
02-08-2016, 12:46 PM
there is no such thing as a real messiah


it is all man made myth

Someone should tell the Obama supporters that.

Stelakh
02-10-2016, 11:20 AM
Since you have to ask the question about why aren't the Levitical and Mosiac laws not followed, it shows your supposed reading of the Bible produced absolutely nothing in the way of understanding. If you had read it as many times as you claim, you wouldn't have to ask such a question. The Bible would have answered it for you.

Clearly on Saturday? To YOU?

As far as your last question, same thing as the first question applies. If you've read it so many times, one would think you would have that answer. Jesus was clear as to what it took to reach heaven. There is a book in the Bible with the name of John. It's the fourth book in the NT. Try reading chapter 14. It says how one reaches the Father and it's through Jesus. Jesus didn't say by following a set of procedures on how you were to cook your food, cut your hair, wear your clothes, etc.

I would have thought someone claiming to have read it would know something about it. Apparently you don't.

The problem is that the only thing the bible answered is that no, Jesus didn't "fulfill" any laws because he's not the Messiah. So the laws are still in effect.

Yes, clearly on Saturday, because it's actually in the bible.

Oh, and you reference John.

Look, the "gospels" don't agree with each other, they're full of inter-book contradictions (do I need to get into the whole geneaology of Jesus thing and run on from there?). And then there's John.

John contradicts HIMSELF in his own "gospel." So yeah, I know something about it.

stoned
02-20-2016, 12:13 PM
i believe that The message of Jesus is different from that of Paul. I think the author of Matthew and Paul would have had quite a debate and as we witness here, the debate continues.

The Jesus we know was created by Paul, rejected by the Jews and spread among the gentiles.

CFM
02-20-2016, 06:01 PM
I am a big picture Christian. I don't think Christ was bothered much about premarital sex, or taking the lords name in vain kinda stuff. Christ was concerned about how we treat others and how we understand ourselves.

Primarily Christ came to provide a bridge between humans and God, a way of accessing truth and spiritual deliverance without the need of a priest or what has become the "Church". It can be boiled down to the idea that while we are all human and thus make mistakes, we can access spiritual everlasting life even if you chose to live outside the governmental, societal, or even religious structure of the time.


Are you saying that people can reach heaven even if they don't follow the teachings of Christ?

Big picture Christian? One of those that has perverted the teachings of Christ to what you want it to be. Got it.

CFM
02-20-2016, 06:03 PM
The problem is that the only thing the bible answered is that no, Jesus didn't "fulfill" any laws because he's not the Messiah. So the laws are still in effect.

Yes, clearly on Saturday, because it's actually in the bible.

Oh, and you reference John.

Look, the "gospels" don't agree with each other, they're full of inter-book contradictions (do I need to get into the whole geneaology of Jesus thing and run on from there?). And then there's John.

John contradicts HIMSELF in his own "gospel." So yeah, I know something about it.

You know nothing. You claim to know but, as usual, you're wrong. If you claim Jesus isn't the Messiah, you would again be wrong. Just another non-Christian trying to claim you know something for which you have no clue.

The Dude
02-21-2016, 06:47 AM
Jesus is a cartoon to placate poor people!

iolo
02-21-2016, 07:03 AM
The early Church took over the Old Testament because it contained (not very convincing) 'prophecies' to attract other Jews, and a lot of daft folklore got itself contained in the Gospels. We should read the Gospels and Acts with attention to the currently relevant bits, especially the primitive socialism recommended, and what Jesus is quoted as saying about human relationships in general, leaving Paul and the other epistles to historians and God-botherers, all the rest to whoever it may concern

evince
02-21-2016, 07:05 AM
he bible has value


it does not have magic powers


it is merely the words of some men

leaningright
02-24-2016, 03:15 PM
he bible has value


it does not have magic powers ... but contains a message for eternity


it is merely the words of some men ... guided by the spirit of God

FTFY

The Dude
02-26-2016, 05:50 PM
FTFY

Thank god we have one less flat earth teacher

anatta
02-27-2016, 09:22 AM
Someone should tell the Obama supporters that. ;)

leaningright
02-27-2016, 03:31 PM
Thank god we have one less flat earth teacher

Oh, I'm still going to be a teacher, Toppy, just not going to be a principal anymore. :)

The Dude
02-27-2016, 08:02 PM
Oh, I'm still going to be a teacher, Toppy, just not going to be a principal anymore. :)

God help us!

baileyjay
03-01-2016, 12:49 AM
The bad and aweful "bits" you rejected are what you would find in the Hebrew Bible, and what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Yet you chose the faith of the "bits" you don't like...odd.

Stelakh
03-01-2016, 04:01 PM
The early Church took over the Old Testament because it contained (not very convincing) 'prophecies' to attract other Jews, and a lot of daft folklore got itself contained in the Gospels. We should read the Gospels and Acts with attention to the currently relevant bits, especially the primitive socialism recommended, and what Jesus is quoted as saying about human relationships in general, leaving Paul and the other epistles to historians and God-botherers, all the rest to whoever it may concern

You are vastly oversimplifying.

The early church did more than that, however. What they did was take the bits THEY didn't like, mistranslate (and it's questionable whether or not that was on purpose) some things that became more in line with what the church wanted due to the mistranslation, and then threw out the bible as the "Word of God."

The problem is that when humans get involved in choosing what is and what isn't "truth" based on nothing but their own opinions, you lose not just bits of the truth but all of it, because what you're left with is either an intentional, bald-faced lie, or a lie of omission.

Alter2Ego
07-04-2016, 08:26 PM
I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.


Stelakh:

The Judeo-Christian Bible provides the history of mankind, starting from the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, and their subsequent rebellion against God. So why are you surprised that it provides information about mankind's wrongdoings within its pages? Surely you want the historical facts, as opposed to sugar-coating.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Alter2Ego
07-04-2016, 08:55 PM
Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

. . .

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

Stelakh:

To answer your question, bolded in red, yes, the Bible should be followed in full--meaning the portions that apply to Christians.

As you stated (and others at various websites have made an issue of the same thing), some books of the Bible were apparently removed by the Christianized Romans when they adopted Christianity as the state religion. However, one fact seems to escape you, as it has many, and that is that the remaining 66 books contain sufficient information in order for honest-hearted persons to realize that the instructions from Almighty God Jehovah remain intact--despite any books that were discarded. The reason for that is this: The instructions from the Almighty are interwoven into all of the Bible books, as opposed to being contained in only a few of the Bible books. So despite the interference by the Christianized Romans--which Jehovah tolerated--it was impossible for them to change the message and instructions from God that is contained in the Bible as a whole.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." (2 Timothy 3:16 -- New Living Translation)



If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

I will respond to your remaining questions in future posts.


Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 05:53 PM
Stelakh:

To answer your question, bolded in red, yes, the Bible should be followed in full--meaning the portions that apply to Christians.

As you stated (and others at various websites have made an issue of the same thing), some books of the Bible were apparently removed by the Christianized Romans when they adopted Christianity as the state religion. However, one fact seems to escape you, as it has many, and that is that the remaining 66 books contain sufficient information in order for honest-hearted persons to realize that the instructions from Almighty God Jehovah remain intact--despite any books that were discarded. The reason for that is this: The instructions from the Almighty are interwoven into all of the Bible books, as opposed to being contained in only a few of the Bible books. So despite the interference by the Christianized Romans--which Jehovah tolerated--it was impossible for them to change the message and instructions from God that is contained in the Bible as a whole.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." (2 Timothy 3:16 -- New Living Translation)

I will respond to your remaining questions in future posts.


Alter2Ego

Since this topic has been resurrected (pun intended), why don't we start with the absolute simplest of things to deal with in your initial comment?

First and foremost, right out of the gate, you say that the bible should be followed in full but in the same sentence say "...meaning the portions that apply to Christians." If that is the case then you are not following the bible in full and in fact are stating categorically that you favor cherry-picking.

The bible is full of self-contradiction, with books not agreeing with each other (John even contradicts HIMSELF in his own gospel). All of the gospels try desperately to fit the Messianic story into the Old Testament mold, and they all fail rather miserably. But in attempting to do so, they tell us plainly: "The Old Testament matters." If it didn't, they wouldn't have (or needed to have) used such literary gymnastics in an attempt to make Just the square peg fit into the Messiah round hole.

But even laying that aside, how can you say that all of the books of the bible - including those that were discarded by the early Church because they did not support the Church's position - are less important than the whole? If we are talking about the "word of god", here, is it not vital and important that we discuss the whole of the thing?

Would god, in fact, have given his word in books that were unimportant or irrelevant? Would he have bothered to give instruction if it was okay to simply discard those parts of his word that we didn't like?

PostmodernProphet
07-05-2016, 06:18 PM
John even contradicts HIMSELF in his own gospel

is that according to the interpretation of Stelakh or the interpretation of Christianity?.....

PostmodernProphet
07-05-2016, 06:20 PM
But even laying that aside, how can you say that all of the books of the bible - including those that were discarded by the early Church because they did not support the Church's position - are less important than the whole?

if they were rejected by those who established the canon of the Bible then said books were never books of the Bible......

Bill
07-05-2016, 06:58 PM
That one's actually pretty easy.

According to the Prophecies, the Messiah should be:

• The direct scion, through is father, of David - and this will be absolutely irrefutable.
• Mortal, born from a normal man and woman, conceived the old-fashioned (and fun) way.
• Extremely righteous (meaning that he will follow the teachings of the Torah to the letter)
• He will be what would be considered the very best scholar of the Torah, knowing all of it and being very well versed in it.
• He will become the ruler of Israel and all of its people (all 12 Tribes).
• He will have a son (at least one) who will become King after the Messiah dies from a normal death, having lived a very long life.
• He will support and strengthen the Torah, and it will not be changed.
• The oppression, slavery, bigotry and hatred shown toward Jews by others will be gone. Hell, NOBODY will be being dicks to anyone else, regardless of faith/nationality/etc.
• The complete and full body of the Law will be restored by the Sanhedrin.
• The Messiah comes around once - there is no "second coming." Everything he seeks to accomplish according to propehcy he'll do without having to swing back around.

Things Jesus did that say he's not the Messiah foretold:

• Die on the cross (regardless of the reason)
• Challenge the Torah and its laws in any way whatsoever
• Rise from the dead
• Ascend into Heaven
• Redeem people for their sins
• Have a 'second coming"
• Be born of a virgin
• Be the son of God
• Remain a virgin
• Had no son
Do you have a link w/ citations @ where those can be found

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 08:27 PM
Do you have a link w/ citations @ where those can be found

The Messiah must:

Must be a direct male descendent of Kind David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16), AND King Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18).

(Before anyone starts on Joseph passing on the descent of David and Solomon, yeahNO. According to Matthew (1:11), Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, so Joseph was subject to Jeconiah's curse that none of his descendants could ever sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30. Also, heredity through the tribe does NOT follow any adoption.)

Had to gather the Hebrew people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12).

Had to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

Had to bring about world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3)

Had to make the ENTIRE world acknowledge ONE god. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

Had to restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land. (Jeremiah 33:15)

Nowhere in the Jewish bible is there any reference to a "second coming."

The "holy trinity" is, in Judaism, considered to be a form of idolotry.

Go and read Ezekiel, 37:24-28.

In fact, go and read the Old Testament.

There's rather a great deal more than I have added to this singular post, or care to take the time to add when you can read it for yourself.

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 08:28 PM
is that according to the interpretation of Stelakh or the interpretation of Christianity?.....

It's according to the gospel of John, if you read it.

You'd know that, being a biblical scholar, though, of course.

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 08:30 PM
if they were rejected by those who established the canon of the Bible then said books were never books of the Bible......

Are you being naive or disingenuous?

Bill
07-05-2016, 08:45 PM
The Messiah must:

Must be a direct male descendent of Kind David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16), AND King Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18).

(Before anyone starts on Joseph passing on the descent of David and Solomon, yeahNO. According to Matthew (1:11), Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, so Joseph was subject to Jeconiah's curse that none of his descendants could ever sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30. Also, heredity through the tribe does NOT follow any adoption.)

Had to gather the Hebrew people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12).

Had to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

Had to bring about world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3)

Had to make the ENTIRE world acknowledge ONE god. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)

Had to restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land. (Jeremiah 33:15)

Nowhere in the Jewish bible is there any reference to a "second coming."

The "holy trinity" is, in Judaism, considered to be a form of idolotry.

Go and read Ezekiel, 37:24-28.

In fact, go and read the Old Testament.

There's rather a great deal more than I have added to this singular post, or care to take the time to add when you can read it for yourself.
Interesting, I looked up everyone & I don't really see the contradiction..

Many seem to refer to the last days, which supposedly we have been in for a long time.. Additionally many of those things are suppose to occur upon His return??

As to the Trinity not being in the Bible, the word is not but the concept is as exampled in John 1:1... Personally I think if you believe in a being that created the universe, from the stars etc to the protons, we have no words to describe something like that now, moreless thousands of years ago..:dunno:

Bill
07-05-2016, 08:48 PM
Are you being naive or disingenuous?

Isn't he correct though?? Some of those books were dismissed, as example the Gnostic references while others are supposedly good for edification etc, just not up to the level of "canonization"...

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 08:58 PM
Isn't he correct though?? Some of those books were dismissed, as example the Gnostic references while others are supposedly good for edification etc, just not up to the level of "canonization"...

I would argue that no, he's not correct.

Since "the bible" is supposed to be the "word of god," and the books were compiled by humans who had their own agenda and chose what books to include so that the completed work will fall with high bias on their side.

Humans decided what the "word of god", even though there was rather a great deal more "word of god" than they included.

Bill
07-05-2016, 09:05 PM
I would argue that no, he's not correct.

Since "the bible" is supposed to be the "word of god," and the books were compiled by humans who had their own agenda and chose what books to include so that the completed work will fall with high bias on their side.

Humans decided what the "word of god", even though there was rather a great deal more "word of god" than they included.
Maybe that is where the faith part comes in??

I mean if you believe God created the universe & all that, is this that difficult to pull off??

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 09:06 PM
Interesting, I looked up everyone & I don't really see the contradiction..

Many seem to refer to the last days, which supposedly we have been in for a long time.. Additionally many of those things are suppose to occur upon His return??

As to the Trinity not being in the Bible, the word is not but the concept is as exampled in John 1:1... Personally I think if you believe in a being that created the universe, from the stars etc to the protons, we have no words to describe something like that now, moreless thousands of years ago..:dunno:

You asked me for references regarding Jesus not being the Messiah. I provided some.

One thing it's important to remember is that everything the Messiah was to accomplish was to be done the first time around. There is no "second coming" in Messianic Prophesy, which is another reason Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

I also didn't say the Trinity wasn't in the bible. It's in the New Testament. What I said was that the idea of the "holy trinity" is considered as idolotry, which is one of the three sins one should be willing to give up one's life before committing.

Stelakh
07-05-2016, 09:08 PM
Maybe that is where the faith part comes in??

I mean if you believe God created the universe & all that, is this that difficult to pull off??

Either it's all "god's word" or none of it is "god's word."

How can we pick and choose between what is and what is not god's word?

Bill
07-10-2016, 01:24 PM
Either it's all "god's word" or none of it is "god's word."

How can we pick and choose between what is and what is not god's word?

Is there anything or anyone preventing you from reading & believing those other books??

There are several billion ppl on the planet & you would be hard pressed to get two or three of them to agree on much...

PostmodernProphet
07-10-2016, 03:48 PM
How can we pick and choose between what is and what is not god's word?

nobody asked you to.......the Church did that for Christianity nearly two thousand years ago.......

Stelakh
07-11-2016, 05:51 PM
nobody asked you to.......the Church did that for Christianity nearly two thousand years ago.......

"The Church" didn't do a damned thing.

Humans, who had an agenda, took what they liked and kept it, then threw out the rest - even though ALL of it was "god's word."

And they did it more than once.

In each of the following years, humans decided what was and wasn't "god's word" and altered the contents of the bible: 829, 926, 1076, 1122, 1495, 1521 and 1545, with the Diet of Worms being the most famous (that's the one in 1521).

But that's not all. It goes back a lot further than 829.

Paul's Epistles are considered to be the earliest known works of the bible and they come from somewhere in the middle of the 1st century.

There not being any printing presses, computers or typewriters at the time, they were written by hand and then copied by many, many people. Without any doubt, errors in copying found their way into the final version. And, quite likely, some changes that were not so much "errors" as deliberate changes to present a certain view.

Then there's the fact that the stories in the early works changed - different ancient scripts show different versions of the same story because the early Christians were still working out just what the heck Jesus was, what he said, what he intended, and so on.

Historians have come across early manuscripts that showed there were changes, additions or removals of parts, verses or even single words from the originals.

In the Gospel of John, for example, there's the famous story of the woman accused of being an adulteress, and Jesus says, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." That didn't appear until about 300 years AFTER the Gospel of John first appeared. Clearly, since it was 300 years later, John never in fact added that particular part into his gospel. Someone else did.

The Gospel of Mark tells us about Jesus appearing to his disciples after he rises from the dead. Which is an awesome talent - except that in the earliest original manuscripts that story doesn't exist.

Neither does Jesus asking that the Romans be forgiven for crucifying him because, "...they know not what they do." That wasn't in the earliest known versions of the Gospel of Luke.

All of which points to a simple conclusion, if one is objective and honest.

If the bible as it exists today is the "word of god", it is only a perverted version thereof, twisted and manipulated to serve the people who created it over time - and who still continue to change it today.

Which in itself brings up some interesting questions about whether or not god is capable of keeping "his word" from being perverted, and just what that means.

Phantasmal
07-11-2016, 06:01 PM
"The Church" didn't do a damned thing.

Humans, who had an agenda, took what they liked and kept it, then threw out the rest - even though ALL of it was "god's word."

And they did it more than once.

In each of the following years, humans decided what was and wasn't "god's word" and altered the contents of the bible: 829, 926, 1076, 1122, 1495, 1521 and 1545, with the Diet of Worms being the most famous (that's the one in 1521).

But that's not all. It goes back a lot further than 829.

Paul's Epistles are considered to be the earliest known works of the bible and they come from somewhere in the middle of the 1st century.

There not being any printing presses, computers or typewriters at the time, they were written by hand and then copied by many, many people. Without any doubt, errors in copying found their way into the final version. And, quite likely, some changes that were not so much "errors" as deliberate changes to present a certain view.

Then there's the fact that the stories in the early works changed - different ancient scripts show different versions of the same story because the early Christians were still working out just what the heck Jesus was, what he said, what he intended, and so on.

Historians have come across early manuscripts that showed there were changes, additions or removals of parts, verses or even single words from the originals.

In the Gospel of John, for example, there's the famous story of the woman accused of being an adulteress, and Jesus says, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone." That didn't appear until about 300 years AFTER the Gospel of John first appeared. Clearly, since it was 300 years later, John never in fact added that particular part into his gospel. Someone else did.

The Gospel of Mark tells us about Jesus appearing to his disciples after he rises from the dead. Which is an awesome talent - except that in the earliest original manuscripts that story doesn't exist.

Neither does Jesus asking that the Romans be forgiven for crucifying him because, "...they know not what they do." That wasn't in the earliest known versions of the Gospel of Luke.

All of which points to a simple conclusion, if one is objective and honest.

If the bible as it exists today is the "word of god", it is only a perverted version thereof, twisted and manipulated to serve the people who created it over time - and who still continue to change it today.

Which in itself brings up some interesting questions about whether or not god is capable of keeping "his word" from being perverted, and just what that means.

Excellent post, thank you

Ralph
07-11-2016, 07:18 PM
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

1. No....the bible is not a book by which every word should be considered the WORD OF GOD...its a History of the God of Creation interacting with mankind and giving man a set of rules to live by in order to have a long, well adjusted lifespan for certain dispensations of history and its peoples.....The Bible includes the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly....where something is recorded as a command of God, or a suggestion or the simple history of any group of humanity. Or....something which mankind did without the approval of God, its all there, simply read the context of the actual translated content.....the truth loses nothing in simple translation...even if several words might have several different meanings...THE CONTEXT will lead directly to the correct meaning.

When read in context the Bible can be understood to never contradict itself.....when its rightly divided by man in order to comprehend what God demands, what God suggests, and just what are FUNDAMENTAL and eternal laws of God that are contained in all the covenants that God had with mankind.

Not all the laws that came from God where ever intended to be "eternal" such as the Covenant with Moses. The Bible explains that Law was specific to the nation of Biblical Israel and was temporary. (Jer. 31:31-34). That law would be replaced by a NEW COVENANT when the time was correct as decided by God...not man, and THE LAW would be written on the hearts of God's true followers...not itched in stone. That was from the Old Testament.

The New Testament agrees. The Old Law or the Law of Moses was but a shadow of things to come...in the fact that the Old Law could not forgive anyone of sin...all it could promise was to carry sin forth for a year at a time by the sacrifices demanded in that law...but never could complete atonement be found. (Hebrews 10:1-4)

The New Covenant had to come as prophesied by Jer. 31.....with that covenant, sin could be atoned for the entire world, all it took was belief, and the ultimate Blood Sacrifice...a man that never sinned once in his entire life on earth.....the Son of God....God incarnate the only person that had the ability to walk this earth void of sin. (Heb. 9:12, 10:10.

Jesus stood in as the perfect Lamb of God...the perfect blood sacrifice...and that sacrifice finally fulfilled the requirements of the Old Law and upon the death of Christ Jesus, the New Testament Covenant of God came into effect and ushered in the Last Days of Mankind, we have been living in that dispensation of time for over 2000 years now.

These 3 truths are self evident within the text of the Holy Bible.

The Old Testament was never intended to be a law for any gentile nation...it was but a history in bringing the knowledge of a New Testament and Messiah that could atone for the worlds sin....all through grace and love.

The New Testament brought about final atonement through the promised Messiah.

The New Testament brought clarification of the Old Testament and that old Testament is still used by Christians as a historical guide of what not to do when seeking the approval of God...to learn from the mistakes of those who failed to obey the God of Creation...and to demonstrate the fulfilled prophecies of the Messiah.

This is but a simple answer. We shall see how you attempt to tear it down with some "gotcha" before we proceed to see if you really want to learn or you simply want to stir division. Remember simply because the ENTIRE BIBLE is inspired of God....does not indicate that every word is a law of God.....it indicated only one thing....A TRUE HISTORY of our Judeo/Christian faith and philosophy.

PostmodernProphet
07-11-2016, 07:48 PM
"The Church" didn't do a damned thing.


of course not......I'm sure you believe there was no Synod of 397 AD......

PostmodernProphet
07-11-2016, 07:49 PM
Excellent post, thank you

silly pile of atheist shit, thank you.....

Stelakh
07-11-2016, 08:28 PM
of course not......I'm sure you believe there was no Synod of 397 AD......

You refer to the third Council of Carthage, which, yes, is also known as the Synod of 397. It is not a question as to whether I believe there was or not. There was. It is fact and truth that it took place, and therefore requires absolutely no belief whatsoever.

But if your suggestion that the 397 Council of Carthage was "the church" doing anything, you are wrong again.

It was humans, leaders of the church, who had their own agenda and based upon that decided at the time what was and was not canonical, and what of "god's word" could be thrown out.

Stelakh
07-11-2016, 08:54 PM
1. No....the bible is not a book by which every word should be considered the WORD OF GOD...

And yet so many Christians, even those right here on this forum (including YOU, Ralph, who so many times have spoken of the "word of god" as truth, so let's stop bullshitting, shall we?) say the bible actually is the absolute word of god, and then use that to justify hatred and bigotry. Interesting.


...its all there, simply read the context of the actual translated content.....the truth loses nothing in simple translation...even if several words might have several different meanings...THE CONTEXT will lead directly to the correct meaning.

How much Hebrew do you speak, read and write, Ralph? I'm rather familiar with it, as I'm sure you must be aware. I assure you, truth loses nothing in translation. The problem is that there are many problems with the translations of the original texts.


When read in context the Bible can be understood to never contradict itself...

When read in context? Really? Look, the bottom line is that the bible is full of contradiction - even right down to the differing accounts of Jesus' activities in the gospels. If read with an objective eye instead of reading with eyes closed, there are plenty of contradictions.


Not all the laws that came from God where ever intended to be "eternal" such as the Covenant with Moses. The Bible explains that Law was specific to the nation of Biblical Israel and was temporary. (Jer. 31:31-34).

You should be careful of admonishing someone else to read the bible in contact. I have. Your example is actually quite helpful.

You see, when read "in context", that particular section of Jeremiah actually reveals two things. First, that the new covenant was to be made ONLY with the houses of Israel and Judah (everyone else would be excluded from the new covenant, and thus subject to the old covenant), and that Jesus was clearly not the Messiah prophesied because he didn't rebuild the city.


Jeremiah 31:38 Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever.


The New Covenant had to come as prophesied by Jer. 31.....with that covenant, sin could be atoned for the entire world, all it took was belief, and the ultimate Blood Sacrifice...a man that never sinned once in his entire life on earth.....the Son of God....God incarnate the only person that had the ability to walk this earth void of sin. (Heb. 9:12, 10:10.

So God, instead of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to forgive you people," had himself born, go through 33 years, then had himself tortured and murdered. Makes sense, does it?


Jesus stood in as the perfect Lamb of God...the perfect blood sacrifice...and that sacrifice finally fulfilled the requirements of the Old Law and upon the death of Christ Jesus, the New Testament Covenant of God came into effect and ushered in the Last Days of Mankind, we have been living in that dispensation of time for over 2000 years now.

See above. Was god simply not capable of forgiving the sins of mankind without this bizarre step? If not, then he is not omnipotent.


These 3 truths are self evident within the text of the Holy Bible.

The only truth evident within the text of the bible is that Jesus was not the Messiah prophesied by the old testament and original Hebrew texts, and thus did not fulfill anything and was not "god incarnate" but instead someone who either deluded himself or was deluded by those around him.


The Old Testament was never intended to be a law for any gentile nation...

This is because the god of the bible is a Hebrew god, and his word was intended for Hebrews. There was no Christian nation in the old testament, for obvious reasons.


The New Testament brought about final atonement through the promised Messiah.

No, it didn't. Jesus was not the Messiah. See my comments and supporting information in various threads around this forum.


This is but a simple answer. We shall see how you attempt to tear it down with some "gotcha" before we proceed to see if you really want to learn or you simply want to stir division. Remember simply because the ENTIRE BIBLE is inspired of God....does not indicate that every word is a law of God.....it indicated only one thing....A TRUE HISTORY of our Judeo/Christian faith and philosophy.

I don't attempt to tear anything down, Ralph. I actually know what I'm talking about because I've read the bible rather a great many times, I read, write, speak and (importantly) UNDERSTAND Hebrew, so I'm capable of reading original texts and knowing what was and was not (whether intentionally or not) mistranslated. And also importantly, I view it with an objective eye and not one that's suffering from the cataracts of wanting to desperately believe.

Finally, you're not actually answering questions, and you're certainly not teaching. At best, you're proselytizing under the guise of trying to teach. That is painfully evident in the suggestion that the bible contains no contradictions. I've heard that before, and if it weren't so tragic I'd laugh at the very notion someone could actually make that claim and believe it.

Stelakh
07-11-2016, 08:55 PM
silly pile of atheist shit, thank you.....

Why thank you for that deeply informative and well-thought post.

Is there a reason you chose to take that particular route rather than respond honestly to what I said?

I'm willing to bet I know the answer to that question.

Bill
07-11-2016, 09:21 PM
Why don't you just go ahead tell us the answer?? Should be interesting since he clearly is responding to someone else, it aint all about you..

They say you can't argue someone into the Kingdom & the opposite must also be true..

You say you "know" Hebrew but the problems you seem to have issue w/ are in the New Testament~which is not written in Hebrew...??


You have fun...:)

Ralph
07-11-2016, 10:09 PM
And yet so many Christians, even those right here on this forum (including YOU, Ralph, who so many times have spoken of the "word of god" as truth, so let's stop bullshitting, shall we?) say the bible actually is the absolute word of god, and then use that to justify hatred and bigotry. Interesting.



How much Hebrew do you speak, read and write, Ralph? I'm rather familiar with it, as I'm sure you must be aware. I assure you, truth loses nothing in translation. The problem is that there are many problems with the translations of the original texts.



When read in context? Really? Look, the bottom line is that the bible is full of contradiction - even right down to the differing accounts of Jesus' activities in the gospels. If read with an objective eye instead of reading with eyes closed, there are plenty of contradictions.



You should be careful of admonishing someone else to read the bible in contact. I have. Your example is actually quite helpful.

You see, when read "in context", that particular section of Jeremiah actually reveals two things. First, that the new covenant was to be made ONLY with the houses of Israel and Judah (everyone else would be excluded from the new covenant, and thus subject to the old covenant), and that Jesus was clearly not the Messiah prophesied because he didn't rebuild the city.





So God, instead of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to forgive you people," had himself born, go through 33 years, then had himself tortured and murdered. Makes sense, does it?



See above. Was god simply not capable of forgiving the sins of mankind without this bizarre step? If not, then he is not omnipotent.



The only truth evident within the text of the bible is that Jesus was not the Messiah prophesied by the old testament and original Hebrew texts, and thus did not fulfill anything and was not "god incarnate" but instead someone who either deluded himself or was deluded by those around him.



This is because the god of the bible is a Hebrew god, and his word was intended for Hebrews. There was no Christian nation in the old testament, for obvious reasons.



No, it didn't. Jesus was not the Messiah. See my comments and supporting information in various threads around this forum.



I don't attempt to tear anything down, Ralph. I actually know what I'm talking about because I've read the bible rather a great many times, I read, write, speak and (importantly) UNDERSTAND Hebrew, so I'm capable of reading original texts and knowing what was and was not (whether intentionally or not) mistranslated. And also importantly, I view it with an objective eye and not one that's suffering from the cataracts of wanting to desperately believe.

Finally, you're not actually answering questions, and you're certainly not teaching. At best, you're proselytizing under the guise of trying to teach. That is painfully evident in the suggestion that the bible contains no contradictions. I've heard that before, and if it weren't so tragic I'd laugh at the very notion someone could actually make that claim and believe it.

As I "knew"......you don't want to learn from the source of Christian truth THE HOLY BIBLE, you accept the TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS of one faith in an attempt to discredit both Judaism and Christianity, when you can't prove or disprove either by History Actual or the Science of Archaeology....you want to discredit it by SUBJECTIVE Rhetoric.

Same old Hebrew ruse.....suggesting that Hebrew can't be translated into English because of the difficulty with vowels. And you attempt to present that "suggestion" as fact void of documenting one example of a mistranslation of any Hebrew vowel that voided the understanding of subject matter, context and content of any passage of the Old Testament when it is first translated into Greek. The Septuagint translation of Hebrew into Greek existed 400 years prior to year 1 AD. And its been demonstrated by a study of these translations Both Jesus and Paul taught Old Testament truth from these Greek Translations...Bad Vowels and All (wink, wink).

Understanding Hebrew....does not disprove anything when there is a translation of Hebrew text translated into the universal language of the day....a Greek translation that was proven by the dead sea scrolls to be consistent with the original text of Daniel etc., , a translation used and quoted by the Christ Himself as recorded in the New Testament. How was such a Greek translation verified? It is scientifically documented to exist at least hundreds of years years BC. BEFORE CHRIST or the year 1. What is that translation called? As the evidence proves....the Septuagint....a translation used by PAUL, a historically well known HEBREW teacher. A man that took great pride in his historical knowledge of the Old Testament. I am sure....he would most enjoy teaching untruths due to his lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language. Give me a break.

You offer a "shopping" list of WHY YOU HAVE NO FAITH...but you offer no physical evidence beyond the reason of anyone to doubt...as to how your lack of faith effects MY FAITH. Strange indeed.

About as strange as suggesting that the Bible teaches magic. Again....you nor anyone can either prove or disprove any SUPERNATURAL ACT recorded in the Bible? Why....because the very term Super....natural demonstrates the inability of the "natural...i.e., laws of physics" to quantify or measure for facts any event that is SUPERIOR TO NATURE or supernatural...that is unless you are in possession of a "Super-naturl-o-meter" residing in your hip pocket. Thus...your opinion is made null and void to me as EVIDENCE. No Christian claims to have written one word in either the old or new testament...and make no personal claims of ever having witnessed any supernatural act...but simply because it was not personally witnessed....does not disprove that supernatural act from ever having occurred. I can no more OBJECTIVELY PROVE any act of supernatural record than YOU CAN DISPROVE IT using natural science. Its a joke when someone attempts to (wink, wink) prove that no miracle can happen because they have just measured it via NATURAL SCIENCE. :palm:

But I will share with you as to why I accept the supernatural acts recorded as TRUTH.....there are a great many places...about 90% of the text...where the Bible can be tested for truth via the use of History Actual an or Science such as Archaeology. Thus.....I accept the supernatural events as truth due to the prima facie evidence that 90% can be tested for truth and has never been proven wrong by history actual or the science of archaeology.


No Christian "claims" the word of God is truth based upon some personal opinion. The Christian claims that ALL SCRIPTURE comes by Inspiration of God and it must be rightly divided to find the full truth. The Word of God, makes the Claim....and should be used by the Christian to teach truth where Biblical Truth is being measured. (2 Tim. 3:15,16,17)

Typical Hebrew...LEFT WING logic. First you want to use the Bible in order to prove another wrong..via using an original Hebrew language text...then you want to use the Bible to prove other people wrong by suggesting THE BIBLE contains errors, fables, legends, as demonstrated via the Original Text....when the reality of the situation proves that the major portion of the entire Bible...both the old and the new testaments were drafted in GREEK. Talk about attempting to have your cake and eat it also......... not to mention the vast majority of the New Testament can be found to have been drafted in Greek. Yet...one can't use the teachings of an expert Witness....PAUL who was indeed a Devout Hebrew Scholar excellently versed in the original Hebrew Language..who "chose" to use a Greek Translation of the old law...when he was teaching Gentile subjects....what a shock. But your opinion voids the actual history of the Bible? Really?

I simply believe because you nor no one has offered any Objective evidence as to why the 90% of the Bible that is testable by history or science IS WRONG. Its not a difficult thing. Prove your rhetoric to be truth....not a poor copy and paste of some internet PARROTED shopping list that can be debunked as easily as addressing just a few false ACCUSATIONS by people such as yourself. When one or two examples of false charges can be proven to be FALSE themselves...there is no further need to go down the shopping list with the hope by you that someone will grow weary and stop defending that list of false accusations.

Its common tactic...and one that I have personally dismissed with ease many times. :) For example......you claim man changed the Bible in the 3rd or 4th century...when there are countless pieces of manuscripts that existed within 50 years of John's death...that have been demonstrated to contain the same truth as the accepted CANON. Not to mention the countless HISTORICAL PEOPLE that existed hundreds of years before some council decision and these historical figures such as Justin Martyr...50 years after the death of John...regardless of his personal positions..he did quote from the original New Testament manuscripts as demonstrated via the canon ....next Irenaeus 180 AD, Tertullian, even though he taught a great many falsehoods and was considered a Heretic, he did use New Testament manuscripts and quoted from them in an attempt to distract from his false doctrine, more historical figures quoting from canonized manuscripts before they existed several hundred years into the future...supposedly? How about Clement? Pantaenus? Origen? These men have been directly quoted using the exact same text as THE CANONIZED books.

Come back if you ever TRULY want to REASON TOGETHER instead of self pronouncing yourself......the determiner of TRUTH void of any objective evidence whatsoever. Simply because you inject your opinion that a Group of Men...placed into the Bible what they personally wanted offers no proof or objective evidences. (the canon was determined as documented via history by compassion of contradictions between the rejected books and the canonized books, The Word of God does not contradict its recorded truth, any manuscript that was demonstrated to contradict an accepted and historically known, at that time, manuscript, was determined to be a false book) thus your OPINION is not truth beyond anyone to reasonably doubt....just LIKE I DID. The truth from history actual caused much doubt as to the truthfulness of YOUR OPINION. :)

PostmodernProphet
07-12-2016, 05:54 AM
But if your suggestion that the 397 Council of Carthage was "the church" doing anything, you are wrong again.


if senators and representatives are "Congress", then the synod was "the church".......Christianity has defined the Christian bible......if you want to create your own bible and your own religion no one is stopping you.....we may call you a heretic but I'm sure that won't bother you.....

PostmodernProphet
07-12-2016, 05:57 AM
Why thank you for that deeply informative and well-thought post.

Is there a reason you chose to take that particular route rather than respond honestly to what I said?

I'm willing to bet I know the answer to that question.

of course there was....what you said wasn't honest.....I merely replied in kind.....if you want to pretend that a cut and paste from an atheistsRus web site warrants deep thought you are welcome to my amusement instead......

Stelakh
07-25-2016, 05:13 PM
I originally had a very large post refuting every single statement you've made, but my eyes kept coming back to just one sentence.


...but you offer no physical evidence beyond the reason of anyone to doubt...as to how your lack of faith effects MY FAITH. Strange indeed.

What's actually strange is that you seem to think that my comments affect your faith, or that I think they will. You have made your position very clear - it is immovable regardless of any evidence that could ever be presented.

But beyond that, the one thing that screams from that quote is your suggestion that I offer no physical evidence.

So I'm going to turn that right back at you, Ralph.

Where is your physical evidence that the bible, in whole or in part, is the word of god? Where is your physical evidence that the bible was written by anyone who ever had first-hand experience with any of its subject matter (and I'm talking both the old AND new testaments, here).

Where is the physical evidence that the bible is anything but a collection of stories written by humans who had no influence from any deity whatsoever?

Answer that, please, and then we can continue.

Stelakh
07-25-2016, 05:15 PM
of course there was....what you said wasn't honest.....I merely replied in kind.....if you want to pretend that a cut and paste from an atheistsRus web site warrants deep thought you are welcome to my amusement instead......

Find a website I cut and pasted from.

I await your apology for the accusation when it turns out you can't.

PostmodernProphet
07-25-2016, 08:09 PM
Find a website I cut and pasted from.

I await your apology for the accusation when it turns out you can't.

https://www.google.com/search?q=If+the+bible+as+it+exists+today+is+the+%2 2word+of+god%22%2C+it+is+only+a+perverted+version+ thereof%2C+twisted+and+manipulated+to+serve+the+pe ople+who+created+it+over+time+-+and+who+still+continue+to+change+it+today.&oq=If+the+bible+as+it+exists+today+is+the+%22word+ of+god%22%2C+it+is+only+a+perverted+version+thereo f%2C+twisted+and+manipulated+to+serve+the+people+w ho+created+it+over+time+-+and+who+still+continue+to+change+it+today.&aqs=chrome..69i57.1463j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Stelakh
07-26-2016, 07:25 AM
https://www.google.com/search?q=If+the+bible+as+it+exists+today+is+the+%2 2word+of+god%22%2C+it+is+only+a+perverted+version+ thereof%2C+twisted+and+manipulated+to+serve+the+pe ople+who+created+it+over+time+-+and+who+still+continue+to+change+it+today.&oq=If+the+bible+as+it+exists+today+is+the+%22word+ of+god%22%2C+it+is+only+a+perverted+version+thereo f%2C+twisted+and+manipulated+to+serve+the+people+w ho+created+it+over+time+-+and+who+still+continue+to+change+it+today.&aqs=chrome..69i57.1463j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In other words, you can't find a single site I've cut and pasted.

Apology accepted.

PostmodernProphet
07-26-2016, 07:34 AM
In other words, you can't find a single site I've cut and pasted.

Apology accepted.

even this isn't original......

Stelakh
07-26-2016, 02:42 PM
even this isn't original......

Apology accepted.

Ralph
07-26-2016, 05:23 PM
And yet so many Christians, even those right here on this forum (including YOU, Ralph, who so many times have spoken of the "word of god" as truth, so let's stop bullshitting, shall we?) say the bible actually is the absolute word of god, and then use that to justify hatred and bigotry. Interesting.



How much Hebrew do you speak, read and write, Ralph? I'm rather familiar with it, as I'm sure you must be aware. I assure you, truth loses nothing in translation. The problem is that there are many problems with the translations of the original texts.



When read in context? Really? Look, the bottom line is that the bible is full of contradiction - even right down to the differing accounts of Jesus' activities in the gospels. If read with an objective eye instead of reading with eyes closed, there are plenty of contradictions.



You should be careful of admonishing someone else to read the bible in contact. I have. Your example is actually quite helpful.

You see, when read "in context", that particular section of Jeremiah actually reveals two things. First, that the new covenant was to be made ONLY with the houses of Israel and Judah (everyone else would be excluded from the new covenant, and thus subject to the old covenant), and that Jesus was clearly not the Messiah prophesied because he didn't rebuild the city.





So God, instead of just saying, "Hey, you know what? I'm going to forgive you people," had himself born, go through 33 years, then had himself tortured and murdered. Makes sense, does it?



See above. Was god simply not capable of forgiving the sins of mankind without this bizarre step? If not, then he is not omnipotent.



The only truth evident within the text of the bible is that Jesus was not the Messiah prophesied by the old testament and original Hebrew texts, and thus did not fulfill anything and was not "god incarnate" but instead someone who either deluded himself or was deluded by those around him.



This is because the god of the bible is a Hebrew god, and his word was intended for Hebrews. There was no Christian nation in the old testament, for obvious reasons.



No, it didn't. Jesus was not the Messiah. See my comments and supporting information in various threads around this forum.



I don't attempt to tear anything down, Ralph. I actually know what I'm talking about because I've read the bible rather a great many times, I read, write, speak and (importantly) UNDERSTAND Hebrew, so I'm capable of reading original texts and knowing what was and was not (whether intentionally or not) mistranslated. And also importantly, I view it with an objective eye and not one that's suffering from the cataracts of wanting to desperately believe.

Finally, you're not actually answering questions, and you're certainly not teaching. At best, you're proselytizing under the guise of trying to teach. That is painfully evident in the suggestion that the bible contains no contradictions. I've heard that before, and if it weren't so tragic I'd laugh at the very notion someone could actually make that claim and believe it.

Ad Hominem BS....nothing to debate. You have documented nothing as to the actual history of the church and the many thousands of original partial manuscripts that existed prior to any council meetings....manuscripts that have been subject to comparative analysis, while the manuscripts that could not compare with the cannon were rightly declared "uninspired"....as the cannon of the New Testament has never been subject to contradict history as recorded by the many enemies of the Church. :)

As I said....how does your subjective opinion and lack of faith effect me? Not in the least, its your soul, not mine...you were endowed with free will just as everyone else, how you exercise that will effects only you and those that are uneducated enough to swallow the secular BS. :clink: Go for it....ignore the revealed wisdom from the God of Creation at your own peril....not mine. You have presented nothing that would lead anyone to believe you beyond the shadow of a doubt...I have personally introduced hundreds of reasons that causes DOUBT in relation to truth.

As said before.... I do not debate the phony smart that has to parrot shopping lists from the internet. If you were as educated as you pretend there would be no problem with you providing objective testable argumentation , instead we get the ad hominem BS. Such is typical of the internet troll. If you were educated you would have been subjected to the actual history of the Church regardless of your faith...clearly you have not, as you have parroted the secular opinions from the supposed educated secular trolls that frequent the internet. You know the type, those that have 300,000 dollar loans with an 8th grade education level.....having partied for years and purchased the best sheep skin that daddy and Big Brother could afford, many of which are flipping burgers as we speak as there appears to be no call for a graduate that majored in SOCIAL JUSTICE. :)

I suggest you go back to wall st. and protest a while.....it will pass the time.

Stelakh
07-26-2016, 07:47 PM
Ad Hominem BS....nothing to debate. You have documented nothing as to the actual history of the church and the many thousands of original partial manuscripts that existed prior to any council meetings....manuscripts that have been subject to comparative analysis, while the manuscripts that could not compare with the cannon were rightly declared "uninspired"....as the cannon of the New Testament has never been subject to contradict history as recorded by the many enemies of the Church. :)

You accuse me of an ad hominem attack, and then go on to attack me instead of answering the question at hand (because you actually can't answer that question). This makes you a hypocrite (and as I have often remarked on this forum, the bible has some very not nice things to say about hypocrites, doesn't it?).


As I said....how does your subjective opinion and lack of faith effect me?

As I said, Ralph, I don't believe it affects you nor do I expect it to because you are blind to fact and evidence. I frankly don't care whether you have faith or not.


I have personally introduced hundreds of reasons that causes DOUBT in relation to truth.

No, you haven't. You've claimed that you have, but when you are expected to provide the physical proof that you wish others to provide, you can't do it, so you throw out nonsense about "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when it comes to belief without knowledge.

And the most laughable part of your statement is that you think truth is doubtable. If something is truth, then it is truth. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, then I suggest you consult any dictionary for the word "truth" and its definition.

You may blindly and willingly DENY truth, but truth is not subject to interpretation.


If you were as educated as you pretend there would be no problem with you providing objective testable argumentation , instead we get the ad hominem BS.

There's that ad hominem accusation again while you're actually engaging in it. Shame on you and your hypocrisy.


If you were educated you would have been subjected to the actual history of the Church regardless of your faith...clearly you have not, as you have parroted the secular opinions from the supposed educated secular trolls that frequent the internet.

Actually, Ralph, I was once very, VERY orthodox. And then I became educated and saw that what others viewed as "the word of god" is a tissue of human nonsense cobbled together to give them power over other people. You know not only nothing of the faith I was brought up in but also nothing of what religion I may or may not practice.

You are clearly incapable of debate on this subject because you can't see past the bible. You expect others to provide you with proof that something doesn't exist. It is not possible to prove an absence. But by the same token when someone holds your feet to the fire as I did and demands the kind of proof for the existence of something that you demand for its absence, you go on the attack.

Thank you for helping me to prove a point here, Ralph. That point being, of course, that is is impossible to expect logical, reasoned discourse and debate with someone like you - someone so ill-equipped to face the real truth and so well-prepared to hide behind the almighty nonsense of demanding the impossible while being unwilling to provide it yourself.

Here endeth THAT lesson.

Next?

Ralph
07-27-2016, 12:37 PM
You accuse me of an ad hominem attack, and then go on to attack me instead of answering the question at hand (because you actually can't answer that question). This makes you a hypocrite (and as I have often remarked on this forum, the bible has some very not nice things to say about hypocrites, doesn't it?).



As I said, Ralph, I don't believe it affects you nor do I expect it to because you are blind to fact and evidence. I frankly don't care whether you have faith or not.



No, you haven't. You've claimed that you have, but when you are expected to provide the physical proof that you wish others to provide, you can't do it, so you throw out nonsense about "beyond a shadow of a doubt" when it comes to belief without knowledge.

And the most laughable part of your statement is that you think truth is doubtable. If something is truth, then it is truth. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, then I suggest you consult any dictionary for the word "truth" and its definition.

You may blindly and willingly DENY truth, but truth is not subject to interpretation.



There's that ad hominem accusation again while you're actually engaging in it. Shame on you and your hypocrisy.



Actually, Ralph, I was once very, VERY orthodox. And then I became educated and saw that what others viewed as "the word of god" is a tissue of human nonsense cobbled together to give them power over other people. You know not only nothing of the faith I was brought up in but also nothing of what religion I may or may not practice.

You are clearly incapable of debate on this subject because you can't see past the bible. You expect others to provide you with proof that something doesn't exist. It is not possible to prove an absence. But by the same token when someone holds your feet to the fire as I did and demands the kind of proof for the existence of something that you demand for its absence, you go on the attack.

Thank you for helping me to prove a point here, Ralph. That point being, of course, that is is impossible to expect logical, reasoned discourse and debate with someone like you - someone so ill-equipped to face the real truth and so well-prepared to hide behind the almighty nonsense of demanding the impossible while being unwilling to provide it yourself.

Here endeth THAT lesson.

Next?

Indeed, I always call a lying dog...a lying dog. As I said, there is no debating ad hominem BS....the questions you asked at the beginning were answered by documented testable evidences. If you have a problem debunking the sources provided that sounds much like a typical TROLL..... especially when you keep using circular arguments ad nauseam. What you presented was brought into question by the actual history of the 1st 300 plus years of the church....yet you insist upon asking more boring questions that do nothing but consume time? That is the point no? I have successfully debunked your first attack as being secular BS....now you attempt to present more BS Really? You nor the parroted shopping list is worthy of answering any more than 1 or 2 charges...the rest are worthless by comparison. :)

Stelakh
07-27-2016, 05:12 PM
Indeed, I always call a lying dog...a lying dog.

And yet you've not presented any lie that anyone has said. Interesting.


the questions you asked at the beginning were answered by documented testable evidences.

This is the problem, Ralph. THIS is why I argue with you over what YOU have said. Because what you're asserting is an absolute lie, and I'm about to prove it without ad hominem remarks, without circular arguments, and without anything but the truth. And they're the questions I asked at the beginning that YOU say are answered by "documented testable evidences." See the following blue text.


Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.


If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.


Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.


Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Because all you've actually done here Ralph is provide the typical sectarian response to logic and reason: "I BELIEVE it's true, so it is! SO THERE! INFINITY! Amen."

This thread started off with honest questions and the moment the Christians saw the questions they threw a wobbler and started attacking - Just.Like.You.

And I love that you reference the first 300+ years of the church, as if that is some kind of hard, physical, documented evidence that would withstand even the slightest logical and reasoned scrutiny to determine whether or not ANY history of ANY church is evidence for the existence of a ANY deity. It's not, Ralph. It's not. All religious history, be it yours or mine, is hearsay at best.


If you have a problem debunking the sources provided that sounds much like a typical TROLL

I have no problem debunking the sources you provide as "documented, testable evidence," Ralph. I'll tell you what. Just to appease your rage (because rage is such a horrible, sinful thing for a good Christian such as yourself to carry, let alone display so obviously), once per day you set up one of your "documented, testable evidences" and I'll knock them down with logic and reason. How's that? Does that make you feel better?


What you presented was brought into question by the actual history of the 1st 300 plus years of the church

You... uh... you're not onto a winner here, Ralph. Have you actually READ anything about the formative years of the Church? Before you reference that again, you should probably read up on it (lest I have to give you the kind of spanking I gave someone else within the past year, that time regarding the reality of the Crusades because THEY had no idea of the reality of what they were talking about and just parroted what they were told in Sunday school).


I have successfully debunked your first attack as being secular BS

No, you didn't, Ralph. You merely said, "I have evidences!" and then didn't present any. That's not debunking anything, successfully or otherwise. It's just being a petulant child who's got his knickers in a twist.


....now you attempt to present more BS Really?

If by "more BS" you mean I turned your own demand for proof on you, then yes, that's what I've done. But really, I exposed YOUR bullshit, Ralph, because you have yet to provide any example of physical, testable, demonstrable, incontrovertible evidence beyond screaming, "I SAID SO!", which is no evidence at all.


You nor the parroted shopping list is worthy of answering any more than 1 or 2 charges...the rest are worthless by comparison. :)

And there it is again. I think you'll find that I never parrot anything, Ralph. I think for myself because logic and reason are those things that are of value to me. I've already challenged PMP to show where I have parroted or cut and pasted anyone in my posts here (and they couldn't), and I now challenge you to prove your accusation or apologize.

Now go on, Ralph. Tell me I'm hitting you with more BS because I'm challenging you to prove your accusation so that everyone who reads this thread sees exactly where you stand and exactly what kind of person you are.

You made the accusation, Ralph. Do you stand behind it and do you have the character to either prove it or apologize? PMP didn't. I'm sure we're all agog with anticipation to find out.

PostmodernProphet
07-27-2016, 07:45 PM
parrots repeat what they hear.....I don't apologize to parrots.....

Ralph
07-27-2016, 07:47 PM
And yet you've not presented any lie that anyone has said. Interesting.



This is the problem, Ralph. THIS is why I argue with you over what YOU have said. Because what you're asserting is an absolute lie, and I'm about to prove it without ad hominem remarks, without circular arguments, and without anything but the truth. And they're the questions I asked at the beginning that YOU say are answered by "documented testable evidences." See the following blue text.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.



Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Because all you've actually done here Ralph is provide the typical sectarian response to logic and reason: "I BELIEVE it's true, so it is! SO THERE! INFINITY! Amen."

This thread started off with honest questions and the moment the Christians saw the questions they threw a wobbler and started attacking - Just.Like.You.

And I love that you reference the first 300+ years of the church, as if that is some kind of hard, physical, documented evidence that would withstand even the slightest logical and reasoned scrutiny to determine whether or not ANY history of ANY church is evidence for the existence of a ANY deity. It's not, Ralph. It's not. All religious history, be it yours or mine, is hearsay at best.



I have no problem debunking the sources you provide as "documented, testable evidence," Ralph. I'll tell you what. Just to appease your rage (because rage is such a horrible, sinful thing for a good Christian such as yourself to carry, let alone display so obviously), once per day you set up one of your "documented, testable evidences" and I'll knock them down with logic and reason. How's that? Does that make you feel better?



You... uh... you're not onto a winner here, Ralph. Have you actually READ anything about the formative years of the Church? Before you reference that again, you should probably read up on it (lest I have to give you the kind of spanking I gave someone else within the past year, that time regarding the reality of the Crusades because THEY had no idea of the reality of what they were talking about and just parroted what they were told in Sunday school).



No, you didn't, Ralph. You merely said, "I have evidences!" and then didn't present any. That's not debunking anything, successfully or otherwise. It's just being a petulant child who's got his knickers in a twist.



If by "more BS" you mean I turned your own demand for proof on you, then yes, that's what I've done. But really, I exposed YOUR bullshit, Ralph, because you have yet to provide any example of physical, testable, demonstrable, incontrovertible evidence beyond screaming, "I SAID SO!", which is no evidence at all.



And there it is again. I think you'll find that I never parrot anything, Ralph. I think for myself because logic and reason are those things that are of value to me. I've already challenged PMP to show where I have parroted or cut and pasted anyone in my posts here (and they couldn't), and I now challenge you to prove your accusation or apologize.

Now go on, Ralph. Tell me I'm hitting you with more BS because I'm challenging you to prove your accusation so that everyone who reads this thread sees exactly where you stand and exactly what kind of person you are.

You made the accusation, Ralph. Do you stand behind it and do you have the character to either prove it or apologize? PMP didn't. I'm sure we're all agog with anticipation to find out.

Really? LMAO :) What part of nothing you have presented is worthy of debating do you fail to comprehend since the first 2 accusations were demonstrated to be totally false by history actual? 1. You stated that Hebrew is impossible to translate into a contextual comprehension of ENGLISH or any other language....this in spite of the fact that both Jesus and Paul is recorded teaching from the Old Testament in a Greek Translation, both DEVOUT Hebrew scholars. 2. A Roman Council in the 4th century somehow picked the words in the New Testament Revelation of Christ Jesus....in spite of the comparative existence of thousands of portions of manuscripts that existed from the 1st century on.....as directly quoted from "many" historical figures both friendly and contentious of Christianity....centuries before any Roman Council.

The Bible has the exact analogy fitting for individuals such as yourself who continue to argue in circles simply to hear themselves speak or in your circumstance to see your circular words in print.

"THE FOOL"

1. How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. -- Prov. 1:22

2. A fool has no delight in learning, but in expressing his own heart. -- Prov. 18:2

3. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of the fool pours forth foolishness. -- Prov. 15:2

But wait....the Old Testament can't be translated correctly into English. Enlighten us with the correct Hebrew translation and allow us to witness the vast contextual integrity that was lost in the translation. I do not talk to hear my head rattle, having demonstrated the obvious point.....I simply move on leaving the fool flapping his mouth.

Stelakh
07-27-2016, 07:54 PM
parrots repeat what they hear.....I don't apologize to parrots.....

In other words, you can't prove your accusation and yet don't have the character or personal honesty to admit it and apologize for the accusation.

Thank you for once again helping me to prove to everyone here your utter lack of honesty and interest in the truth.

Stelakh
07-27-2016, 07:55 PM
Really? LMAO :)

Really.

PostmodernProphet
07-27-2016, 07:56 PM
In other words, you can't prove your accusation and yet don't have the character or personal honesty to admit it and apologize for the accusation.

Thank you for once again helping me to prove to everyone here your utter lack of honesty and interest in the truth.
are you pretending what you posted was original?......in what year did you discover the discrepancy in Mark......did you publish your findings?......how are you still alive since its been reported for nearly 100 years already.....

Stelakh
07-29-2016, 04:36 PM
Really? LMAO :) What part of nothing you have presented is worthy of debating do you fail to comprehend since the first 2 accusations were demonstrated to be totally false by history actual? 1. You stated that Hebrew is impossible to translate into a contextual comprehension of ENGLISH or any other language....this in spite of the fact that both Jesus and Paul is recorded teaching from the Old Testament in a Greek Translation, both DEVOUT Hebrew scholars. 2. A Roman Council in the 4th century somehow picked the words in the New Testament Revelation of Christ Jesus....in spite of the comparative existence of thousands of portions of manuscripts that existed from the 1st century on.....as directly quoted from "many" historical figures both friendly and contentious of Christianity....centuries before any Roman Council.

The Bible has the exact analogy fitting for individuals such as yourself who continue to argue in circles simply to hear themselves speak or in your circumstance to see your circular words in print.

"THE FOOL"

1. How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. -- Prov. 1:22

2. A fool has no delight in learning, but in expressing his own heart. -- Prov. 18:2

3. The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of the fool pours forth foolishness. -- Prov. 15:2

But wait....the Old Testament can't be translated correctly into English. Enlighten us with the correct Hebrew translation and allow us to witness the vast contextual integrity that was lost in the translation. I do not talk to hear my head rattle, having demonstrated the obvious point.....I simply move on leaving the fool flapping his mouth.

Please provide the physical, documented, testable evidence you refer to.

Stelakh
07-29-2016, 04:41 PM
are you pretending what you posted was original?......in what year did you discover the discrepancy in Mark......did you publish your findings?......how are you still alive since its been reported for nearly 100 years already.....

Was that your accusation?

No, it wasn't. You accused me of cutting and pasting from websites. I've called you on that assertion, and you have yet to prove it.

The very idea that because someone thinks the same as someone else neither should say what they think without a free accusation of plagiarism is almost as preposterous as you are.

And it might come as a surprise to you, but I actually can tell you the year I discovered the contradictions throughout the bible.

In the summer before my Freshman year of High School, I thought that because I was unchallenged with and bored to tears by the curriculum in public school perhaps I should try a different kind of education. So I asked my parents if they would permit me to go to a private school.

And so I went to the private school with the best academic record among private schools in my district, which was a Catholic school; where I realized that the curriculum was actually no better and at the same time I became a conversion project for every nun who was trying to earn a Get-Out-of-Purgatory-Free card.

So to defend myself against the sectarian push of the nuns, I started reading the bible, and I read it repeatedly so I could be sure to call bullshit when I saw it - because I have ALWAYS been an asshole to people who deserve my ire and contumely (as you clearly know).

And that's why I know the year I realized that all of the bible, not just Mark, was riddled with discrepancies: 1982.

You see, stupid little "prophet," not everyone comes to the same discovery at the same time, but they very often come to the same discovery independently, at different times.

And you still have yet to prove your accusation. You're working to deny it as hard as you did to deny that the bible didn't tell us the exact nature of Satan's existence. We know how well THAT ended for you, don't we (see my reference to your utter lack of honesty and interest in the truth)?

Apology accepted.

PostmodernProphet
07-30-2016, 08:28 AM
And it might come as a surprise to you, but I actually can tell you the year I discovered the contradictions throughout the bible.

was it before or after they started printing Bibles that noted the discrepancy of Mark.......or were you the one that shattered the complacency of Christianity by disclosing some deep dark secret......because I'm over sixty and I can't remember a time when it wasn't known.........


1982.

after then......did you "discover" this by reading the NIV version which states in the heading to that section of Mark that it doesn't appear in the earliest discovered transcripts?......

PostmodernProphet
07-30-2016, 08:31 AM
Was that your accusation?


yes, did you miss it?.....

Stelakh
07-30-2016, 09:11 PM
yes, did you miss it?.....

No, it wasn't. You're lying about what you said.

What you said was...


of course there was....what you said wasn't honest.....I merely replied in kind.....if you want to pretend that a cut and paste from an atheistsRus web site warrants deep thought you are welcome to my amusement instead......

You made the accusation that what I said was a cut and paste from a website. You were wrong, and now you're lying about what you said in an attempt to cover it up. I'm sure nobody here is surprised.

Apology accepted.

PostmodernProphet
07-31-2016, 11:57 AM
apology gleefully withheld.......laughing at you with God-blessed abandon......I still think its amusing that you thought you were making some faith-shattering announcement about the gospel of Mark......and it was already published in bibles before you "uncovered" it.....see, if you read the Bible more often you would know more about it.......

Hermes Thoth
08-04-2016, 01:52 PM
I was raised Christian


I am an atheist


I could never make myself believe any of the religious myths.


Once I had science it was enough for me.



all organized religion is a tool for sociopaths to gain power over others

We agree for once. I include Islam in my disdain though.