Understanding Christianity - Questions for Christians

PostmodernProphet said:
nobody asked you to.......the Church did that for Christianity nearly two thousand years ago.......
Click to expand...

"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.
 
Stelakh said:
"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.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, thank you
 
Stelakh said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
of course not......I'm sure you believe there was no Synod of 397 AD......
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ralph said:
1. No....the bible is not a book by which every word should be considered the WORD OF GOD...
Click to expand...

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.

Ralph said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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.

Ralph said:
When read in context the Bible can be understood to never contradict itself...
Click to expand...

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.

Ralph said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Ralph said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Ralph said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Ralph said:
These 3 truths are self evident within the text of the Holy Bible.
Click to expand...

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.

Ralph said:
The Old Testament was never intended to be a law for any gentile nation...
Click to expand...

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.

Ralph said:
The New Testament brought about final atonement through the promised Messiah.
Click to expand...

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

Ralph said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
silly pile of atheist shit, thank you.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...:)
 
Stelakh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Last edited:
Stelakh said:
But if your suggestion that the 397 Council of Carthage was "the church" doing anything, you are wrong again.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
Stelakh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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......
 
I originally had a very large post refuting every single statement you've made, but my eyes kept coming back to just one sentence.

Ralph said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

Find a website I cut and pasted from.

I await your apology for the accusation when it turns out you can't.
 
 
 
Stelakh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top