Is the Bible Literally True? No, of Course Not!

domer76 said:
The problem being that the Bible Thumpers cherry pick which parts they wish to be literal or not, merely to suit their agenda.

Those of us who recognize it as a compilation of stories written by men with their own agenda don’t suffer that problem.
Click to expand...
why do you think ignoring everything is an improvement........after all. look where that has brought you in life.......though to be fair, every trash pile DOES need a bottom.......
 
domer76 said:
The problem being that the Bible Thumpers cherry pick which parts they wish to be literal or not, merely to suit their agenda.

Those of us who recognize it as a compilation of stories written by men with their own agenda don’t suffer that problem.
Click to expand...
Give an example.

The problem seems to be yours.
 
Yakuda said:
Give an example.

The problem seems to be yours.
Click to expand...
The divinity of Christ is one. He never claimed to be the actual son of god. A later invention.

Same with the claim he was the messiah.

The baby Jesus story, of course, is made up. It’s nonsense to think that Joseph took a pregnant wife all the way to Bethlehem. And to trace his lineage back to David when he, supposedly, wasn’t even the father.

Quoting the OT, especially Leviticus, when the NT is supposedly the “new covenant” and Jesus never condemns homosexuality.
 
domer76 said:
The divinity of Christ is one. He never claimed to be the actual son of god. A later invention.

Same with the claim he was the messiah.

The baby Jesus story, of course, is made up. It’s nonsense to think that Joseph took a pregnant wife all the way to Bethlehem. And to trace his lineage back to David when he, supposedly, wasn’t even the father.

Quoting the OT, especially Leviticus, when the NT is supposedly the “new covenant” and Jesus never condemns homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Sure he did.

He did that too

You made a claim, prove it.

Jesus is the new covenant and he said he was here to fulfill the law not abolish it.
 
Yakuda said:
Sure he did.

He did that too

You made a claim, prove it.

Jesus is the new covenant and he said he was here to fulfill the law not abolish it.
Click to expand...
Nope, he sure as shit didn’t. Since he didn’t claim it, and you think differently, I’m sure you’ll find the scripture where he did.

Because, most certainly, if one didn’t claim either, they would not be stating “I’m not the Son of Yahweh” or “I’m not the messiah”.

About fulfilling the law? Great. That means nothing as to those other issues.
 
The Bible is chock full of metaphorical truths which once learned result in wisdom.....this constant shitting on the Bible has gotten way out of hand....seems like it is being done by the New Slavers who want to keep people scared and stupid because that way people are much easier to enslave.
 
domer76 said:
Nope, he sure as shit didn’t. Since he didn’t claim it, and you think differently, I’m sure you’ll find the scripture where he did.

Because, most certainly, if one didn’t claim either, they would not be stating “I’m not the Son of Yahweh” or “I’m not the messiah”.

About fulfilling the law? Great. That means nothing as to those other issues.
Click to expand...
How could I find if what you say is true?
Please don't whine.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think anyone outside the JPP MAGA and evangelical Protestant communities think the bible is inerrant and historically factual in every detail.

The New Testament was never a stand alone book. It is a literary compilation of 27 books and epistles written independently by different authors with different perspectives and agendas. They didn't all get together and sit around a table to make sure their writings aligned and matched up.
Click to expand...
jews seem to think it literally means Israel is theirs.


is that a maga issue?
 
Into the Night said:
Yet they do. NONE of those books conflict with each other in any way.
Click to expand...

Cypress said:
Biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism is a Protestant tradition. These days, most likely a fundamentalist Protestant tradition.

Fundamentalist Protestants are only a minority of world Christianity.

Whether or not the bible is divinely inspired is the realm of opinion. I don't think a guy in a white robe was telling Luke what to write.

Disagreement on the day Jesus died seems pretty minor to me. All the authors in the NT seem to convey a Jesus who preached universal love, mercy, and stood on the side of the poor and oppressed. That essence seems authentic, given that multiple independent sources convey it.

Very little ancient literature that survives records events in real time as events unfolded. The lives and teachings of Confucius and Bhudda were written down centuries after they died. The Histories of Herodotus were written decades after the Greco-Persian wars. Are historical sources for the Mauryan Empire of India post-date the empire by centuries. No writings of the Greek Ionian philosophers survive. We only know about them by the writings of Athenian Greeks more than a century later.

Saint Paul knew at least two of Jesus' disciples, Peter and Jesus' brother James. Some people think Mark was Peter's companion and Mark's Gospel in a summary of what Peter told him. That is open to debate. As far as surviving ancient sources though, that is pretty decent at getting back to original sources.
Click to expand...
it says what it says however. reading what it says is not a claim of "inerrancy", it's just being able to read.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think anyone outside the JPP MAGA and evangelical Protestant communities think the bible is inerrant and historically factual in every detail.

The New Testament was never a stand alone book. It is a literary compilation of 27 books and epistles written independently by different authors with different perspectives and agendas. They didn't all get together and sit around a table to make sure their writings aligned and matched up.
Click to expand...
Excellent post! Because I hear all the time why don't all the gospels match!
 
Margot said:
Excellent post! Because I hear all the time why don't all the gospels match!
Click to expand...
The two things I take away from the inconsistencies and contractions is that God did not sit down and dictate what to write to Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John

And on the other hand, there was no coordinated conspiracy to fabricate a story about Jesus and the disciples. Otherwise, the conspirators would have gotten their stories straight.
 
Cypress said:
The two things I take away from the inconsistencies and contractions is that God did not sit down and dictate what to write to Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John

And on the other hand, there was no coordinated conspiracy to fabricate a story about Jesus and the disciples. Otherwise, the conspirators would have gotten their stories straight.
Click to expand...

No one thinks there was a coordinated conspiracy. You are literally the only person I've ever heard say anything about that.

But it is clear that the Gospels were written for political/religious agenda that differed by author. They probably leverage the older source material but since it was so old by the time they got ahold of it it was malleable for their purposes.

The differences show the human hand. Not only in the writing but the theology as well.

If some theology can be made up by a person, there's no reason to assume ALL the theology couldn't be made up.
 
Cypress said:
The two things I take away from the inconsistencies and contractions is that God did not sit down and dictate what to write to Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John

And on the other hand, there was no coordinated conspiracy to fabricate a story about Jesus and the disciples. Otherwise, the conspirators would have gotten their stories straight.
Click to expand...
Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to describe events you didn't observe as fact.
 
domer76 said:
The divinity of Christ is one. He never claimed to be the actual son of god. A later invention.

Same with the claim he was the messiah.

The baby Jesus story, of course, is made up. It’s nonsense to think that Joseph took a pregnant wife all the way to Bethlehem. And to trace his lineage back to David when he, supposedly, wasn’t even the father.

Quoting the OT, especially Leviticus, when the NT is supposedly the “new covenant” and Jesus never condemns homosexuality.
Click to expand...
:lies:
 
Yakuda said:
How could I find if what you say is true?
Please don't whine.
Click to expand...
Man, you just bring the brain dead to every topic.,

If i say 'Trump never said X' and you say 'yes he did', then only you can prove Trump said 'X' by quoting it. I cannot quote anything that proves Trump did not say 'X'.

The burden of proof is on you, since you say the bible does say it.
 
QP! said:
Man, you just bring the brain dead to every topic.,

If i say 'Trump never said X' and you say 'yes he did', then only you can prove Trump said 'X' by quoting it. I cannot quote anything that proves Trump did not say 'X'.

The burden of proof is on you, since you say the bible does say it.
Click to expand...
of course you can prove a negative. Its not my fault your the result of animal inbreeding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top