religion is an endless argument for each one has his/her own beliefs, i just drop by to hear what you have to say about mine. i believe in the bible and everything that it says, specially the infamous "Christ is a man" topic, the bible clearly says it and the apostles preached it too, i dont believe that "he" is a god, nor the "theory" of "trinity" because you can never find it written in the bible. if you have anything to say, just reply to this topic and ill gladly response. ty.
Bible, do you believe it?
| Alias wrote: |
| religion is an endless argument for each one has his/her own beliefs, i just drop by to hear what you have to say about mine. i believe in the bible and everything that it says, specially the infamous "Christ is a man" topic, the bible clearly says it and the apostles preached it too, i dont believe that "he" is a god, nor the "theory" of "trinity" because you can never find it written in the bible. if you have anything to say, just reply to this topic and ill gladly response. ty. |
Well I presume, since you believe it, that you have read it and know what it says. Here's a few questions for you :
1) Who was the father of Joseph ?
2) At what hour was Christ crucified ?
3) Does God approve or disapprove of sacrifices and offerings to him ?
4) Was man created before or after the other animals ?
5) How long did Jesus lie in the tomb before ressurection ?
Should be simple for a believer
Regards
Chris
| Alias wrote: |
| religion is an endless argument for each one has his/her own beliefs, i just drop by to hear what you have to say about mine. i believe in the bible and everything that it says, specially the infamous "Christ is a man" topic, the bible clearly says it and the apostles preached it too, i dont believe that "he" is a god, nor the "theory" of "trinity" because you can never find it written in the bible. if you have anything to say, just reply to this topic and ill gladly response. ty. |
i read bible a few times
i also have some questions
but one is really disturbing me
the part that about king david and the wife of his man who was killed in a war because of david.
how david can be a good man?
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Well I presume, since you believe it, that you have read it and know what it says. Here's a few questions for you : 1) Who was the father of Joseph ? 2) At what hour was Christ crucified ? 3) Does God approve or disapprove of sacrifices and offerings to him ? 4) Was man created before or after the other animals ? 5) How long did Jesus lie in the tomb before ressurection ? Should be simple for a believer
Regards Chris |
Ouch ^_^;
There may be a truth behind the myths but I wouldn't count the bible as telling the story's truly, there may have been a man named Jesus who preached at the time but the differences and even contradictions in the Gospels tels us the the the story had been altered by the time they were written down and thus we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said and did.
No answers to my little questions ? How disappointing.....
Indi knows at least some of the answer methinks, being a smart cookie.
I wonder if anyone can answer all 10?
(What's that you say? Yes, I know what you are thinking, but trust in my arithmetic and shhhhh!).
xC!
Indi knows at least some of the answer methinks, being a smart cookie.
I wonder if anyone can answer all 10?
(What's that you say? Yes, I know what you are thinking, but trust in my arithmetic and shhhhh!).
xC!
Interesting selection of questions, you get a couple of stories with them, don't you?
I believe the Bible is a combination of fact and historical accounts as well as stories for moral instruction.
And with a Bible, you're getting stories from multiple people, so obviously there will be conflicting words - but the overall messages remain. For instance, Joseph's father (either Jacob or Heli), is a contradiction within the Bible - but it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the story of Jesus, or what Christianity is about.
Or, perhaps, Matthew and Luke knew Joseph's father as two different people. Perhaps Joseph's father introduced himself to Matthew as Jacob and to Luke as Heli, you never know. When you're taking eyewitness accounts to follow by, you can't merely stop at "There's a contradiction." And that be the end of it.
One must dig a bit deeper than the surface.
I believe the Bible is a combination of fact and historical accounts as well as stories for moral instruction.
And with a Bible, you're getting stories from multiple people, so obviously there will be conflicting words - but the overall messages remain. For instance, Joseph's father (either Jacob or Heli), is a contradiction within the Bible - but it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the story of Jesus, or what Christianity is about.
Or, perhaps, Matthew and Luke knew Joseph's father as two different people. Perhaps Joseph's father introduced himself to Matthew as Jacob and to Luke as Heli, you never know. When you're taking eyewitness accounts to follow by, you can't merely stop at "There's a contradiction." And that be the end of it.
One must dig a bit deeper than the surface.
No, that won't do at all.
For generations the official Christian position on scripture has been that the sciptures are the divinely inspired word of God and, although individual recorders may, being human, have been in error, the will of God has ensured that the scriptures are both accurate and consistent.
For example, Baptist dogma states :
The Catholics, as usual, wriggle a bit around the issue with :
But the upshot is the same - as it is for Episcopaleans, Methodists and most other sects of Christianity.
Now, you maintain that the essence of the sciptures is consistent and accurate even though a few details are incorrect or c ontradictory. This is not a general Christian position, but even then I challenge it. There are several dozen contradictions of the type I highlight here and some of them are not minor details of accuracy but speak to important aspects of dogma and Church teaching.
A couple of examples of the top of my head would be : Is sin 'original' as in present at birth ?(ISA 14:21 - yes, DEU 24:16 - no) Is the Sabbath a special day (Ex20:8, Ro14:5,KI1 8:45, JO1 3:9 - different)
A more comprehensive list can be found here :
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=
atheism&cdn=religion&tm=18&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Now, either most Christian dogma is correct or not, and I maintain that it is not. If you want to talk about major differences then we can discuss OT vs NT for a start - completely different portrayals of God which are in many cases not even similar. OT - Vengeful, jealous, cruel, dogmatic, murderous. NT - kind, forgiving, gentle, loving. Attempts to reconcile these are normally sophistry in my experience.
Finally we should consider the shifts in major matters of doctrine already conceded by the Christian churches over the last centuries. Central issues have been slowly changed, dumped or modified in the light of science. Creation is a pretty big and important example - surely who & what we are , where we came from, how we got here - these are hardly just technical details of accuracy, but crucially important cornerstones of faith ?
Regards
Chris
For generations the official Christian position on scripture has been that the sciptures are the divinely inspired word of God and, although individual recorders may, being human, have been in error, the will of God has ensured that the scriptures are both accurate and consistent.
For example, Baptist dogma states :
| Quote: |
| The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation. |
The Catholics, as usual, wriggle a bit around the issue with :
| Quote: |
| 106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." |
But the upshot is the same - as it is for Episcopaleans, Methodists and most other sects of Christianity.
Now, you maintain that the essence of the sciptures is consistent and accurate even though a few details are incorrect or c ontradictory. This is not a general Christian position, but even then I challenge it. There are several dozen contradictions of the type I highlight here and some of them are not minor details of accuracy but speak to important aspects of dogma and Church teaching.
A couple of examples of the top of my head would be : Is sin 'original' as in present at birth ?(ISA 14:21 - yes, DEU 24:16 - no) Is the Sabbath a special day (Ex20:8, Ro14:5,KI1 8:45, JO1 3:9 - different)
A more comprehensive list can be found here :
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=
atheism&cdn=religion&tm=18&f=00&tt=14&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Now, either most Christian dogma is correct or not, and I maintain that it is not. If you want to talk about major differences then we can discuss OT vs NT for a start - completely different portrayals of God which are in many cases not even similar. OT - Vengeful, jealous, cruel, dogmatic, murderous. NT - kind, forgiving, gentle, loving. Attempts to reconcile these are normally sophistry in my experience.
Finally we should consider the shifts in major matters of doctrine already conceded by the Christian churches over the last centuries. Central issues have been slowly changed, dumped or modified in the light of science. Creation is a pretty big and important example - surely who & what we are , where we came from, how we got here - these are hardly just technical details of accuracy, but crucially important cornerstones of faith ?
Regards
Chris
Umm... I believe the Bible exists... I believe people wrote it. Then again people write a lot of things, don't they? I mean I was attacked (verbally) in U.S. Government by three African American girls (very religious Christians) when I said that the Bible could've been written by really drunk people... because you know how some people when under the influence, they become very creative and when they're with other people in the same predicament, they can make something very interesting. It's umm... an adaption quality of humans. When in doubt, make shit up. Yeah... it sucked being verbally abused... I think I'm still affected by it... *sniff sniff*, but one of them said she'd pray for me so I won't go to hell.
| Alias wrote: |
| religion is an endless argument for each one has his/her own beliefs, i just drop by to hear what you have to say about mine. i believe in the bible and everything that it says, specially the infamous "Christ is a man" topic, the bible clearly says it and the apostles preached it too, i dont believe that "he" is a god, nor the "theory" of "trinity" because you can never find it written in the bible. if you have anything to say, just reply to this topic and ill gladly response. ty. |
Just another human invention. Man created god, god did not create man. I think we invented him because of fear. Maybe there were other reasons. I don't know why mankind still needs this. Seems like superstitious junk to me. I don't believe in anything. Why should I, I have experience. No need to respond. I mean I hear people talk about heaven and hell and have no idea what they're talking about. Fairy tales to me. The endless argument is such a bore. Dropped all that nonsense long ago.
Go in peace...
M
I don't know with you guys, but I do believe in god just understand the bible and read it carefully. Don't loose your faith in him.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
Well I presume, since you believe it, that you have read it and know what it says. Here's a few questions for you : 1) Who was the father of Joseph ? 2) At what hour was Christ crucified ? 3) Does God approve or disapprove of sacrifices and offerings to him ? 4) Was man created before or after the other animals ? 5) How long did Jesus lie in the tomb before ressurection ? Should be simple for a believer |
Well, im not stupid enough to memorize the whole bible you know? I haven’t read the whole bible but atleast ive learned what ive been thought,
1.) I don’t know, do you?
2.) Is the “clock” already invented by that time?
3.) It depends on who is sacrificing or offering to him, im sure of it.
4.) Man was created last, because god created everything else that a man would need in order to live, god love man (maybe not you).
5.) As I remember it was for 3 days.
| palavra wrote: | ||
i read bible a few times i also have some questions but one is really disturbing me the part that about king david and the wife of his man who was killed in a war because of david. how david can be a good man? |
david become a good man for following gods orders or commandments to him according to the bible.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| There may be a truth behind the myths but I wouldn't count the bible as telling the story's truly, there may have been a man named Jesus who preached at the time but the differences and even contradictions in the Gospels tels us the the the story had been altered by the time they were written down and thus we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said and did. |
that may be right, but if youre a believer, you would believe that god is watching over the ones who wrote the bible, I cant explain every contradictions in the bible but our ministers can.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Interesting selection of questions, you get a couple of stories with them, don't you?
I believe the Bible is a combination of fact and historical accounts as well as stories for moral instruction. And with a Bible, you're getting stories from multiple people, so obviously there will be conflicting words - but the overall messages remain. For instance, Joseph's father (either Jacob or Heli), is a contradiction within the Bible - but it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the story of Jesus, or what Christianity is about. Or, perhaps, Matthew and Luke knew Joseph's father as two different people. Perhaps Joseph's father introduced himself to Matthew as Jacob and to Luke as Heli, you never know. When you're taking eyewitness accounts to follow by, you can't merely stop at "There's a contradiction." And that be the end of it. One must dig a bit deeper than the surface. |
Nicely said. Ill give some more informations about our religion next time.
| moworks2 wrote: | ||
Just another human invention. Man created god, god did not create man. I think we invented him because of fear. Maybe there were other reasons. I don't know why mankind still needs this. Seems like superstitious junk to me. I don't believe in anything. Why should I, I have experience. No need to respond. I mean I hear people talk about heaven and hell and have no idea what they're talking about. Fairy tales to me. The endless argument is such a bore. Dropped all that nonsense long ago. Go in peace... M |
Hmmm…. If that’s your opinion then let it be. Maybe your just tired of something.
| nigam wrote: |
| I don't know with you guys, but I do believe in god just understand the bible and read it carefully. Don't loose your faith in him. |
that’s the way.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| No answers to my little questions ? How disappointing.....
Indi knows at least some of the answer methinks, being a smart cookie. I wonder if anyone can answer all 10? (What's that you say? Yes, I know what you are thinking, but trust in my arithmetic and shhhhh!). xC! |
Oh, i do know the varied answers to your questions. ^_^
But i don't know that they'll make any difference to anyone. The only people who would consider even making a debate out of it are fundamentalists, and they're not renowned for their intellectual honesty. Most likely they'll swear biblical inerrancy until they're blue in the face, and when you point out the obvious contradictions, they'll use a fallback excuse, which varies by person and denomination:
- The details may be in disagreement, but the essence is not.
- The message is divine, but the transcribers may have messed up the irrelevant facts.
- Different witnesses to the same event saw different aspects of it (esp. wrt the gospels)
- You misunderstand. There really is no conflict.
- Don't sweat the small stuff.
- etc.
Still, you could have some fun, i guess.
| Alias wrote: |
| 1.) I don’t know, do you? |
No. But neither does God, it seems, assuming everything in the bible is approved by him.
| Alias wrote: |
| 2.) Is the “clock” already invented by that time? |
Have you never heard of a sundial?
| Alias wrote: |
| 3.) It depends on who is sacrificing or offering to him, im sure of it. |
You are sure of it... and you are wrong.
| Alias wrote: |
| 4.) Man was created last, because god created everything else that a man would need in order to live, god love man (maybe not you). |
Actually, even with all the contradictions, man was never created last in any of them. So, wrong again.
| Alias wrote: |
| 5.) As I remember it was for 3 days. |
Give or take.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Well I presume, since you believe it, that you have read it and know what it says. Here's a few questions for you :
1) Who was the father of Joseph ? 2) At what hour was Christ crucified ? 3) Does God approve or disapprove of sacrifices and offerings to him ? 4) Was man created before or after the other animals ? 5) How long did Jesus lie in the tomb before ressurection ? Should be simple for a believer
Regards Chris |
1. Jacob
| Matthew 1:16 wrote: |
| And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ |
2. He was crucified at 9:00am, but died at 3:00pm
| Mark 15:25 wrote: |
| Now it was the third hour, and they crucified Him. |
| Matthew 27: 45 & 50 wrote: |
| Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land.... And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. |
3. Both and neither, he approves of sacrifices offered to him out of the correct heart, but despises those who are "religious" without being spiritual. Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees for their religiosity without faith, they were perfect in the eyes of their religion, but lacked the right attitude. More important than the offering of sacrifices is obedience.
4. In the middle
, after all, women came later
5. 3 Jewish days. Friday evening, Saturday, and Sunday morning. In Jewish culture being buried for any part of the day counts for the whole day... not that I think they've had too much trouble with this
And yes, I realize that these are not the answers you sought, but the ones that Indi presented are your favored responses. All the same, I felt that I could take a crack at the problem (after all I can quote the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics correctly, what else might I be able to do)
Yes, I believe in it.
I believe the original version of the books of the bible are the truth. I can't say that about the bibles we read today. Things are lost in translation. Being versed in three different languages tells me that some things written in the original text are difficult, if not impossible, to translate into English.
Am I familiar with the bible? No. I've read parts of it off and on, but not all of it and not continuously. I'm currently rereading all of Genesis.
Bikerman's first question, "Who was the father of Joseph?", is answered twice. The father of the Joseph mentioned in Genesis was Jacob and the grandfather of Jesus, another father of Joseph, was Jacob. At least, as far as I can remember.
Am I familiar with the bible? No. I've read parts of it off and on, but not all of it and not continuously. I'm currently rereading all of Genesis.
Bikerman's first question, "Who was the father of Joseph?", is answered twice. The father of the Joseph mentioned in Genesis was Jacob and the grandfather of Jesus, another father of Joseph, was Jacob. At least, as far as I can remember.
The bible can't possibly be real. The only reason to believe it is because humans by nature need a sense of belonging in their lives and if they don't have that (whether they were abandoned as babies or their family all died, etc.) the bible leaps in to "catch" them from going insane. that's why there are so many recovering drug addicts and other social outcasts that, all of a sudden "find Jesus" in their lives.
Nice allusion to socialoutcast, but I seem to have failed to see the point of your post? Where is the proof that you're supposed to give? Simply stating that people need to feel a sense of belonging doesn't empirically mean that the Bible is false...
| RT Cunningham wrote: |
| Bikerman's first question, "Who was the father of Joseph?", is answered twice. The father of the Joseph mentioned in Genesis was Jacob and the grandfather of Jesus, another father of Joseph, was Jacob. At least, as far as I can remember. |
Genesis??? O.o You're talking about a different Joseph. We're not talking about technicolour dreamcoat Joseph, we're talking about Jesus's (not) daddy Joseph.
| Montressor wrote: | ||
1. Jacob
|
1(alternate). Heli.
No, i'm not going to tell you where it says that. You should be able to tell me.
| Montressor wrote: | ||||
2. He was crucified at 9:00am, but died at 3:00pm
|
2(alternate). He wasn't crucified until after the sixth hour. Again, no i won't tell you where you can find that. You tell me. (i'll give you a hint, though, i guess. For both this and the one before, read a little further than Mark.)
(Incidently, you're using the wrong clock. The gospels use Greco-Roman time, not Jewish. Not that it makes a difference in this case, but you should be more careful.)
| Montressor wrote: |
| 3. Both and neither, he approves of sacrifices offered to him out of the correct heart, but despises those who are "religious" without being spiritual. Jesus often rebuked the Pharisees for their religiosity without faith, they were perfect in the eyes of their religion, but lacked the right attitude. More important than the offering of sacrifices is obedience. |
The question of whether he approves or disapproves of sacrifices - particularly human sacrifices - is answered many, many times in the bible, and at no time does it say that it depends on the spirit of the offering. You are putting words in god's mouth. That is false prophecy, and heretical, and - according to the bible - punishable by death.
You don't need me to quote where it says that adding to god's word is a no-no, do you?
| Montressor wrote: |
| 5. 3 Jewish days. Friday evening, Saturday, and Sunday morning. In Jewish culture being buried for any part of the day counts for the whole day... not that I think they've had too much trouble with this |
Again i have to point out that you're not dealing with Jewish culture. The gospels are not particularly Jewish - particularly the later ones (Matthew, Luke and John, especially John). In fact, in some cases, they are rather anti-semitic.
Of course, it makes little difference in this case, because the way the apologists resolve the various contradictory accounts is rather sneaky, and not dependent on which system you use. By changing the way "day" is defined from place to place, they can make "on the third day" and "after three days" and "three days and three nights" appear to mean the same thing. *shrug* Whatever - that one i don't bother to argue, because the logic is so warped, i can't even unravel it to refute.[/quote]
i have read most of the bible, after finishing the Quran a swell amount of times. i dont believe the bible... for one thing, IT KEEPS CHANGING!
for second, most of it doesnt even make sense.
tho i noticed, as said, it has things from the Quran and previous scripts of messengers, tho it is changed. The information is changed alot now... and it keeps changing!
like, one second in the bible it says that Jesus is god (istughfirallah) then 2 years later it says that Jesus isnt god, like wth?
for second, most of it doesnt even make sense.
tho i noticed, as said, it has things from the Quran and previous scripts of messengers, tho it is changed. The information is changed alot now... and it keeps changing!
like, one second in the bible it says that Jesus is god (istughfirallah) then 2 years later it says that Jesus isnt god, like wth?
| Indi wrote: |
| 2(alternate). He wasn't crucified until after the sixth hour. Again, no i won't tell you where you can find that. You tell me. (i'll give you a hint, though, i guess. For both this and the one before, read a little further than Mark.) |
your "alternate" source is written in a different book to a different culture. While Matthew was writing to the Jews, another guy happened to be writing to the Greeks, and when he stated that Jesus had been convicted by Pilate at the 6th hour, he was talking to his Greek audience in Roman time, which began 6 hours before Jewish time
| Indi wrote: |
| (Incidently, you're using the wrong clock. The gospels use Greco-Roman time, not Jewish. Not that it makes a difference in this case, but you should be more careful.) |
Wrong once more, the gospels written to the Roman and the Greek people were written in Greco-Roman time, the ones written to a more Jewish audience were written in Jewish time (odd how that works)
| Indi wrote: |
| The question of whether he approves or disapproves of sacrifices - particularly human sacrifices - is answered many, many times in the bible, and at no time does it say that it depends on the spirit of the offering. You are putting words in god's mouth. That is false prophecy, and heretical, and - according to the bible - punishable by death. |
| 1 Samuel 15:22 wrote: |
| But Samuel replied:
"Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. |
| Proverbs 21:3 wrote: |
| To do what is right and just
is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. |
| Psalm 51:16-19 wrote: |
|
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. 17 The sacrifices of God are [c] a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. 18 In your good pleasure make Zion prosper; build up the walls of Jerusalem. 19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar. |
| Proverbs 21:27 wrote: |
| The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable—
how much more so when brought with evil intent! |
enough for you?
| Indi wrote: |
| You don't need me to quote where it says that adding to god's word is a no-no, do you? |
not in the least
| Indi wrote: |
| Again i have to point out that you're not dealing with Jewish culture. The gospels are not particularly Jewish - particularly the later ones (Matthew, Luke and John, especially John). In fact, in some cases, they are rather anti-semitic. |
Again, I have to point out to you that you are in fact dealing with Jewish culture (especially since the writers themselves were Jewish, and cannot be divorced from their culture). Matthew was written specifically to the Jews and the Jewish converts, while the latter gospels were written to the Greeks converts.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Of course, it makes little difference in this case, because the way the apologists resolve the various contradictory accounts is rather sneaky, and not dependent on which system you use. |
Just as picking individual passages and citing tiny facts is a rather sneaky way of going after anything...
| Montressor wrote: | ||
your "alternate" source is written in a different book to a different culture. While Matthew was writing to the Jews, another guy happened to be writing to the Greeks, and when he stated that Jesus had been convicted by Pilate at the 6th hour, he was talking to his Greek audience in Roman time, which began 6 hours before Jewish time |
You do realize that Matthew is one of the more anti-semitic books of the gospel, don't you? "His blood is on us and our children" and all, right?
| Montressor wrote: | ||
Wrong once more, the gospels written to the Roman and the Greek people were written in Greco-Roman time, the ones written to a more Jewish audience were written in Jewish time (odd how that works) |
Very odd, considering that the "Jewish" books blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. What a strange message, "this book is to bring Christianity to you, the Jews... you Christ-killing bastards."
Oh yeah. Makes sense. -_-
| Montressor wrote: | ||||||||||
enough for you? |
None of those answers the original question. None of them even answers the second question. "Obedience is better than sacrifice" (the first two) does not imply approval or disapproval, and it doesn't mean that your sacrifice is unwelcome if you don't mean it. All it means is that God prefers obedience. Nothing more, nothing less.
The third quote is from the Psalms, and it says the same thing, albeit in a roundabout way. Sacrifices are good, obedience better. That's all.
And finally, the last one just says that if you're going to offer a sacrifice, offer something good. Well no duh, ever since the beginning you were supposed to sacrifice the young and pure, not the old and infirm - whether you're talking about fruit, goats or people. If you take a murdering rapist and offer him to God... you don't expect God to be pleased, do you? As for the latter part, to say that means that "empty gesture" offerings are unwelcome is a very ambiguous interpretation that kind of stretches the literal phrase. And at any rate, the context is quite clear: "bad offerings are bad... especially when you offer them with wicked motives". That does not say "offerings with wicked motives are bad". It says "bad offerings are bad", and then goes on to add that wicked motives just makes it worse. That's like saying "popcorn is bad... especially with butter". Do you read that as "butter is bad"? Because i don't. Maybe the person loves butter on bread, but hates greasy popcorn.
Beware of adding to the bible what isn't really there.
| Montressor wrote: |
| Again, I have to point out to you that you are in fact dealing with Jewish culture (especially since the writers themselves were Jewish, and cannot be divorced from their culture). Matthew was written specifically to the Jews and the Jewish converts, while the latter gospels were written to the Greeks converts. |
Ah... Matthew is one of the latter gospels. Mark is the first, and - concidently - the one that is most forgiving of the Jews.
| Montressor wrote: | ||
Just as picking individual passages and citing tiny facts is a rather sneaky way of going after anything... |
Ah. *looks up* But picking individual passages and citing them is ok for you to defend your argument with?
Yeah, i'm using tiny facts to support my argument. Pesky, sneaky, tiny facts. Horrible me. What was i thinking?
I missed that, where did you say Matthew displayed anit-Semitic feelings? I believe you said "let his blood be on us and on our children", that wasn't a curse, it was a quote of what the Jewish members of a well manipulated crowd said. As far as blaming Jews for the death of Jesus, according to our own theology the death of Jesus was necessary, if he hadn't died, then we would not have gained salvation. Not only that, but because his death was the requirement for our salvation, we ourselves caused his death. Check your sources before you make such an unfounded accusation again.
As to
You're sadly mistaken (once again), if you need for me to supply it in another version that perhaps shows it more clearly then here goes:
There are many various sacrifices that the Jewish people were instructed to perform continually, human sacrifice was not one of them. Once again, refrain from making unfounded accusations. Do you want it in the Old King James version too, the Latin, or maybe even the original Hebrew?
Yes, picking individual passages to refute the individual passages you present is indeed ok since there is no other way to do so. As to facts, yes it is a fact that Matthew said that Jesus was placed on the cross in the 3rd hour, and it is also a fact that it's also said the he was convicted by Pilate in the 6th hour. It is, however, not a fact that those are contradictory since you took those facts out of context.
Respectfully as ever,
Montressor
As to
| indi wrote: |
| If you take a murdering rapist and offer him to God... you don't expect God to be pleased, do you? |
You're sadly mistaken (once again), if you need for me to supply it in another version that perhaps shows it more clearly then here goes:
| Proverbs 21:27 (in the New King James Version) wrote: |
| The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination;
How much more when he brings it with wicked intent! |
There are many various sacrifices that the Jewish people were instructed to perform continually, human sacrifice was not one of them. Once again, refrain from making unfounded accusations. Do you want it in the Old King James version too, the Latin, or maybe even the original Hebrew?
| indi wrote: |
| Ah. *looks up* But picking individual passages and citing them is ok for you to defend your argument with?
Yeah, i'm using tiny facts to support my argument. Pesky, sneaky, tiny facts. Horrible me. What was i thinking? |
Yes, picking individual passages to refute the individual passages you present is indeed ok since there is no other way to do so. As to facts, yes it is a fact that Matthew said that Jesus was placed on the cross in the 3rd hour, and it is also a fact that it's also said the he was convicted by Pilate in the 6th hour. It is, however, not a fact that those are contradictory since you took those facts out of context.
Respectfully as ever,
Montressor
| Montressor wrote: |
| I missed that, where did you say Matthew displayed anit-Semitic feelings? I believe you said "let his blood be on us and on our children", that wasn't a curse, it was a quote of what the Jewish members of a well manipulated crowd said. As far as blaming Jews for the death of Jesus, according to our own theology the death of Jesus was necessary, if he hadn't died, then we would not have gained salvation. Not only that, but because his death was the requirement for our salvation, we ourselves caused his death. Check your sources before you make such an unfounded accusation again. |
What part of what i said had anything to do with your own theology? i was talking about the theology of the writers of the gospel. What you believe today has nothing to do with what they believed then. The theology of the writers of the gospels is nothing like modern Christianity.
The gospels were written starting after the first Jewish-Roman war, when there was considerable acrimony between the two groups. Paul had already established Christianity as a religion that was for non-Jews as well as Jews - unfortunately, although he considered himself a Jew, he also introduced the idea that Jews were the ones who were killed Jesus and generally persecuted Christians.
The gospels took that and ran with it, portraying the Jews in general as disbelievers and harrassers of Jesus, and eventually the agents of his crucifixion (which, incidently, makes no historical sense - as if Pilate would seriously be swayed by popular opinion of who to kill and who not to kill; if anyone offered an opinion, Pilate would have probably killed both Jesus and Barabbas AND the people that spoke up, according to what we know of him that has come down through history). Each successive gospel amped up the blame. Meanwhile, Romans are generally portrayed in a positive light. Even Pilate generally comes out ok, because he didn't really want to execute Jesus, but the crowd urged him to: after washing his hands he says, "I am innocent of this man's blood." (Matthew again, if i recall.) This was the start of Christian anti-semitism that plagued all of Christianity for almost 2000 years. In fact, it wasn't until 1965 with Vatican 2 that it started to become officially out of favour to blame the Jews for the death of Christ. That quote i made - "Christ-killing bastards" - that was how Christians in general thought of Jews for generations. And it all started with the gospels.
Yes, i know that Jesus had to die, but that didn't stop generations of Christians as portraying the Jews as agents of the devil in passion plays. The fact that (most) modern sects no longer feel that way does not invalidate the fact that most ancient sects did. That included the writers of the gospels - the first ones to really quantify just how bad the Jews, and how good non-Jews, really were.
You don't seriously mean to suggest that there was no anti-semitism in Christianity, do you? If not, what part of my accusation was unfounded?
| Montressor wrote: | ||||
As to
You're sadly mistaken (once again), if you need for me to supply it in another version that perhaps shows it more clearly then here goes:
There are many various sacrifices that the Jewish people were instructed to perform continually, human sacrifice was not one of them. Once again, refrain from making unfounded accusations. Do you want it in the Old King James version too, the Latin, or maybe even the original Hebrew? |
i've already read the original Hebrew, thank you, but you haven't changed anything. The verse still reads "sacrificing the wicked is bad, and doing with wicked intent makes it worse". It still doesn't read "sacrifices with wicked intent are bad". The popcorn analogy still holds. You can even go back to the original Hebrew if you want. It still says the same thing. It still doesn't say what you say it says.
And of course, you still haven't answered the original question. Does God approve of sacrifice, or does he disapprove of it, or neither (he doesn't care)? For laughs, i suggest narrowing it down to human sacrifice, if that's what you want to do. Regarding human sacrifice, God:
a.) approves
b.) disapproves
c.) doesn't care either way
d.) doesn't say
Back it up with scripture. Whatever version you like.
| Montressor wrote: | ||
Yes, picking individual passages to refute the individual passages you present is indeed ok since there is no other way to do so. As to facts, yes it is a fact that Matthew said that Jesus was placed on the cross in the 3rd hour, and it is also a fact that it's also said the he was convicted by Pilate in the 6th hour. It is, however, not a fact that those are contradictory since you took those facts out of context. |
Yeah, whatever dude. ^_^; They don't even agree on which day Jesus was crucified. You can argue Greco-Roman vs. Jewish clocks until you're blue in the face, twisting and warping the interpretations every which way... but how you gonna resolve the fact that in one book Jesus is dead before pesach, and in another he's dead the day after? What, the Greco-Roman clocks were set 54 hours back now? (6 for the differences in the number of hours, and 48 for the differences in the number of days)
Or have i somehow taken this "out of context", too?
Yes the Roman church (which I hold other theological differences with) did for many centuries interpret the Bible to say that Jews were "devils", that interpretation has nothing to do with the actual writings of the scriptures. You still have to back up your point our of the Bible, and have failed to do so.
You still have missed the point of the Proverbs verse when you say "sacrificing the wicked..." the text said "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination... when he brings it". Obviously grammar is not your strong point. If I were to say "the post of the indi is bad" that has an entirely different meaning than "posting the indi is bad" (both of which may be true).
I do however, realize that you will never be convinced, and this debate (sadly like the other one you entered) is no longer that, but has also devolved into an argument where we talk past one another. As such, I decline to answer any other misconceived questions (and vicious attacks) that you have. This thread is therefore essentially ended since no other is willing to endure the brunt of your anger. You can continue to believe in whatever you want, my only reason for undertaking this argument was to show those who read it that there is more than one side.
Respectfully,
Montressor
You still have missed the point of the Proverbs verse when you say "sacrificing the wicked..." the text said "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination... when he brings it". Obviously grammar is not your strong point. If I were to say "the post of the indi is bad" that has an entirely different meaning than "posting the indi is bad" (both of which may be true).
I do however, realize that you will never be convinced, and this debate (sadly like the other one you entered) is no longer that, but has also devolved into an argument where we talk past one another. As such, I decline to answer any other misconceived questions (and vicious attacks) that you have. This thread is therefore essentially ended since no other is willing to endure the brunt of your anger. You can continue to believe in whatever you want, my only reason for undertaking this argument was to show those who read it that there is more than one side.
Respectfully,
Montressor
| Montressor wrote: |
| Yes the Roman church (which I hold other theological differences with) did for many centuries interpret the Bible to say that Jews were "devils", that interpretation has nothing to do with the actual writings of the scriptures. You still have to back up your point our of the Bible, and have failed to do so.
You still have missed the point of the Proverbs verse when you say "sacrificing the wicked..." the text said "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination... when he brings it". Obviously grammar is not your strong point. If I were to say "the post of the indi is bad" that has an entirely different meaning than "posting the indi is bad" (both of which may be true). |
So "the sacrifice of the lamb" means the lamb is the one doing the sacrificing? Your interpretation does not make sense when viewed in the context of the verse.
| Montressor wrote: |
| I do however, realize that you will never be convinced, and this debate (sadly like the other one you entered) is no longer that, but has also devolved into an argument where we talk past one another. As such, I decline to answer any other misconceived questions (and vicious attacks) that you have. This thread is therefore essentially ended since no other is willing to endure the brunt of your anger. You can continue to believe in whatever you want, my only reason for undertaking this argument was to show those who read it that there is more than one side. |
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
Sticks and stones dude ^_^ You accuse me of being angry and making vicious attacks. i point only to your own words above and ask if it is not the accuser who is the guilty party.
Anyway, your point is bizarre. Of course we know there is another side to this. It's the side that has been argued by dozens and dozens of Christian sects for centuries. What, you think we weren't aware of that? *i* was the one offering the contrary point that many may not have heard. Not you. You were describing the dogma that is almost universally known.
| Montressor wrote: |
| Respectfully |
Right.
| Montressor wrote: |
| As such, I decline to answer any other misconceived questions (and vicious attacks) that you have. This thread is therefore essentially ended since no other is willing to endure the brunt of your anger. You can continue to believe in whatever you want, my only reason for undertaking this argument was to show those who read it that there is more than one side.
Respectfully, Montressor |
it was a good debate. it is better if you continue.
i want to say something but topic is over my knowledge.
thanks for you and indi.
It doesn't really do any good to debate what the bible says. There are so many different translations. I believe the Dead Sea scrolls were not even in the original manuscripts but Egyption translations, much like the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas.
I wonder if it all would make better sense if the scholars were able to translate the original manuscripts, from the tablets no doubt.
I wonder if it all would make better sense if the scholars were able to translate the original manuscripts, from the tablets no doubt.
| RT Cunningham wrote: |
| It doesn't really do any good to debate what the bible says. There are so many different translations. I believe the Dead Sea scrolls were not even in the original manuscripts but Egyption translations, much like the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas. |
There are several dozens of gospels. Thomas, Peter, Mary, Judas to begin with, and then the gospels of the Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Nazarites, the Ebionates, and many more with names like the Signs Gospel, the Gospel of Truth and the Gospel of the Saviour. And still more that don't even have names, like "Q". And then there were the "infancy" gospels about Jesus as a kid. And then various dialogs and sayings books that ostensibly recorded Jesus' sayings. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And that's just the gospels. If you extend the search to "acts" books - as in stories of what the disciples or various other people in the gospels did after the gospels - and the "visions" or "apocalypse" books - as in visions allegedly recorded by various biblical players, like John's Revelations - you get dozens and dozens more.
Some we have recovered full or partial texts for. Others we have reconstructed by analyzing extant sources. Many others are lost.
If you want to understand why there are so many various gospels and other writings, you have to step away from standard Christian dogma for a bit. Instead of the standard dogmatic claim that the Christian church originated with a single person - Jesus - around 30 CE, and was subsequently spread by the disciples, you have to consider an origin for the religion that is a little earthier. Christianity grew out of an older religion - many believe that older religion to be a form of Egyptian worship of Osiris - that was customized and tailored to suit more "Greek" tastes, which were all the rage at that period. It fused elements of Osiris worship (the concept of a saviour dying for us), Jewish worship (obvious) and Hellenistic philosophies (the idea of the Logos and the need for a mediator - Jesus - in order for us to come to the perfect form - God).
As this new religion evolved, different leaders splintered off into different sects - each claiming superiority and each claiming to be closest to the truth (if not the actual truth). Some claimed John the Baptist was actually the saviour, which is why in John that is explicity refuted. Others claimed to be the offspring of various disciples - we all know that the modern church apparently takes its roots from Peter, but others claimed to be founded by James and various others (some of the differences in the "other" gospels reflect this). Some sects practiced strict vegitarianism, others did this, that and the other, et cetera. And each sect had its holy scriptures - its own version of the "truth". That is where this plethora of gospels comes from. (If you read the writings of Paul, you see several mentions of these "other" churches and their false teachings. In fact, many of Paul's writings are probably specific rebuttals of teachings of various other sects - but because we don't know to what and to whom Paul is replying in most cases, this is mostly supposition.)
Anyway, it wasn't until around 140 CE that anyone even attempted to create a unified, standardized new testament... and that dude was considered a heretic for his efforts. The ancestor of the modern church didn't make a proper list until after 170 CE. And the reason why only four gospels were selected was because it was believed to be logical, given that the Earth had only four corners, and there were four winds (north, south, east and west). Nevertheless, the decision of which books were actually valid for the new testament was heavily debated all the way till the 4th century.
So it's not just a matter of translation. There are no "original manuscripts", because the contents of the new testament weren't even finalized until some 300 years after Jesus allegedly lived. There are original manuscripts of dozens of gospels... but which ones of those are actually really legitimate books of the true bible? Unless you accept that the choices made by the early Roman Catholic church some 300 years after Christ were somehow divinely inspired, you don't even know which books are actually truly the word of God. And the logic behind the choices of the early church fathers was to select books that agreed with their church doctrines - or rather, when they were picking books, the clerics picked books that "seemed" right... where "seemed" was based on their own personal opinion, as fostered by the dogma they were raised on.
So on the one hand, yes, you can't actually debate whether or not the bible is the "truth". At least not with implicitly accepting that the biased choices made by a group of people over 1600 years ago, and over 300 years after Christ, were divinely inspired. Then, even if you accept that, you either have to go back to the earliest manuscripts of those books, or accept that the version you have now - even if it differs from earlier manuscripts - was somehow divinely preserved. And then, unless you want to read the original Greek or Aramaic, you have to assume that the translator was divinely inspired to create a "perfect" translation. And then and only then can you begin to actually debate what the bible actually says.
Of course... many Christian sects do make such claims. Many do claim that the version of the bible they prefer, such as the King James Bible, was divinely inspired. If and when they do make that claim, then it's ok to analyze the bible's text - at least within the context of their beliefs. But of course, that means that a universal debate of what the bible says that covers all Judaistic sects - or even just the new testament that covers all Christian sects - is functionally impossible, except at the most general scope.
| RT Cunningham wrote: |
| I wonder if it all would make better sense if the scholars were able to translate the original manuscripts, from the tablets no doubt. |
Above i explained why there is no original form for the new testament in general. Now i'll explain why there is no original form for any specific book.
Generally speaking, the gospels weren't just written down from scratch. They evolved. Sects took gospels from other sects and expanded or adjusted them as they saw fit. There is no original Matthew because "Matthew" didn't exist (as in the person that wrote the gospel of Matthew, not the actual disciple Matthew). The gospel attributed to Matthew evolved gradually. It is generally believed that the Gospel of Matthew is based on the Gospel of Mark (an early form), the Signs Gospel and the "Q" Gospel (or possibly the Gospel of Thomas). It probably underwent several successive forms before it's "final" form (which is not really final - it's just the version that we happened to get).
Now, if you don't want to believe in a gradual evolution of Christianity - if you'd rather believe the dogmatic version of the religion being founded by a small band of disciples - that's the choice of anyone who wants to study Christianity. But the evidence is heavily against that version.
Good points. I spend hours now (literally) questioning my own basic beliefs. The problem, as Indi just explained, is that there were there were just too many fingers in the pot, so to speak. I've been doing research for more than a few months, looking for answers to questions I have. I'm no closer to getting those answers than when I started.
I can't get past the book of Genesis. I'm analyzing some of the details and reading essays and comments about specific topics such as polygamy and murder. For example, polygamy wasn't condoned in Genesis but it wasn't condemned either. How about murder? Jacob's sons slew an entire village because a sister was defiled, yet each one was blessed later (becoming the beginning of the 12 tribes of Israel)?
Let's add adultery to the list of questions. From what I can gather from the first 5 books and then from the gospels, adultery did not apply to a married man having sex with an unmarried woman. Yet, no mention is ever made of a married woman and an unmarried man. I reason that polygamy could not have occurred if having multiple wives was considered a sin. Polygamy was denounced in the new testament. Why?
I've been reading some of the texts of the books that Indi mentioned. I just keep getting more confused. I take back a statement I made earlier in this thread. -- That I believed the original versions of the books were the truth. I should never have written that. -- I have to learn never to write anything when I'm tired.
The truth, and I may have company in this, is that I don't know what to believe about the bible. Except, maybe, that I just need to keep digging.
I can't get past the book of Genesis. I'm analyzing some of the details and reading essays and comments about specific topics such as polygamy and murder. For example, polygamy wasn't condoned in Genesis but it wasn't condemned either. How about murder? Jacob's sons slew an entire village because a sister was defiled, yet each one was blessed later (becoming the beginning of the 12 tribes of Israel)?
Let's add adultery to the list of questions. From what I can gather from the first 5 books and then from the gospels, adultery did not apply to a married man having sex with an unmarried woman. Yet, no mention is ever made of a married woman and an unmarried man. I reason that polygamy could not have occurred if having multiple wives was considered a sin. Polygamy was denounced in the new testament. Why?
I've been reading some of the texts of the books that Indi mentioned. I just keep getting more confused. I take back a statement I made earlier in this thread. -- That I believed the original versions of the books were the truth. I should never have written that. -- I have to learn never to write anything when I'm tired.
The truth, and I may have company in this, is that I don't know what to believe about the bible. Except, maybe, that I just need to keep digging.
peace be upon you.
The Bible isn't worth trusting too literally. Much corruption has entered it. For example, 1 john 5:7.
Very true. God is not jesus. Infact in Mark 12:29, Jesus declares himself to have a God, and he declares that there is no trinity.
Wow!!!! You've shocked me.
You admit the Bible has errors, and yet you still believe in it. No offence, but i can't even imagine what sort of logic is going through your mind.
If God inspired the Bible, then why it would it have errors? Clearly God isn't All-Knowing if He inspired a flawed Bible OR clearly God isn't All-Powerful because He couldn't and can't correct the Bible.
Wow! A great post, Indi. I didn't think anyone apart from myself had bothered to research this sort of stuff. I'd like to add in a brief note that the dogma of the trinity was beginning debate between two groups. Eventually the pagan emperor constantine (who was not christian, unless you count him converting on the death bed), settled the dispute and said the trinity exist. Although one can't blame him too much. His empire was in danger of a civil war or two.
may God bless you all.
The Bible isn't worth trusting too literally. Much corruption has entered it. For example, 1 john 5:7.
| Alias wrote: |
|
i dont believe that "he" is a god, nor the "theory" of "trinity" because you can never find it written in the bible. |
Very true. God is not jesus. Infact in Mark 12:29, Jesus declares himself to have a God, and he declares that there is no trinity.
| Soulfire wrote: |
|
And with a Bible, you're getting stories from multiple people, so obviously there will be conflicting words - but the overall messages remain. For instance, Joseph's father (either Jacob or Heli), is a contradiction within the Bible - but it has NO BEARING whatsoever on the story of Jesus, or what Christianity is about. |
Wow!!!! You've shocked me.
You admit the Bible has errors, and yet you still believe in it. No offence, but i can't even imagine what sort of logic is going through your mind.
If God inspired the Bible, then why it would it have errors? Clearly God isn't All-Knowing if He inspired a flawed Bible OR clearly God isn't All-Powerful because He couldn't and can't correct the Bible.
| Indi wrote: |
|
There are several dozens of gospels.....If you want to understand why there are so many various gospels and other writings, you have to step away from standard Christian dogma for a bit.....it wasn't until around 140 CE that anyone even attempted to create a unified, standardized new testament...There are no "original manuscripts", because the contents of the new testament weren't even finalized until some 300 years after Jesus allegedly lived. |
Wow! A great post, Indi. I didn't think anyone apart from myself had bothered to research this sort of stuff. I'd like to add in a brief note that the dogma of the trinity was beginning debate between two groups. Eventually the pagan emperor constantine (who was not christian, unless you count him converting on the death bed), settled the dispute and said the trinity exist. Although one can't blame him too much. His empire was in danger of a civil war or two.
may God bless you all.
 |