The Bible

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by usfan, Oct 2, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Funny. No matter what i say, you always twist it into some anti-bible narrative. Cattiness, snark, and hostility, is all you seem to have, in any discussion about Christianity.

    I was just giving my take on inspiration, and i have no clue how you got your rant from that..

    But regarding opinions about the bible:

    1. God spoke every word that is written.
    2. Men wrote by Divine guidance, unawares, at times, of the inspiration therein.
    3. Men wrote, and the message conveyed is inspired. Peripheral information contained within the scriptures are irrelevant to the central message.
    4. Men wrote the bible as allegory, and any meaning is left to the individual.
    5. Men wrote the bible deceptively, to manipulate people.

    There are perhaps other beliefs about the bible, but this covers most. For the historical scholar, the opinions listed are just opinions, and not relevant to historical and archeological facts. The accuracy of the scriptures, AND the translations is what counts, not the opinion about inspiration.

    Inerrancy is another subject, with diverse definitions and opinions. My goal here was not to 'prove!' either Inspiration or inerrancy, but to present the bible as a credible source of historical information.

    But i am always surprised at the levels of hostility toward this simple collection of manuscripts. False accusations, caricatures, and bald faced lies comprise most of the 'arguments' from the anti-christian bigots. No scholarship.. no balance.. no circumspection.. just a barrage of anti-christian propaganda and false caricatures.

    The religious bigotry expressed in Progresso World still surprises me, though you'd think I'd be use to it by now...
     
  2. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So i cannot 'prove!' the inspiration of the scriptures to anyone. It remains my personal opinion and conviction, from experience and personal revelation.?

    What 'remains your personal opinion and conviction, from experience and personal revelation.

    You say you can't prove it then 'it remains my personal opinion.......................'. So if it is your opinion then you must accept the post.

    Perhaps you should make it clearer.

    The accuracy of the scriptures, AND the translations is what counts, not the opinion about inspiration.

    Agreed. And the accuracy is where the Bible falls down. Unless Jesus really was in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. And whether the Last Supper was really a Passover meal or a friendship meal. And whether Jesus actually fulfilled the 'prophesy' in Hosea when 'Israel' came out of Egypt, offering sacrifices to Baals and incense to idols. Did Jesus carried his cross or Simon of Cyrene. And for accuracy, it would have been just the crosspiece, if anything was carried at all. The guards at the tomb? Were they Temple Guards or Roman soldiers? In the morning the guards went to the Priests and reported what had happened. No way were they Romans soldiers. A bribe taken by a Roman soldiers was a death sentence, and no intercession by any High Priest would have saved them . Roman discipline was tight.

    Accuracy?
     
    The Wyrd of Gawd likes this.
  3. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know of any arguments that can change anyone's opinions about this book, which seems to elicit such strong convictions and opinions.

    Now, the historicity and scholarship concerning the biblical manuscripts have centuries.. no, millennia of facts to confirm it as a credible source for the message that the books of the bible convey.

    The content of the messages.. the events and words of Jesus, for example, have historical and textual confirmation. Whether the reader believes it is a personal matter. But the historical, exegetical evidence is that the biblical writers conveyed their message as a literal telling of actual words and deeds.

    That is the historical heritage of bible believing Christians. And while enemies rage against the biblical manuscripts, accusing, ridiculing, and mocking, none of their lies have a factual, scholarly basis. Christian scholars, over the millennia, have been much more critical, of the accuracy, source, and validity of the texts, handed down from the originals. ALL fragments and archaeological finds have confirmed the manuscripts, and silenced the accusations of 'change!'

    All we have now, is the same old tired accusations that every generation of Christian scholars refute, again and again. The 'New', 'Groundbreaking!', accusations that are so popular on anti-christian web sites are the same old lies that have annoyed intelligent Christians for millennia.

    "Centuries of experience have tested the BIBLE. It has passed through critical fires no other volume has suffered, and its spiritual truth has endured the flames and come out without so much as the smell of burning" ~W.E. Sangster
     
  4. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All you do is snipe and heckle. I've challenged you over and over to post the passage you believe is in error, and provide evidence. But you don't. Just vague accusations, with no basis. You merely expose yourself as an anti-christian bigot, with no intellectual or scholarly background.

    You believe the bible is, 'full of errors!' Fine. That is your prejudicial belief, but you have no facts to support your opinion, just innuedo, plausibility, incredulity, and skepticism.
     
  5. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As a reminder...

     
  6. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I've done it once, I'll do it again:

    1: 1 Corinthians 14: 22-25

    2. Charge: Verse 22 contradicts Verses 23-25

    3. Evidence: Verse 22 makes the argument that tongues are for unbelievers and prophecy is for believers. The following verses make the case for it being the other way around.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2018
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe recently - though we're seeing a decline, aren't we?

    For a very, very long time, what elicited strong convictions was what the priest told his people.

    Even when people could read, they were convinced to NOT read the Bible.

    The dynamics of human populations and politics got Christianity to where it is.
     
  8. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Very good. This is a valid (and old) question, though quoting the passage would help. I'll do that now.

    1 Corinthians 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, 25 as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

    This passage carries with it some ambiguity, especially the 'tongues' part. There are different interpretations, even now, as to what that means. Some translators believe it to be 'other languages', and have rendered it so. Charismatic churches believe it to be a mystical, spiritual language, that has no earthly reference.

    In another thread, i posted this, as a defining characteristic of orthodoxy:
    I submit that 'tongues' is vague and ambiguous, without a clear, historical precedent. I would classify it as 'optional', or nonessential, in the tenets of Christian orthodoxy.

    That said, how can this passage (or any similar one) be viewed?
    1. The ambiguity indicates error.
    2. The intended meaning is uncertain.
    3. Anyone can interpret this however they like.
    4. There is/was an original intent by the author, but the wording is unclear.
    5. This was something specifically directed toward the Corinthians, and does not have universal application to all Christians for all time.
    6. The intent is lost in translation, and the vagaries of language.
    7. The meaning is Spiritual, and cannot be empirically defined.

    ..there may be other possible ways of viewing this passage. I tend toward #2.. uncertainty. And, as with the many things in this universe that i don't understand, i am content leaving it in limbo, as something that I may, or may not, understand later.

    I do not see a compelling conclusion of 'error!', from a logical perspective.

    Here are a few tidbits, from the original Greek:

    ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἡ δὲ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.
    'semeion', bolded above is translated, 'a sign'. Paul does not address the 'sign' part, anymore, but goes to the practical.. instruction and edification, the purpose of 'prophecy'.

    The point of this section was clarified in the next passage:

    26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

    Ambiguous? Yes. Error? No, unless a person insists on seeing it through that filter.

    Another nugget of truth, gleaned from this passage:

    If the bible has been changed so many times, as is routinely accused, why are ambiguous passages like this not 'fixed', to present a more polished version?

    The scholarship and accuracy that translators and biblical scholars employ in textual criticism insists on accuracy, even if it is not polished, clear, or convenient.

    To summarize my commentary on this passage:

    Paul is addressing 'tongues', and called them 'a sign' for unbelievers. But as 'signs and wonders' sometime carry a negative connotation, in the NT manuscripts, he does not encourage the use of tongues, but prefers things that 'edify'. He does not contradict himself, but is addressing different concepts.

    I, personally, relate more to the 'uninstructed' person referred to as:

    ἰδιῶται

    ..pronounced, idiotai.. I'll leave it to the clever readers here to connect it to the english derivative.. ;)
     
  9. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Things have not changed.. just the hats and titles of the 'priests'. Now, we call them, 'professors'..
     
  10. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've already posted some of it. You either don't read of miss it. Don't blame me.

    Let's try again.

    Quoted from previous post with additions in italics

    Matthews Nativity story sends the family to Egypt to avoid Herod. Regardless of when this was supposed to have happened according to Luke it did not. Luke sends the family to Nazareth about 40 days after the birth. That includes time for Jesus circumcision (8 days after birth), his redemption in the Temple and Mary's period of cleansing. There, he tells us, that they remain until Jesus is grown up.(Luke 2:39-40) Given the story of the wise men going to Jerusalem and being interviewed by Herod, then making their way to Bethlehem that leaves Matthew with a problem. The journey to Egypt would take around a week with a newly born baby and Mary still in the 'afterbirth' state. The road went round the coast to avoid the desert which would have been almost impossible for Mary. and a newborn baby. Whatever length of time Herod may, or may not, have lived after Jesus birth is irrelevant, 40 days is. How could Jesus be in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time.
    The idea where Luke gets Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. is against Roman Law (that people should stay where they were for the census) and the ridiculous 'house and lineage' of David story. He may have been of David's house but David was 1000 years in the past and Bethlehem had been almost emptied of its people by the Babylonians. Did any go back? History tells us that many Hebrews remained in Babylon, where much later Jewish scribes wrote the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud), while many had already gone to Greece, Egypt and North Africa to escape the Babylonian and the Assyrian invasions.

    David had 20 sons that we know of. Daughters not known.
    • Amnon, David's firstborn, born in Hebron to Ahinoam of Jezreel. Absalom killed him after he raped Absalom's full sister, Tamar.
    • Kileab (or Daniel), second son, whose mother was Abigail from Carmel. He probably died young since there is no record of his life.
    • Absalom, the third son, born to Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur. He was killed by Joab (1 Chronicles 3:1-2) after he mounted a rebellion against his aging father David.
    • Adonijah, the fourth son of King David from Haggith (2 Samuel 3:4). He attempted to usurp the throne during the life of David (1 Kings 1:11ff). Solomon had him executed after being warned to remember his place in the line of succession per King David’s instruction regarding the crown. 1 Kings 1:32-35; 1:50-53; 2:13-25[3]
    • Shephatiah, whose mother was Abital.
    • Ithream, whose mother was Eglah, "David’s wife".
    The sons born to David in Jerusalem included the sons of Bathsheba:

    • The infant who died without being named [4]
    • Shimea, or Shammua, probably the first surviving child of Bathsheba
    • Shobab, from Bathsheba
    • Nathan (son of David), Bathsheba the ancestor of Jesus according to the Genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:31, considered by some to be the maternal line via Heli, possible father of Mary.
    • Solomon, Bathsheba, the ancestor of Jesus according to the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, often considered to be Joseph's line.
    Nine other sons were born of other wives:

    • Ibhar, Elishua, Elpelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet, and one further unnamed son, who would also have died in infancy.

    With the need for, and prevalence of, large families, if all the hundreds of thousands of descendants of David descended on village of Bethlehem the whole area from Jerusalem south, east and west of Bethlehem would have been inundated. No room at the Inn? No room within miles.

    Then Luke has it as a world wide census. If everyone had to return home the Mediterranean area would have been in choas. Israel was full of Greeks from the time of Alexander, living in the Decapolis cities. If they had to return to the city of their 'house and lineage' the Decapolis cities would have been emptied. And the Samaritans? Who knows where they actually came from?

    The birth of a Jesus makes more sense in Bethlehem in Zebulon - a short distance from Nazareth.

    Hosea 11 cannot be the 'prophecy' proclaiming Jesus birth - unless his name was really Israel. But then he didn't fulfil the rest of the 'prophecy'.Did God say to Hosea 'I'll let you into a secret, Hosea, this also applies to a man I will send in about 700 years time whose name will be Jesus.'.
    Prophecy is only for the time or near future. What's the point of telling Hosea of a man 700 years in the future. It would have no meaning or relevance for the time and would be forgotten long before 200 years had past.
    'Prophecies' in the OT are simply used retrospectively to 'authenticate' an event in NT times.



    Ambiguous? Yes. Error? No, unless a person insists on seeing it through that filter.

    Well that's clear enough. We can interpret the Bible anyway we want. .Not that that's new. Christianity has done that to the OT for 2000 years.

    And I'm not anti Jesus. Peel away the 'miraculous' and the Preacher had many good things to teach us. Add on 'Christianity' and you have a man made religion.
     
  11. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I blame you for vague accusations, no quotes, and lame talking points from anti-christian sites. Even here, do you give me a quote to address? Not really. A specific claim of 'error!?' No. You ramble on and on about your beliefs, but give me nothing specific to address or rebut.

    I sifted through this post, and got this reference:

    Luke 2:39When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. 40And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him.

    You only 'point', is a vague reference to 'Egypt!', but no reference, and no defining the 'error!' you think is there.

    So instead of voluminous cut and pastes from anti-christian sites, give me ONE specific passage, and the error you believe is there. THEN i can address it.

    Otherwise, all i can conclude, is anti-christian bigotry, with only propaganda and phony narratives being presented.
     
  12. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ha Ha. You sifted through the post. I gave you more than one point to address. Why do you comment on the Bible if you don't know it? As you obviously don't, compare Matthew 2 13-14 With the Luke reference. Luke 2:39.

    The only cut and paste I gave you was the sons of David - as most people don't realise the number of sons he had. References are scattered about in the OT. And those are only the ones we actually know of.
     
  13. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I had a hard time with these passages too.. The command to Joshua to kill all those in the land of Canaan. Just about tossed the whole book.. but I continued to study. What I found was that they were a nation of the worst psychopaths, evil to the core and hedonistic to the point of bestiality being completely accepted; murderous to their own children.. child sacrifice was the norm! And they were (the Amalekites especially) the progeny of the Race of Giants.. the spawn of fallen angels and human women. What's more, God left the other Nations to the fallen angels (worshipped as gods) and specifically claimed Canaan for His people. Furthermore, Rahab the prostitute, was accepted into the Hebrew Nation when she recognized the true God and she is even in the bloodline of our Savior. Accept that all of Creation is God's and he may do with it as He pleases.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2018
  14. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well. If you believe that Joshua existed that's up to you The Amalekites were a supposed tribe but is found nowhere in History except in the Bible.or references relying on the Bible There wasn't a nation of Canaanites. There were individual tribes that occupied small walled towns. There's nothing in History to suggest Canaanites were any worse than many other nations. You do realise that 2 kings of Israel also practised child sacrifice.and possibly others Ahaz and Manassah. And read Jeremiah 19:4-6. Child sacrifices were never the norm. Usually only in extreme situations. When people hear of child sacrifices they think of South America. A different society and culture altogether.
    The Bible exaggerates many things.

    The race of giants, fallen angels, Nephilim and the rest are taken from earlier religions and creation stories.
     
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's your religious radicalism on parade.

    One of the most pernicious parts of religion is its hate for education.

    Today and into the future our competitiveness as a nation will depend more and more on education, as our competitive advantage moves away from manufacturing and agriculture toward high tech, information, clean energy, automation, etc.

    Yet, you see education as the enemy.

    America is in trouble if we take your direction.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  16. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO that has to be one of the most nonsensical passages in the Bible. It doesn't make sense in any conventional version.

    The Message version rewrote it for a better explanation =

    1 Corinthians 14:20-25 (MSG) =
    *20-25 To be perfectly frank, I’m getting exasperated with your infantile thinking. How long before you grow up and use your head—your adult head? It’s all right to have a childlike unfamiliarity with evil; a simple no is all that’s needed there. But there’s far more to saying yes to something. Only mature and well-exercised intelligence can save you from falling into gullibility. It’s written in Scripture that God said,

    In strange tongues
    and from the mouths of strangers
    I will preach to this people,
    but they’ll neither listen nor believe.
    So where does it get you, all this speaking in tongues no one understands? It doesn’t help believers, and it only gives unbelievers something to gawk at. Plain truth-speaking, on the other hand, goes straight to the heart of believers and doesn’t get in the way of unbelievers. If you come together as a congregation and some unbelieving outsiders walk in on you as you’re all praying in tongues, unintelligible to each other and to them, won’t they assume you’ve taken leave of your senses and get out of there as fast as they can? But if some unbelieving outsiders walk in on a service where people are speaking out God’s truth, the plain words will bring them up against the truth and probe their hearts. Before you know it, they’re going to be on their faces before God, recognizing that God is among you.*
     
    trevorw2539 likes this.
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What is such a life-changing encounter like? Can you describe it?
     
  18. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Reagan hated the principles on which this nation was founded ... as per the DOI - and you have no clue what formed the basis for the Founding Fathers beliefs in essential liberty - and obviously Reagan didn't either.
     
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Someone who has accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their saviour. Is that you?

    But aren't you saying that he states that the following of those six commandments in Matt 19 is required to get through the pearly gates?

    When exactly did I do that?

    For a man who is against the 'tyranny of the majority', I'm surprised that you are all of a sudden speaking so positively about a majority! So what exactly is your point?

    1. Why does it matter that he never met Jesus?
    2. Have the church leaders of today met Jesus?
    3. What do you mean he "does not relate any of the life of Jesus?"
    4. Why would the writings of Paul need to teach the teachings of Jesus if that is already covered in the Gospels?
    5. Why does it matter that he was not part of the Church of Jerusalem?

    I'm sure that you are perfectly aware that this is not a direct quote from James 2, so can you directly quote the part which you think says this? Any translation will do, although KJ or NKJ might not be the most helpful!

    Where in the sermon does Jesus state that the sermon is on "how one gets into heaven?"

    But it DOES mention "works" as a "requirement?"

    Yes, as in certain people's fruit will tell us that they are not a believer.

    Do you think "the will of My Father" means "the WORKS of My Father?"
    And if it is all about "works works works" then why do the "many" who prophesy in His name and in His name drive
    out demons and in His name perform many miracles NOT get into heaven? What are these if not "works works works?"

    Yes, because those who are saved strive to put the words of Jesus into practice and will certainly do so more than they don't.
    Are you under the impression that Protestants totally discount the words of Jesus? Do you know of any anti-Jesus,
    'Paul only' Protestants? I will be surprised if you say yes, but then again, the US is full of all sorts of wacky Christians!

    Correct. How does this mean that works is what is required to get into heaven?

    You don't know me, so you can stop casting aspertions on my faith. I understand PERFECTLY what the teachings of Jesus are. And you will notice how I am mature enough to not cast aspetions on YOUR faith.

    Did I say that I am only a follower of Paul?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of the above is way to painful to merit a response.

    You are welcome to believe in "Sola Fide" if you like. It is a fact however, that this doctrine contradicts the teachings of Jesus. While it is a fact that the majority of Christianity does not accept this doctrine - the reason why I say the above is "because this doctrine contradicts the teachings of Jesus".

    You are welcome to believe that accepting Jesus as your savior will do you some good. Unfortunately Jesus does not share your belief :) - at least not in the traditional sense.

    "Not all those who call - Lord Lord will enter the kingdom" - but don't let me stop you.

    It is not the hearing of the word that creates a solid foundation - but the "doing" of the word .. following the teachings of Jesus.

    Agreed on the KJV being a bad translation. It is also true that I was paraphrasing James = giving you the meaning.

    This is from the NIV James 2.
    Not sure how James could say it any clearer ? He says 3 times "Faith without works is Useless - Dead" and yes .. he states directly that people that hold this belief are "foolish"/ fools.

    Are you friggen kidding me ? You can't be as idiotic as the above comment would suggest. Jesus never says "This Sermon is on how one gets into heaven". That does not change the fact that much of the sermon is about how to get into heaven.

    For someone who claims to know the teachings of Jesus - you do not show much understanding of what those teachings actually are ?

    The first words of the Sermon - Blessed are the poor in Spirit - for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

    He then goes on to introduce the concept of "severity of sin" - different positions in heaven. He then says that only those that are more righteous than the Pharisees and the Lawgivers will get in.

    Fortunately - this is a pretty low bar - Jesus did not think much of those folks.

    He then goes on about works, works ... and more works. Don't Kill or Shag neighbors wife. Give to the poor and Love Neighbor as self.

    Judge not Lest you be Judged and so on. Not a word about accepting Jesus as one's personal savior to get through the gates.

    He then says that the entire law and the prophets are summed up by the golden rule - Do unto others as you would have done to you/ Treat others as you would be treated. Interesting claim.

    Given the purpose of Jesus was to relate the "will of the Father" Only and a complete unbridled idiot does not realize that all the teachings and recommendations given in this sermon are what Jesus believes is the "will of the Father"

    Unfortunately for the Faith crowd - Jesus has focused on works, works, and more works as being the will of the Father and not a word about faith in Jesus as one's personal savior.

    So when Jesus says "ONLY THOSE that do the WILL OF THE FATHER" he means Only those that do the will of the Father = the teachings (works) that Jesus has related in this Sermon .. a Sermon which is about what the "Will of the Father" is.

    For the slow ones that do not get it the second time .. he repeats himself a third time in a very specific way ... It is the doing .. not the hearing .. that builds a solid foundation.

    I am guessing you did not bother to take 3 minutes to read the sermon prior to making your comments - which is why your comment was so blatantly daft.
     
  21. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your projection and phony caricatures are the only thing on display. Like a knee jerk progressive indoctrinee, you draw the 'hate!' card faster than a luger.

    Hate for education? 'You see education as the enemy!' 'your religious radicalism!'

    Please.

    Such bigoted, hysterical inflammations have no place, in a reasoned debate.

    If you think 'Indoctrination!' ONLY happens somewhere else, or only to other people, how naive can you get? HOW do you exempt yourself from bias and indoctrination, that has been common in the human experience for millennia?

    Education.. as it is organized now, in this progressive dominated culture, is based on conformity, memorized dogma, and Indoctrination. Open inquiry and critical thinking are not the goals. You can attack me for this observation, if you wish, but it does not change the reality of progressive Indoctrination in the modern culture.

    I don't see the problem.. it is a bit vague or ambiguous, but it is not an essential element of biblical doctrine.. it is a peripheral issue, open to different interpretations.

    Yes.

    Ad hom remarks about my cluelessness is irrelevant, and fallacious.
     
    Empress likes this.
  22. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    chris155au

    1. Why does it matter that he never met Jesus?
    2. Have the church leaders of today met Jesus?
    3. What do you mean he "does not relate any of the life of Jesus?"
    4. Why would the writings of Paul need to teach the teachings of Jesus if that is already covered in the Gospels?
    5. Why does it matter that he was not part of the Church of Jerusalem?


    1. Paul relies on secondhand information.
    2. That's why the church is full of 'idolatary'.
    3. Pauls teaching is his own, adapting the Otd Testament for Greek listeners, to include Jesus..
    4. The Gospels were written after Paul was killed.
    5 Because the church in Jerusalem was still tied to the Jewish ritual and religion. To some extent - so was Paul. He adapted many Jewish rituals and beliefs
    6 Before the Gospels attribute Jesus divinity to his 'divine' birth, Paul writes that Jesus was divine because of his resurrection.(Romans 1). Pauls letters were distributed to their respective churches, and probably passed on to others, before his death. The Gospels came later. Perhaps the disciples forgot to tell Paul about the birth story. Or perhaps it had not been thought up then..
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  23. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's half the question. Why are you playing this game?
     
  24. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ..not playing a game, and not getting baited to divulge personal information. I'll deal in facts and logic, and my personal life is private.. mostly. I tend to reveal too much as it is, and it is usually returned in mocking and ridicule.

    My personal experiences and beliefs are largely irrelevant, in a philosophical discussion.
     
    Empress likes this.
  25. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,311
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, then I reject the notion of the possibility of a "life-changing encounter". I've been there and I'll bet I had "life-changing encounters" that you only dream about. And I reject them as proof of a deity, in retrospect.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page