The Bible

No problem. I'm not trying to 'prove!' anything to anyone. You believe whatever you want..

 

1) you were the one claiming that Paul was some pillar of liberty. Not my fault that his words were used as justification for totalitarianism.
2) You obviously do not know what Ad Hom is. It is not my fault that your comments in relation to Reagan were completely wrong. Calling you out on your falsehood is not ad hom.

 

Make a response to THIS:



It was much more than 9 verses, but here you go believers. Something to chew on.

 

Which religions hate education?

 

It is just an absurd caricature.. Christianity in America STARTED almost all educational systems in this country, and the mission statement of most older universities include statements of Christian faith and acknowledgment of God.

It is the phony, anti-christian revisionism that demeans Christian influence, and the positives the bible had on western civilization.

 

No thanks. I'll debate your points and arguments, presented in a rational, orderly manner. But links, videos, hearsay, and other fallacies cannot be addressed, as there is no point made, no passage quoted, and no evidence to address or rebut.

This should be obvious, in a written forum. So if you desire intelligent debate, i can offer that. But if the goal is to promote a narrative, to prop up some anti-bible agenda, all i can do is expose it, and dismiss the accusations.

 

Now where have I heard that before. ???????????????????

 

From me to you, obviously..

I'll repeat my conditions for 'debate' on the bible:

 

1. This is an attempted smear by association. I do not remember making any claim about Paul being a 'pillar of liberty!' But i would, if that were the topic. Paul speaks more to human liberty and human equality than any other writer in the NT, and more than ANY pre reformation writer in history. Paul's influence on reformed theology is undeniable, and provided the philosophical basis for the Enlightenment and the age of reason.
2. Ad hom is the typical response, from progressive indoctrinees. I expect it, and get it.. constantly.. in this forum. You are a regular contributor, and the tactic is one reason i tend to skip over your replies. Accusing of 'wrong!' is not a rebuttal.. And directing comments and caricatures toward a poster's education, motives, beliefs, or character is the essence of ad hominem.

 

And they did it in order to have Christian opinions and practices spread via those schools, usually. They never taught the scientific and mathematical impossibility of a person building a large enough boat to carry and care for two of all species, carry enough food of proper types, and enough people on board to clean out the stalls and cages every morning and night. They never taught the foolishness of the thought of a tree whose fruit could impart knowledge (because they failed to grasp the metaphors and symbolism of the story). And instead their religious instruction taught that those things and many other impossible things actually, magically, happened.

I'm all for a sane, honest, beneficial religion but that seems impossible.

 

Well.. if you toss out the entire Bible.. by all means, it's junk (to you)

 

If you'd bothered to look at the video references were given. And even as someeone whis is an agnostic, an agnostic, some of the quotes are easily disposed of. Fool. The Greek for calling someone a fool in a fit of rage, is different to the Greek wprd calling someone a fool for not understanding. We would probably use the term 'idiot' for not understanding and 'fool' of in a bad mood.

Law and Prophets. There is only 1 'Law'. That is the 10 commandments. The rest are simply 'interpretations' of that law, or health, family etc regulations. In many countries today laws are made, and then often 'interpreted' in court cases. Down the centuries many additions/alterations were made to supposedly keep up-to-date. Many were really pointless, silly and many onerous for the ordinary people. These, and the actions of the leaders, were what Jesus was referring to in Matthew 23. Jesus often ignored these 'regulations' himself, to the anger of the religious laeders. He respected the Prophets as he had been taught that their prophecies had been fulfilled. But the religious leaders themselves had perverted the prophets teachings.

1 John 3 focuses upon v 6. Noone who lives in him keeps on sinning.
verse 9 No-one who is born of God will continue to practise sin. The term 'practise' is used often in the Greek version of the chapter.

Fools. The Greek uses two different words. One for the angry fools to denigrate someone and another to call someone an idiot for simply not understanding.

 

I don't throw out the whole Bible. There is some truth in its teachings. There's some truth in its history period 900- 650 BCE - confirmed by archeology. The teachings of the Jewish Preacher have merit. I do not believe he was anything more than a Jewish preacher. The Gospels themselves show that if you studied Jewish History, religion etc.

 

Are you referring to the real Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 34 or to the fake ones found In Exodus chapter 20 or Deuteronomy chapter 5?

 

Protestants believe that he was given divine inspiration for his writings, therefore whether it was first hand or second hand is totally irrelevant to protestants. If he wasn't given divine inspiration, then of course, he was just a random guy relying on secondhand information.

You think that meeting Jesus would stop church leaders from being idolatrous?

So because he included Jesus, this means that it is his own teaching?

Why would the writings of Paul need to teach the teachings of Jesus if God ordained that they would be covered in the Gospels?

And how does this mean that it matters that he was not part of the Church of Jerusalem?

Does this mean that Paul was saying that Jesus was ONLY divine because of his resurrection?

 

"Too painful" = too difficult and challenging. I thought that you were much better than that.

So then why do you suppose protestants don't have a problem with the teachings of Jesus as you have a problem with the teaching of Paul? If Sola Fide contradicts the teachings of Jesus, then shouldn't protestants dismiss certain teachings of Jesus?

You say that Sola Fide is not accepted by the "majority" of Christianity. Again, for a man who has rallied 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 in talking about the majority?

Are you saying that someone can do good works and NOT accept Jesus as their savior and still have salvation? Or do they have to do both?

Why do you mention this?

I agree. This is not in conflict with Sola Fide.

Do you think that this means that, Faith without works is a faith which does not guarantee salvation?
Also, why do you have so much confidence in what James has to say? Aren't you only concerned with what JESUS has to say?

I worded that poorly. Let me try again - Where in the sermon does Jesus state that the sermon is on how one gets into heaven without faith? And why do you act as if John 3:16 and John 10:10 doesn't exist?

Yes and in Matt 7:21, Jesus says about people who do works that he never knew them! If salvation is all about "works, works, and more 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, and more works?"

 

There were many Bible quotes given that point out contradictions and how inconvenient it is to be a Christian. If you are unwilling or unable to respond to all the arguments made in the video, that's your choice.

I post videos because there are hundreds of atheists on Youtube that are miles more knowledgeable and well spoken than myself. Few if any believers are able to give rebuttals in Youtube comments, in this forum or even in rebuttal videos.

Until somebody can give convincing counter-arguments to my favorite atheist Youtubers, I'll continue to assert that the Bible is NOT the words of Yahweh or well written or historically accurate.

 

I understand what Protestants believe having been a Christian, a preacher, Bible study leader for many years before studying the Bible against the background of the Bible, Judaism etc. I am now agnostic.

Supposed visions down the millenia have led to many teachings, doctrines etc. Take Mohammed. Was his 'supposed' experiences any the less valid than Pauls'. JW's, Mormon's? Who is right is down to your own view. Are Buddha's 'views' any less valid than yours?.

I think that Church leaders who met and talked with Jesus would have a completely different view today. . Jesus was a Jew who came 'unto his own'. His own claim. Christianity added the great commission at a later date. He practised Judaism, proclaimed Judaism, followed Judaistic practises. . The Gospel writers, whoever they were,. wanted Jesus to be their Messiah so they used the OT 'prophecies' to make him so. Study of the OT show these 'prophecies' to have nothing to do with Jesus. Ask yourself how Jesus could have been in Egypt (Matthew) and in Nazareth (Luke) at the same time. Matthew uses Hosea 11:1 but omits the fact that this refers to Israel, and that Israel committed all sorts of 'sins' after leaving Egypt. As in the Exodus.

Why not? The Book of Revelation does exactly that. Most of its imagery is found in the OT and Jesus added. EG Ezekiel 37:27-28/Rev.21:3-4 Just one example among many. The Essenes had their own Book of Revelation taking the same images and adding their own ideas. (You can read it online)

Paul was around preaching long before the Gospels were written What was he going to preach to his 'gentiles'?

In the long run it is irrelevant whether or not Paul was part of the church of Jerusalem. It was his teaching that gave us much of our Christianity today.

It's odd that nowhere does Paul mention the virgin birth of Jesus. All he does is recognise Jesus humanity - of a male seed. It doesn't appear until much later - in the Gospels. And yet the Disciples must have known about it - if it happened. It really wasn't an important part of the idea of Jesus as a Divinity. until the 3rd Century.

 

We all know your views. I accept the Jewish interpretation - established millenia ago.

 

Of course the Jews had to push the Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5 versions because only an idiot would accept the ethnocentric commandments in Exodus chapter 34 as relevant to himself. And even today, when you can freely read the fairy tale for yourself and plainly see the truth for yourself, you refuse to do so because if you did you would realize how it doesn't apply to you and that goes against your lifetime of being brainwashed. As a line in a popular movie said, you can't handle the truth.

 

Christian missionaries gave a number of Indian tribes written language, including the Lakota.

 

Jerusalem is just geographical coordinates on a spherical surface area


If you believe there is anything more to it than that you are fooling yourself

 

As I've told you before. I don't believe that 'god' gave these commandments, either those in chapters 20 or 34, to any mythical Moses. Look at earlier 'contracts' between rulers and their people and you can see this. As for brainwashing. I've been agnostic for decades. I simply understand the Jewish point of view. According to the Bible they were chosen to represent Jahweh to the nations. This is the OT message again and again. Israel is 'gods' son (Hosea 11. and other references) Christianity uses Jesus.

As to it not applying to me, why should I be worried. According to Jewish belief if I accept the Noahide laws I'm OK. Of course I don't necessarily believe what the Jews believe. But I do understand their thinking by understanding the OT.

The form of the Ten Commandments is similar to covenantal treaties forged by other Near Eastern kings with their vassals. If you read the Ten Commandments as a Covenant, the first commandment gives the authority of the ruler to make this Covenant. So the commandments would be just another form of covenant - used by the writers in the 7th century to give credence to their story. They are nothing new.

 

The Bible shows in many places that Jesus is divine.

https://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine

So you believe what Jesus says, just not what he said about Himself?

 

Did Nostardumus fore see Plutonium 241 with 14.3 year halflife and a huge thermal neutron corss section??

Kim Jong Un already knows

I need sunshine