Notices
Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: Biblical Problems

  1. #1 Biblical Problems 
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    If any of you have ever been dragged along to Sunday school as a child by your parent(s), you probably remember songs like "God loves all the little children", "yes, jesus loves me", etc...

    One thing that has always bothered me, even as a child, was the story of God telling Abraham to take his one and only son, bind him, and offer him up as a sacrificial offering to the Lord.

    Now, a lot of Preachers and religious leaders of the Christian faith like to take the bite out of this story by saying it was an object lesson to Abraham that he should never put his possessions (which includes children, supposedly they are possessions too, like sheep or cows) above God. Pretty much these religious leaders accuse God of lying, saying He would have never gone through with it he just wanted to see Abraham's reaction. Kind of like a Frat boy prank or something.

    I'm sorry, but if you are always taught by these same religious leaders though shalt not kill, and God is love, how can you honestly claim Abraham was doing God's will? And I don't want any lame excuses that the ten commandments were not yet given, I was always taught God never changes, and this would require a very large change of character IMHO. If you hear a voice telling you to sacrifice your children and you believe in a loving God, you should pretty much be able to call bullshit on the voice and go see a psychiatrist.

    It is things like these that made me realize that not all passages in the Bible are as "Sanctified by God" as people would like me to think.


    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Yea that's a pretty twisted story..

    People teach their children that if you hear a voice in your head that says "kill your child" then you're supposed to follow that voice and actually do it. Abraham was rewarded for actually going out to kill his child. If he had refused he probably would've been a bad believer. I think that's a pretty bad lesson to give to your child.

    There are people out there who need very little encouragement to do very strange things. Religious stories like these don't help.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    84
    The Bible has always bothered me. In I Samuel 15:3, God ordered Saul to massacre the Amalekites: "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…" So many contradictions, so big of a book. Also, I am bothered by God being a cranky old coot in the Old Testament and in the New one, he is kind. You know what happened between them, right? God got laid.
    My avatar looks like a vagina!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    In all honesty, all I've ever read is the exodus with the rules in it, and most of Jesus' quoted words. Thats all, I have no interest in reading pre Jesus text other than The ten commandments, etc. There are a lot of arhaeic stories in there, most of them by men and their experiences to which they have added to actuallly help people back then. Jesus is the best teacher, follow Him, not the words of some passed on man. My advice to atheists is to not overanalyse the Bible, because I don't think there is anything scientific at all within The Bible, to analyse scientifically. If you don't believe, then leave the believers alone and if they harm you or someone, then do something about it, if you can't for one reason or another, accept that, and move on. We are after all, only human.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I'm not an atheist though, I am a Deist with a slight leaning toward fideism, that Is I believe God created the physical universe and largely keeps from interfering, but still guides and interferes in certain events subtly (i.e. the ten commandments). There is no way to prove this existence or these interferences, but I don't believe in trying to prove them as they have to be accepted by faith and that is an individual decision. I only agree with the atheists on the point that organized religions tend to be based off of lies, and trick people into blindly listening to what they teach. I disagree that there is no such thing as a Creator. I believe we will all be held accountable for the actions and choices we make.

    I am only portraying my beliefs, not bashing someone else's. I am simply saying that these types of stories turned me from a belief that the Bible was 100% divinely inspired, to believing that there are very bad inconsistencies. I am pointing out how all of my previous Christian leaders appeared to ignore something that should have been addressed better. But since they are afraid if they admit that portions of the Bible are bad that no one will look at the good.

    I do not discount all of the teachings of the bible, but I wish that instead of trying to make me believe everything was divinely inspired they should have told me the truth thats all.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I understand. Truth is after all, subjective.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    This makes better sense viewed through a martial lens, with God as commander-in-chief. Then you're going to have loyalty tests, hazing rituals... it is really necessary every cog obeys command without question.

    Note that Lucifer was not discharged for contempt of God. Lucifer was exceptionally devout, refusing to bow before any but God. He enjoyed special status, or rank, because of this. So when God issued the lawful order that all angels bow before man, and Lucifer refused, bowing instead to God, this was insubordination and he had to leave the organization.

    The bible is a kind of military training manual.

    I agree with God in Lucifer's case. If a military CO orders subordinates to toss copies of the country's constitution out a window, they should (and often do :wink: ) obey. In martial hierarchies obedience must come before personal judgment.

    SuperNatendo, with your attitude, you cannot be a good soldier. Not under God, or your flag, or Adolf Hitler. A soldier can't pick and choose like you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    So pong, are you gonna setup a military training camp based on the bible so that you may follow "God's" order he laid out in Exodus 22:18 which says, "Suffer not a witch to live."

    Since a witch goes against God's will, you COULD somewhat radically work out that anyone who goes against God's will is a witch, now you have yourself your own terrorist training camp, congrats!

    This is where we get radical Islam as well as the Salem witch trials. Because of these type of passages in many types of religions, we have Terrorist problems throughout all history.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    In martial hierarchies obedience must come before personal judgment.
    That's SO wrong in so many cases...
    If theres a martial hirearchy that does not suit your ethics then you should
    quit that organization ASAP and join their enemies!

    God(or Evolution) gave us free will not to hide it aside and listen to egoistic dictators instead. No one should go against his mental flow, ever!
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanuka
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    In martial hierarchies obedience must come before personal judgment.
    That's SO wrong in so many cases...
    Agreed! So what are you gonna do? Join the Anarchist Liberation Front and get pwned? Armies had this figured out a long time ago. They won't let you serve half-assedly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    56
    I would recomend : http://www.youtube.com/user/JohnLArmstrong
    for Biblical errors and exploration. Very informative and to the point study of various contradictions in the Bible.
    If you´re a believer or not, theese are valid points that should be discussed and considered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19
    God is who he is. If you get a voice from God telling you to do something, and if you're christian, you do it.

    God does what he likes! :-D He's almighty and can do whatever he wants.

    What he did with Abraham was a test of faith in God. He was going to kill his own son becasue he loves God above everything else. Ofcourse God had no intention of letting Abraham kill his son because God would not take an innocent childs life.

    SO *breath*, what God did was perfectly normal and God can do it cause he can whatever he likes! He did make the human race!*

    Thanks~ Boy Genius

    *controversial subject.
    "Debates are what keep me going"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    so if i decide to kill my son and then tell the court that god told me to do it, do you think they'll set me free ?
    rather, i think they'd put me in the loonie bin
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    84
    God would not take an innocent childs life.
    Did you just miss the post where I said that God wanted to kill babies?
    My avatar looks like a vagina!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    19
    Yes, but only a certain group. when the isralites were leaving egypt, the amalekites came up and slaughtered any weak and slow isralites that were leaving. They continued to do this for some time, so God ordered Saul to kill them because they were evil. You have to read carefully.

    So, God had a good reason for wanting to kill those people. If you want to get the full answers read the bible carefully.

    THANKS~ Boy Genius
    "Debates are what keep me going"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Demons are real, ask God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The world which I rule...
    Posts
    39
    So doesn't that make God as evil as the amalekites?
    Fat people are harder to kidnap.

    "Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    Yes, but only a certain group. when the isralites were leaving egypt, the amalekites came up and slaughtered any weak and slow isralites that were leaving. They continued to do this for some time, so God ordered Saul to kill them because they were evil. You have to read carefully.

    So, God had a good reason for wanting to kill those people. If you want to get the full answers read the bible carefully.

    THANKS~ Boy Genius
    The babies were evil because they were harassing and even killing the fleeing Israelites. So God desired the evil babies killed. Quite a picture, that.

    Seriously though, it makes perfect sense, as I said, viewed through a martial - not moral - lens. "God as evil as the amalekites?" No. More ruthless. The bible teaches how to beat the enemy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman Demons are real, ask God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The world which I rule...
    Posts
    39
    So essentially the Bible is a military handbook rather than a moral template? :wink:
    Fat people are harder to kidnap.

    "Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    It's both, and more. Who said morals have to be nice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Demons are real, ask God's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The world which I rule...
    Posts
    39
    Heh true i guess. That would explain how 'peaceful' Christians have committed the majority of the atrocities this past millennium.
    Fat people are harder to kidnap.

    "Humanity's insignificance pales in comparison to its ego"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    God is who he is. If you get a voice from God telling you to do something, and if you're christian, you do it.

    God does what he likes! :-D He's almighty and can do whatever he wants.

    What he did with Abraham was a test of faith in God. He was going to kill his own son becasue he loves God above everything else. Ofcourse God had no intention of letting Abraham kill his son because God would not take an innocent childs life.
    So, In other words, God was LYING to Abraham when he told him he wanted him to kill Isaac?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    SO *breath*, what God did was perfectly normal and God can do it cause he can whatever he likes! He did make the human race!*

    Thanks~ Boy Genius

    *controversial subject.
    Perfectly normal??? Telling someone you are going to kill him if he doesn't give you something? So I guess it is normal to rob banks!!!

    He can do whatever he likes, so that means he can lie to Abraham?

    1 Cor 13:4-8
    "Love is patient, love is kind, {and} is not jealous; love does not brag {and} is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong {suffered,} does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails."

    Shouldn't this also apply to God? In some places of the bible, it does not. Christians like to claim God is a God of Love, but this was never a claim by the Hebrews of the Old Testament. Not until the New testament do we see verses such as these:

    Matt 7:16-20
    16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
    17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
    18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
    19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
    20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

    What about that?

    It is up to the individual to decide which parts were sanctified by God, and which were influenced by man.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Biblical Problems 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    If any of you have ever been dragged along to Sunday school as a child by your parent(s), you probably remember songs like "God loves all the little children", "yes, jesus loves me", etc...

    One thing that has always bothered me, even as a child, was the story of God telling Abraham to take his one and only son, bind him, and offer him up as a sacrificial offering to the Lord.

    Now, a lot of Preachers and religious leaders of the Christian faith like to take the bite out of this story by saying it was an object lesson to Abraham that he should never put his possessions (which includes children, supposedly they are possessions too, like sheep or cows) above God. Pretty much these religious leaders accuse God of lying, saying He would have never gone through with it he just wanted to see Abraham's reaction. Kind of like a Frat boy prank or something.

    I'm sorry, but if you are always taught by these same religious leaders though shalt not kill, and God is love, how can you honestly claim Abraham was doing God's will? And I don't want any lame excuses that the ten commandments were not yet given, I was always taught God never changes, and this would require a very large change of character IMHO. If you hear a voice telling you to sacrifice your children and you believe in a loving God, you should pretty much be able to call bullshit on the voice and go see a psychiatrist.

    It is things like these that made me realize that not all passages in the Bible are as "Sanctified by God" as people would like me to think.

    Let me guess, you're a young adult and you based your beliefs on this one story from Sunday school, and never went back.
    The teacher did not read the whole story to the class, and all the other kids felt the same way as you did. And your adolescent thinking kept you from further study, and discernment of the Bible.

    When I was a child and went to church with my parents, they never took the family Bible to church,(it was to big!) we listened to the preacher. I remember hearing about God's commands to kill other tribes of people, and asking my parents about that teaching. They only told me, that when I grew older, and read the Bible for myself, I would understand the reason and what was ment. During my early years, at Easter and Christmas, Mom would read the Bible stories at each time. And between the ages of 10 and 12, I would read the Big Bible, after dinner and homework. I may have read through a least three times, before my interest changed to other books and stories, for book reports in school. And of course my Comic book phase and the Classics. Like Tom Sawyer, Big Red, Old Yellor, the Zane Gray stories, and many more. Then by the time I turned 15, my interests changed to girls, football, hot rods, and school dances. In the summer after my senior graduation, eight of my H.S. classmates, four girls and four guys, were all killed in a one car accident, after a day at the beach. I felt the loss deeply, as did the families and whole town. I joined the Marine Corps the following spring. My folks drove me to the train station, nothing they could say changed my mind. It was a bittersweet parting, when Mom handed me a gift box, the train rolled out of town gaining speed, and I opened Mom's gift, it was my own study Bible. Oh Great! I thought, and was glad, but then I thought, that maybe not the best thing to bring to Boot Camp. The D.I.'s allowed me to keep it, and if anyone else wanted a Bible, they would have to request one from the Chaplain, keep it in the foot lockers, and read it on free time. And for the next 16 weeks, I was nicknamed Preacher, by the younger D.I.'s in our platoon. Since our platoon was in competition with the others in the company and battallion, I had to Preach or Pray to win honors. At first I had my regrets, but we started to take honors, in everything. And in my free time, while reading, I was covering old biblical ground so to speak, and I had a greater understanding from before. At Graduation Day, one other platoon beat us out of top honors, by two points higher on the rifle range. I made Pfc. at graduation, was no longer called Preacher, but "Marine"!and we still had 8 weeks of Infantry Training to do. Before being sent to Engineering School, 12 more weeks. This was a period of training and learning, I would not trade for anything. I was taught to think for myself, and of my fellow Marines, it built mind, body, and Esprit de corps. And discernment of God's Word, from a gift from a wise mother.

    Read the story of Abraham and his son again, and use discernment to see the type, and antitype in God, and His son Jesus Christ. Start at verse 1, God was testing Abraham;

    God directed them to Mt. Moriah; the future Temple mount of Jerusalem. see Gen. 14:18 Melchizedek king of Salem, was a priest of God Most High. (note: not an angel sent by God, but a priest on earth from God!)

    Abraham and Isaac, entered the area of the future city of David, around the mount. Isaac had riden the donkey into the area, was taken off with the wood, The two servants and donkey stayed behind, while Isaac carried the wood, and Abraham carried the fire and knife.

    The disciples of Jesus stayed behind, Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalum, Jesus carried his cross, from the mount to Golgotha, Apon seeing Jesus, John the Babtist, proclaimed "Behold the Lamb of God!"

    Isaac asks his father, we have the wood and fire, where is the lamb? Abraham anwsered, God will provide!

    They reached the mount, Abraham built an alter, placed the wood apon it, bound Isaac and layed him apon the wood, reached for the knife and took it. As he raised his hand, the angel of the Lord, called out and stop him. Abraham looked up, and seen a ram caught by its horns in the thicket, he untied Isaac, took him down, killed the ram and placed it on the alter, and offered it a burnt offering, instead of Isaac.

    Jesus was bound to the cross, and nailed. Then raised on the mount of Golgotha, a spear pierced His side. He was the Lamb of God. The fathers of Jerusalum, cried out to Pontius Pilate, for Jesus to be killed. The thicket was the jail, the horn being the government/Pilate, and the ram being Barabbas the rebel. (his name means; son of the father! look it up!) He was released from jail. The fathers of Jerusalum were unrighteous, in not fearing God, or His son.

    Where Abraham was considered righteous, because he feared God, and would kill his son, as an offering to God.
    And Abraham called that place, "The Lord Will Provide" as it is still called today, 4500 years later. (give or take a few years)

    Consider the Books of Ester, and Ruth to understand how the Scriptures all fit together, but I consider the Book of Daniel, being most prophetic and historical. with Chapter 9, being the pivotal point of prophecy. The prayer of Daniel, may help you understand things also.

    I once had a problem with Gen. 14:14, 318 trained men, and naming of the place of Dan, until I understood the mystery of Scripture, and God's Plan.





    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Boy Genius
    Yes, but only a certain group. when the isralites were leaving egypt, the amalekites came up and slaughtered any weak and slow isralites that were leaving. They continued to do this for some time, so God ordered Saul to kill them because they were evil. You have to read carefully.

    So, God had a good reason for wanting to kill those people. If you want to get the full answers read the bible carefully.

    THANKS~ Boy Genius
    Yes, I always thought this was hilarious - according to the bible's own account, the Israelites were rampaging through the "promised land" killing, enslaving, and raping everyone they came across. But those nasty amalekites, well, they were just bad people!

    Seriously, what were the amalekites doing that was worse than anything the Israelites were doing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Biblical Problems 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    One thing that has always bothered me, even as a child, was the story of God telling Abraham to take his one and only son, bind him, and offer him up as a sacrificial offering to the Lord.
    Personally I think it would have been a much better story if Abraham had refused god's orders, and god praised him for standing up for what he knew was right in the face of enormous pressure. That would have been a good test. As it was described, the "test" was pretty lame. All it showed was that Abraham was too afraid of god to go against his commands, even if it meant doing something that was clearly terrible. And remember that at that point in the story Abraham had just met god - it's not like there was an established religion or a long history of trust. The supernatural force that Abraham had just met told him to kill his own son, and he was willing to do it rather than risk the wrath or his magical new friend.

    Edit: If this is really the way people are supposed to behave, wouldn't it be pretty easy for a demon to trick someone into killing their own family?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Above all else, people desire power. This is something that is taught to religious people ought right, yet this very openness about the greed of people gives the followers a false sense that someone who tells you power corrupts is uncorrupted by it, thus we get priests and religious leaders making up stories as to why they must obey God's commandments that are relayed to them by the priests without question, even when it seems wrong.

    Just like in indaina jones when the bad guy tells indy to "Trust no one."
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Back to the OP -- OK so there is something in the Bible that Supernatendo does not quite pick up on and which has not been explained to him to his satisfaction. His implication here is that since this story is incomprehesible to him, he is justified in repudiating the validity of the entirety of the Bible.

    He is not alone among non-Bible students in using this method to heap doubt upon the veracity of the Bible.

    I am not a mathematician and there is a lot in math that I do not really understand -- calculus for example. But I do understand a sqared plus b squared equals c squared and some other stuff. Quantum physics is far beyond my understanding, but I do understand gravity and inertia and centrifical force and other things.

    I suspect that within any discipline of learning there are those who, not being students in that discipline, do not fully comprehend or understand all of that discipline.

    I will go even further, I suspect there are students and practitioners within almost any discipline who do not fully and completely understand and comprehend EVERYTHING there is to know about that discipline. In fact, if they did, it would likely be the end of growth and research in that discipline.

    And sometimes within a discipline, practitioners may look at the same information and come to different interpretations as to its meaning and significance. This leads to some confusion among non-practitioners.

    However, there is always enough in any of those disciplines to provide confidence that those thing we don't understand have meaning and significance while the things we do understand can be usefully employed.

    If the only thing I looked at in mathematics was calculus, it would be easy for me to feel that the entirety of mathematics is meaningless. Or if I only considered quantum physics, I would have no use for the rest of physics. Or it would be easy for me to find some area of some discipline which remains unsettled and determine that the entire discipline is confusing and not worthy of my consideration.

    If the readers can see the illogic of the above paragraph, I have no understanding as to why they cannot see the same illogic of taking a complex, difficult aspect of the Bible and using it to attempt to invalidate the entirety of the Bible.

    Most of the Bible is simplistic enough and plain enough that it is not capable of misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

    When Jesus says in John 14:6, "I am the way the turth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father but by me," there is no question as to what is being said or what it means. One may disagree with Jesus' claim, but there is no question as to what that claim is -- no dispute, no interpretation.

    When Paul says in Romans 10:9, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," there is no question as to what is being said or what it means.

    There is so much in the Bible that is clear and concise and easy to comprehend that the ploy of attempting to invalidate it with that which is not clear or is difficult to comprehend makes no more logical sense than if I attempt to invalidate math based on my lack of understanding of calculus.

    I do not fully understand all the significance and implications of the story of Abraham and the sacrifice. However, I do understand enough of the rest of the Bible that it doesn't bother me that much to not fully be able to understand and explain every nuance of the story.

    And I think that is true of just about any discipline -- if you understand the basics, you can tolerate your ignorance of the finer points.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I never said I question the validity of the entire bible. I am simply saying that not all of the passages in the bible are 100% inspired by God.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Most of the Bible is simplistic enough and plain enough that it is not capable of misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

    When Jesus says in John 14:6, "I am the way the turth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father but by me," there is no question as to what is being said or what it means. One may disagree with Jesus' claim, but there is no question as to what that claim is -- no dispute, no interpretation.
    Heh. It's ironic that you should pick this as an example of an unambiguous passage, because that very passage has been the subject of considerable controversy by theologians throughout the centuries. Does it mean that a person must worship Jesus and believe in him to achieve salvation? Or does it mean that Jesus' sacrifice has made the salvation of anyone possible, even if they have never heard of him? Or does it mean that Jesus' sacrifice causes everyone to be automatically saved? Protestants have interpreted it as a rejection of the catholic doctrine that priests are supposed to act as intermediates between god and the masses, while catholics of course disagree. What exactly is it supposed to mean? It's impossible to say with any certainty. All we know from this passage is that Jesus is somehow essential to people getting into heaven. But there is still a LOT of room for debate about what it specifically means.
    I do not fully understand all the significance and implications of the story of Abraham and the sacrifice. However, I do understand enough of the rest of the Bible that it doesn't bother me that much to not fully be able to understand and explain every nuance of the story.

    And I think that is true of just about any discipline -- if you understand the basics, you can tolerate your ignorance of the finer points.
    The thing is, you are assuming a priori that the bible is correct/from god and have already decided that if anything doesn't jive with you it must automatically be because you don't understand it properly. I think SuperNatendo is trying to decide whether or not it really is all from god in the first place. So when he sees something that doesn't jive, he also considers the possibility that maybe it just wasn't really correct/from god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    I never said I question the validity of the entire bible. I am simply saying that not all of the passages in the bible are 100% inspired by God.
    The problam (for christians) is that once you accept that the bible is not 100% correct and from god it immediately becomes impossible to sort out which parts of it really are from god and which parts were made up. There's no historical evidence to support the vast majority of it, and a lot of it is wildly fantastical - talking plants, all the world's animals crammed together into a boat for weeks, people rising from the dead, people conjuring things out of thin air, etc. How do I know that any of that is true? Well, I would know it was true if it was all recorded in a special source that was guaranteed to be 100% accurate. Many people do accept that the bible is such a source, so for them it works out. But if you start accepting that parts of the bible are false, well, now you just have all these outlandish stories in an ancient book that you have already accepted as being inaccurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    SuperNatendo said:

    I never said I question the validity of the entire bible. I am simply saying that not all of the passages in the bible are 100% inspired by God.
    It is difficult to know exactly the nature of your claim. Are you suggesting that entire stories in the Bible were written by people who were not inspired by God?

    Are you suggesting, for example, that the entire pentatuch attributed to Moses was not inspired by God? Are you suggesting the sections of the Pentatuch were written by some uninspired person other than Moses? Are you suggested that some of what Moses wrote was inspired, that Moses free lanced on some writing while being inspired on the rest? Or are you suggesting that people after Moses altered what he wrote to the extent that it no longer retains the meaning of the information originally written down?

    My feeling is that you are questioning whether what we have today accurately reflects what was written then. If so, you would do well to do some reading on how they authenticate ancient literature.

    Short course:

    Let us say you have a document for which the original long ago was lost or destroyed. If you have one copy of that document, it is difficult to know if it accurately reflects the orignal. But if you have several copies, the more the better, it becomes easier to determine what the original said, even if the recent copies do not agree in all details.

    Say you have 10 copies. Wherein they all agree, it is pretty well agreed that those parts accurately reflect the original. If seven or eight say one thing and the others are different, it is highly probable that the seven or eight accurately reflect the original.

    If you have documents from different periods of time and the newer ones disagree with the older ones, it is generally accepted that the older ones are more likely to reflect the original.

    Another factor is how close in time to the original are the copies. Thus if the extant document can be traced to within a few hundred years of the orignal, it is considered more reliable than documents which are a thousand or so years removed.

    The thing about the Bible is that there are thousands of copies of parts of the Bible from many time periods. For some sections of text there are hundreds of copies. Of the Old Testament, the Pentatuch is among the best documented.

    Are there discrepancies? Yes. Are there unsettled discrepancies? Yes. Are they important? Mostly, they are important only to those who wish to suggest that some insignificant meaningless discrepancy casts doubt upon the other huge percentage of the Bible about which there is no controversy.

    The Bible is the best documented and most reliable document from ancient days. This addresses only the accuracy of what we have today as compared to what was written. Factual and historical accuracy is a different school of study. (Well, Egyptian hieroglyphics carved in stone are reliably assumed to be what was written since they ARE the originals. duhhhhh.)
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Scifor said:

    Heh. It's ironic that you should pick this as an example of an unambiguous passage, because that very passage has been the subject of considerable controversy by theologians throughout the centuries. Does it mean that a person must worship Jesus and believe in him to achieve salvation? Or does it mean that Jesus' sacrifice has made the salvation of anyone possible, even if they have never heard of him? Or does it mean that Jesus' sacrifice causes everyone to be automatically saved? Protestants have interpreted it as a rejection of the catholic doctrine that priests are supposed to act as intermediates between god and the masses, while catholics of course disagree. What exactly is it supposed to mean? It's impossible to say with any certainty. All we know from this passage is that Jesus is somehow essential to people getting into heaven. But there is still a LOT of room for debate about what it specifically means.
    I have certainly heard and discussed these theological questions in the past. But to the best of my recollection, the verse in question, John 14:7, has never been a part of those discussions.

    Anything, no matter how simple can be questioned whether or not that question is logical. I'm sure, someplace, somehow, someone has raise some question about John 11:35 "Jesus wept."

    Your understanding of the verse, that Jesus is essential to people coming to the Father is accurate. The questions you raise are based on other practices and other verses which discuss those other topics; this one doesn't. I do not see how it even comes close to discussing the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice. Perhaps it could be used to counter the importance of the role of the Catholic Priest, but really, how many Catholic Priests were around when Jesus uttered those words? Obviously, these words were not spoken as anti Catholic Priest theology.

    It is easy to mis-link verses such as Math 27:5 which tells us that Judas went and hanged himself and link that with Luke 10:37 in which Jesus says, Go thou and do likewise.

    Scifor also said:

    The thing is, you are assuming a priori that the bible is correct/from god and have already decided that if anything doesn't jive with you it must automatically be because you don't understand it properly. I think SuperNatendo is trying to decide whether or not it really is all from god in the first place. So when he sees something that doesn't jive, he also considers the possibility that maybe it just wasn't really correct/from god.
    Well, even if that were accurate, how would it be any different from someone assuming a priori that the Bible is not correct and not from God and that the things they don't understand are proof of that? (Actually, a priori is probably not the correct term here, but I will go ahead and use it. I think pre-judge would be more accurate and appropriate.)

    I believe in my previous post, I said that I have found enough of the Bible to be accurate and reliable, that I am not deeply bothered by those things which I can't quite completely figure out. In the same way I have found that basic math and algebra and geometry are reliable enough that I am not deeply bothered by my lack of understanding of calculus or trigonometry but do trust that calculations done by those methods are as valid as those done by basic math, algebra and geometry.

    So the question here is, since the process has been basically the same, do I also have an a priori trust in higher math? If so, then your claim that my trust in the Bible is a priori has some legitimacy. I don't think either of these, fulfills the definition of a priori which is something you know only because it is true within itself -- like the whole is equal to the sum of the parts and is greater than any one of them. One could go out and "prove" that, but it would be a waste of time since no one really questions it.

    When it does come to the idea of pre-judging the Bible, who's to say that prejudgment against it is more valid than pre-judgment in favor of it?

    I think to disbelieve the Bible without understanding it is far more like prejudgment than understanding it and believing is like prejudgment.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I believe in my previous post, I said that I have found enough of the Bible to be accurate and reliable, that I am not deeply bothered by those things which I can't quite completely figure out. In the same way I have found that basic math and algebra and geometry are reliable enough that I am not deeply bothered by my lack of understanding of calculus or trigonometry but do trust that calculations done by those methods are as valid as those done by basic math, algebra and geometry.
    Specious reasoning at best.

    So, what sources have you used to amass your confirmations of accuracy and reliability for the bible? Funny how you appear to be the only person on earth with those resources. Pray tell?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    SuperNatendo said:

    I never said I question the validity of the entire bible. I am simply saying that not all of the passages in the bible are 100% inspired by God.
    It is difficult to know exactly the nature of your claim. Are you suggesting that entire stories in the Bible were written by people who were not inspired by God?

    Are you suggesting, for example, that the entire pentatuch attributed to Moses was not inspired by God? Are you suggesting the sections of the Pentatuch were written by some uninspired person other than Moses? Are you suggested that some of what Moses wrote was inspired, that Moses free lanced on some writing while being inspired on the rest? Or are you suggesting that people after Moses altered what he wrote to the extent that it no longer retains the meaning of the information originally written down?

    My feeling is that you are questioning whether what we have today accurately reflects what was written then. If so, you would do well to do some reading on how they authenticate ancient literature.

    Short course:

    Let us say you have a document for which the original long ago was lost or destroyed. If you have one copy of that document, it is difficult to know if it accurately reflects the orignal. But if you have several copies, the more the better, it becomes easier to determine what the original said, even if the recent copies do not agree in all details.

    Say you have 10 copies. Wherein they all agree, it is pretty well agreed that those parts accurately reflect the original. If seven or eight say one thing and the others are different, it is highly probable that the seven or eight accurately reflect the original.

    If you have documents from different periods of time and the newer ones disagree with the older ones, it is generally accepted that the older ones are more likely to reflect the original.

    Another factor is how close in time to the original are the copies. Thus if the extant document can be traced to within a few hundred years of the orignal, it is considered more reliable than documents which are a thousand or so years removed.

    The thing about the Bible is that there are thousands of copies of parts of the Bible from many time periods. For some sections of text there are hundreds of copies. Of the Old Testament, the Pentatuch is among the best documented.

    Are there discrepancies? Yes. Are there unsettled discrepancies? Yes. Are they important? Mostly, they are important only to those who wish to suggest that some insignificant meaningless discrepancy casts doubt upon the other huge percentage of the Bible about which there is no controversy.

    The Bible is the best documented and most reliable document from ancient days. This addresses only the accuracy of what we have today as compared to what was written. Factual and historical accuracy is a different school of study. (Well, Egyptian hieroglyphics carved in stone are reliably assumed to be what was written since they ARE the originals. duhhhhh.)
    I am leaning more to saying that a vast majority of modern day Chrisitan's have a misinterpretation that God is incapable of causing harm to humanity. When something goes wrong, they blame human nature or the devil. But in the Pentatuch, there is a totally different view of who God is.

    The only book in the New Testament that shows a similar side of God to the God of the Old Testament is Revelations, if you discount the anger Jesus showed the merchants in the temple.

    Also, modern Christians intentionally ignore discrepancies because they are afraid of discounting any part of the bible. This shows me they HAVE to believe it even if they begin to question parts of it. What they call "Bible Study" is not a full study of the Bible, but only of what they want to make sense of. They come up only with theories that fir their beliefs, sometimes taking passages out of context.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Well, even if that were accurate, how would it be any different from someone assuming a priori that the Bible is not correct and not from God and that the things they don't understand are proof of that?
    Assuming a priori that the bible was wrong would also be bad. One should decide if the bible is true or not by looking at its claims, how plausible they are, and how well-supported they are by evidence. Are the claims in the bible plausible? Is there corroborating historical or physical evidence? Do they make sense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Scifor said:

    Assuming a priori that the bible was wrong would also be bad. One should decide if the bible is true or not by looking at its claims, how plausible they are, and how well-supported they are by evidence. Are the claims in the bible plausible? Is there corroborating historical or physical evidence? Do they make sense?
    This sort of dove tails into (Q)'s earlier question which was:

    So, what sources have you used to amass your confirmations of accuracy and reliability for the bible? Funny how you appear to be the only person on earth with those resources. Pray tell?

    Actually, it's basically the things Scifor alluded to. These are some (not all) of the things I think attest to the reliability of the Bible:

    1. The amazing accuracy of the most recent texts when compared to the earliest texts, indicating the high probability that we have access to what was originally written.

    2. The historicity: Literature scholars have developed several tests for the reliability and accuracy of ancient literature which can also be applied to Scripture. The two can then be compared as to results. Based on such comparisons it is generally agreed that if one is honest and uses the same tests, the Bible must be considered equal to or superior to other classic literature. I outlined some of those tests in a previous post.

    3. Confirmation by archeology: This is one of the strongest supports for the accuracy and reliabilty of the Bible. Time and again archeological digs have debunked criticism and confirmed Bible information.

    4. Prophetic fulfillments both in history but especially relating to Messiah.

    5. The unique character of the Christian experience as compared to other religions coupled with the similarity of the experience as shared among Christians.

    Generally, it is a matter of fairly and honestly subjecting Scripture to the same standards that are applied to other examples of ancient classical literature.

    There are a number of books and writers who discuss these issues in depth and far better than I can do here. It is unfortunate that (Q) is so undereducated in this area that he thinks I am the only one privvy to this information.

    One chapter on this topic in Josh McDowell's first release of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" (1973) has a bibliography of 97 publications. So it is totally ludcrous and infinitely stupid of (Q) to claim that I am the only person on earth with access to these resources.

    There is absolutely no book on earth for which there is more extraneous literature available than the Bible.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    SuperNatendo said:

    modern Christians intentionally ignore discrepancies
    I'm not sure that we ignore discrepancies at all -- at least those which actually do exist and are agreed to be discrepancies by both Bible scholars and secular scholars.

    Just because someone comes along and claims something is a discrepancy, does not mean it is a discrepancy.

    My experience is that evolution enthusiasts are equally adept at ignoring those things which skeptics claim are discrepancies.

    The test is whether the discrepancy significantly alters the meaning. In one place David is credited with offing 1,000 enemies; in another place he is credited with offing 10,000. This is an obvious discrepancy brought about by the misplacement of a zero. The count is significant only to those who want to say, "Aha! Therefore the whole Bible is a pack of lies." If that is the criteria of judgment, there is no literature which can withstand that test. No histrionic literature could be trusted.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Day -

    You realize that einstein was an athiest. He believed that god was equal to physics and our physical universe is equal to god.

    He was not religious at all. So don't take his quote as a literal sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Verzen,

    Well, you atheists would like to include him among your number, but that is as wrong as the religous attempting to include him in their number.

    Trying to characterize his beliefs or lack thereof is an exercise in futility. If you think he was an atheist, you are as foolish as those who claim he was religious.

    You have been reading too much Dawkins.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    No, he actually stated that he was not religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    I can make that claim, too. I do not consider myself so much "religious," but rather consider myself spiritually alive. One need not be "religious" to believe there is a supernatural essense. I have seen several posters here claim to be believers, but not religious. Einstein seemed to believe there was something beyond human intellect. What that was remains something of a mystery. He was not a Christian or a Jew, but then again, the man who penned the words, "that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. . ." was neither Christian nor Jew either.

    I cannot put myself in that class, but consider myself someone who has experienced God's touch to the extent that I believe Jesus is Messiah and that His life, death and resurrection is God's proof of life after death. I do not fully subscribe to any particular set of organized religious practices or any specific statements of creeds or tenets. I tend to believe that Calvinism more accurately explains the Bible's process of salvation, but does not adequately explain man's intellectual participation.

    I have never claimed that Einstein was a religious person. I think to do so is as much of a misreprentation of his position as to claim he was an atheist.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Day, I am no atheist, I am a Deist. I believe in one supreme creator of the Universe, But I do not agree that the modern day Christians follow the one true God and the rest of the Deists or Fideists do not.

    This is where I break from my upbringings. I do agree with the theory of evolution as there are many examples that point to its validity. I do not believe the theory is perfected, nor will it ever be as it requires an extensive fossil record that may or may not be possible to fully document.

    I do not believe Einstein was an atheist, but whether he was or not is unimportant. My point is, you can accept that God is real without believing the Bible as it is 100% of the time.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    No, he actually stated that he was not religious.
    I think you are mistaken. I believe he stated that pure scientists were amongst the most truly religious people on the planet, more religious than those following conventional religion. I shall try to source the quotation.

    Regardless of what he said about himself he was, on the basis of his comments, very religious - he just didn't believe in a personal God. Agnostics and atheists do their arguments a disservice by conflating religion with orthodox religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    Makes sense when you think about it really, what better way to study the mind of God than learning all you can about what he has created?

    Purely scientific people are looking at something that was and is 100% created by God, whereas people studying the bible are studying something written in the hands of man, scientists study things "written" by the hand of God.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    If you think he was an atheist, you are as foolish as those who claim he was religious.

    You have been reading too much Dawkins.
    No one really "believes" Einstein was an atheist, everyone knows he was an atheist because he stated so himself.

    You may continue to believe he wasn't an atheist, but that is no different than your other faith-based fantasies.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
    I never said I question the validity of the entire bible. I am simply saying that not all of the passages in the bible are 100% inspired by God.
    The problam (for christians) is that once you accept that the bible is not 100% correct and from god it immediately becomes impossible to sort out which parts of it really are from god and which parts were made up. There's no historical evidence to support the vast majority of it, and a lot of it is wildly fantastical - talking plants, all the world's animals crammed together into a boat for weeks, people rising from the dead, people conjuring things out of thin air, etc. How do I know that any of that is true? Well, I would know it was true if it was all recorded in a special source that was guaranteed to be 100% accurate. Many people do accept that the bible is such a source, so for them it works out. But if you start accepting that parts of the bible are false, well, now you just have all these outlandish stories in an ancient book that you have already accepted as being inaccurate.
    I think you are turning the concept around. The problem is for non-christians, to understand the Word of God, as totally (100%) being inspired by God to man, through visions, angelic messengers, prophetic inspiration, and face to vailed face, and or the voice of God.

    The Christian, belives the Word, by faith.
    A man born into/of a Christian family, is not a Christian, until he is born again, of the Holy Spirit, of which Jesus said, would guide us unto all things, and comfort us. Then in faith, love and hope the Christian belives God and the Word.
    The Jews belives as God's choosen people, and keepers of the Holy Scripture scrolls, the Laws, Prophets, Psalms and Writings, is the Word of God, that every jot and tiddle, every stroke of the scribes pen is Holy, even the space between the words is Holy!

    The first Christians, the Apostles that Jesus chose, were all sons of Abraham, sons of God. They were also a Jewish sect, all Jews taught by Jesus for 3 1/2 years, being part of God's plan from before the Creation of the World. Christ Jesus followed God's Word, everything said of Him, in the Law, Prophets and Psalms, would be accomplished, ( It was God's Plan, for the removal of mans sins) it was also a time appointed by God. The disciples of Jesus, did not fully understand why Jesus as the "Lamb of God" had to die on the cross, His Blood washing aways the sins of the world, His death and resurrection, three nights and three days later, as Savior and King of mankind, according to God's Word, for all that belive.
    His disciples fled, hidden in an upper room, when Jesus appeared to them, and they touched His wounds, and their eyes were opened and they understood His teachings. And gave Jesus food to eat and drink. Jesus instructed them forty days longer, and then left them as He arose in the clouds, and by a renewed Faith, preached the Good News, (the Gospel of God) at first only to the Jews, and then also to the Gentiles. It was in Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) the disciples were first called Christians.
    (see also; Acts 26:28, I Pet. 4:16)

    For some forty years the Apostles, and disciples spread the Gospel message, to Jews and Gentiles, on missionary journeys to known countries of the Mediterranean Sea, and as far away as the SW coast of Briton, land of the Celts and Tin mines. As early as 43 A.D. eleven disciples were teaching the Gospel to the Celts, and with the funding of a rich merchant, the first Christian Church, built of stone in the land of the Brits and Celts, in a place now called Glastonbury.

    In the N.T. the missionary journeys of Paul, after his third and return to Jerusalem, he was arrested, taken to the Sanhedrin, falsely accused in a series of government trials, and he appealed to Caesar, and sent to Rome, c. 60 A.D. and was under house arrest two years. Closeing the book of Acts, the following N.T. book are his letters to the Churches. After a trial before Nero, he is set free, sails to Spain, churches are formed after hearing the Gospel, he sails to Ephesus to visit the Christians there, only to be charged again, by offended Jews, he is rearrested and sent to Rome a second time, thrown in prision to await trial, by the summer of 67 or 68, he suffered martyrdom by decapitation.
    So why? what happened? Once before the Jews being in an uproar at his teachings, they were expelled from Rome, the same fate happened to the Jews in Spain, going to Rome the Jews influenced pagan Nero, some of these Jews were Cabalist philosophers of political intrigue, they even held sway with the future Roman rulers and popes.

    More so after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. and persecution of Christians increased, except for the Christianized Pagans of Rome, that were the bishops of Rome, growing in power the next two hundred years, where even the Ruler and Head of the Church, Constantine I, moved his seat of power to Istanbul,(Constantinople) to the Greek Church, because of the ploting and intrigue of Roman bishops.
    These same Roman bishops called themselves fathers of the Church, the same Popes, that plotted against the Greek bishops and Churches, i.e. Polycarp. It was Polycarp as a young child, (c.67 or 68), when he first heard the Gospel, and later studied under the Apostle John.

    When John was at Ephesus, when under persecution he fled to Patmos, and wrote Revelations, the warnings to the seven (Greek) Churches of Asia Minor, (about the wickness of Rome) and things to come. It was John that instructed Polycarp, how the Apostles observed the Passover Week,
    (the death of Jesus as a Fast, and the Resurrection as a Feast), as opposed to the Jewish Feast Week.

    And the fact they followed the Jewish calendar, Holy Days and feasts and years. Where when Polycarp, as a 80 year old bishop of the church in Smyrna, refused the dogma of Rome's 10th bishop, Anicetus. To change the day date, of observering Easter, as Rome decreed, and faced martyrdom.
    And later, Rome's 13th bishop, pope Victor I, threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Church bishops, for observing Easter on the 14th of Nissan. And Polycreates, bishop of Ephesus, was martyred 40 years after Polycarp. And the popes of Rome grew in power, with dogma if not followed, being the penalty of excommunication, death or both.

    In Jewish history, during the time of the Maccabees, being oppressed under Greek rule, the Jews sent Ambassador's to the Roman Emperor, and formed an aliance with Rome. In war with the Greeks, the Greek empire, became the Roman empire, and Jewish ambassadors, in the background of Roman government, grew in influence with the sane Caeser's, but by the time of Caligula, Nero, Vaspasian, and Titus, the wise shrewd Jews were dealing with insane rulers.

    And I think it was this same Jewish influence in and with the popes and ruler of Rome, seeing how fast Christianity and the Gospel spread in the first decade of Christ's Apostles.
    It became apparent that Judaism and the rule of Caeser were in jeopardy. Where even members of the Sanhedrin, were becoming Christians, namely Joseph of Arimathea, and his bringing eleven Apostles of Christ, to the lands of the Celts, in Briton in 43 A.D. And the building of a Stone Church there. This was the only motive of Emperor Claudius sending a large army to southern Britain, in 46 A.D. Where Julius Caesar had been there twice before, without setting-up a colony. (in 55 and 54 B.C.) And yet he knew there was a great many tribes of people there.
    Claudius was aware of this too, his empire would not servive, an army of Christinized pagan Celt warriors. For over thirty years, they fought the Celts northward, being stopped by the Scots, but they still romanized Britain.

    And yet could not quell Celtic Christianity. The Quakers, the Puritan's, and men like, Thomas Cranmer, Waldo, John Wyclif, John Huss, John Knox, Savonarola, and Luther. And later Zwingli, John Calvin.

    The Roman church takes pride in being the Vicar of Christ, with Jesuit henchmen, in the City of God. That was the Biblical Problem the Revelation to John addressed, it has been a Christian Problem all along. They have been in God's sight all along also. That frees me of Biblical problems, in my Christian freedom, I know the Bible is 100% Inspired by God. The only way to know it also, is to read the whole Bible, not just a Chapter or two, when you don't understand or dislike the passage being read. Now, that is truly a Biblical Problem!

    8)
    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    i don't mind contridictory parts of the bible because its not a single book and it is just writen by people afterall, over 1000 years and many languages and translations all and all its still a great collection of books for a young historian
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    i don't mind contridictory parts of the bible because its not a single book and it is just writen by people afterall, over 1000 years and many languages and translations all and all its still a great collection of books for a young historian
    No one expects you to understand the Bible, it takes more knowledge for the biblical scholar, to understand what is written, than a student searching for historical facts.

    You see, the biblical scholar has already mastered, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, he looks apon the inspired Word of God, with reverence and the belief that the Holy Spirit guides the man of faith, to all revelation from God.
    As He instructed men to write, for benefit of future generations of belivers, seeking God Almighty, and His Plan for mankind.

    You see, If you seek Him, with all your heart, with all your soul, you will find Him.
    No man draws near to God, except by the power of the Holy Spirit calling men to Him.

    The true historical fact is God told Moses to write, over 3400 years ago. And after Moses, God told Joshua to write. And God spoke to the Prophets, and they wrote too. And God sent messengers, the angel Gabriel to Daniel and he wrote also.

    And if an angel called Gabriel gave you a message, would you write it down, would you belive it was a message from God Almighty?
    And after all that, would anyone belive you? If not you'd just be history !!!

    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'm surprised God is so obtuse in his approach. If he truly wanted people to believe he would have either offered clearer communications, or made us less sceptical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,116
    Ophi:

    I really have to chuckle at your last post. When will non-Christians get off this kick of, "If God really, truly existed, he would be exactly like I think he should be?" The implication is that since God does not meet their idea of what He should be like, they are justified in their disbelief.

    In contast, believers, rather than thinking God should conform to our image of Him, we try to conform to what we think is His image of us.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    In contast, believers, rather than thinking God should conform to our image of Him,
    That might have been a good point, but think about it: In what way is the image of God Christians cling to not the way they think he should be? Every aspect of God that I have ever seen is distinctly human, in that it conforms to everything we would have ascribed to a God if we had invented Him. Don't you think?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    What i want to know is, why did he give me a penis and nipples? :?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    What i want to know is, why did he give me a penis and nipples? :?

    So you wouldn't be confused about being a fish or not! While still giving you time to decide if you evolved from the first man, or the Chimpanzee.
    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Well a male chimpanzee also has nipples, as does all/most male mammals. This leads me to believe that the idea, from the bible, that we were created in gods image, is not entirely accurate.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Well a male chimpanzee also has nipples, as does all/most male mammals. This leads me to believe that the idea, from the bible, that we were created in gods image, is not entirely accurate.
    O'Doh!
    Thats right God made man in his image ! He also made all the animals, using the same chain of DNA, in different configuations to make everything. 8)
    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, but I'm going to presume the latter.

    --------------------

    Why oh why does god need nipples?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious, but I'm going to presume the latter.

    --------------------

    Why oh why does god need nipples?

    Ok ! I prayed really hard and long on this, and this is the reply I received for this question.

    Long

    Long

    Long Time ago,

    before the Creation of Earth

    Far

    Far

    Far away in the deepest reaches,

    of the firmerment of Heaven

    God, being alone, wanted fellowship in Heaven, and

    created the first heavenly being, without mother. With

    foreknowledge God created nipples for himself, and created

    the first angelic being, from the dust of the Heavens and God saw that this was good, and He nursed his creation, His little angelic being grew, and grew. But was without angelic playmates, God created more and more angelic being over the eons of Heaven. And fellowship in Heaven, was heavenly, and became great in loving Angelic beings. And that is why angels don't have bellybuttons. Anyway, God thought of creating Earth, and a new being called Man, with nipples and a bellybutton.............. and it was so!


    See, you should of prayed about it !

    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Prayed about it!!!! I've been praying all my life for England to win the world or European cup, and in my life time we've won F A. This year we haven't even qualified. So it's becoming increasingly obvious to me that either praying doesn't work, or God is a German fan.

    ------------------------

    Your explanation doesn't make much sense though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but i thought that god created man and then created all the other living creatures to help him in the garden of Eden. Once it was found that there was not a helper fit for him, God put Adam to sleep and nicked one of his ribs, and then made Eve.

    If God gave himself nipples before he created the earth, why was the creation of Eve an after thought?
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I'm surprised God is so obtuse in his approach. If he truly wanted people to believe he would have either offered clearer communications, or made us less sceptical.
    Maybe He doesn't want us to believe in Him, maybe thats a human notions. I wonder if anyone has actually ever questioned that?

    Also, there's probably a giant karaoke machine somewhere.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman GhostoftheFallen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Somewhere forgotten by all and lost to all who seek it.
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I'm surprised God is so obtuse in his approach. If he truly wanted people to believe he would have either offered clearer communications, or made us less sceptical.
    Christianity is based on a large part on faith. It is easy to have faith and believe in something that you can see easily, it is quite different to believe in something not so easy to see. If we could see God, then faith wouldn't be that important. Or that how I see it.
    Judge a person not by what they have but by what they have done with what they have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostoftheFallen
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I'm surprised God is so obtuse in his approach. If he truly wanted people to believe he would have either offered clearer communications, or made us less sceptical.
    Christianity is based on a large part on faith. It is easy to have faith and believe in something that you can see easily, it is quite different to believe in something not so easy to see. If we could see God, then faith wouldn't be that important. Or that how I see it.
    P'raps - but then what about Doubting Thomas, quo vadis domine, the Road to Damascus and so on? A bit contradictory no, at least the Christian version of religion and the emphasis on faith?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •