# Bible Verse Thread -- Everyone can play . . .



## Asath (Feb 8, 2012)

I've read a little bit about that God fella . . . So let's take a look at his record . . . 

THIS is God--

Genesis:
God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans, in a convincingly premeditated fashion, to drown them all:

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
  ( Here, God decides to kill all living things because the human imagination is evil.  Later (8:21) after     he kills everything, he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil.  Um? )  
6:6   And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.       ("It repented the Lord that he had made man."   Does God repent?  Is that possible inside of theology?  Can God make a bad decision?  It seems so, and he thought creating man was one of those bad ideas.)  
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Darn.  And this is only Chapter One.  Seems like God is having second thoughts . . .   But . . . hey . . . wait a minute . . . how can God have failed to anticipate that his creation might be less than he had in mind?    “Darn it.  Missed again.  (Heavy Sigh)  Guess I’ll kill them all, and try it again . . .”   This is not encouraging, for those who might want to see God as infallible.  Clearly God didn’t have that high of an opinion of Himself, nor of His creation, here in the Beginning.  But then, looking around, if I was responsible for this mess, I’d be having a bit of Creator’s Remorse myself . . . 

Exodus:
God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. Luckily for Moses, his Egyptian wife Zipporah jumped in, but she was hardly happy about it: 

4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.    
4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.   
4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

Wow.  I’m guessing that she was a bit upset.  But heck, you either cut off a bit of the boy’s privates, or God will be even more upset, and he might have killed her too.   Good thing she had her wits about her, and a sharp stone handy.  No wonder God ended up mad at the Egyptians . . . clever little private parts mutilators they ended up being, and thwarting His plan to kill Moses just like that . . . (But, just to say, has anyone noticed the dichotomy between the use of the word ‘God,’ and the use of the word ‘LORD?’)  I mean, this is still the Old Testament, after all.

More Exodus:
God sends plagues so that people can get to know him better.  Who else but God could be so cruel?:  

9:14 For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.    
9:15 For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth.  
9:16 And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Um?  I mean, geez.  Even the Mafia is a bit more subtle than that.  Going around smiting everyone with plagues and pestilence is one lousy way of gaining respect . . . and that bit about stretching out His hand?   God has hands?    Darn.  Who knew? 

And yet More Exodus:
The mass murder of innocent children by God (see 12:29-30) was similarly premeditated.  God was pretty bigoted against the Egyptians, it seems:  

11:4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:   
11:5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.  
11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.  
11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Well . . . I guess.   Probably the LORD just decided that He didn’t like those pesky Egyptians that he had created in His infinite wisdom and mercy . . .  Fickle sort of a fella, huh?  I bet it had something to do with that brat Zipporah, back earlier in Exodus.  But still, the folks in Israel weren’t going to take any chances, so they kept up that private parts slicing bit, just to be safe . . .  But still . . . the firstborn of the  beasts too?  That just seems a little vindictive.  I’m not even sure that the beasts all had foreskins to begin with . . . And they certainly didn’t know how to use sharp stones just to keep this God fella happy . . . And this after the first mass murder back in Genesis . . . God is sort of portrayed as something of a recidivist where wiping folks out is concerned.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 9, 2012)

If anyone is standing next to Asath right now, you might want to move a considerable distance away.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 9, 2012)

Ted, I moved over a step or five...lol.

I wrote a long drawn out post about that, but deleted it. 

Americans have done just about as bad as God has then...ie Native Americans, buffalo, deer, etc.....nobody around here kills anything/anyone do they?


----------



## Asath (Feb 9, 2012)

Sir, if it is fair to quote Bible verse at us, in this forum, it is certainly fair to quote it back.  

My analysis may be open to anyone’s interpretation, but the verse is verbatim, and cannot be denied.

I will walk this thread through the entire Book, Chapter and Verse, and ask that each and every Word find both a resolution, internally, and a justifiable defense, externally.  There is nothing offensive nor unfair to a believer to ask them to view their own Book, as written.

If they have not previously done so, then that is their own look out . . .


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sir, if it is fair to quote Bible verse at us, in this forum, it is certainly fair to quote it back.
> 
> My analysis may be open to anyone’s interpretation, but the verse is verbatim, and cannot be denied.
> 
> ...



Relax Asath, it was just a joke!

BTW, What is about you nons and calling me sir?

Wait a second, are you Diogenes come back from the Banned?


----------



## Asath (Feb 9, 2012)

I use the address ‘Sir,’ as I was taught by my military upbringing, to convey my respect both for my peers and for my superiors.  By this form of address, hopefully, it is understood that there is no animosity meant nor intended.  Honest disagreements are why we are here, and speaking, and I see no reason why those disagreements need become disrespectful.  Calling us ‘you nons,’ on the other hand, seems both disrespectful and dismissive, and may cause me to reconsider.


----------



## Asath (Feb 9, 2012)

The invitation stands – Bring us your favorite Bible verses, no need to follow my lead and read the Book in order, and either add your question to that verse or add your scholarly and enlightened confirmation of it – everyone can play here.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ted, I moved over a step or five...lol.
> 
> I wrote a long drawn out post about that, but deleted it.
> 
> Americans have done just about as bad as God has then...ie Native Americans, buffalo, deer, etc.....nobody around here kills anything/anyone do they?



Convenient for God to be lumped WITH us humans when necessary.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> The invitation stands – Bring us your favorite Bible verses, no need to follow my lead and read the Book in order, and either add your question to that verse or add your scholarly and enlightened confirmation of it – everyone can play here.



Ok.  You asked for a resolution.  You have to read along a little farther in the "book" to get to that.  It is found in the gospels, and God is then described (for all future generations) much differently for those who exist under grace (you and me):  

1 John 4:7-8
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love

What is love?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails......

So, to get the conclusion, you have to keep reading.

God in the OT is written about with fear.  We don't know much about who wrote it, and why they wrote it.  But we know that it lead to the conclusion in the NT, where we have the "final word" on the nature of God.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> God in the OT is written about with fear.  We don't know much about who wrote it, and why they wrote it.  But we know that it lead to the conclusion in the NT, where we have the "final word" on the nature of God.



We know exactly WHY they wrote it. GOD commanded them to and inspired them to. He either did or did not. Which is it?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

I'd like to establish some sort of baseline rules that the believers go by and we can stick to when discussing the Bible,verses,passages and God. Following the criteria set by the Church, or Early Church or Councils seems to get overlooked when it falls apart and I just want some sort of consistent stance to use as a baseline for discussion.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> We know exactly WHY they wrote it. GOD commanded them to and inspired them to. He either did or did not. Which is it?



I'm not the one to ask that question.  My answers will not line up with the "correct" answers, and I will get PM's telling me I did not do the "right thing" in the AAA.

There are many different books in the OT.  Some are history, some are poetry, some are prophesy.  Each has a purpose and a reason for being there.  But, the original author in a few is debateable.  Take the book of Esther, it is not really about God, but about standing up for what is right in the face of adversity.  It is a "moral" story.  So, the "why" is also debateable.

"Inspired" is key to your question.  What does it imply?  Some say "God wrote it."  Other's will think it means God is the central character or reason for the writing.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'd like to establish some sort of baseline rules that the believers go by and we can stick to when discussing the Bible,verses,passages and God. Following the criteria set by the Church, or Early Church or Councils seems to get overlooked when it falls apart and I just want some sort of consistent stance to use as a baseline for discussion.



You can't get that because everybody has a different perspective.

The only baseline you really need when discussing scripture is an assumption that God exists.  Without that, it is useless.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I'm not the one to ask that question.  My answers will not line up with the "correct" answers, and I will get PM's telling me I did not do the "right thing" in the AAA.
> 
> There are many different books in the OT.  Some are history, some are poetry, some are prophesy.  Each has a purpose and a reason for being there.  But, the original author in a few is debateable.  Take the book of Esther, it is not really about God, but about standing up for what is right in the face of adversity.  It is a "moral" story.  So, the "why" is also debateable.
> 
> "Inspired" is key to your question.  What does it imply?  Some say "God wrote it."  Other's will think it means God is the central character or reason for the writing.



Then we must set a baseline as to what qualified these writing to be included into the Bible. Are they Gods word and if so, how can they be mis-translated, errant, contradictory, and so on?

Lets establish what makes them Bible worthy in the first place and lets see if they hold up to their own set of rules.

Off to work....see you all later...


----------



## Nitram4891 (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The only baseline you really need when discussing scripture is an assumption that God exists.  Without that, it is useless.



Therefore, why is every other post in the Atheist forum a bible verse?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> Therefore, why is every other post in the Atheist forum a bible verse?



If you read this thread, an atheist is asking "everybody" to discuss scripture.  Apparently Bible verses are a hot topic here.


----------



## Nitram4891 (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> If you read this thread, an atheist is asking "everybody" to discuss scripture.  Apparently Bible verses are a hot topic here.



I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about this sub forum as stated in my post.  Obviously, this thread is about bible verses.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about this sub forum as stated in my post.  Obviously, this thread is about bible verses.



Not sure.  Seems to me the atheists know the Bible pretty good, and like to use it to prove their point just as much as we like to use it to prove ours.....we just approach it from opposite perspectives.  This thread is a great example.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> Therefore, why is every other post in the Atheist forum a bible verse?



What about the third "A" in this sub-forum?


----------



## Nitram4891 (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What about the third "A" in this sub-forum?



I must admit I don't understand why they are lumped in with Agnostics and Atheists.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> I must admit I don't understand why they are lumped in with Agnostics and Atheists.



Probably so us Christians can get away with causing trouble.......


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> I must admit I don't understand why they are lumped in with Agnostics and Atheists.



The third "A" allows interaction between believers and unbelievers.  IMO, without that third "A", the number of posts in this forum would be (at least) cut in half.


----------



## Four (Feb 9, 2012)

Hmm sounds like god wasn't pro choice or pro life, but didn't have problems with priest administered abortions....

Numbers 5:11-31
New International Version (NIV)
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

 11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
 16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse* among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

   “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

 23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

 29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”*


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> You can't get that because everybody has a different perspective.
> 
> The only baseline you really need when discussing scripture is an assumption that God exists.  Without that, it is useless.



In the Encyclopaedic Dictionary, we find this definition for "Inspiration of Scripture":

"The supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit whereby the writers of the books of the Bible were supernaturally moved to write what God wished to be written. Thus, God is the principal author of the Bible. Because of this divine influence on the writers, they were unable to write anything except what God had predetermined would be written. Therefore, there are no errors in the divine revelations."


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

At the Council of Trent, the Church declared "she receives, 'All the books of the Testaments, Old and New, since the one God is the Author of both.'" At the first Vatican Council, "The Church holds those books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error; but because having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their Author."


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

Can any of those be agreed upon to be the baseline?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Probably so us Christians can get away with causing trouble.......


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> I must admit I don't understand why they are lumped in with Agnostics and Atheists.



The whole point of apologetics is to give a defense of the faith of a particular person, mostly Christian in this area of the world. Kinda pointless to put apologists in any other forum.


----------



## Nitram4891 (Feb 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Probably so us Christians can get away with causing trouble.......


----------



## Nitram4891 (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> The whole point of apologetics is to give a defense of the faith of a particular person, mostly Christian in this area of the world. Kinda pointless to put apologists in any other forum.



So apologetics are here to defend their faith?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> I've read a little bit about that God fella . . . So let's take a look at his record . . .
> 
> THIS is God--
> 
> ...



Let's not forget that God hardened Pharaohs heart and then punished Pharaoh for not letting the people go!!


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

Nitram4891 said:


> So apologetics are here to defend their faith?



Well, yes, that is the definition of apologetics. I am here to defend my faith and also try to give reasonable evidence for it.

I also like to ask questions,learn, and just have good conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

Now that we have the definition of apologetics out of the way lets get into these verses!


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

Where do any of you get your point of reference when pointing out "immoral" acts of God?

If you say God is wrong to have killed someone, and another say He is right to have killed that person how do we go about finding out who is right?

When and if you say certian people should not have died, aren't you also giving ultimate purpose for that person? Where does this ultimate purpose come from?


----------



## pnome (Feb 9, 2012)

I think I like all of John 8 the best.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

pnome said:


> I think I like all of John 8 the best.



My favorite story in the Bible, and the one that "brought me back."


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Now that we have the definition of apologetics out of the way lets get into these verses!



I already tried a while back, it was largely overlooked.  But, you are trying to use the OT independent of the entire body of work.  

My point is that you are viewing God through the lense of ancient writings.  There are many, many different perspectives on how the OT is to be viewed.  I will dig into any of these stories with you if you will concede that none of them are finished until the NT.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

Ancient writings?? Shouldn't the predestined words of God transcend time? Shouldn't ancient bronze age people be able to convey Gods exact words with God's hand guiding them. THAT is why I want to establish a baseline. If these are God's words then we cannot make excuses why they are not godlike.
I think we should start at the beginning and work our way through. Personally I don't think the NT has anything to do with the OT in the sense that the NT was written so long after the OT that the writers tweaked the stories to fit in with the OT. The same thing if a bunch of anonymous writings dated back to the 1970's are suddenly found that tells the tales of Jesus since he ascended to heaven. Once you know the base it is easy to write stories that fit in with what is "supposed" to happen. OT tells of prophesy and sets out guidelines and the NT tries but fails to make Jesus fit that prophesy. Again why reading the Bible was why I can use it to debunk itself.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Ancient writings?? Shouldn't the predestined words of God transcend time? Shouldn't ancient bronze age people be able to convey Gods exact words with God's hand guiding them. THAT is why I want to establish a baseline. If these are God's words then we cannot make excuses why they are not godlike.
> I think we should start at the beginning and work our way through. Personally I don't think the NT has anything to do with the OT in the sense that the NT was written so long after the OT that the writers tweaked the stories to fit in with the OT.


Ok, they tweaked the stories... gotcha.


> Once you know the base it is easy to write stories that fit in with what is "supposed" to happen.


Ok, they tweaked the stories and it was easy.... gotcha.


> OT tells of prophesy and sets out guidelines and the NT tries but fails to make Jesus fit that prophesy.


Tries but fails? But I thought they had the stories to tweak to their liking and it was easy to do? If it was so easy, why would they fail?



> Again why reading the Bible *the way I want to and making it say what I want it to say, which by the way, is what I accuse Christians of doing all the time* was why I can use it to debunk itself.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, they tweaked the stories... gotcha.
> 
> Ok, they tweaked the stories and it was easy.... gotcha.
> 
> Tries but fails? But I thought they had the stories to tweak to their liking and it was easy to do? If it was so easy, why would they fail?



String, instead of rolling eyes,what was the criteria set forth in the OT/Torah for the messiah?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

Let me know if you need help.


----------



## Four (Feb 9, 2012)

A favorate for the women that come door to door.

1 Timothy 12

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, instead of rolling eyes,what was the criteria set forth in the OT/Torah for the messiah?



Not even a couple emoticons to fill in the dead space?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> String, instead of rolling eyes,what was the criteria set forth in the OT/Torah for the messiah?



You want me to quote the entire old testament? It's filled with prophesy of Jesus, pretty much the point of the OT.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Not even a couple emoticons to fill in the dead space?



How about you answer the question I asked.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You want me to quote the entire old testament? It's filled with prophesy of Jesus, pretty much the point of the OT.



Nope and Nope.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How about you answer the question I asked.



Why would they fail question????? Because they did not do a good job, Because none of it was divine, Because no God had anything to do with it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You want me to quote the entire old testament? It's filled with prophesy of Jesus, pretty much the point of the OT.



So if even one of those went unfulfilled would that make the claim null?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Why would they fail question????? Because they did not do a good job, Because none of it was divine, Because no God had anything to do with it.



So it wasn't easy? I don't understand.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So if even one of those went unfulfilled would that make the claim null?



Nope.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So it wasn't easy? I don't understand.



Neither do I


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Nope.



Please explain


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So if even one of those went unfulfilled would that make the claim null?



If only one of the prophecies came true would you then believe?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Neither do I



That sure was a long and thoughtful post not to understand, if you don't understand, I would suggest not making those kinds of post anymore.


----------



## Four (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If only one of the prophecies came true would you then believe?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If only one of the prophecies came true would you then believe?



No but I don't make the rules.

Certain things are supposed to happen in order for prophesy to be fulfilled. If they are not then it cannot be fulfilled.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please explain



Explain what? That not all the prophecy has come to be yet? I don't have an answer for you there, you would have to ask the God you don't believe in when they will take place.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That sure was a long and thoughtful post not to understand, if you don't understand, I would suggest not making those kinds of post anymore.



You missed the point String. I honestly think they could have done better. They just didn't. If what they wrote is not "better" because it is the truth, then Jesus definitely is not the messiah. Many things do not meet the prophesy.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No but I don't make the rules.
> 
> Certain things are supposed to happen in order for prophesy to be fulfilled. If they are not then it cannot be fulfilled.



What is this really going to come down to? You giving your examples of what you think are prophecy not coming true and then me giving examples of what I see as a lot of them coming true?

Or, do you think Jesus didn't fill even one prophecy?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Explain what? That not all the prophecy has come to be yet? I don't have an answer for you there, you would have to ask the God you don't believe in when they will take place.



No not yet?? like the typical Christian line of thought that the prophesy is still in the works??? Well that wouldn't make a messiah until it was fulfilled either.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

Four said:


>



What peers would review the prophecies?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What is this really going to come down to? You giving your examples of what you think are prophecy not coming true and then me giving examples of what I see as a lot of them coming true?
> 
> Or, do you think Jesus didn't fill even one prophecy?



I don't have an opinion on what I think did not come true. There is what did come true and what did not come true. There is what was supposed to come true in order to be the messiah. That is it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No not yet?? like the typical Christian line of thought that the* prophesy *is still in the works??? Well that wouldn't make a messiah until it was fulfilled either.



Bullet, there's more than one prophecy about Jesus. I'm not sure what your talking about?

Here are some...

•The Messiah Will Be Born In Bethlehem
•The Messiah Will Be Born Of A Virgin 
•The Messiah Will Be A Prophet Like Moses 
•The Messiah Will Be Tempted By Satan 
•The Messiah Will Enter Jerusalem Triumphantly 
•The Messiah Will Be Rejected By His Own People
•The Messiah Will Be Betrayed By One Of His Followers 
•The Messiah Will Be Betrayed For 30 Pieces Of Silver
•The Messiah Will Be Tried And Condemned
•The Messiah Will Be Silent Before His Accusers
•The Messiah Will Be Smitten And Spat Upon
 •The Messiah Will Be Mocked And Taunted
•The Messiah To Die By Crucifixion, With Pierced Hands & Feet
•The Messiah Will Suffer With Sinners
•The Messiah’s Garments Will Be Divided By Casting Lots
•The Messiah’s Bones Will Not Be Broken
•The Messiah Will Die As A Sin Offering
•The Messiah Will See His Seed
•The Messiah Will Be Buried In A Rich Man’s Tomb
•The Messiah Will Be Raised From The Dead
•The Messiah Will Sit At God’s Right Hand


----------



## Four (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What peers would review the prophecies?



my point is when you ask "would you believe if this happened" etc

You need repeat-ability, peer review, testable verifiable evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> What is this really going to come down to? You giving your examples of what you think are prophecy not coming true and then me giving examples of what I see as a lot of them coming true?
> 
> Or, do you think Jesus didn't fill even one prophecy?



If fulfilling even one prophesy is all that it takes then there are a bunch of messiahs' running around that we missed....probably even some right now.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, there's more than one prophecy about Jesus. I'm not sure what your talking about?



Specifically the messiah.
What has come true that qualifies him as being the messiah?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

Four said:


> my point is when you ask "would you believe if this happened" etc
> 
> You need repeat-ability, peer review, testable verifiable evidence.



You don't think some of the worlds most knowledgable scholars would agree we have those, well, exept for the repeat-ability, not all of history can be repeated.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If fulfilling even one prophesy is all that it takes then there are a bunch of messiahs' running around that we missed....probably even some right now.



I never said the fulfilling one prophecy made someone a messiah.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Specifically the messiah.
> What has come true that qualifies him as being the messiah?



See post #63


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, there's more than one prophecy about Jesus. I'm not sure what your talking about?
> 
> Here are some...
> 
> ...



Please list the verse that goes along with each claim.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, there's more than one prophecy about Jesus. I'm not sure what your talking about?
> 
> Here are some...
> 
> ...



Here are a few more:
1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy 17:15, Numbers 24:17)

2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)

4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)

5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)

6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please list the verse that goes along with each claim.


I don't know them all right off hand, Micah 5:2 is one. There are some in Psalms and many other books.

Here is a link.... http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/jesus_prophecy_fulfilled.aspx#13

If I get time, I will post something up that is very interesting. I probably wont have time to post it at work and it might take a while on my wifes Iphone and a 3 month old at home.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> *What is this really going to come down to? You giving your examples of what you think are prophecy not coming true and then me giving examples of what I see as a lot of them coming true?*Or, do you think Jesus didn't fill even one prophecy?





stringmusic said:


> Bullet, there's more than one prophecy about Jesus. I'm not sure what your talking about?
> 
> Here are some...
> 
> ...





bullethead said:


> Here are a few more:
> 1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy 17:15, Numbers 24:17)
> 
> 2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendent of both King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)
> ...



Man I'm good.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't know them all right off hand, Micah 5:2 is one. There are some in Psalms and many other books.
> 
> Here is a link.... http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/jesus_prophecy_fulfilled.aspx#13
> 
> If I get time, I will post something up that is very interesting. I probably wont have time to post it at work and it might take a while on my wifes Iphone and a 3 month old at home.



String, I know all the one's that are claimed to be fulfilled. It is the ones that did not get fulfilled that lead me to think like I do.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 9, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Man I'm good.



Luckily it is not the 1500's or your fellow Christians would burn you at the stake for such sorcery. 
I know all magicians do not reveal their tricks but tell me how you did it????
And show me where I may be missing the answers to the ones I posted.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> I use the address ‘Sir,’ as I was taught by my military upbringing, to convey my respect both for my peers and for my superiors.  By this form of address, hopefully, it is understood that there is no animosity meant nor intended.  Honest disagreements are why we are here, and speaking, and I see no reason why those disagreements need become disrespectful.  Calling us ‘you nons,’ on the other hand, seems both disrespectful and dismissive, and may cause me to reconsider.



Yes, well stated and I understand your address better now. I mean no disrespect either, however it does get heated in here from time to time and both sides fail to act with the correct demeanor. I am guilty of that also.

Your analysis was not "respectful" to say the least. It is one thing to state your opinion, another thing to mock (you mock quite well), so don't give me any baloney about how you are offended because I referred to you as a "non".

I will step aside and let the scripture debate continue.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> The invitation stands – Bring us your favorite Bible verses, no need to follow my lead and read the Book in order, and either add your question to that verse or add your scholarly and enlightened confirmation of it – everyone can play here.


Are you wanting everyone to add a verse and then discuss it? Are we starting in any book or skipping around?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 9, 2012)

Hello Asath, to confirm the truth to your observation, [that places in the OT portray God to be different than the portrayal of God in the NT] During the first century a man named Marcion had a belief that the God of the OT had to be a different God from the God of the NT. His followers were Marcionites. The movement was called Marcionism. Although I don't agree, It is an interesting study


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 9, 2012)

Jesus didn't come in peace. I found more that one verse:
    (Matthew 10:34-36) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."
    (Luke 12:51,52) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."
    (Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 9, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Jesus didn't come in peace. I found more that one verse:
> (Matthew 10:34-36) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household."
> (Luke 12:51,52) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."
> (Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."



Interesting that there is division on this tiny little corner of the world called the GON AAA forum. Maybe this sort of thing is what He was talking about.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Interesting that there is division on this tiny little corner of the world called the GON AAA forum. Maybe this sort of thing is what He was talking about.



Yep.  And I think the word "sword" is referring to "truth."


----------



## Four (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.  And I think the word "sword" is referring to "truth."



When god says to stone people for this or that..

he really means HUGS.

It's all so clear, we need to HUG adulterers!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yep.  And I think the word "sword" is referring to "truth."



Probably the two words are so similar in translation....


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

Four said:


> When god says to stone people for this or that..
> 
> he really means HUGS.
> 
> It's all so clear, we need to HUG adulterers!



HUGS, definitely!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

Four said:


> When god says to stone people for this or that..
> 
> he really means HUGS.
> 
> It's all so clear, we need to HUG adulterers!



Context, man.  This is why I can't discuss the OT with bullet, because y'all want everything to stand on it's own when it is an entire body of work.

The "stoning" meant to literally stone somebody.  That was the law given to the Jewish people.  Kind of like our modern use of capital punishment.  Jesus spoke with metaphors a lot, and the context of his ministry was love....such as the greatest and the second greatest commandments "love God first, then Love yuor neighbor."


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Probably the two words are so similar in translation....



Again, it is an entire body of work...

Ephesians 6:17-18
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

And, we often refer to the word of God as truth.  It;s not the translation but the context.


----------



## Four (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Context, man.  This is why I can't discuss the OT with bullet, because y'all want everything to stand on it's own when it is an entire body of work.
> 
> The "stoning" meant to literally stone somebody.  That was the law given to the Jewish people.  Kind of like our modern use of capital punishment.  Jesus spoke with metaphors a lot, and the context of his ministry was love....such as the greatest and the second greatest commandments "love God first, then Love yuor neighbor."



I wonder why god thought that using the sword as a metaphor for peace would be a good idea 

Context is **** 

When god commands the Israelite to dash newborns against the rocks... how is there any context in which that is OK?

In what context is stoning adulterers ever OK? It isn't.

saying "oh well it was a different time and they needed different rules blah blah blah"

How can a christian believe in objective morality when you think it was different in the OT?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Again, it is an entire body of work...
> 
> Ephesians 6:17-18
> 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
> ...



Do you not have an actual shield and helmet? Geez, what a bad Christian 

I went out and bought mine the first time I ever read that.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 10, 2012)

Four said:


> I wonder why god thought that using the sword as a metaphor for peace would be a good idea
> 
> Context is ****
> 
> ...



Why not?


----------



## Four (Feb 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why not?



the non aggression principle.

Adultery while not good, is voluntary. To tortuously murder because of it is despicable.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

Four said:


> I wonder why god thought that using the sword as a metaphor for peace would be a good idea



Probably because they understood military terms.

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 



Four said:


> Context is ****


 
I have enjoyed our conversations so far, but let's not call each outher's positions ****.  It makes it difficult to remain civil.



Four said:


> When god commands the Israelite to dash newborns against the rocks... how is there any context in which that is OK?
> 
> In what context is stoning adulterers ever OK? It isn't.
> 
> ...



In the United states adultery was punishable by death.  In modern times, that is considered uncivilized.  Cultures change.

As far as bashing newborns against rocks, I dunno.  Warfare was particularly brutal in those days, and I think the folks who communicated in the OT often said things in a way that "like minded" folks would understand.....like preaching to the choir.

For instance "the lord delivered the victory."  Could be less a statement of God's involvement in a battle and more an effort to give praise to God for the fortunate turn of events.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you not have an actual shield and helmet? Geez, what a bad Christian



I find it interesting that the atheists insist on a literal translation, and then turn around and mock Christians who take a literal position on the Bible.


----------



## Four (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Probably because they understood military terms.



of course they did "you should have a sword" - god "- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - yea i should" -military person





JB0704 said:


> I have enjoyed our conversations so far, but let's not call each outher's positions ****.  It makes it difficult to remain civil.



Some things are to be respected, some aren't. 



JB0704 said:


> In the United states adultery was punishable by death.  In modern times, that is considered uncivilized.  Cultures change.



So you're a moral relativist? Something is moral if it's accepted by the culture? I happen to think infanticide is always immoral. Im just an a-moral atheist though 



JB0704 said:


> As far as bashing newborns against rocks, I dunno.  Warfare was particularly brutal in those days, and I think the folks who communicated in the OT often said things in a way that "like minded" folks would understand.....like preaching to the choir.



Yea.... the bible is such nonsense...


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Context, man.  This is why I can't discuss the OT with bullet, because y'all want everything to stand on it's own when it is an entire body of work.
> 
> The "stoning" meant to literally stone somebody.  That was the law given to the Jewish people.  Kind of like our modern use of capital punishment.  Jesus spoke with metaphors a lot, and the context of his ministry was love....such as the greatest and the second greatest commandments "love God first, then Love yuor neighbor."



So in Matthew 10:34 ,Jesus did not come to bring peace but "a truth"?

And In Luke 22:36,"And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

Where do you buy a "truth" ?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I find it interesting that the atheists insist on a literal translation, and then turn around and mock Christians who take a literal position on the Bible.



Yes, because it shows how literally ridiculous the Bible really is.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Probably because they understood military terms.
> 
> Hebrews 4:12
> 12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
> ...



No need to dash anyone's heads when you have the Angel of Death that kills for you.
All you have to do is set them up for failure and then punish them for the failure.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart then he killed all the first born because Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Didn't even have to pick up a rock either.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

Four said:


> of course they did "you should have a sword" - god "- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - yea i should" -military person...



I guess you completely disregarded the verses I tossed out there which make it very clear that the sword is a metaphor 




Four said:


> Some things are to be respected, some aren't. ...



I have always shown you, your like minded friends on here, and y'alls opinions respect.  If this is the way you want it, we can do that, but the conversation will go downhill fast.



Four said:


> So you're a moral relativist? Something is moral if it's accepted by the culture? I happen to think infanticide is always immoral. Im just an a-moral atheist though



I never said it was ever ok.  Just pointing out context and how our position on the matter is a relatively new opinion in context of history.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Yes, because it shows how literally ridiculous the Bible really is.



What's up with you guys today.....you are usually cool, but this is getting old.

I am not a "literal translation" guy.  You know that.  But I can't for the life of me understand why you insist that the "sword" has to mean "sword" when it is made clear repeatedly to be a metaphor.

Perhaps it is because it does nto fit into the mold you want?  Don't you accuse Christians of twisting things to make them what they want them to be?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So in Matthew 10:34 ,Jesus did not come to bring peace but "a truth"?
> 
> And In Luke 22:36,"And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."
> 
> Where do you buy a "truth" ?



"Truth" was the goal.  And it caused problems with the religious establishment of the day, so peace would have been hard to accomplish when you spend your time going up to religious people and explain to them how their entire culture has gotten it wrong.

Jesus also told other folks to sell everything, give to the poor, and follow him.  The "sword of the lord" is truth.  Jesus was asking folks to "sell out" for him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 10, 2012)

Maybe it's time to move on to a new verse. James 1:26
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What's up with you guys today.....you are usually cool, but this is getting old.
> 
> I am not a "literal translation" guy.  You know that.  But I can't for the life of me understand why you insist that the "sword" has to mean "sword" when it is made clear repeatedly to be a metaphor.
> 
> Perhaps it is because it does nto fit into the mold you want?  Don't you accuse Christians of twisting things to make them what they want them to be?



Solar flares.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Solar flares.




Didn't know they had such an effect on skeptics.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Didn't know they had such an effect on skeptics.



Just like the the Gospel Truth, they are affected by them whether or not the believe in their powers.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> "Truth" was the goal.  And it caused problems with the religious establishment of the day, so peace would have been hard to accomplish when you spend your time going up to religious people and explain to them how their entire culture has gotten it wrong.
> 
> Jesus also told other folks to sell everything, give to the poor, and follow him.  The "sword of the lord" is truth.  Jesus was asking folks to "sell out" for him.



So you are sticking with "sword" meaning "truth" in Luke 22:36?

I can't argue metaphors use words in place of others, but there are times when Sword means Sword.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> What's up with you guys today.....you are usually cool, but this is getting old.
> 
> I am not a "literal translation" guy.  You know that.  But I can't for the life of me understand why you insist that the "sword" has to mean "sword" when it is made clear repeatedly to be a metaphor.
> 
> Perhaps it is because it does nto fit into the mold you want?  Don't you accuse Christians of twisting things to make them what they want them to be?



Jb, it is nothing personal. We are not so narrow minded to not recognize a metaphor but we are also able to pick out when a word is used for it's intended purpose.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So you are sticking with "sword" meaning "truth" in Luke 22:36?
> 
> I can't argue metaphors use words in place of others, but there are times when Sword means Sword.



Not there, no.  In the Mathew reference, yes.  

But there is context in that story.  The next verse clarifies that there are already two swords, Jesus says that is enough.  A little later, one of them uses the sword and he instructs them to stop it.

Two swords?  I don't think he was building an army. Sounds like preparing them for self defense.  In fact, he tells them that they are about to get into some mess right before the sword conversation.  If you read the entire story it sounds like he is saying "this is going to get ugly fella's."

If he wanted to build an army, he would have not said two swords was enough.  He did not resist the arrest, and he did not encourage the later aggression, in fact, he discouraged it.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Jb, it is nothing personal. We are not so narrow minded to not recognize a metaphor but we are also able to pick out when a word is used for it's intended purpose.



Cool, I agree that sword can mean sword, but that the context in which it is used helps us understand the meaning.


----------



## Asath (Feb 10, 2012)

“Your analysis was not "respectful" to say the least.”    Agreed.  But my analysis is simply my interpretation based on a literal reading of the words contained in a single Book, and addresses no one individually.  Perhaps the original author(s) might take issue with my interpretation, but I hardly see calling the premeditated murder of all of the first-born of Egypt a mass-murder to be something a believer could take personally or consider to be a mockery of either themselves or their beliefs – what else can it be called?

Leviticus:
 After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill one of God’s creatures as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God seems to like it when His things are killed in his honor.
Is childbearing sinful, requiring atonement?  It appears to be:

12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:    
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.  
12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Just guessing here – but it looks like the priests needed free food . . .  I mean . . . bearing a child requires a sin offering?   To the LORD?   The all loving, all knowing creator requires that you kill one of His creations as a sacrifice, to atone for the sin of bringing a child into His world?  Darn.  That’s pretty harsh.  Seems that the creator did not see this ‘Blessed Event’ as being all that blessed after all . . .  And, by the way, since this is a recurring theme – what sort of God is gratified by having His creations killed in His honor?  (“And if she be not able to bring two turtles, or two young pigeons, then she must bring me a shrubbery . . . “)

from Leviticus A bit more Fun:
God can't stand the sight of handicapped people:

21:16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,  
21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.      
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,  
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,  
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;  
21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.  
21:22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.  
21:23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them.  
21:24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

And, y’know, I just read the Americans with Disabilities Act?  And I couldn’t find a darned thing about this in there.  The LORD seems to be making some harsh distinctions between his own creations here, and just doesn’t want the ugly ones in his house.  Clearly the LORD was anticipating Hollywood productions.   But at least now I know why churches are specifically exempted from having to comply with this Act . . . God doesn’t like the handicapped . . . Or men with broken stones . . .  And said so, breaking a few stones by the saying . . .


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 10, 2012)

Four said:


> the non aggression principle.
> 
> Adultery while not good, is voluntary. To tortuously murder because of it is despicable.



Where did the non aggression principle come from and why do I have to abide by it?

Despicable? In your worldview that is completely arbitrary, no?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

How about poor Saul? The bugger died 4 times! 4 Different ways!

Saul committed suicide.
    1 Samuel 31:4-6
    Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.

    1 Chronicles 10:4
    Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

Saul was killed by an Amalekite.
    2 Samuel 1:8-10 
    And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him.

Saul was killed by the Philistines.
    2 Samuel 21:12
    The Philistines had slain Saul.

God killed him.
    1 Chronicles 10:14
    So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How about poor Saul? The bugger died 4 times! 4 Different ways!
> 
> Saul committed suicide.
> 1 Samuel 31:4-6
> ...


 Tons of stuff just like this, yet I know many will see this and still claim it to be without error. It amazes me. Those who claim this make Christians out to be "without credibility" in the eyes of the world.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Tons of stuff just like this, yet I know many will see this and still claim it to be without error. It amazes me. Those who claim this make Christians out to be "without credibility" in the eyes of the world.



And it is not a different word here or there like "an" replaced "of" or one word of translation is mixed up......these are DETAILED descriptions told by the same "author" that tell completely different outcomes.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And it is not a different word here or there like "an" replaced "of" or one word of translation is mixed up......these are DETAILED descriptions told by the same "author" that tell completely different outcomes.


And it's not just a few instances, Lots of them. Those claiming to know their bibles and claiming without error are proving that they are elementry students.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 10, 2012)

I can't remember the site but they had 1001 examples of contradiction in scripture and it was still counting.


----------



## Asath (Feb 11, 2012)

Deuteronomy: 
"When thou ... make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing ... ye shall utterly be destroyed."

If someone makes an image of anything (like a bird or flower) then God will destroy the entire nation.   No wonder most artists are atheists, huh?

4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.  
4:25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger:   
4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.  
4:27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.

So I guess those Taliban folks had it right . . . paint a picture, get beheaded.  The LORD has decreed that it must be so . . . but still, that bit in 4:26 about calling heaven and earth to witness against you this day is a bit of rhetoric that can’t go unnoticed:  I mean, presumably, at this point in the story, heaven is pretty much just God, and the earth is presumably just a few lucky folks that didn’t get wiped out a few chapters back.  So . . . what need would God have for witnesses anyway?  Is this a jury trial?  And just what significance did this day have that it needed to be mentioned in Scripture?  Was it a holiday?  Is that why He was so miffed?  I mean, if somebody bothers me in the middle of eating hot dogs and pitching horseshoes, I might get similarly cheesed off, and yell something like, “Hey, huh, it’s the stinking Fourth of July, so don’t bug me, or you will be utterly destroyed  . . And your little dog too . . .” 

I could go on for about six or seven hundred pages out of the Old Testament alone, and this is all drawn from the King James Version, which is pretty mildly rendered . . . . God, as rendered in the Official Transcripts, also known as the Bible, is not the sort of fella to reward much of anybody on account of much of anything – on the contrary:

More Thrills from Deuteronomy:  
If someone teaches a new and different religious belief, then that person must be put to death:

13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,      
13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;  
13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 
13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.  
13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

 Then it was right to kill Jesus, when he arrived well after the Old Testament was written?  The Bible seems to say so . . .  I mean, this God was one mean-spirited and jealous sort of a being.  With good cause . . .  The fella ordered everyone to love Him and to Fear him so many times that he ends up sounding a bit like Hillary Clinton . . .  You might think that something as all knowing, all loving, all merciful, and all powerful as the God of all Creation wouldn’t come off as being quite so blustering, threatened and paranoid.  Especially about those pesky Egyptians, who He really seems to regret over and over again.  Makes you wonder why He created them in the first place.  But still, this bit of the Old Testament, included whole in the KJV, says that if  the ‘prophet, or dreamer of dreams’ turns out to say something that comes to pass, you are commanded not to believe him (13.3).  13.2 prevents conversion to a new god, and so allows only the worship of the existing god – but that god was not the god of Christianity at the time this was written – so this passage from the OT commands that one is forbidden from believing the NT  

Why would anyone put this in the same Book?  “. . .  ‘And that prophet, that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death . . . “   Well, so it seems to be, as the story goes . . . but the story commands that same death, and commands disbelief in that prophet.  So, again, how did this get into the same Book with stories that claim to command belief in this prophet who came along much, much later?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I can't remember the site but they had 1001 examples of contradiction in scripture and it was still counting.


Yea, I've seen that one before. Much of what they have can be explained by bending logic. Those I stay clear from. I only point out those that they can't explain away. They have a site that has their socalled brains, who supposedly refutes all the contridictions. It is a Tsunami of ignorance. Yet, all the one's that I point out are not addressed


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 11, 2012)

Yeagh know, if an person searching for belief came upon this thread it would definitely push them from the bible.  At least the belief it is the inerrant word of god.   If of course, they had reasonable intelligence.  I would like to hear more rebuttals from the believers that claim the bibles infallacy.  I'm afraid the contradictions are just to many. 

The versus put forth here show no god worthy of praise.  Contrary, it shows one to be despised, spoken against, and refuted.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh know, if an person searching for belief came upon this thread it would definitely push them from the bible.  At least the belief it is the inerrant word of god.   If of course, they had reasonable intelligence.  I would like to hear more rebuttals from the believers that claim the bibles infallacy.  I'm afraid the contradictions are just to many.
> 
> The versus put forth here show no god worthy of praise.  Contrary, it shows one to be despised, spoken against, and refuted.


Hello Bishop, This is what I was talking about in my original response to you. All this stuff is a misrepresentation of God. Back then, including the writers, had a false view of God. They misrepresented him in their writings. He is not a God with a big stick, ready to crush everyone for their failures. But... that would be my opinion of the matter.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Bishop, This is what I was talking about in my original response to you. All this stuff is a misrepresentation of God. Back then, including the writers, had a false view of God. They misrepresented him in their writings. He is not a God with a big stick, ready to crush everyone for their failures. But... that would be my opinion of the matter.



Do you believe the book is the inerrant word of god, or the work of man?

I want to know were the bible gets the credibility to be labaled the word of god.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Do you believe the book is the inerrant word of god, or the work of man?
> 
> I want to know were the bible gets the credibility to be labaled the word of god.



It gets it's credibility from gullibility. The Early Church and every spin off since HAD to say it is the Word of God because who is going to follow it otherwise.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Do you believe the book is the inerrant word of god, or the work of man?
> 
> I want to know were the bible gets the credibility to be labaled the word of god.


Hey Bishop, I do not consider it to be the "word of God". I do however read it from a different viewpoint. For example by reading Pauls letters, I can ponder over what it was that he believed. So I find truth within, I just don't see it as the "word of God". Strangely enough, I wonder about the "inspired" aspect. Because without the bible, I would not understand what I now believe. But some things I learn "indirectly" from. Take Solomon for example. After a life of no restraint, enduldging in every aspect of life, an example of mankind unbridled, He is a picture of what mankind would look like if he had his own way. But at the end of his life, he was miserable. He observed that the simpliest of life, a working man with a loving wife was to be desired above all his pomp and fame. So, do you see what I mean by indirectly? While the Christian crowd is trying to read and quote all his assumed wisdom as  if he were a man of God, I am wondering how they can be so blind. For example, he probably fathered thousands of children. Probably not knowing their names, yet he is writing as if he were a good father instructing his son. They don't realize that he was an oppressor of the people. They don't realize what Jesus meant when he said "take my yoke for it is light" compared to 1 Kings 12, My Father made your yoke heavy, I will make it even heavier, my little finger is thicker than my fathers waist. Take Song of Songs, wonder why anyone would consider that a man having a thousand women would have any idea what love really was. I'm just ranting here. I should get back to the OP. It has morphed into being called the word of God. They don't realize that for decades the first believers never had the socalled word of God


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 12, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> And it's not just a few instances, Lots of them. Those claiming to know their bibles and claiming without error *are proving that they are elementry students.*



Craig L Blomberg:

Mr. Blomberg is considered one of the country's foremost authorities on biographies on Jesus. He received his doctrate in the New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, later serving as a senior research fellow at Tyndale House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of and elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. For the last dozen years he has been a professor of New Testament at the highly respected Denver seminary.

Blomberg's books include Jesus and the Gospels; Interpreting Parables; How wide the Divide?; and  commentaries on the gospel of Mathew and 1 Corinthians. He also helped edit volume six of Gospel Perspectives, which deals at length with the miracles of Jesus, and he coauthored "Intoduction to Bible Interpretation"

He contributed chapters on the historicity of the gospels to the book "Reasonable faith" and the award winning "Jesus Under Fire"

His memberships include the Society for the Study of New Testament, Society of Biblical literature and the Institute for Biblical Research. 

Mr. Blomberg thinks the bible is the infallible word of God, hardly elementary.

Oh, and I can name about 10-12 more if one is not enough. But I will try to leave this thread alone, since all the biblical scholars on GON have it all figured out.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 12, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Craig L Blomberg:
> 
> Mr. Blomberg is considered one of the country's foremost authorities on biographies on Jesus. He received his doctrate in the New Testament from Aberdeen University in Scotland, later serving as a senior research fellow at Tyndale House at Cambridge University in England, where he was part of and elite group of international scholars that produced a series of acclaimed works on Jesus. For the last dozen years he has been a professor of New Testament at the highly respected Denver seminary.
> 
> ...


Hey String, I hate always being the bad guy, but surely you can see what your saying. This is just proof that many socalled scholars are only spouting what people want to here. His creditials are proven as uncredable. Why I am no expert or scholar but I could make your man look like a monkey in about 1minute. Did you not observe Bullets post about Sauls 4 different accounts of how he was killed. Man I could flood this place with stuff like this. The vast amount of this kind of stuff is overwhelming. These things you do not realize because you listen to these guys instead of researching yourself. Dang, I hate to be this guy all the time. I honestly like all you guys. I don't wish to be a thorn.


----------



## Asath (Feb 12, 2012)

Craig L. Blomberg.  Credentialed and award winning expert on the ‘biographies of Jesus’; which happen not to exist.  That one is a pretty safe specialty.  I can trot up some impressively credentialed and award-winning experts on Sasquatch and UFO’s as well, but I’m afraid that being a renowned ‘expert’ in the non-existent is sort of what we’re talking about here . . . 

The only man-made structures that rival government buildings in terms of sheer arrogance and the deliberate, symbolic projection of power, are religious constructs.  Similar to governments, religions seemed to understand right out of the gate that the projection of power and the inspiration of fear and awe were pretty much all they had in the absence of substance.  Folks seem to catch on to the lies of governments a little quicker, and as a result governmental systems come and go.  The religions, while no less vacuous and destructive,  cross artificially drawn administrative lines, and respect no borders or nationalism, so they are turning out to be a bit more difficult to root out.

The only thing worse than a politician is a priest – their only stock-in-trade is their words and their sales pitch, but at least some governments can demonstrate a very few tangible benefits that derive from our toleration of them and their constant demands, by sword-point or blackmail, for more of our money.  

Now we have ‘experts’ in the fantastically invented?  I think most of us got into the wrong business . . . the gullibility business, while losing steam steadily, seems to be where the real money is . . .


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 12, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Your analysis was not "respectful" to say the least.”    Agreed.  But my analysis is simply my interpretation based on a literal reading of the words contained in a single Book, and addresses no one individually.  Perhaps the original author(s) might take issue with my interpretation, but I hardly see calling the premeditated murder of all of the first-born of Egypt a mass-murder to be something a believer could take personally or consider to be a mockery of either themselves or their beliefs – what else can it be called?
> 
> Leviticus:
> After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill one of God’s creatures as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God seems to like it when His things are killed in his honor.
> ...



All I got outta that, because I couldn't read it all, is that you think it's wrong to kill animals? 
Or someone was instructed to kill animals as a celebration? Like hot dogs on the 4th of july or barbque? Animals were killed for that celebration ....but no one else should be able to celebrate something they  believe in? Don't kill nuttin'....personally I don't like killing animals...glad at last I have a back up on that!!!Just us Amurycans, have pig pickins' using a dead pig...some of us slaughter deer for food, that's a celebration of having enough to feed the fam and some friends. But God forbid that we celebrate anything else different than you......tell me you don't eat ham for Christmas or turkey for thanksgiving....or do you shoot turkeys? how about clean a trout by slicing it stomach up from head to tail and take your thumb and gut it.... or gut a deer?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 12, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh know, if an person searching for belief came upon this thread it would definitely push them from the bible.  At least the belief it is the inerrant word of god.   If of course, they had reasonable intelligence.  I would like to hear more rebuttals from the believers that claim the bibles infallacy.  I'm afraid the contradictions are just to many.
> 
> The versus put forth here show no god worthy of praise.  Contrary, it shows one to be despised, spoken against, and refuted.



Here's an example of reasonable intelligence....

Kind of like the prejudice against the rebel flag by some yanks? Their belief is totally different than what that flag means. It doesn't mean slavery to me, my ancestors were irish slaves right here in north carolina.  The flag just represents a union between brothers. The north and south fought each other like north and south viet nam. 

Try proving that to a yank or anyone else who condemns the entire south for slavery. The bible is like the rebel flag.....totally misunderstood and condemned for no just cause.

And I'm sure there are many contraditions in all the history if we seek to study it, does not mean the confederate flag means anything else than what it does.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Here's an example of reasonable intelligence....
> 
> Kind of like the prejudice against the rebel flag by some yanks? Their belief is totally different than what that flag means. It doesn't mean slavery to me, my ancestors were irish slaves right here in north carolina.  The flag just represents a union between brothers. The north and south fought each other like north and south viet nam.
> 
> ...



I am a "yank" and have no problem with the Rebel Flag or what it stands for. I'm not sure you understand "yanks", what the war was fought over, and certainly not the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> All I got outta that, because I couldn't read it all, is that you think it's wrong to kill animals?
> Or someone was instructed to kill animals as a celebration? Like hot dogs on the 4th of july or barbque? Animals were killed for that celebration ....but no one else should be able to celebrate something they  believe in? Don't kill nuttin'....personally I don't like killing animals...glad at last I have a back up on that!!!Just us Amurycans, have pig pickins' using a dead pig...some of us slaughter deer for food, that's a celebration of having enough to feed the fam and some friends. But God forbid that we celebrate anything else different than you......tell me you don't eat ham for Christmas or turkey for thanksgiving....or do you shoot turkeys? how about clean a trout by slicing it stomach up from head to tail and take your thumb and gut it.... or gut a deer?



"Because you couldn't read it all" ?
I think you would have gotten so much more out of it if you had read it all.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> Craig L. Blomberg.  Credentialed and award winning expert on the ‘biographies of Jesus’; which happen not to exist.  That one is a pretty safe specialty.  I can trot up some impressively credentialed and award-winning experts on Sasquatch and UFO’s as well, but I’m afraid that being a renowned ‘expert’ in the non-existent is sort of what we’re talking about here . . .


I stopped reading your post after this little gem. If your stuck to the fact that the biographies of Jesus are not real, then I have no where to take this conversation.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I stopped reading your post after this little gem. If your stuck to the fact that the biographies of Jesus are not real, then I have no where to take this conversation.



I get folks who deny the miracles, resurection, etc. (though I disagree with them). But I don't get folks who deny he ever existed.  In the face of the evidence to the contrary, one would have to be pretty stubborn to conclude a man named Jesus did not live and preach about 2k years ago.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm

Comments are welcome as long as you take the time to actually read it. Maybe someone has answers to solve these perplexing issues within the verses of the Gospels.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/ShreddingTheGospels.htm
> 
> Comments are welcome as long as you take the time to actually read it. Maybe someone has answers to solve these perplexing issues within the verses of the Gospels.



I don't even know why I am doing this, because I am trying to stay out of this ridiculous thread.

From your own link.... http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/DefendingTheGospels.htm#4

I didn't even read it, I'll just throw it out there.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't even know why I am doing this, because I am trying to stay out of this ridiculous thread.
> 
> From your own link.... http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/DefendingTheGospels.htm#4
> 
> I didn't even read it, I'll just throw it out there.



Saw it, read it and it did not cover everything or answer much definitively. I know what John McClymont is thinking.

This is the first line written:
Below are some attempts to respond to some problems raised by the article on your website which I have been corresponding with you about. I shall phrase the problems in my own words and respond. The problems are not necessarily in order of occurrence in the article and at some places I may have answered questions the article wasn't asking.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I don't even know why I am doing this, because I am trying to stay out of this ridiculous thread.



Don't stay out of the thread if you can explain the contradictions and errors we are asking about.


----------



## Asath (Feb 14, 2012)

“If your stuck to the fact that the biographies of Jesus are not real, then I have no where to take this conversation.”

Indeed you do not.  I am not ‘stuck to’ the fact that the biographies are not real, rather you are ‘stuck with’ that fact.  

“ . . . one would have to be pretty stubborn to conclude a man named Jesus did not live and preach about 2k years ago.”

Well, stubborn is hardly the right word.  

Let’s go with educated.  

Let’s skip over the obstinate Anglico-centrism of everything under the sun, and skip over the fact that nobody at all in that region during the time in question actually bore the name ‘Jesus,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘Mark,’ Luke,’ or ‘John.’   And let’s even skip over the fact that none of the authors of the ‘Gospels’ managed to sign them or even mention their own names anywhere within them.  Let us pretend that the authorship of the ‘Gospels’ wasn’t actually assigned to anonymous writers a few hundred years later, though that is also true.  Let’s instead, ask a rather more central question – Was the Jesus figure actually illiterate?  

You see, if one is looking back, with not a single actual writing that was done in the time and place, and inventing a biography out of orally passed down stories that are more than a few generations old, it is more than a little likely that a few things ended up – how shall we say?—embellished a little bit. 

What you have for ‘biographies’ were written by folks who didn’t have a single bit of reference material to draw from ---  no actual historical records kept, no news articles, no official documents, no recording in a census, no birth certificates, death certificates, land deeds, account records . . .  in short, nothing.  They heard stories, from people who heard stories, from other people who heard stories from yet other people who also heard stories . . . Now, I don’t know about you, but if that is the way you want YOUR biography written – by folks who sort of heard that you might have existed a few hundred years ago . . . well, maybe you too can become a legend.

But, the actual facts are sketchy at best and wholly embroidered onto whole cloth.  It has been established that, back in the time under consideration, there was no shortage of ‘breakaway’ radical and wandering preachers, some more charismatic and memorable than others.  It has been establish that, in a time when the sun, the moon, and the stars were still considered in mystical terms, that there was no shortage of ‘miracles.’  It has been established that many of the more charismatic religious and political rebels of the time gained a considerable following, and were thus a threat to the established order and were summarily executed.  It has been established that crucifixion, though not among the more common execution methods, was sometimes used to make an example when someone had badly cheesed-off the local authorities.  

   But that’s about all anyone has in the way of verification.  The best of any and all historical reconstruction can’t place anything other than the possibility of this particular person, as described, in this particular time and place.  The most likely explanation is that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, is an idealized amalgam of vaguely remembered heroic rebels mixed liberally with idealizations and wishful thinking.  There WERE folks LIKE that, and they DID get themselves executed with shocking regularity.  So if one wished to effectively condemn the established idiocy that perpetrated the executions, and create a grass-roots rebellion against that idiocy, one could hardly have come up with a better ‘biography.’  It worked, which is argument enough in favor of such a construction, I suppose . . .   

But please let us not claim that any ‘biography’ was written by anyone at all who was there and who actually knew the particular man being described.  There is no such document, and no credible claim that such documentation exists.  Lacking that, there is no ‘biography’ that is anything other than speculative, and thus fictional.

At the time, hardly anyone could read, aside from the elite, so anything that was ‘written’ held a certain reverence, especially since it could only be ‘read’ to the masses, selectively, by that same elite.  Today that remains true in most of the New York Times circulation area, West Virginia, and the House of Representatives.  But this does cause one to wonder – why would a supernatural and all-powerful creator go to all of this trouble, to impregnate a human virgin and bring forth a Son, if He wasn’t going to bother making sure that Son left a permanent and indelible mark on all of God’s humanity?  

Surely China, which contained nearly half the people on the planet, even back then, would have been a better place than the middle of a desert visited only by the occasional wandering tribe?  And surely if this message was to be properly conveyed it would make sense that it would be, like the Ten Commandments, written down someplace?  If even just carved into a few rocks?  Unfortunately, no.  There is no ‘Gospel of Jesus.’  Not one Word.

So what we have to work with, in the ‘historical record’ to support the ‘biography’ of someone who is responsible for more bloodshed and mayhem than all of the known political tyrants and despots put together is this – nothing.

At least the Islamics thought ahead, and admit aloud that their Prophet was similarly illiterate, but they place a brother-in-law as contemporary witness, studiously writing down every utterance over a period of many years.  The illiterate Jesus figure, equally likely, couldn’t even be bothered to employ or inspire a scribe to record his short life.  With that, Jesus of Nazareth remains the only major historically worshipped religious ‘God on Earth’ figure who actually LACKS a biography  . . .


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Relax Asath, it was just a joke!
> 
> BTW, What is about you nons and calling me sir?
> 
> Wait a second, are you Diogenes come back from the Banned?



Yes he sure sends off the Dio vibes doesn't he? This was brought to my attention earlier and I've been watching. 

As for the OP.....unregenerate people will never understand the holiness of God and all I know to do is keep proclaiming that same holiness and praying that God might done day break through to them.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Yes he sure sends off the Dio vibes doesn't he? This was brought to my attention earlier and I've been watching.
> 
> As for the OP.....unregenerate people will never understand the holiness of God and all I know to do is keep proclaiming that same holiness and praying that God might done day break through to them.




The best way to sell something is create paranoia.  Convince people that they can't live a full meaningful life without something or that there will be serious repercussions if they don't buy it.  Or use sex, like the Muslims do.  That seems to work pretty effectively on the poor, uneducated and desperate.  Or promise that if they buy it that all their dreams will come true or that all their suffering will end.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> “ . . . one would have to be pretty stubborn to conclude a man named Jesus did not live and preach about 2k years ago.”
> 
> Well, stubborn is hardly the right word.
> 
> Let’s go with educated.



I have more evidence that Jesus existed than you have that the battle of Thermopylae (movie 300) happened, but you probably accept the latter as fact.  Why is that?


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> The best way to sell something is create paranoia.  Convince people that they can't live a full meaningful life without something or that there will be serious repercussions if they don't buy it.  Or use sex, like the Muslims do.  That seems to work pretty effectively on the poor, uneducated and desperate.  Or promise that if they buy it that all their dreams will come true or that all their suffering will end.



This is true. But the problem we have here is I am not selling anything. I believe you can live a full and meaningful life apart from God. I do not believe that if you come to God all your dreams will come true or that your suffering will end. 

I do believe that Jesus was/is real. I do believe that His promise of eternity with God based on our faith in Him is real. I believe that eternity apart from God based on no faith in Him is true as well.

I am not trying to create paranoia nor a spiritual boogeyman. I just believe Jesus was real and therefore I believe what He said would happen will happen.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> This is true. But the problem we have here is I am not selling anything. I believe you can live a full and meaningful life apart from God. I do not believe that if you come to God all your dreams will come true or that your suffering will end.
> 
> I do believe that Jesus was/is real. I do believe that His promise of eternity with God based on our faith in Him is real. I believe that eternity apart from God based on no faith in Him is true as well.
> 
> I am not trying to create paranoia nor a spiritual boogeyman. I just believe Jesus was real and therefore I believe what He said would happen will happen.



You don't have to close the sale but you are commanded to make the pitch.  Paradise is promised...later, if you act now.  

What is the "Good News" then?  As I understand it it goes something like this:  Declare that Jesus is Lord, not Buddah, not Ganesh, not Allah and when you die you get to go to Heaven.  If you don't accept Jesus as Lord you go to He11.  Do I understand it correctly or do I oversimplify?


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You don't have to close the sale but you are commanded to make the pitch.  Paradise is promised...later, if you act now.
> 
> What is the "Good News" then?  As I understand it it goes something like this:  Declare that Jesus is Lord, not Buddah, not Ganesh, not Allah and when you die you get to go to Heaven.  If you don't accept Jesus as Lord you go to He11.  Do I understand it correctly or do I oversimplify?



Yeah....I might say that is oversimplified but we'd have to deal with more stuff then......but yes....that's the general idea


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Yeah....I might say that is oversimplified but we'd have to deal with more stuff then......but yes....that's the general idea



You've done your job.  Though I'm suspicious of your "product" I believe that you are doing what you think is best.


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2012)

there are reasons why its unsafe to teach children these things...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703ZJSzyyOA


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

No worries on my part.....I will not be participating in genocide or any other type of crime against humanity in the name of God. The Bible is very clear that vengeance is God's domain and I will leave those things to him. 

Are there those who do nutty things and claim God was the cause?Sure. But that's outside the norm and is not what the bible teaches or that Jesus, and by association, myself believed or taught.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

Four said:


> there are reasons why its unsafe to teach children these things...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=703ZJSzyyOA




I think I was in 6th grade, I guess I was 10 or 11.  I told a class mate that he and his whole family were going to He11 because they were Hindus.  

My guilt almost brings me to tears.

"Anil, wherever you are, please forgive me."


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> No worries on my part.....I will not be participating in genocide or any other type of crime against humanity in the name of God. The Bible is very clear that vengeance is God's domain and I will leave those things to him.
> 
> Are there those who do nutty things and claim God was the cause?Sure. But that's outside the norm and is not what the bible teaches or that Jesus, and by association, myself believed or taught.



Do you find it the least bit disconcerting that it seems so easy for people to use religion to justify doing terrible things and how completely they become filled with conviction; fueled by their zealotry?


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> No worries on my part.....I will not be participating in genocide or any other type of crime against humanity in the name of God. The Bible is very clear that vengeance is God's domain and I will leave those things to him.
> 
> Are there those who do nutty things and claim God was the cause?Sure. But that's outside the norm and is not what the bible teaches or that Jesus, and by association, myself believed or taught.



The point is, if you give a child a book and tell him it's the word of god, and he has to follow that word or he goes to he11, you explain original sin etc. the logical conclusion is that genocide is ok, if not moral, so long as it's for religious reasons.

Its not hard to understand why, god commanded MEN to commit the genocide. You say that vengeance is in gods domain, but if god chose to work through you, would you reject him?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 14, 2012)

Four said:


> The point is, if you give a child a book and tell him it's the word of god, and he has to follow that word or he goes to he11, you explain original sin etc. the logical conclusion is that genocide is ok, if not moral, so long as it's for religious reasons.
> 
> Its not hard to understand why, god commanded MEN to commit the genocide. You say that vengeance is in gods domain, but if god chose to work through you, would you reject him?



"God said 'Abraham! Fetch me a son!'"

  -Bob Dylan


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

Four said:


> The point is, if you give a child a book and tell him it's the word of god, and he has to follow that word or he goes to he11, you explain original sin etc. the logical conclusion is that genocide is ok, if not moral, so long as it's for religious reasons.
> 
> Its not hard to understand why, god commanded MEN to commit the genocide. You say that vengeance is in gods domain, but if god chose to work through you, would you reject him?



He wouldn't.....not now. Christ changed everything......but I don't expect you to grasp what I mean by that. In order to do that you would have to read the bible for what it is rather than read it looking for problems.


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> He wouldn't.....not now. Christ changed everything......but I don't expect you to grasp what I mean by that? In order to do that you would have to read the bible for what it is rather than read it looking for problems.



Is it not arrogant to presume what a deity would or wouldn't do. He had done it in the past, its not unthinkable to do again.

I think the question is a feasible one.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Is it not arrogant to presume what a deity would or wouldn't do. He had done it in the past, its not unthinkable to do again.
> 
> I think the question is a feasible one.



It would be arrogant if said deity had not already been clear on what He will do and how He will do it. 

That said.....I agree it's a feasible question.


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2012)

I have a hard time with the "god changed his mind" type responces, because obviously if he changed his mind before, he can do it again. I'm sure the jewish before christianity didnt think god would change his mind.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I have a hard time with the "god changed his mind" type responces, because obviously if he changed his mind before, he can do it again. I'm sure the jewish before christianity didnt think god would change his mind.



He didn't "change his mind" but the theological explanation of that would take days to explain even if you cared to listen to it  

But to the point that He did what the Jews were not expecting......you are correct.


----------



## Asath (Feb 16, 2012)

Well, the standard ‘theological’ explanation is that God DIDN’T change His mind – He simply split into three, so as to make sure there was no confusion.  The God of the OT is God the Father, who is the vengeful and jealous fella who (of the three monotheistic faiths) is also the God of Judaism and Islam.  In order to repudiate THOSE two challengers, Christians moved forwards into the doctrine of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  While the third of these has almost no description, and is kept as a hip-pocket defense, much like a derringer up the sleeve, the second of these Gods is described endlessly, despite having apparently provided no self-description whatsoever.  

By making these distinctions, Christian theology clarifies the matter, and makes the rest of us breathe easier, knowing that at least one of these three God figures isn’t quite as nasty as the others seem to be.  So, as a Christian, one is asked to accept all three Gods of the Trinity, and accept that all three are actually one, except when one of them is inconvenient, but mainly align behind only one of them.

Does that help clear things up?


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> Well, the standard ‘theological’ explanation is that God DIDN’T change His mind – He simply split into three, so as to make sure there was no confusion.  The God of the OT is God the Father, who is the vengeful and jealous fella who (of the three monotheistic faiths) is also the God of Judaism and Islam.  In order to repudiate THOSE two challengers, Christians moved forwards into the doctrine of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  While the third of these has almost no description, and is kept as a hip-pocket defense, much like a derringer up the sleeve, the second of these Gods is described endlessly, despite having apparently provided no self-description whatsoever.
> 
> By making these distinctions, Christian theology clarifies the matter, and makes the rest of us breathe easier, knowing that at least one of these three God figures isn’t quite as nasty as the others seem to be.  So, as a Christian, one is asked to accept all three Gods of the Trinity, and accept that all three are actually one, except when one of them is inconvenient, but mainly align behind only one of them.
> 
> Does that help clear things up?



Well that's one way of looking at it. Not the right way, but definitely one way


----------



## Four (Feb 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> Well, the standard ‘theological’ explanation is that God DIDN’T change His mind – He simply split into three, so as to make sure there was no confusion.  The God of the OT is God the Father, who is the vengeful and jealous fella who (of the three monotheistic faiths) is also the God of Judaism and Islam.  In order to repudiate THOSE two challengers, Christians moved forwards into the doctrine of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  While the third of these has almost no description, and is kept as a hip-pocket defense, much like a derringer up the sleeve, the second of these Gods is described endlessly, despite having apparently provided no self-description whatsoever.
> 
> By making these distinctions, Christian theology clarifies the matter, and makes the rest of us breathe easier, knowing that at least one of these three God figures isn’t quite as nasty as the others seem to be.  So, as a Christian, one is asked to accept all three Gods of the Trinity, and accept that all three are actually one, except when one of them is inconvenient, but mainly align behind only one of them.
> 
> Does that help clear things up?



Those are some mental jumping jacks...


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> Well, the standard ‘theological’ explanation is that God DIDN’T change His mind – He simply split into three, so as to make sure there was no confusion.  The God of the OT is God the Father, who is the vengeful and jealous fella who (of the three monotheistic faiths) is also the God of Judaism and Islam.  In order to repudiate THOSE two challengers, Christians moved forwards into the doctrine of the Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  While the third of these has almost no description, and is kept as a hip-pocket defense, much like a derringer up the sleeve, the second of these Gods is described endlessly, despite having apparently provided no self-description whatsoever.
> 
> By making these distinctions, Christian theology clarifies the matter, and makes the rest of us breathe easier, knowing that at least one of these three God figures isn’t quite as nasty as the others seem to be.  So, as a Christian, one is asked to accept all three Gods of the Trinity, and accept that all three are actually one, except when one of them is inconvenient, but mainly align behind only one of them.
> 
> Does that help clear things up?



Sounds like a Bad case of multi-personality disorder.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Sounds like a Bad case of multi-personality disorder.


Factor in that all this is based on what the bible says about God. It is a mere reflection of what the writer perceived God to be, but not a sure sign of the true picture of God. Of which I can't prove either way. But the OT view of God was different. After Jesus, minds changed as to this because Jesus taught differently about God, of which they must have accepted because we never saw that OT view come up again. My theory is that God was misrepresented, thus Jesus showed us the real/correct view of God.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2012)

Writings that span about 1500+ years with a gap of approx 400 years between the OT and NT and all of it by anonymous authors. Man's perception of God in the OT is no different than Man's perception of Jesus in the NT. Each are what Man not only wanted but NEEDED their God to be.They are each great examples of Man using his talents to bring light to Man's thoughts and ideals.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Writings that span about 1500+ years with a gap of approx 400 years between the OT and NT and all of it by anonymous authors. Man's perception of God in the OT is no different than Man's perception of Jesus in the NT. Each are what Man not only wanted but NEEDED their God to be.They are each great examples of Man using his talents to bring light to Man's thoughts and ideals.


I can see why you believe what you do. And I agree to a degree with them shaping things to fit their need.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Writings that span about 1500+ years with a gap of approx 400 years between the OT and NT and all of it by anonymous authors. Man's perception of God in the OT is no different than Man's perception of Jesus in the NT.



Just a bit off there.  The OT was written to the Jewish people, and not really for foreign consumption.  Kind-of like "preaching to the choir."  It is a history of "their people."  The NT is written to everybody, and is for universal consumption.

Lets say you were writing a narrative of your days on the AAA forum.  One was to fellow skeptics, and one was for the local newspaper.  I would assume the rhetoric would be a little different in each.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I can see why you believe what you do. And I agree to a degree with them shaping things to fit their need.



Do you think a big difference could be the intended audience?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Do you think a big difference could be the intended audience?


Yes, for sure, that would play a major influence. But I do believe that they had a different view of God then. A God with a big stick, of which they never had a clear conscience. Now we are the other extreme, as if God were our buddy. It's should be more of a father mentality


----------



## bullethead (Feb 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Just a bit off there.  The OT was written to the Jewish people, and not really for foreign consumption.  Kind-of like "preaching to the choir."  It is a history of "their people."  The NT is written to everybody, and is for universal consumption.
> 
> Lets say you were writing a narrative of your days on the AAA forum.  One was to fellow skeptics, and one was for the local newspaper.  I would assume the rhetoric would be a little different in each.



It would and neither would be the word of God.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> ...and neither would be the word of God.



Yep, I walked right into that one


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 16, 2012)

New verse to ponder: 1 Peter 2:18
You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you--not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.
Why did the world views on slavery change? If slavery was once ok but now it's not could homosexuality and women's equal rights now be ok but once weren't?


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> New verse to ponder: 1 Peter 2:18
> You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you--not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.
> Why did the world views on slavery change? If slavery was once ok but now it's not could homosexuality and women's equal rights now be ok but once weren't?



Where in this verse does it say slavery is ok????


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 17, 2012)

Telling someone to accept authority from your master even if they are cruel implies you are ok with it. 
Telling someone to honor their father & mother implies you are for the family unit.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

*Colossians2:8*

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,which depends  on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than Christ.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 19, 2012)

I don't think that verse has anything to do with slavery.
Colossians 2:8

King James Version (KJV)

 8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
This is the best I could find:
Passages from the Bible which may condemn slavery:

There are no passages in the Bible which plainly condemn or criticize the institution of slavery. There are no verses which clearly denounce slave owners. However there are three passages which might be interpreted as bearing on slavery. All three are rather obscure and ambiguous:
	Luke 4:18 describes Jesus as quoting a passage from Isaiah 61:1-2 which says that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." The word captives is the most common translation for the individuals who are to be delivered. It is used in many English translations of the New Testament, including 21st Century KJV, Amplified Bible, Inclusive Version, Jerusalem Bible, KJV, Lattimore, Living Bible, Moffatt, NAB, NRSV, NSB, New World Translation, Rheims, RSV, TEV, Tyndale, and Young's Literal translation. But the CEV, Ronald Knox Translation, NIV,  REV, and Schonfield's Authentic New Testament use the word prisoners. And the NCV uses prisoners of sin.   Finally, the Scholar's Version uses the phrase: pardon to the prisoners. Many slaves started out as captives. One might infer that Isaiah was referring to slaves in his writing, not to actual captives or prisoners. But, as we say, it is a stretch.

	1 Timothy 1:10 refers to groups of people that various translations describe as  "lawless, disobedient, unruly, unholy, profane, sinful, lawbreakers, rebels, rebellious, unjust, or disobedient." One group are usually translated as "kidnapers" or  "men-stealers." But the New International Version and the Revised Standard Version translates this as "slave traders."  In the original Greek, the word is "andrapodistes", which combines the words for man and foot. It apparently means to put someone under one's foot - to control a person completely. Most English Bible translations interpret this verse as condemning kidnappers; the NIV and RSV condemn slave traders. A case could be made for condemning persons who purchase a slave or who own a slave. The passage is ambiguous.

	Revelation 13:10 issues a curse: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity..." It is unclear whether this refers to armies capturing the enemy, or to individuals who capture people as slaves.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think that verse has anything to do with slavery.
> Colossians 2:8



.Just so happens that I love the verse and it had the word captive in it!!!


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't think that verse has anything to do with slavery.
> Colossians 2:8
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> ...



Every christian that frequents this forum should understand that slavery is a trap topic used widely by atheist......In Luke 18 I see the captive as being myself and Jesus is my rescuer.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Every christian that frequents this forum should understand that slavery is a trap topic used widely by atheist......In Luke 18 I see the captive as being myself and Jesus is my rescuer.



Be on the lookout for those darn atheists that point out Saul died 4 times and 4 different ways. I know you can explain though.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Be on the lookout for those darn atheists that point out Saul died 4 times and 4 different ways. I know you can explain though.



Saul only died once 1 Samuel 31:4-6 Saul took a sword and fell on it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2012)

1 Samuel 31:4-6
Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.

1 Chronicles 10:4
Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.


2 Samuel 1:8-10
And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him.

2 Samuel 21:12
The Philistines had slain Saul.


1 Chronicles 10:14
So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Every christian that frequents this forum should understand that slavery is a trap topic used widely by atheist......In Luke 18 I see the captive as being myself and Jesus is my rescuer.



The truth will set you free!

Think of captive as being a slave to alcohol, gambling, heroin, porn, smoking, cheating on your spouse etc etc, anything that you cannot stop doing yourself...Jesus is our deliverer and our rescuer from things that bind us to addiction.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1 Samuel 31:4-6
> Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.
> 
> 1 Chronicles 10:4
> ...



That's the OT....there is a difference between what folks did in the OT than what they don't have to do in the NT.

I'm not saying I don't believe in the OT, I do. But I practice what's in the NT, because I am a Christian and not a Jew, for one thing.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1 Samuel 31:4-6
> Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.
> 
> 1 Chronicles 10:4
> ...



I thought for sure you would make it harder than that.
1 Samuel 4-6,this is how Saul actually died.Dont forget there were eye witnesses.
1 Chronicles 10:4 ties right into 1 Samuel 31
2 Samuel 1:8-10 the Amalekite lied to David,he was trying to win Davids favor.Saul hated the Amalekites it makes no sense that he let one slay him
2 Samuel 21:12 The war was with the Philistines. The Philistines won the war. Therefore, anyone dead in the battlefield was killed by the Philistines.

1 Chronicles 10:14 the writer attributes the catastrophe to God Himself Who meant to finish with Saul since that day when he consulted with the witch of Endor. In that case, the death of everyone that day was attributed to God


----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I thought for sure you would make it harder than that.
> 1 Samuel 4-6,this is how Saul actually died.Dont forget there were eye witnesses.
> 1 Chronicles 10:4 ties right into 1 Samuel 31
> 2 Samuel 1:8-10 the Amalekite lied to David,he was trying to win Davids favor.Saul hated the Amalekites it makes no sense that he let one slay him
> ...



Priceless


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Priceless



See Col 2:8


----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> See Col 2:8



Is that the one about contradiction in the Bible? Or more indoctrination about don't be fooled by hollow philosophy??


----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> I thought for sure you would make it harder than that.
> 1 Samuel 4-6,this is how Saul actually died.Dont forget there were eye witnesses.
> 1 Chronicles 10:4 ties right into 1 Samuel 31
> 2 Samuel 1:8-10 the Amalekite lied to David,he was trying to win Davids favor.Saul hated the Amalekites it makes no sense that he let one slay him
> ...



So what you are telling me is that there were only eyewitnesses for the first one, #2 ties into the first, Even though #3 is written in the Bible because it contradicts #1&#2, it doesn't make sense and should be discounted, #4 Even though Saul killed himself AND the Bible says the Amalekites killed Saul the Philistines now ALSO killed Saul because they won the war!!! #5 God finished with Saul once and for all by making sure he was dead...probably all the different ways so he was sure Saul was dead.

Great explanations.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

Makes perfect sense to me...you just cant see the forest for the trees......We live in a pluralistic society.Were suppose to be tolerant of everyone and there views.I dont buy into the pluralistic view.I will never tolerate the views of a Buddhist,Islamist or even an atheist,so on and so forth....As a Christian I have to make a stand for God and that's what I will do!!!There's only one God,the alpha and the omega,the beginning and the end,the creator of everything.There's only one way to God and that's my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ....You see contradictions,I dont!!!


----------



## bullethead (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Makes perfect sense to me...you just cant see the forest for the trees......We live in a pluralistic society.Were suppose to be tolerant of everyone and there views.I dont buy into the pluralistic view.I will never tolerate the views of a Buddhist,Islamist or even an atheist,so on and so forth....As a Christian I have to make a stand for God and that's what I will do!!!There's only one God,the alpha and the omega,the beginning and the end,the creator of everything.There's only one way to God and that's my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ....You see contradictions,I dont!!!



When the Bible contradicts go on a rant.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Is that the one about contradiction in the Bible? Or more indoctrination about don't be fooled by hollow philosophy??



It's a warning for Christians.Sometimes in our quest for more knowledge we fall into the trap of info overload and can be swayed.In our quest we read this book or that book  by this author or that author and get thing confused instead of turning to the true source of Christian knowledge...The Bible.It's the only book about God a Christian really needs.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

bullethead said:


> When the Bible contradicts go on a rant.



Im not ranting...just making a stand for God,something not enough Christians do now a days.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm not worried about traps set by atheist, more worried about traps set by the devil. 
Do you think all the verses in the Bible about slaves are metaphors about being captive to sin?


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 19, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Do you think all the verses in the Bible about slaves are metaphors about being captive to sin?


No that would be stupid!Slavery was purty commonplace during biblical times....Theres tons of verses in the bible  talking about slavery.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 19, 2012)

Slavery was commonplace in the US until the Civil War. Christians had slaves and it was the norm. During the 1950's until the Civil Rights movement racism & discrimination was the norm and Christians of that time participated in racism. It was not even considered bad. During this same period discriminating against women by Christians was normal for that time period. Now it's sort frowned upon. Up until recently homosexuals have been discriminated against, even violence used against them by Christians. My point is if things are commonplace for that time, does it make it ok and not a sin?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> It's a warning for Christians.Sometimes in our quest for more knowledge we fall into the trap of info overload and can be swayed.In our quest we read this book or that book  by this author or that author and get thing confused instead of turning to the true source of Christian knowledge...The Bible.It's the only book about God a Christian really needs.



Maybe we should outlaw those naughty books that keep filling your mind with more knowledge than it can hold.  Or maybe we should just burn them.  And keep people from writing more of them.  

The trap of too much knowledge.....who knew?


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 20, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe we should outlaw those naughty books that keep filling your mind with more knowledge than it can hold.  Or maybe we should just burn them.  And keep people from writing more of them.
> 
> The trap of too much knowledge.....who knew?



Typical response....reject God's word then try to bash the poster in a subtle way.I should have expected more,but oh well
You read what books you want to about God,I'll just continue to read the bible and stand strong and confident in my faith....So what faith do you have?confidence in man?What so what do you believe?


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 20, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Slavery was commonplace in the US until the Civil War. Christians had slaves and it was the norm. During the 1950's until the Civil Rights movement racism & discrimination was the norm and Christians of that time participated in racism. It was not even considered bad. During this same period discriminating against women by Christians was normal for that time period. Now it's sort frowned upon. Up until recently homosexuals have been discriminated against, even violence used against them by Christians. My point is if things are commonplace for that time, does it make it ok and not a sin?


Sin is sin,doesnt matter if it's commonplace...alcoholism is common today,but it's still a sin!!!Slavery is dealt with throughout the bible,ultimately the burden to do the right thing falls on the master!!!I thought everyone knew this stuffso whats your thoughts on slavery?Do you think any of your past relatives owned slaves???


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 20, 2012)

Yes my ancestors owned a few  slaves. I've researched my genealogy and saw old wills where they were giving  their slaves to their children. I have other relatives  who were racist. I had some who don't think women should wear pants. I have a lot that are against homosexuality. I'm hoping that since it was normal for that time period that God will not judge them as harsh. Maybe my grandfather who possibly treated blacks or women differently than he should have want be judged the same as I would because of changing times.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not worried about traps set by atheist, more worried about traps set by the devil.
> Do you think all the verses in the Bible about slaves are metaphors about being captive to sin?



You know satan uses people to try to entrap us, who else would he use? Not always but usually we get trapped up in sin because of what others are doing around us. When abortion first became legal, most people were horrified. But now it's commonplace, ya know, because everybody's doin' it. Well not everybody but you know what I mean.

No, not all slavery is only regarding sin. But most people I know have never been enslaved to anything but drugs, alcohol, porn, cheating, cigarettes, bad food, etc etc. Not always sins just enslaved to something that may be bad for us, being overweight or being too underweight, or hoarding stuff. Not all of it is sin, but it's entrapment that keeps us from living the best life we can when it comes to joy and peace. Ya know satan will even steal your joy if he can.

I don't know any people who are or have been enslaved by another person, ie owning slaves for labor etc...I mean in today's time.

The Bible is the living word of God, not the old word of God, so it's always contemporary. So whatever has entrapped me, be it an abusive relationship, drugs, cigarettes, gambling, I can be a captive to those things, and Jesus came to set me free. By His stripes we are healed, He was wounded (bruised/bled on the inside) for our infirmaties, our bad habits our doublemindedness, whatever's on the inside that we need to be freed from.

So to me, I suppose, when I think of captives, I think of folks in rehab/jail or addicted to something that is wearing them down.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 2 Samuel 1:8-10
> And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him.



You also have to read the rest of the story.
2 Sam 1:13-16
13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, “Where are you from?”

   “I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite,” he answered.

 14 David asked him, “Why weren’t you afraid to lift your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?”

 15 Then David called one of his men and said, “Go, strike him down!” So he struck him down, and he died. 16 For David had said to him, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the LORD’s anointed.’” 
David had the Amalekite put to death not because he had killed Saul but because he was lying!!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe we should outlaw those naughty books that keep filling your mind with more knowledge than it can hold.  Or maybe we should just burn them.  And keep people from writing more of them.
> 
> The trap of too much knowledge.....who knew?



I think we're all safe around here from having too much knowledge...so just keep reading ambush.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 20, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> You also have to read the rest of the story.
> 2 Sam 1:13-16
> 13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, “Where are you from?”
> 
> ...



I read the story. How does what you have just posted refute that the Amalekite killed Saul?
The discussion was not how or why the Amalekite was killed. The discussion was about how Saul died and the numerous ways mentioned in the Bible saying how Saul died.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 20, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I read the story. How does what you have just posted refute that the Amalekite killed Saul?
> The discussion was not how or why the Amalekite was killed. The discussion was about how Saul died and the numerous ways mentioned in the Bible saying how Saul died.



Saul didnt die in numerous ways:1 Samuel 31
Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.You see things one way I see them another.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 20, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Saul didnt die in numerous ways:1 Samuel 31
> Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.You see things one way I see them another.



You may want to take up that issue with the author of 2 Samuel 21:12, because that author has Saul slain by the Philistines in Gilboa.


----------



## Asath (Feb 20, 2012)

“I think we're all safe around here from having too much knowledge...so just keep reading ambush.”

Ah, the irony of attempted satire that backfires . . . 

For my own part, if given the choice between only two books – the one relied upon here or the one about to be written by ambush – I’ll put in a pre-publication order for his . . .


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 20, 2012)

Asath said:


> “I think we're all safe around here from having too much knowledge...so just keep reading ambush.”
> 
> Ah, the irony of attempted satire that backfires . . .
> 
> For my own part, if given the choice between only two books – the one relied upon here or the one about to be written by ambush – I’ll put in a pre-publication order for his . . .



I'd be interested in reading his, too. I didn't know he wrote books. Gee, you learn something every day.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 20, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I'd be interested in reading his, too. I didn't know he wrote books. Gee, you learn something every day.



Sign me up for a copy also!!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So if even one of those went unfulfilled would that make the claim null?



Do you have one in mind?  I don't  know of one not fulfilled, but if you know one, I'll/we'll try to address it.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 22, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Do you have one in mind?  I don't  know of one not fulfilled, but if you know one, I'll/we'll try to address it.



They have already been listed pages ago.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> They have already been listed pages ago.



ok, i never read it then, don't believe it and will believe what i believe that there aren't any, just because you declare it to be true....like you say, the burden of proof of your statement isn't on me....I'm beginning to like the way that works, both ways


----------



## bullethead (Feb 22, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> do you have one in mind?  I don't  know of one not fulfilled, but if you know one, i'll/we'll try to address it.





mtnwoman said:


> ok, i never read it then, don't believe it and will believe what i believe that there aren't any, just because you declare it to be true....like you say, the burden of proof of your statement isn't on me....i'm beginning to like the way that works, both ways



*then why ask 13 days later??????????????????*


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 22, 2012)

Asath said:


> “I think we're all safe around here from having too much knowledge...so just keep reading ambush.”
> 
> Ah, the irony of attempted satire that backfires . . .
> 
> For my own part, if given the choice between only two books – the one relied upon here or the one about to be written by ambush – I’ll put in a pre-publication order for his . . .



Title of Ambush's book, "Talking Donkeys and other things I don't believe in."


----------



## bullethead (Feb 22, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Title of Ambush's book, "Talking Donkeys and other things I don't believe in."



If it is inspired and inerrant(even if it really isn't but people think it is) he will have a best seller.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> If it is inspired and inerrant(even if it really isn't but people think it is) he will have a best seller.



Depends on the source of inspiration!


----------



## Asath (Feb 25, 2012)

"Depends on the source of inspiration!"

Got one?


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> "Depends on the source of inspiration!"
> 
> Got one?



Your not a vampire are you?Only come out at night???


----------



## Asath (Feb 26, 2012)

Another deeply insightful, well thought and well argued post.  Thank you for the contribution.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 27, 2012)

Asath said:


> Another deeply insightful, well thought and well argued post.  Thank you for the contribution.


What...you should really appreciate my wittiness.....
did yall hear about the Muslim that choked the atheist
in Pennsylvania?
http://times247.com/articles/atheist-choked-by-muslim-muslim-judge-drops-charges


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 27, 2012)

Asath said:


> "Depends on the source of inspiration!"
> 
> Got one?



Asath, just to help you from having to copy and paste so much, if you want to quote someone, look in the bottom right corner or that persons post and click the quote button. You may already know this, just throwing it out there.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 27, 2012)

Lets get back to Bible verses. The OP started with God getting angry. If god is all knowing, how do you explain verses where God became angry? Here are examples:
Does God ever become angry with people? The Lord was angry with Aaron (Deuteronomy 9:20), Israel at Sinai (Exodus 32:9-11; Deuteronomy 9:8, 19) and with Israel in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:22). The Lord was angry enough that He intended to destroy the nation and rebuild it from Moses’ descendants!

God blessed king Solomon greatly with wealth and wisdom, but became angry with him when his heart had turned from the Lord (1 Kings 11:9). The Scriptures affirm that God was angry with the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:6-18), noting that the nation had provoked the Lord to wrath (vs. 11). He brought the Assyrians against the nation. The southern kingdom, Judah, followed in the steps of Israel, likewise provoking the Lord to anger (2 Kings 22:13).


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Lets get back to Bible verses. The OP started with God getting angry. If god is all knowing, how do you explain verses where God became angry? Here are examples:
> Does God ever become angry with people? The Lord was angry with Aaron (Deuteronomy 9:20), Israel at Sinai (Exodus 32:9-11; Deuteronomy 9:8, 19) and with Israel in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 9:22). The Lord was angry enough that He intended to destroy the nation and rebuild it from Moses’ descendants!
> 
> God blessed king Solomon greatly with wealth and wisdom, but became angry with him when his heart had turned from the Lord (1 Kings 11:9). The Scriptures affirm that God was angry with the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 17:6-18), noting that the nation had provoked the Lord to wrath (vs. 11). He brought the Assyrians against the nation. The southern kingdom, Judah, followed in the steps of Israel, likewise provoking the Lord to anger (2 Kings 22:13).



All knowing?
“For His eyes are upon the ways of a man,
And He sees all his steps.
“There is no darkness or deep shadow
Where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.

Job 34:21-22

They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

Genesis 3:8-9


----------



## bullethead (Feb 27, 2012)

God is seen and heard:


    So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.”

    Genesis 32:30

    Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.

    Exodus 24:9-11

    Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

    Exodus 33:23

    Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.

    Exodus 33:11

    In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.

    Isaiah 6:1


God is not seen and heard:

    But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

    Exodus 33:20

    No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

    John 1:18

    And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

    John 5:37

    who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

    1 Timothy 6:16


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 27, 2012)

When I asked on another post if people try to find verses for and against things in the Bible, I was told there are no such verses. I was told that there are no verses that contradict each other. 
I can see your point and am lost as to how to explain it. If God is all knowing, how can he get angry, how can he give me free will, how did Adam have free will, or how did Cornelius have free will?


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> When I asked on another post if people try to find verses for and against things in the Bible, I was told there are no such verses. I was told that there are no verses that contradict each other.
> I can see your point and am lost as to how to explain it. If God is all knowing, how can he get angry, how can he give me free will, how did Adam have free will, or how did Cornelius have free will?



These are questions that only God can answer.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 28, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> These are questions that only God can answer.



You can answer them right here, right now.   You're just unwilling to accept the obvious answers.


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 28, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You can answer them right here, right now.   You're just unwilling to accept the obvious answers.



The obvious answers might be right. I would probably be wrong, cause I would be guessing.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 28, 2012)

Most of you could stand a good lesson in biblical hermeneutics and textual criticism  

That would help this thread immensely


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 28, 2012)

Discussing the Bible with atheist is like arguing with a peta member about hunting!!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 28, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Most of you could stand a good lesson in biblical hermeneutics and textual criticism
> 
> That would help this thread immensely



I wish my Sunday School & Training Union teacher would have taught this.


----------



## Asath (Feb 28, 2012)

“Discussing the Bible with atheist is like arguing with a peta member about hunting!!!”

If the two or three forums just above this one are any indication, and if the fragmentation of even Protestant Christianity into a duck soup of different denominations speaks any truth, then it seems that even Bible folks discussing their own Bible with other Bible folks yields no better results.

Seems like some of you folks are just naturally argumentative, as the invention (by believers) of the entire ‘science’ of hermeneutics seems to bear out.  There is a ‘science’ of ‘interpretation’?  Really?  

Seems to us a little like applying the empirical method to The Divine Comedy, and arriving at ‘scientific’ proof of what Dante may have meant.  The problem with the ‘scientific methods’ employed is that they would apply equally to ‘War and Peace,’ if that were the story under analysis.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Discussing the Bible with atheist is like arguing with a peta member about hunting!!!”
> 
> If the two or three forums just above this one are any indication, and if the fragmentation of even Protestant Christianity into a duck soup of different denominations speaks any truth, then it seems that even Bible folks discussing their own Bible with other Bible folks yields no better results.
> 
> ...



Cruiserweight!!!


----------



## ted_BSR (Feb 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Discussing the Bible with atheist is like arguing with a peta member about hunting!!!”
> 
> If the two or three forums just above this one are any indication, and if the fragmentation of even Protestant Christianity into a duck soup of different denominations speaks any truth, then it seems that even Bible folks discussing their own Bible with other Bible folks yields no better results.
> 
> ...



Who is us? Little Golam-ish don't you think?


----------

