# Errors in the Christian bible



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

Here are just a few to get you started.... although just ONE should be enough to invalidate the entire NT.  And for the record, I did not write these, these are from study notes... so yes, I am copying and pasting for the sake of saving time.   Read at your own discretion... don't really think much can be debated, since it's taken directly from the book itself...   

According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews.

Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god.

In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus supposedly says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." But a little later he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)." Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says these words are "not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate itself." It is interesting that the Catholic church, who originally added this verse would admit now that it a spurious addition to the Greek Testament!

It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!" Because Peter asked Jesus where he was going, it certainly seems as though Jesus has lied.

In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Tanach or anything resembling it.

Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Ketuvim (the prophets). This narrated prophecy does not even exist! In the Old Testament (King James Version), the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" do not ever appear!

John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition" and says the "scriptures are being fulfilled." There is no reference, however, to a "son of perdition" in the Tanach.

Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was another Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).

Regarding Jesus' stepfather, was he Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)? And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom G-d has said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

Was John the Baptist Elijah, as Jesus claimed (Matthew 11:14)? If so, why did John himself deny it (John 1:21)? Would "Elijah" have been so unsure of Jesus' messianic identity (Luke 7:19-20)? And where in our Scriptures is it written that Elijah would be mistreated, as Jesus claimed (Mark 9:13)? Don't our Scriptures indicate, to the contrary, that Elijah will be successful in his mission of restoring harmony among the people (Malachai 4:5-6)? Moreover, Mark 9:11-13 and Mark 6:16 declares that: "Elijah has come" and "It is John who I beheaded." There is no indication from the Tanach that Elijah would be beheaded. I refer you, once again, to Malachai 4:5-6.

Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

Paul says. "It is shameful for a man to wear his hair long" (I Corinthians 11:14). Glaringly, this is the only way Jesus is ever pictured.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34.

John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah teacher that "He who has seen the face of G-d shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This Torah verse amounts to eternal ****ation in fundamentalist Christian theology. (Note: Even in our times, thousands of Christians claim to have seen Jesus.)

According to Acts 7:53 and Galations 3:19, the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by "angels." But, according to Exodus 20:1, it was given to Moses by G-d: "And G-d spoke all these words."

Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt.

Jesus tells Peter to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Peter reportedly uses his sword to cut off the ear of a Temple guard (John 18:10; Matthew 26:52-53). But Jesus, even though he urged Peter to buy a sword, criticizes Peter: "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)."

Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover.

Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 22 says: "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." But, the Bible, in Isaiah, chapter 43, verses 23 through 25 teaches just the opposite; "You (Israelites) have not honored me (G-d) with your (blood) sacrifices. (Nevertheless) I will forgive your sins." And Hosea, chapter 14, verse 2 says G-d accepts "words" of thanks (prayer in place of sacrifices).

Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom." Thus, we learn that Jesus is not G-d or an emissary of G-d.

It is claimed in Ecclesians 1:4 that the earth does abideth forever. In II Peter 3:10, the opposite is stated.

Further, why does John 8:14 say that: "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true if John 5:31 says "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is not true?"

According to Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:2, Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six days. Or was it eight days in accordance to Luke 9:28?

The claim is made that Jesus "justified" the sinner (Romans 4:5; Romans 15:9). But, the Bible in Proverbs 17, verse 15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to G-d."


----------



## pigpen1 (Dec 30, 2008)

What your verse's are  comparing in most cases are literal speaking with spiritual speaking which can't be done and get true meaning. Thats like when Jesus told peter to feed his sheep, he didn't mean get a bale of hay and a bucket of corn and go to the barn, or like when the Bible says Jesus is the door to heaven we know he ain't a six panel wood door.. so we can call things like you have pointed out contradictions or put them in context and see the truth....


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 30, 2008)

...sweet Mary Mother of God.....


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> ...sweet Mary Mother of God.....



Hey pass the popcorn bub.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 30, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Hey pass the popcorn bub.



Want butter?

I noticed Maccabees wasn't in there


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 30, 2008)

Yes butter please....gotta a 'near beer' to go with it...LOL

Gee and I was wanting to learn more about Maccabees


----------



## pigpen1 (Dec 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Want butter?
> 
> Ya'll know a forum that sells guns and encourages religious debate should remember most wars in history was because of differences of religious belief...lol


----------



## pigpen1 (Dec 30, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Gee and I was wanting to learn more about Maccabees



I don't know anything about Maccabees, but know plenty about honey bees....


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 30, 2008)

pigpen1 said:


> I don't know anything about Mac & Cheese but know plenty about honey bees....



Ever heard of Kraft Foods?


----------



## kw5891 (Dec 30, 2008)

pigpen1 said:


> What your verse's are  comparing in most cases are literal speaking with spiritual speaking which can't be done and get true meaning. Thats like when Jesus told peter to feed his sheep, he didn't mean get a bale of hay and a bucket of corn and go to the barn, or like when the Bible says Jesus is the door to heaven we know he ain't a six panel wood door.. so we can call things like you have pointed out contradictions or put them in context and see the truth....



thank you i been carrying a bale of hay with me for years it get into my carpet in my car  wooo lol  also jesus did not mean to pick up a rattle snake and hug it lol  you all made my day


----------



## pigpen1 (Dec 30, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Ever heard of Kraft Foods?



 you can talk about my religion, but lay off the cheesiest...


----------



## pigpen1 (Dec 30, 2008)

kw5891 said:


> thank you i been carrying a bale of hay with me for years it get into my carpet in my car  wooo lol  also jesus did not mean to pick up a rattle snake and hug it lol  you all made my day



 Some on here remind me of Nicodemus when Jesus told him that he must be born again, and he said how am I gonna get back in there now that I am this big ....[ paraphrasing  of course]


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 30, 2008)

pigpen1 said:


> Some on here remind me of Nicodemus when Jesus told him that he must be born again, and he said how am I gonna get back in there now that I am this big ....[ paraphrasing  of course]


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 30, 2008)

I been wondering where  "S H E" was.

She's Baaaaaacccccccckkkkkkk.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews.


 
Jesus was saying their will be no sign given to the pharisees that they will believe, not that there would not be signs from him. He went on (In Mark) to say the only one given to the pharisees would be from Jonah, that like him he would be in the earth for 3 days  like Jonah in the fish.



> Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god.


 
He did heal sick people there in Nazarene. He could have done more, but left amazed at their lack of faith.




> In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus supposedly says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." But a little later he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)." Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says these words are "not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate itself." It is interesting that the Catholic church, who originally added this verse would admit now that it a spurious addition to the Greek Testament!


 
In Jewish tradition, a person had to have more than one testify for it to be believed in court. Jesus is acknowledging that to the Jews, his testimony alone is not valid.

Jesus is saying in Chapter 8 that even if he does testify by himself, God also testifies for him. He said he is above human law.
In summary:
15You judge by human standards
16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid.
18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." 



> It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!" Because Peter asked Jesus where he was going, it certainly seems as though Jesus has lied.


 
Certainly, Peter did inquire of Jesus in 13:36 where He was going, as did Thomas in 14:5. However, later that same night, after Jesus continued to prepare them for His departure, speaking of the trials which would come upon them, and of the Helper who would come, it was not in the heart of any of the disciples to ask of Jesus, "where are you going?". Instead, they were given to sorrow. To the previous inquiries by Peter and Thomas, He supplied only a fraction of all that could be said in response to their questions. Perhaps at this point He sought to further explain things, but none of the disciples had the heart to ask. 

There is no contradiction.
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050612.htm




> In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Tanach or anything resembling it.


 
Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour out water on the thirsty land And streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring And My blessing on your descendants; 

Isaiah 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost. Isaiah 58:11 "And the LORD will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.




> Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Ketuvim (the prophets). This narrated prophecy does not even exist! In the Old Testament (King James Version), the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" do not ever appear!


 
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived; the Nazarites, of whom Samson was one, were typical of Christ; the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who was despised and rejected. See Isa 53:3 11:01 Jer 23:5 33:15:00 Zec 3:8 6:12.
http://bible.cc/matthew/23-35.htm




> John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition" and says the "scriptures are being fulfilled." There is no reference, however, to a "son of perdition" in the Tanach.


 
Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.



> Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was another Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22).


 
It is possible that Jehoiada and Berechias are names referencing the same individual. Recall, Matthew is also called Levi (Mt 9:9; Lk 5:27); Lebbaeus is also called Thaddaeus (Mt 10:3); and Simon is also called Cephas (Jn 1:42). It is entirely possible that this is one person, referred to with two different names. 

Also, there is an assumption by the questioner that the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is the same Zechariah as mentioned in Matthew 23:35. Both were put to death in the temple, which perhaps gives credence to the thought that they are the same man, but it certainly is not conclusive proof. It is certainly possible that more than one person by the name of Zechariah was put to death in the temple by the Jews. Some have supposed that the Zechariah listed in Matthew 23 is the prophet, though no account is given in Scripture of his death. 

Whether it is one of these explanations or perhaps another, the contradiction is answerable. There is no contradiction.
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040926.htm


....will tackle the rest later, goto go put my children to bed.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 30, 2008)

DD,

It is generally considered good etiquette to quote your source when ideas are not your own.

Such as:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/gen_cont.htm

http://www.jdstone.org/cr/files/generalcontradictions.html

or 

http://kutsalkitaplar.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=546&Itemid=133

for example


----------



## pigpen1 (Dec 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Jesus was saying their will be no sign given to the pharisees that they will believe, not that there would not be signs from him. He went on (In Mark) to say the only one given to the pharisees would be from Jonah, that like him he would be in the earth for 3 days  like Jonah in the fish.
> 
> 
> dido, certainly alot more thoroughly explained than my Nicodemus analogy.....


----------



## Leddyman (Dec 30, 2008)

Surely it must be tiring to carry all of that around with you.  I like to just sit on the beach at night and watch the moon shine off of the waves and let it all go.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> DD,
> 
> It is generally considered good etiquette to quote your source when ideas are not your own.



Had you read my initial post, you would have seen that I clearly stated the ideas were not my own, but from notes that I have accumulated through the years.  Due to the fact that my EXTENSIVE collection of notes has been collected over the past 8 years, I don't have the original source for all of them. If I had it, I would post it. If I don't, I state that it isn't from my own ideas, which I did here.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 30, 2008)

All I can really say to you DD, is try all you want to tear it down(it being the Christian faith) people have been trying for years and the church (though not necessarily the American church) is just as strong today as it ever was. 

Jesus is still on the throne and His church will not be destroyed. The gates of H-E-L-L will not prevail against it and neither will "biblical scholars" like yourself. 

He is coming back one day and every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour out water on the thirsty land And streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring And My blessing on your descendants;
> 
> Isaiah 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost. Isaiah 58:11 "And the LORD will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.



That's not what the verse said   You're taking other verses and attributing them to this one because there IS no verse as Jesus quoted.





> That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies.



That isn't what the NT said.  The NT said that the prophecy should be fulfilled "And he shall be called a Nazarene."  There was no such prophecy, and your trying to explain it does not make it so. It was a FALSE prophecy.  Actually, it can't even be considered a false prophecy since it DID NOT EXIST!



> No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived; the Nazarites, of whom Samson was one, were typical of Christ; the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who was despised and rejected. See Isa 53:3 11:01 Jer 23:5 33:15:00 Zec 3:8 6:12.
> http://bible.cc/matthew/23-35.htm



Again, trying to make something that isn't there. Isaiah 53:3 is talking about the Jews, not the messiah. The Jews are God's Servant.

 Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Zech. 3:8, 6:12 has nothing to do with Nazareth or despised and rejected.  It doesn't even mention anything about Nezer, Samson or anything that you tried to tie it in with.  




> Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.



Again, not what Jesus' quote was   You are trying to apply something so that you have an answer... for which there is no answer for.  




> It is possible that Jehoiada and Berechias are names referencing the same individual. Recall, Matthew is also called Levi (Mt 9:9; Lk 5:27); Lebbaeus is also called Thaddaeus (Mt 10:3); and Simon is also called Cephas (Jn 1:42). It is entirely possible that this is one person, referred to with two different names.
> 
> Also, there is an assumption by the questioner that the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is the same Zechariah as mentioned in Matthew 23:35. Both were put to death in the temple, which perhaps gives credence to the thought that they are the same man, but it certainly is not conclusive proof. It is certainly possible that more than one person by the name of Zechariah was put to death in the temple by the Jews. Some have supposed that the Zechariah listed in Matthew 23 is the prophet, though no account is given in Scripture of his death.
> 
> ...



Awful lot of assumptions going on to get it to work your way, isn't there?  That's funny, because all of the rest of the 'prophecies' that are attributed to Jesus are taken verbatim from the plucked verses of the bible from which they came.  Wonder why now with this it's supposedly different?  




> ....will tackle the rest later, goto go put my children to bed.



Great... can't wait to see how the rest are attempted to be explained away!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> All I can really say to you DD, is try all you want to tear it down(it being the Christian faith) people have been trying for years and the church (though not necessarily the American church) is just as strong today as it ever was.



Yes, that's because you are all sheep, of course


----------



## farmasis (Dec 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Had you read my initial post, you would have seen that I clearly stated the ideas were not my own, but from notes that I have accumulated through the years. Due to the fact that my EXTENSIVE collection of notes has been collected over the past 8 years, I don't have the original source for all of them. If I had it, I would post it. If I don't, I state that it isn't from my own ideas, which I did here.


 
I understand that you said they were not your own. I just found it odd, that your post is word for word in many places. Maybe I assumed that 'from your notes' you were posting different things you had found over the last 8 years when they are easily found exactly as posted at many sites.
That's all I meant.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> It is possible that Jehoiada and Berechias are names referencing the same individual. Recall, Matthew is also called Levi (Mt 9:9; Lk 5:27); Lebbaeus is also called Thaddaeus (Mt 10:3); and Simon is also called Cephas (Jn 1:42). It is entirely possible that this is one person, referred to with two different names.
> 
> Also, there is an assumption by the questioner that the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is the same Zechariah as mentioned in Matthew 23:35. Both were put to death in the temple, which perhaps gives credence to the thought that they are the same man, but it certainly is not conclusive proof. It is certainly possible that more than one person by the name of Zechariah was put to death in the temple by the Jews. Some have supposed that the Zechariah listed in Matthew 23 is the prophet, though no account is given in Scripture of his death.
> 
> ...



And actually, I'd love for you to elaborate a little more on this one if you would.  If you read the verse in context, Jesus is clearly talking about biblical figures, he mentions the prophets and talks about the murders of Abel to this Zecharias... so it is clearly meaning someone that everyone would have known about, as mentioned in the Tanakh.  So if it is another Zecharias, son of Barachias, then where is this found?  You said yourself that Matthew, Simon, etc. were called other names in the NT, so show me where Jehoiada was called Barachias and maybe you have a point


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> I understand that you said they were not your own. I just found it odd, that your post is word for word in many places. Maybe I assumed that 'from your notes' you were posting different things you had found over the last 8 years when they are easily found exactly as posted at many sites.
> That's all I meant.



Many of my notes are copied from sites and pasted in Word for filing so that I can view offline.... so the sources weren't always saved.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 30, 2008)

Yes I am a sheep and follower of the Good Shepherd and proud of it. If you intended that as a slam on me and my faith it didn't work, and it won't.

 I could sit here and argue for three days with you about your alleged "errors" but I sense you think you are right in all matters pertaining to the Christian faith and I will not allow myself to drug into a whizzing match with you.

I wish you the best and look forward to watching this thread unfold, but I will not argue with you and you can call me a sheep all you want. 

Because " The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures, and He leads me beside the still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake. 

Even when I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil. His rod and His staff they comfort me. 

He prepares a table before me in the presence of mine enemies, and anoints my head with oil.

(Here's my favorite part)

Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life and I will reign in the house of the Lord forever!!!

So DD, I wish you the best. I guess all i have to say is Baaa, Baaaa


----------



## PWalls (Dec 30, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Yes I am a sheep and follower of the Good Shepherd and proud of it. If you intended that as a slam on me and my faith it didn't work, and it won't.
> 
> I could sit here and argue for three days with you about your alleged "errors" but I sense you think you are right in all matters pertaining to the Christian faith and I will not allow myself to drug into a whizzing match with you.
> 
> ...




Amen


----------



## olcowman (Dec 30, 2008)

Amen! I'm a sheep too! Just a great ol' big 'un. 

James 1:5
(5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all {men} liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him

Luke 12:29-31 
(29) And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. (30) For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. (31) But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> That's not what the verse said  You're taking other verses and attributing them to this one because there IS no verse as Jesus quoted.


 
Where does it say he was quoting a verse? He said as scripture says...out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. and in Isaiah scripture says "For I will pour out water on the thirsty land And streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring And My blessing on your descendants ...And the LORD will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail..



> That isn't what the NT said. The NT said that the prophecy should be fulfilled "And he shall be called a Nazarene." There was no such prophecy, and your trying to explain it does not make it so. It was a FALSE prophecy. Actually, it can't even be considered a false prophecy since it DID NOT EXIST!
> 
> Again, trying to make something that isn't there. Isaiah 53:3 is talking about the Jews, not the messiah. The Jews are God's Servant.
> 
> Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15, Zech. 3:8, 6:12 has nothing to do with Nazareth or despised and rejected. It doesn't even mention anything about Nezer, Samson or anything that you tried to tie it in with.


 

The question is, "Where is Nazareth spoken of in the Old Testament that stats that Jesus would be called a Nazarene?"
  There is no direct Old Testament citation that prophesies the Messiah would be called a Nazarene.  In fact, Nazareth (approx 1800 people at the time of Christ) is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament or in the apocrypha.  But, we have two
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 possible explanations format his comment
First, Matthew does not say 'prophet', singular.  He says 'prophets', plural.  It could be that Matthew was referring to several Old Testament references to the despised character of Jesus (i.e., Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1). Nazareth held the Roman garrison for the northern areas of Galilee.<SUP>1</SUP>  Therefore, the Jews would have little to do with this place and largely despised it.  Perhaps this is why it says in John 1:46, "And Nathanael said to him, 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?' Philip said to him, 'Come and see.'"  So, it could be a reference not to an actual location, but the maligned character of the Messiah even as Nazareth was maligned for housing the Roman garrison and that Matthew was using it in reference to the implied hatred of Christ.
Second, there could be a play on words that Matthew was referring to.  In Isaiah 11:1 it says, "Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. In Hebrew, the word for "branch" is netzer, "NZR" which letters are included in *N*a*Z*a*R*eth.  It seems that Matthew was referring to the branch, the Nazarene, in turn a reference to God's raising up of the Messiah. Clearly, Matthew was not exegeting Isaiah, but it seems he was referring to the Branch.

http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt2_23.htm

and a much longer drawn out explanation here...

http://www.rtforum.org/study/lesson13.html






> Again, not what Jesus' quote was  You are trying to apply something so that you have an answer... for which there is no answer for.


 
Psalm 41:9 Even my close friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. 


Those whom You gave Me I have kept;<SUP>[b]</SUP> and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Does not that Psalm scripture describe Judas?




> Awful lot of assumptions going on to get it to work your way, isn't there? That's funny, because all of the rest of the 'prophecies' that are attributed to Jesus are taken verbatim from the plucked verses of the bible from which they came. Wonder why now with this it's supposedly different?


 
Some are starighfoward, some require deep discernment. Guess that is the way he works, ya know ...my ways are higher than yours... and all.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Yes I am a sheep and follower of the Good Shepherd and proud of it. If you intended that as a slam on me and my faith it didn't work, and it won't.
> 
> I could sit here and argue for three days with you about your alleged "errors" but I sense you think you are right in all matters pertaining to the Christian faith and I will not allow myself to drug into a whizzing match with you.
> 
> ...



It wasn't meant as a slam.  It was meant the way I said it.  Christians don't question things, they believe what they are told, they are sheep.  

As usual, the replies on here to refute what I posted (which I said I didn't post for debate, you can't debate it, it's there in black and white) are all from other sources... any time something is 'debated' on here, everyone breaks out the copy and paste from Matthew Henry, Calvin, Luther, etc.  Doesn't anyone have a coherent thought of their own?  Aren't Christians able to think for themselves? Or are you just blind sheep?  That's what I meant.  If you take that as a 'slam', then sorry... but that's not how it was meant.  

I won't be 'debating' this thread either... there is no explanation for what was written, other than to try and extract things that aren't there through assumptions, taking verses out of context, etc.   There are hundreds of contradictions.  Christians just don't want to see them


----------



## farmasis (Dec 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And actually, I'd love for you to elaborate a little more on this one if you would. If you read the verse in context, Jesus is clearly talking about biblical figures, he mentions the prophets and talks about the murders of Abel to this Zecharias... so it is clearly meaning someone that everyone would have known about, as mentioned in the Tanakh. So if it is another Zecharias, son of Barachias, then where is this found? You said yourself that Matthew, Simon, etc. were called other names in the NT, so show me where Jehoiada was called Barachias and maybe you have a point


 
I can only paste what others have spent much more time looking at than me...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3229


----------



## farmasis (Dec 30, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I won't be 'debating' this thread either... there is no explanation for what was written, other than to try and extract things that aren't there through assumptions, taking verses out of context, etc. There are hundreds of contradictions. Christians just don't want to see them


 
And every one has an explanation that unbelivers just don't want to see.

So, where does that leave us besides reposting from each side of the fence?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 30, 2008)

farmasis said:


> The question is, "Where is Nazareth spoken of in the Old Testament that stats that Jesus would be called a Nazarene?"



No that wasn't the question... the question was, where is the prophecy in the Old Testament quoted here:

Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.  

You're trying to twist my question around, just like you twist the prophecies around   There was no prophecy 'he shall be called a Nazarene.'   Period.  End of story!


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 31, 2008)

I don't know why anyone even responds to her post anyway.  We all know that she isn't here to discuss Bible things.  She's here because she believes that she is correct in all things and she likes to exhibit her devilish charm.  She faults us for our belief in Jesus as the Messiah yet all that she believes about the old Jewish laws are based on faith also.  She cannot proved any of her beliefs.  I personally consider her to be a horrible person.  I've personally never known such a divisive person as she is.  I was hoping no one would even respond to this thread.  You see what it has accomplished.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 31, 2008)

*(9)* Regarding Jesus' stepfather, was he Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)? And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom G-d has said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)?

In the Greek text, Matthew 1:16 and 19 both contain the same word, _aner_ (“man” or “husband”), but the Aramaic text has two different words, and thus makes a distinction between the two men. In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is _gavra_, which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband,” while in Matthew 1:19 the word is _bala_, which is “man” or “husband,” (it is similar to the Hebrew _baal_, “lord”). Thus, the Aramaic text preserves the truth that there is a difference between the Joseph of verse 16, the “mighty man” of Mary, and the Joseph of verse 19, the “husband” of Mary. *[2]*
Once we realize that “Joseph” is the name of both the father and the husband of Mary, the Word of God fits together perfectly. Both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph are in the Bible, so that everyone can see that each is a descendant of David, just as Scripture claims (Joseph: Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:27 and 2:4. Mary: Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3). Luke contains the genealogy of Jesus via his adopted father, Joseph, and never mentions Mary, who was not part of Joseph’s genealogy. Matthew contains the genealogy of Jesus through his mother Mary, and never mentions her husband Joseph. Joseph has two ancestors also named Joseph in his genealogy, while four other women are included in Mary’s genealogy. Last but not least, the three sets of fourteen generations mentioned in Matthew are all complete.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=889


*(10)* Was John the Baptist Elijah, as Jesus claimed (Matthew 11:14)? If so, why did John himself deny it (John 1:21)? Would "Elijah" have been so unsure of Jesus' messianic identity (Luke 7:19-20)? And where in our Scriptures is it written that Elijah would be mistreated, as Jesus claimed (Mark 9:13)? Don't our Scriptures indicate, to the contrary, that Elijah will be successful in his mission of restoring harmony among the people (Malachai 4:5-6)? Moreover, Mark 9:11-13 and Mark 6:16 declares that: "Elijah has come" and "It is John who I beheaded." There is no indication from the Tanach that Elijah would be beheaded. I refer you, once again, to Malachai 4:5-6.


11:14 This is Elijah, who was to come. Malachi predicted that Elijah would come to prepare the way for the Lord. Christ explains that this was fulfilled in John. He was not the literal, but a spiritual Elijah. 

http://bible.cc/matthew/11-14.htm

Just as the angel proclaimed....

Luke 1:17 "It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."


*(11)* Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)."

Jesus was not sent to earth to judge souls, but to die. He judged no man's soul on earth. He was not given that duty until after the resurrection when he pronounced “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. " Matt 28:18 before he ascended.

*(12)* Paul says. "It is shameful for a man to wear his hair long" (I Corinthians 11:14). Glaringly, this is the only way Jesus is ever pictured.

You got to be kidding....

*(13)* "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34.


Jesus was not a mere man, he is God. He will be a peacemaker, but will defeat evil to do so.

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. Christ has to conquer a peace by overcoming the evil that is in the way of peace. Hence, to preach the gospel of purity and peace always arouses the opposition of the evil doer. Evil has to be put down before peace can prevail. Hence, while the great end that Christ proposes is peace, the immediate result of his coming, and of the preaching of the gospel, was opposition and bloodshed. But a sword. The only sword that Christ or his followers use in the conflict is the Sword of the Spirit, but the persecutor has in every age turned upon them the carnal sword. The sword is sent because persecutors use it upon the church.

http://bible.cc/matthew/10-34.htm


*(14)* John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah teacher that "He who has seen the face of G-d shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This Torah verse amounts to eternal ****ation in fundamentalist Christian theology. (Note: Even in our times, thousands of Christians claim to have seen Jesus.)

Moses was granted to see God's glory, even though he didn't get to look directly at him. Jesus, when on earth, was another way to look indirectly at the face of God. Just as Moses spoke to God face to face in Ex 33:11, he still did not look at God directly, instead as a metaphor.

*(15)* According to Acts 7:53 and Galations 3:19, the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by "angels." But, according to Exodus 20:1, it was given to Moses by G-d: "And G-d spoke all these words."

Compare:
35 “This Moses whom they rejected, saying, _‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’_<SUP>[i]</SUP> is the one God sent _to be_ a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush. (Acts 7:35)

 2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. (Exodus 2)

On to Galations: 

19 What purpose then _does_ the law _serve?_ It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; _and it was_ appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not _mediate_ for one _only,_ but God is one. 

Ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Communicated through the means of angels to the mediator between Israel and God; that is, to Moses.

This is how Moses described the scene from Mt Sinai before he dies.

2 And he said:

      “The LORD came from Sinai, 
      And dawned on them from Seir; 
      He shone forth from Mount Paran, 
      And He came with ten thousands of saints; 
      From His right hand 
_Came_ a fiery law for them.

*(16)* Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt.

In (vs. 14), "another contradiction". (Compare Acts 7:14 with Gen. 46:27; Acts 7:14) says all his kindred were 75. (Gen. 46:27) says 70 "of the house of Jacob." Again reading and believing the texts will eliminate the contradictions. All of his kindred - all relations were 75, his immediate house were 70. (See Deut. 10:22, Gen. 46:26).
http://www.thebiblestudypage.com/acts7.shtml

Exodus 1:5 Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint read _seventy-five _(compare Acts 7:14). 



*(17)* Jesus tells Peter to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Peter reportedly uses his sword to cut off the ear of a Temple guard (John 18:10; Matthew 26:52-53). But Jesus, even though he urged Peter to buy a sword, criticizes Peter: "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)."

The sword was for protection because they were about to travel to the mount of Olives and also that they would soon be without him and scattered for a time, but Jesus knew he would be arrested and did not want Peter to use it to protect him from his appointed. He scolded Peter because violent men usually die violent deaths.

*(18)* Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover.

From Wikipedia:
In Israel, Passover is the seven-day holiday of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, with the first and last days observed as legal holidays and as holy days involving abstention from work, special prayer services, and holiday meals

Before crucifixition:
17 Now on the first _day of the Feast_ of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” (Matt 26)

During crucixition:
14 Now it was the Preparation Day of the Passover, and about the sixth hour. 

The Jews later considered this to be so important that they made sure each of the holy days, which are also Sabbaths, was preceded by a preparation day. Since the holy days can fall on any day of the week, the preparation day can fall on any day of the week as well.
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/180/Preparation-Day.htm

The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 15, was the first of the seven high days. The seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Nisan 21, was the second of the seven high days of Leviticus 23. This could cause confusion in understanding the events of the week of Yeshua's crucifixion, since both the day before the weekly Sabbath as well as the day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread were designated as Preparation days. 

http://www.adat.org/ad09002.htm


----------



## farmasis (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> No that wasn't the question... the question was, where is the prophecy in the Old Testament quoted here:
> 
> Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
> 
> You're trying to twist my question around, just like you twist the prophecies around  There was no prophecy 'he shall be called a Nazarene.' Period. End of story!


 
Correct, like I posted 2 other times, no prophet proclaimed he would be a Nazarene, but the verse says..which was spoken by the prophets implying fulfillment through a discernment of many phophetic works, in my opinion.

Not asking you to buy into anything, just providing explanations.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 31, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know why anyone even responds to her post anyway.


 
My responses are for:

1) me to strengthen my faith by looking at what skeptics have to say

2) to provide a defense for any that may visit and see such things undefended and lead to doubt for them.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Correct, like I posted 2 other times, no prophet proclaimed he would be a Nazarene, but the verse says..which was spoken by the prophets implying fulfillment through a discernment of many phophetic works, in my opinion.
> 
> Not asking you to buy into anything, just providing explanations.



Again... there was NO prophecy about him being a Nazarene... since there was no such thing, and nowhere is there anything about the messiah being a Nazarene or being born in Nazareth.  So saying 'was spoken by the prophets' doesn't work either, since they said nothing about it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know why anyone even responds to her post anyway.  We all know that she isn't here to discuss Bible things.  She's here because she believes that she is correct in all things and she likes to exhibit her devilish charm.  She faults us for our belief in Jesus as the Messiah yet all that she believes about the old Jewish laws are based on faith also.  She cannot proved any of her beliefs.  I personally consider her to be a horrible person.  I've personally never known such a divisive person as she is.  I was hoping no one would even respond to this thread.  You see what it has accomplished.



I have a 'devilish charm'?   

You are incorrect about my 'beliefs'... I don't have ANY faith in the bible as a whole.  None of the spiritual things can be proven, only the historical things. And I don't fault you for your belief in Jesus as the messiah... what I 'fault' you for is taking another faith's holy text and corrupting it for your own benefit, then telling them that they are wrong in their understanding of their own book.  And that you tell every other faith that they are wrong and your way is the only way.  Other than that, you can believe whatever you want, to each their own.  Only, you don't believe that 

And if I'm such a horrible person, feel free to put me on ignore, that way you have no need to be bothered by any of my posts again


----------



## jason4445 (Dec 31, 2008)

There are over 33 glaring contradictions of note in the New Testament a few more notable ones are"

Christians to hate their brothers - - Luke 14:26
Whoever hates their brother cannot have eternal life - 1 John 3:15

Man judged and saved by faith - John 3:15,16,36
Man judged and saved by works and lifestyle - Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 24:12, Matt 7:21

Believers not to worry about providing for family - Luke 14:26,33, - 18:29,30
Believers must provide for family - 1 Timothy 5:8

God has given all things into Jesus' hands - John 3:35
God has not given all things into Jesus' hands - Matt 20:23, John 5:19

The Bible makes it clear the last supper was the Passover meal - Matt 26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13. However in John, the meal was held on the day before the Passover - 13:29, and states that even after the meal the Passover had still not begun - 18:28. Moreover, even after the trial, it was the Preparation day for the Passover - 19:31


And so on. I had been told the Bible was God’s word, that every Word in the Bible was from God. Since I also was told and still believe God is all knowing and perfect. It all this was so, then why were there errors, contradictions and flat out mistakes in the Bible.

Then I was advised by a man who is one of the few people I ever met who I can sincerely call a true Christian to study the History of the Bible and early Christianity. That I will find out that the Bible is not God’s Word, that it is man’s writings about God, and how to worship God through Jesus. God created man, but man created religion. Man created the ways to worship God.

The Bible was written by men who never knew Jesus personally. What they wrote came from other men who knew stories about Jesus and what he taught. Later men gathered and compiled what other men wrote into a book, and not all that was written about Jesus was put into the Book. Men in times later added and took things out of the Book and finally it became the Bible. As the centuries passed, men copied the Bible, then printed it out and edited and published it. And notice I say “Men” and not “Women, but that is another discussion.

And after I realized this things came together for me. That indeed, the Bible was written and manipulated by men and men are flawed. Men make mistakes. The message and meanings in the Bible are not flawed, but because men wrote it, some of the details do contain errors and contradictions.

SO that is why I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God, again it is man's idea of what God's Word might be.


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 31, 2008)

I said I wasn't going to say anything else, but I can't help myself.

DD, what I just can't understand is why you seem so bent on trying to persuade others away from the faith. 

In your world with your facts and ideas, what is a Christian hurting? I mean if there is no heaven or everybody is going anyway, then why spend so much time and energy trying to tear something down?

 A Christian who believes in the inerrancy, infalliblility, and the inspiration of God's word is not causing any friction in your world where there is no consequence for what you believe. 

Are you just that mean spirited that you like to tear down people's faith. Something they have clung to all of their lives. The very thing that gives them ultimate peace and comfort and joy?

Are you sad you don't have those things and don't want others to? 

Are you just a tool of the devil, with too much time on your hands? 

I actually have no idea, and I am beginning to pity you, not for your beliefs but for your seeming burden to tear others lives apart.


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

Hey board, 

I am glad to see discussions regarding religion on the boards. Awesome. I am a Christian and have been for 15 years. I understand the objections and contention against Christianity as I was once opposed to the Bible and Christ. 

It's not unusual to see folks post objections against the Bible when the information is not their own. My observation in this is that most who object to Christianity have never really done their own research. I find it ironic that people use man's ideas to accuse the Bible of being man's ideas. lol Let me encourage you to actually read the Bible for yourself. 

With that said, I want to address some of the *cough* contradictions. lol 

The following were put forth against the Scripture as contradictions. These most like were taken from another person's website, et. without reference. I have seen them before. Most of these statements with the Scripture reference are given as single verse, which only the ignorant or those willfully opposed to Christ would do because it wrests the text from its context. So let's begin...and be mindful, this is only for those who have open minds. 



> Christians to hate their brothers - - Luke 14:26
> Whoever hates their brother cannot have eternal life - 1 John 3:15



Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 

In verse 27 it says, "And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

Does this also mean that every Christian that doesn't literally "bear a cross" and perhaps be crucified as Jesus was cannot be His disciple? Or, does plain reason and sense tell us that Christ is not speaking literally here. Obviously the latter. The same is true with regard to "hate" in verse 26. 

If you take the time to read through chapter 14 of Luke and compare it to parallel passage in the Gospels, you will see the subject can be labeled "The cost of discipleship" Several other illustrations are given by Christ to make the point, which is "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple." verse 33. 

The teaching here is that if someone wishes to follow Christ he or she must forsake all things to be His disciple. In practical life, there may be a family that will reject a son or daughter if they become a Christian. This is seen in Muslim countries, in India with Hinduism, or in Jewish families. I met a Christian years ago who was from a Jehovah Witness family. When he became a Christian as a child his mother beat him and the family threw him out of the house. For him to be a disciple of Christ he had to love Christ above his own family. A similiar circumstance happened to me. 

"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15

In the context of 1 John 3:15 and in the wider scope of this epistle, the message concerns true and false believers. The Apostle John is teaching that a true Christian will love his Christian brothers as Christ as commanded us to love one another. This text in no way relates or is a parallel text to Christ's teaching on the cost of disciplship. 

More in the next post...


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Hey board,
> 
> I am glad to see discussions regarding religion on the boards. Awesome. I am a Christian and have been for 15 years. I understand the objections and contention against Christianity as I was once opposed to the Bible and Christ.
> 
> ...





Welcome to the forum fivesolas


----------



## brkbowma (Dec 31, 2008)




----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

> Man judged and saved by faith - John 3:15,16,36
> Man judged and saved by works and lifestyle - Psalm 62:12, Proverbs 24:12, Matt 7:21



John 3:15,16,36:

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

v.36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

This teaching can be categorized in the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is the teaching of the NT and OT throughout. 

Psalm 62:12 "Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work." 

Prov 24:12 "If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?" 

Matt 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 

I am quite surprised the author who posted these objections did not quote from James. Perhaps that is because in quoting James the contraction that appears in the author's mind would be refuted? 

James well speaks to this objection: 

"But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" James 2:20

The faith the author presents is foreign to the Scripture. True biblical faith is not a faith without works. True faith exists in the heart of man and is implanted by God. Jesus gave the illustration of fruit bearing trees. We know the tree by its fruit. Both the Old Testament Scriptures and the New condemn mere profession and lip service as hypocrisy and unacceptable to God. I encourage you to read Hebrews 11 which declares what true faith is and then gives biblical example after example of what true faith looks like. 

James 2:26 declares, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." 

James explains the nature of true biblical faith. Faith alone justifies and saves, but faith is never alone.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Again... there was NO prophecy about him being a Nazarene... since there was no such thing, and nowhere is there anything about the messiah being a Nazarene or being born in Nazareth.  So saying 'was spoken by the prophets' doesn't work either, since they said nothing about it.



this answers this debate...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/565


----------



## Banjo (Dec 31, 2008)

Welcome five solas....

Watch out guys...It sounds like another Reformed Christian has entered the fray...RJ and DBBB...we are gaining in numbers.


----------



## Branchminnow (Dec 31, 2008)

Why did I even open this thread?


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

> Believers not to worry about providing for family - Luke 14:26,33, - 18:29,30
> Believers must provide for family - 1 Timothy 5:8



The author here again quotes Luke 14 in support of a contradiction of the Scripture. Context, context, context. 

 16Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: 

 17And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. 

 18And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused. 



> 19And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
> 
> 20And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
> 
> ...



As you can see, Jesus is teaching about the cost of discipleship. How many of us make excuses also when it comes to doing what is right? How many of you have sat in a church where the preacher gave the invitation to repent and believe the Gospel but made excuses as to when you would do it later, or just simply ignored the message? The same applies here. 

Luke 18:29,30
"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." 

1 Timothy 5:8
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." 

One is baffeled as to where the author sees a contradiction here. My opinion is that the author plucked this from some website without looking at the references and thinking for himself. This is understandable. I have done the same in the past before becoming a Christian. 

1 Timothy 5:8 reminds me of Titus 1:16 "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate." 

A true Christian cannot say out of one side of his mouth that he loves God and on the other commit deeds contrary to that profession. If there is such a man or woman, then they are hypocrites. 



> God has given all things into Jesus' hands - John 3:35
> God has not given all things into Jesus' hands - Matt 20:23, John 5:19



John 3:35 
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Matt 20:23 
And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

To begin, the author does not understand (nor should be expected to as an unbeliever) the mystery of the incarnation. That said, consider verse 20 of John 5: 

For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. 

In the Matthew verse referenced which I quoted the context is Jesus discussing His going to the cross, which He was obedient to. 

The author's thought of a contradiction here should be cleared up when he/she realizes that Jesus, while in the form of God, considered it not robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. Or as John puts in His Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh." 

What we are seeing in the Scripture is the nature of Christ as both God and Man, and His relationship to the Father with respect to the Trinity. 

The final objection addressed in the next post...


----------



## fishbum2000 (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It wasn't meant as a slam.  It was meant the way I said it.  Christians don't question things, they believe what they are told, they are sheep.



DD,
I believe that is what FAITH is 
God said it i believe it and that settles it. 
if that makes me a sheep or weak then thats fine with me, in my weakness he is strong. 
there are many places in the bible that are set up to confuse the non-believer but if you read in FAITH the WORD will become more clear


----------



## Banjo (Dec 31, 2008)

> It was meant the way I said it. Christians don't question things, they believe what they are told, they are sheep.



This made me laugh. You can't make this blanket statement about ALL Christians.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 31, 2008)

DD,
you may want to research this further.... your eternal soul could well depend on it...  God tells us that there has been A Word and The Word from the beginning. The Word of God has always existed just as Jesus has. Many believe Jesus to be The Word... If I were you, I would go to some websites that prove the perfection of the Bible like the one below.  If you read info all the time that says Jesus never existed or the Bible is a lie, guess what you're gonna believe...?  If you read the Bible, guess what you'll believe?I have attached a doc that you may want to read as well... Search for the Truth and you will find Jesus...


http://www.baptistpillar.com/Index Directory.htm#Inerrant


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

> The Bible makes it clear the last supper was the Passover meal - Matt 26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13. However in John, the meal was held on the day before the Passover - 13:29, and states that even after the meal the Passover had still not begun - 18:28. Moreover, even after the trial, it was the Preparation day for the Passover - 19:31



Again, it seems apparant to me that the author is just pasting from another website without any real investigation. John 13:1 clearly says they celebrated the passover before the feast day, as do the other Gospels. Yes, the "last supper" was the Passover meal that Jesus celebrated with His disciples, BEFORE Passover. 

Where is the contradiction?


----------



## farmasis (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Again... there was NO prophecy about him being a Nazarene... since there was no such thing, and nowhere is there anything about the messiah being a Nazarene or being born in Nazareth. So saying 'was spoken by the prophets' doesn't work either, since they said nothing about it.


 
Again, I agree that there is no single prophecy that says Jesus would come from Nazarene.
The verse is about Jesus coming from a place that Nazarene fulfills, not that Nazarene was prophesied about.


 When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were “fulfilled,” his meaning is *that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such.*

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/565


----------



## widowmaker1 (Dec 31, 2008)

dd if you only believe in historical facts, then maybe you should look into biblical archeology. there have been more archeological finds that support the bible, than not.


----------



## Branchminnow (Dec 31, 2008)

Some of ya'll just love a case of the "sore mouth"............. and if you have ever practiced "catch and release" then you should know what I mean.


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Again, I agree that there is no single prophecy that says Jesus would come from Nazarene.
> The verse is about Jesus coming from a place that Nazarene fulfills, not that Nazarene was prophesied about.
> 
> 
> ...



This is also interesting:

Ver. 23. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth,.... Which was a city of Galilee, and where Joseph and Mary had both dwelt before, Lu 1:26 here they came and fixed their habitation,

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet. This affair of going into Galilee, and settling at Nazareth, was brought about with this view, to accomplish what had been foretold by the prophets, or prophet, the plural number being used for the singular, as in Joh 6:45. And indeed it is so rendered here in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; and designs the prophet Isaiah, and respects that prophecy of his in Isa 11:1 "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and run, "a branch shall grow out of his roots"; a prophecy owned by the Jews {e} themselves to belong to the Messiah, and which was now fulfilled in Jesus; who as he was descended from Jesse's family, so by dwelling at Nazareth, he would appear to be, and would be "called a Nazarene, or Netzer, the branch"; being an inhabitant of Natzareth, or Netzer, so called from the multitude of plants and trees that grew there.

A Nazarene, as David de Pomis says {f},

"is one that is born in the city Netzer, which is said to be in the land of Galilee, three days journey distant from Jerusalem.''

Now though Christ was not born, yet because he dwelt at Nazareth, and was educated there; hence the Jews frequently call him yruwnh ewvy, "Jesus, the Nazarene {g}"; and sometimes only yruwnh, "the Nazarene" {h}. They also design him by run Nb, "Ben Netzer" {i}, of whom they say a great many evil things: and that Christ is often called Jesus of Nazareth, or the Nazarene, and his followers Nazarenes, from the place of his habitation, is known to everyone. One of Christ's disciples is called Netzer in the Talmud {k}, and made to plead for his life, because his name signified a branch, according to Isa 11:1. Surenhusius observes {l}, that the form rmanv hm Mwyql "to fulfil what is said", used by the Talmudists, and which he takes to be the same with this here, is used by them, when they allege not the very words of Moses, or the prophets, but their sense, which is deduced as a certain axiom from them; and thinks it is applicable to the present case.

{e} Targum, Jarchi, Aben Ezra & Kimchi in loc. {f} Lexic Heb. fol. 141. 2. {g} T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 17. 1. Ganz. par. 2. fol. 14. 2. Abarbinel in Dan. fol. 44. 1. {h} Ganz. par. 1. fol. 24. 2. {i} T. Bab. Cetuboth, fol. 51. 2. & Gloss. in ib. Bereshith Rabba, fol. 67. 2. Abarbinel in Dau. fol. 44. 1. {k} T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 43. 1. {l} Biblos Katallages, p, 2, 3, 4, 197, &c.

-John Gill Commentary, http://www.freegrace.net/gill/


----------



## THREEJAYS (Dec 31, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know why anyone even responds to her post anyway.  We all know that she isn't here to discuss Bible things.  She's here because she believes that she is correct in all things and she likes to exhibit her devilish charm.  She faults us for our belief in Jesus as the Messiah yet all that she believes about the old Jewish laws are based on faith also.  She cannot proved any of her beliefs.  I personally consider her to be a horrible person.  I've personally never known such a divisive person as she is.  I was hoping no one would even respond to this thread.  You see what it has accomplished.




Amen,the way I see it is if we're wrong so what we've lost nothing ,if DD is wrong she's lost all.


----------



## parkerman (Dec 31, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> Why did I even open this thread?




As I am reading through this.....I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

Branchminnow said:


> Some of ya'll just love a case of the "sore mouth"............. and if you have ever practiced "catch and release" then you should know what I mean.



That is funny


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I won't be 'debating' this thread either...



Then why even post it?  I thought that this was the spiritual discussion and debate forum.

Mods...maybe this needs to be moved to another forum...possibly the On Topic Q&A since DD has an answer for a question she has.



			
				Banjo said:
			
		

> Welcome five solas....
> 
> Watch out guys...It sounds like another Reformed Christian has entered the fray...RJ and DBBB...we are gaining in numbers.



Woohoo

I'm going to go out on a limb here and just figure that five solas ain't Catholic


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and just figure that five solas ain't Catholic




So, what was your first clue


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 31, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> So, what was your first clue



ummmm...well...I figure Banjo must know him or something...cause she said something about him being a reformed Christian


----------



## Banjo (Dec 31, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> ummmm...well...I figure Banjo must know him or something...cause she said something about him being a reformed Christian



Nope...I don't think that I know him.  His GON name gave it away....


By the way....RJ....My husband and I are going Hog hunting today....


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 31, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Nope...I don't think that I know him.  His GON name gave it away....
> 
> 
> By the way....RJ....My husband and I are going Hog hunting today....



I know you don't know him....I was just attempting to use my dry sense of humor and quick wit with Dawg.

Good luck with the hogs...just be ready for a loud squeeeeeeeeel when you hit 'em...unless you get 'em in the head.  Oh...and if you do get some, the pork sausage recipe in the On Topic forum is superb.

Okay...back on topic.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This made me laugh. You can't make this blanket statement about ALL Christians.



Sure you can.  How did you become a Christian?  I'm guess it's because your parents told you to.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> ....Oh...and if you do get some, the pork sausage recipe in the On Topic forum is superb.
> 
> Okay...back on topic.



You should not eat that stuff!  Sola Scriptura says no PORK


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> DD, what I just can't understand is why you seem so bent on trying to persuade others away from the faith.



Because religion (all of them, including yours) is an artifact of our dark ages and is something we as humans are better off without.  Just  guess on my part.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Zeus is still on the throne and His church will not be destroyed.




Get my point?


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> She cannot proved any of her beliefs.




And you can prove yours?


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 31, 2008)

Hey,pnome - you and Dixie should get together!


----------



## Banjo (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> Sure you can.  How did you become a Christian?  I'm guess it's because your parents told you to.



NOPE....I read the Bible on my own with no encouragement even as a teenager and young adult.  God had mercy on me when I was in college, calling me out of a life that was characterized by partying and self gratification.

There is NO WAY this would have happened apart from the Lord.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

rangerdave said:


> Hey,pnome - you and Dixie should get together!




This brings up a good point about morality without religion.  Both she and I are married, so my morals (and I'm guessing her's too) will simply not allow it.  But she is on my friends list for a reason.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

Banjo said:


> NOPE....I read the Bible on my own with no encouragement even as a teenager and young adult.  God had mercy on me when I was in college, calling me out of a life that was characterized by partying and self gratification.
> 
> There is NO WAY this would have happened apart from the Lord.



So, you are a Christian because the bible told you? Or because God "told" you?  

Second question, exactly how did god call you out?  Big booming voice from the sky?


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

Hey, been busy reading on hunting. Looks like I am on a long road to learn to turkey hunt on my own, or...I find someone willing to teach me. 

Yes, I am a Reformed Christian, Reformed Baptist in fact, confessional 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.


----------



## Banjo (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> So, you are a Christian because the bible told you? Or because God "told" you?
> 
> Second question, exactly how did god call you out?  Big booming voice from the sky?



Nope....God didn't "TELL" me like you suggest.  Have you ever felt your heart pricked, or read something and known it was the truth?  

I would say the burden of proof lies on you, pnome.  For you to say there is NO God, would make you omniscient.  You would have to have searched every corner of the universe...yet, as finite man, that is impossible.  

I am with gtparts...agnostics are more intellectually honest than atheists.

When you sit in your tree stand, do you never marvel at the creation and know that something much bigger than you must exist?  Ever look up into the stars and think...WOW.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 31, 2008)

Banjo said:


> NOPE....I read the Bible on my own with no encouragement even as a teenager and young adult.  God had mercy on me when I was in college, calling me out of a life that was characterized by partying and self gratification.
> 
> There is NO WAY this would have happened apart from the Lord.



Don't look too much like any college party girl I ever had described to me. Sure musta crucified that ol' gal right there.

Some never have to come out of such, but all who claim their salvation through Christ have to come outta something. Congrats!


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> Because religion (all of them, including yours) is an artifact of our dark ages and is something we as humans are better off without.  Just  guess on my part.



Bad guess. Religion is, as it were, instinctual in people. Show me a culture, ever, that has been without religion. 

btw, atheism has murdered far more than any religion known to man.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> And you can prove yours?




I can prove it to me.  That's the way faith works.  

Believing in God requires faith
To have faith, one must receive.
Faith is required to believe in Moses, the crossing of the Red Sea, the burning bush, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 11
 1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 
 2For by it the men of old gained approval. 
 3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. 
 4By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 
 5By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.
6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. 
 7By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. 
 8By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. 
32And what more shall I say? For time will fail me if I tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, 
 33who by faith conquered kingdoms, performed acts of righteousness, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 
 34quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 
 35Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection; 
 36and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. 
 37They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated 
 38(men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Bad guess. Religion is, as it were, instinctual in people. Show me a culture, ever, that has been without religion.
> 
> btw, atheism has murdered far more than any religion known to man.



You first statement is referred to as the Argument from Popularity.  See #9 in this post: http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5

And the good old, atheism has murdered more than religion.  

I assume you are refering to Hilter (A Catholic) Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc..

Those monsters had their own dogma.  Communism, Nazism etc..  They killed in the name of Nazism and Communism.  Dogma's that certainly did not have an overabundance of critical thinking and rationality. They did not kill in the name of atheism.  

How many died in the Muslim conquest of Persia?  Or the crusades? How many virgin sacrifices to volcano Gods?  How many were offered up to the Aztec gods?  How many died in the Jewish conquest of the "promised land"?  How many have died in the last 10 years due to religious intolerance?

One more point.  Your particular religion is as bloodthirsty as the rest.  Do you not wish for the second coming of Jesus?  The end of the world?  How many do you suppose will die then?


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Believing in God requires faith



We'll leave it at that.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

Banjo said:


> Nope....God didn't "TELL" me like you suggest.  Have you ever felt your heart pricked, or read something and known it was the truth?



Yeah, I've read a few fortune cookies that hit home like that.  I've read a good bit of the teachings of Buddha that I found to be quite interesting as well, didn't make me Buddhist though.



> I would say the burden of proof lies on you, pnome.  For you to say there is NO God, would make you omniscient.  You would have to have searched every corner of the universe...yet, as finite man, that is impossible.



Shifting the burden of proof huh?  See #10: http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5



> I am with gtparts...agnostics are more intellectually honest than atheists.



You and he misunderstand atheists.  

Here is an example:

I am the second incarnation of Jesus.   Are you agnostic about that?



> When you sit in your tree stand, do you never marvel at the creation and know that something much bigger than you must exist?  Ever look up into the stars and think...WOW.



I marvel at nature every day.  I am humbled by it.  When I look at the stars I don't think "Hey! I know exactly how all this came to be, and I know exactly how it's all going to end.  All of the answers are right here in my little book.  No more questions."  Do you see how arrogant it is to think you know?  That all of the answers to the universe are in one religion, one book?  It's laughably arrogant.


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> You first statement is referred to as the Argument from Popularity.  See #9 in this post: http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5
> 
> And the good old, atheism has murdered more than religion.
> 
> ...



Atheism is responsible for the deaths of 160 million in the 20th century alone. Communism is inherently atheistic. Atheism, materialism, and darwinian social theory are inherently atheistic. Secular Humanist governments are the most oppressive, murderou societies known to man. i.e. Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia, North Korea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, Cuba, Zimbabwe, et. 

The bottom line is you can't claim atheism is "better" than religion by making religion out to be the cause of war and murder. Atheism is both murderous, heartless, and cruel. Darwinian theory, which is inherently atheist, is at the heart of planned parenthood, nazism, et. 

Atheists have morality despite their non-belief. 

Most of your questions are like buck shot...and shot from the hip at that. But your question regarding the second coming of Christ I will address. 

Yes, I am eagerly waiting and looking for His coming. Christ coming will bring an end to the present age, and inaugurate a new one in which righteousness dwells, peace, and joy unending. 

Do I expect God to punish the wicked and evildoers? Absolutley. I am sure you have a sense of justice. Unless you for letting murderers go free...

And if you give agreement to earthly, temporal punishments, why would you balk at heavenly, eternal punishments? 

And as for how many will die...last I checked there wasn't anyone getting out of this age alive. The present way of things will come to an end, and then the judgment. 

-five


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 31, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't know why anyone even responds to her post anyway.  We all know that she isn't here to discuss Bible things.  She's here because she believes that she is correct in all things and she likes to exhibit her devilish charm.  She faults us for our belief in Jesus as the Messiah yet all that she believes about the old Jewish laws are based on faith also.  She cannot proved any of her beliefs.  I personally consider her to be a horrible person.  I've personally never known such a divisive person as she is.  I was hoping no one would even respond to this thread.  You see what it has accomplished.




Proverbs 26:4 (King James Version)

 4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> You first statement is referred to as the Argument from Popularity.  See #9 in this post: http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5
> 
> And the good old, atheism has murdered more than religion.
> 
> ...



All who have not found forgiveness in the blood of Jesus Christ.  Those in heaven and those separated from God for eternity will KNOW the rightness of where they spend their eternal spiritual existence.


----------



## creation's_cause (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I have a 'devilish charm'?
> 
> You are incorrect about my 'beliefs'... I don't have ANY faith in the bible as a whole.  None of the spiritual things can be proven, )



Wow DD...eight years of trying to search out and prove the Old and New Testiments are contradictory and false...how do you feel about your accomplishments?  Are you at peace...will you have any hope when your time finally comes to "check out" of this world?  What kind of hope or comfort will you have to offer a family member or friend who is dying....and I have to assume, if you stand before my Lord and Creator, you will have no regrets or arguments if he says to you, depart from me, I never knew you...How sure are you?  I would say from what you have testified to here, that you are "almost" positive


----------



## gtparts (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> You and he misunderstand atheists.
> 
> Here is an example:
> 
> I am the second incarnation of Jesus.   Are you agnostic about that?



Not at all. 

I am not agnostic, atheistic, or theistic about your statement. 

Your statement is false. 

You are not, nor can not be who you have just claimed to be. 

I know Him. By your own admission, you do not know Him or believe in Him.





> I marvel at nature every day.  I am humbled by it.  When I look at the stars I don't think "Hey! I know exactly how all this came to be, and I know exactly how it's all going to end.  All of the answers are right here in my little book.  No more questions."  Do you see how arrogant it is to think you know?  That all of the answers to the universe are in one religion, one book?  It's laughably arrogant.



Humbled by a cosmic accident? You are too easily impressed. If not God, then who is the supreme being of the universe? Man?  Now that would be the height of arrogance! To ascribe everything that exists to God's creative nature is an humble position to take, not arrogance. 

But, you are right, there is something that is laughable, if it weren't so tragic.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 31, 2008)

I'm a sheep, too. I've tried doing it all on my own and I don't do well. And besides when I get lost, confused, lonely, sad, and tired, I've got the Good Shepherd to snatch me back into play.

"My sheep know My voice and they follow".
When the shout comes I'll be tuned into the right station to hear it, hallelujah to the Son of God.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Bad guess. Religion is, as it were, instinctual in people. Show me a culture, ever, that has been without religion.
> 
> btw, atheism has murdered far more than any religion known to man.



actually, the papacy has killed more other people than any institution...  haven't you read Rev 17?


----------



## FishHunt (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It wasn't meant as a slam.  It was meant the way I said it.  Christians don't question things, they believe what they are told, they are sheep.



This is where you're wrong...not all Christians are sheep.  Many of us have a ton of questions.  That doesn't make us bad Christians...just honest ones.   
It's OK for you to have doubts, at times I've had my doubts.  But I don't understand why you want to try and prove that these folks are wrong in their beliefs.  Maybe deep down you are still wanting to believe in some way??


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Your statement is false.



PROVE IT!  I say I am the second coming.  Prove me wrong.  
(protip: You will find it difficult to prove a negative)







> Humbled by a cosmic accident? You are too easily impressed. If not God, then who is the supreme being of the universe?



Quetzalcoatl of course.  Now prove it wasn't him.


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 31, 2008)

Swamp Runner said:


> Proverbs 26:4 (King James Version)
> 
> 4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.



Yeah, save your pearls.
Those darts I'm used to and can dodge blindfolded, I've heard it so many times. 
satan can only snatch your joy if you let him.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

gtparts said:


> All who have not found forgiveness in the blood of Jesus Christ.  Those in heaven and those separated from God for eternity will KNOW the rightness of where they spend their eternal spiritual existence.



So you yearn for the death of all non-believers.  That's what you are saying.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

Big10point said:


> actually, the papacy has killed more other people than any institution...  haven't you read Rev 17?



That is one of (not the) most ignorant statements I have heard.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> The bottom line is you can't claim atheism is "better" than religion by making religion out to be the cause of war and murder. Atheism is both murderous, heartless, and cruel. Darwinian theory, which is inherently atheist, is at the heart of planned parenthood, nazism, et.



Atheism is better than religion. 

Now. Since you seem to insist that because there were some people in the past who murdered and were generally bad people who happened to also be atheist that atheism is to blame for their action.  Do you care to defend the action of ALL of the religious people who've murdered someone? We're not talking about the coincidence, we're talking about the motivation.  Religion has been the sole motivation for BILLIONS of deaths and the vast majority of horror and injustice on this planet.



> Do I expect God to punish the wicked and evildoers? Absolutley.



And who decides what is wicked and evil?  You seem to think Atheism is wicked and evil, will atheists be punished?  How about people who just are not Christians? Burning lake of fire right?  

Just like any other religion, Christians long for the death and torment of unbelievers. 



> And if you give agreement to earthly, temporal punishments, why would you balk at heavenly, eternal punishments?



Because there is no such thing?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> PROVE IT!  I say I am the second coming.  Prove me wrong.
> (protip: You will find it difficult to prove a negative)
> 
> 
> Quetzalcoatl of course.  Now prove it wasn't him.



I have no desire to prove anything to you....now or ever. 

Reread your boast and tell me who is arrogant. 

We can wait till Jesus does return and then you will have your proof. 

If I am wrong, then nothing awaits both of us and the question will go unanswered for us and anyone else. I will be no worse off for having believed. 

If I am right..................


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> That is one of (not the) most ignorant statements I have heard.



Certainly not THE most ignorant.  

BTW Like the new avatar.


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> Atheism is better than religion.
> 
> Now. Since you seem to insist that because there were some people in the past who murdered and were generally bad people who happened to also be atheist that atheism is to blame for their action.  Do you care to defend the action of ALL of the religious people who've murdered someone? We're not talking about the coincidence, we're talking about the motivation.  Religion has been the sole motivation for BILLIONS of deaths and the vast majority of horror and injustice on this planet.
> 
> ...



Now you have resulted to personal attacks, rather than discussion, or debating ideas. Very typical, but this is where I step away and leave you to your own devices.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> Certainly not THE most ignorant.
> 
> BTW Like the new avatar.



No, it was not THE, hence the ( ) 

Oh, it is only temporary, my dog will be back


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

gtparts said:


> I have no desire to prove anything to you....now or ever.
> 
> Reread your boast and tell me who is arrogant.
> 
> ...



gt, it was a rhetorical point I was trying to make about shifting the burden of proof and the fallacy of agnosticism. 

Your second statement is Pascal's Wager.  See #2 http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Now you have resulted to personal attacks, rather than discussion, or debating ideas. Very typical, but this is where I step away and leave you to your own devices.



I guess I'm missing it?  Where was the personal attack?  If I did I do apologize.  I sometimes go a little too far.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> I guess I'm missing it?  Where was the personal attack?  If I did I do apologize.  I sometimes go a little too far.



If you took a few steps back and to the right, you might see the light


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> I guess I'm missing it?  Where was the personal attack?  If I did I do apologize.  I sometimes go a little too far.



I appreciate the apology. Here was the personal attack "Because such punishments are only in your morbid imagination?" 

Perhaps you did not mean that as a personal attack? But it does refer to me as morbid. It would be like me saying all atheists are immoral. Such a statement doesn't bring any good at all. 

But if you want to continue a discussion I would be glad to, as long as it can remain civil, mature, and respectful.


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> gt, it was a rhetorical point I was trying to make about shifting the burden of proof and the fallacy of agnosticism.
> 
> Your second statement is Pascal's Wager.  See #2 http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5



So who created the rules of logic? Perhaps I am an alogician. I don't believe in those rules. Who are you to impose your rules on that poster or anyone else? Are you the rules god?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> So who created the rules of logic? Perhaps I am an alogician. I don't believe in those rules. Who are you to impose your rules on that poster or anyone else? Are you the rules god?



Nope, he already said who he was:



pnome said:


> PROVE IT!  I say I am the second coming.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> Atheism is better than religion.



Personal opinion - unprovable. 



> Now. Since you seem to insist that because there were some people in the past who murdered and were generally bad people who happened to also be atheist that atheism is to blame for their action.  Do you care to defend the action of ALL of the religious people who've murdered someone? We're not talking about the coincidence, we're talking about the motivation.  Religion has been the sole motivation for BILLIONS of deaths and the vast majority of horror and injustice on this planet.



The lack of accountability to a higher power on the part of atheists has resulted in countless crimes against others. The murders by religious people as a whole can not and should not be defended. That some, under the guise of Christianity, have done such things is not a condemnation of that religious belief system, but the individuals involved.

Christianity speaks against sin. What does atheism speak against?




> And who decides what is wicked and evil?  You seem to think Atheism is wicked and evil, will atheists be punished?



Do atheist agree on the basic tenets of their belief system?
If an atheist has a code of conduct that allows him or her to murder, steal, lie, rape,etc.....how does your code hold any greater weight than theirs? 




> How about people who just are not Christians? Burning lake of fire right?



You have some knowledge of what is said in the Bible and directly attributable to God. A sovereign God makes the rules and by definition is always just in His judgments and right in His punishments.




> Just like any other religion, you long for the death and torment of unbelievers.



On the contrary, it would please God if all would choose to believe in Jesus unto salvation. Who am I to argue with God. In fact, I agree with Him, even though He doe not need my support.




> Because there is no such thing?  Because such punishments are only in your morbid imagination?



Are you expressing doubt? Or just trolling ?


----------



## crackerdave (Dec 31, 2008)

Swamp Runner said:


> Proverbs 26:4 (King James Version)
> 
> 4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.



Very appropriate,Swamp!


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> I appreciate the apology. Here was the personal attack "Because such punishments are only in your morbid imagination?"
> 
> Perhaps you did not mean that as a personal attack? But it does refer to me as morbid. It would be like me saying all atheists are immoral. Such a statement doesn't bring any good at all.
> 
> But if you want to continue a discussion I would be glad to, as long as it can remain civil, mature, and respectful.



Sorry about that.  I have since edited my post.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

creation's_cause said:


> Wow DD...eight years of trying to search out and prove the Old and New Testiments are contradictory and false...how do you feel about your accomplishments?  Are you at peace...will you have any hope when your time finally comes to "check out" of this world?  What kind of hope or comfort will you have to offer a family member or friend who is dying....and I have to assume, if you stand before my Lord and Creator, you will have no regrets or arguments if he says to you, depart from me, I never knew you...How sure are you?  I would say from what you have testified to here, that you are "almost" positive



So let me see if I have this right... the only comfort to offer someone who is dying would be a fabled make-believe story? Is it better to believe a lie because it 'feels good'? Is that why you have faith?

It's ironic this would come up right after Christmas... the biggest lie holiday of the year.  Do you think it's right for parents to lie to their kids about Santa Claus? I realize that not all Christians lie to their children about a fat man in a red suit who rides around in a sled pulled by magical reindeer, lives in an imaginary place at the north pole and visits ALL the good little girls and boys in the world in a 24 hour period and leaves them free toys made by little elves who can live for hundreds of years.   But I guess that doesn't count, right? I mean, look at all of the work that goes into lying to kids about Santa... leaving cookies out for him that are 'magically' gone in the morning, leaving presents out that are from him, even looking at a website that shows kids exactly where he is on Christmas eve and what time he should show up at their house.   And you think men wouldn't go through HALF the trouble to get you to believe in a god? 

What happens when you die? Well if you believe in the bible... NOTHING.  Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing".

pnome said it best once in a post... what was it like before you were born? That's what it's like when you die. 



fivesolas said:


> Now you have resulted to personal attacks, rather than discussion, or debating ideas. Very typical, but this is where I step away and leave you to your own devices.





fivesolas said:


> I appreciate the apology. Here was the personal attack "Because such punishments are only in your morbid imagination?"
> 
> Perhaps you did not mean that as a personal attack? But it does refer to me as morbid. It would be like me saying all atheists are immoral. Such a statement doesn't bring any good at all.
> 
> But if you want to continue a discussion I would be glad to, as long as it can remain civil, mature, and respectful.



If you thought he made a personal attack at you, you may as well go ahead and put me on 'ignore' now!   



dawg2 said:


> Nope, he already said who he was:


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Then why even post it?  I thought that this was the spiritual discussion and debate forum.



It is.... feel free to discuss and debate it!



> Mods...maybe this needs to be moved to another forum...possibly the On Topic Q&A since DD has an answer for a question she has.



I looked at my original post... I wasn't aware that I asked a question...


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> So who created the rules of logic?




I don't who or what "created" them, I don't even know if they were "created" or just have always been.  Do you?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> I said I wasn't going to say anything else, but I can't help myself.
> 
> DD, what I just can't understand is why you seem so bent on trying to persuade others away from the faith.
> 
> ...



I don't have a 'burden' to do anything. I enjoy debating religion, just as you enjoy hunting, fishing or whatever it is you enjoy doing.

I always find these sorts of pleas a bit humorous... considering the burden that Christians have to convert the world.  Who am I hurting by NOT being a Christian? So what if I don't believe in your book? Is that any of your concern?

(Most) Christians are upset about the 'gay' movement... think that they should keep their beliefs and lifestyle to themselves, they don't want to hear about it or talk about it or see it... well what makes you so special? I'm sick of hearing Christians whine about posting the 10 commandments... about where they can or can't pray... about evolution being taught in schools... etc.  You don't like what I have to say? Tough.  You don't like the fact that I reject your faith? So what? You don't care about anyone else's faith or beleifs or their rights to believe in their own 'reality'.  

This board is a perfect testimony to that fact.  Christians think your way is the ONLY way and everyone else is wrong.  Yet everyone's panties get in a ruffle when I say that Christians are wrong.  Fingers are pointed, insults are thrown, and yet the entire time, the other fingers on your own hand are pointed back at you.  You know... judge not, lest ye be judged.... 



fivesolas said:


> It's not unusual to see folks post objections against the Bible when the information is not their own. My observation in this is that most who object to Christianity have never really done their own research. I find it ironic that people use man's ideas to accuse the Bible of being man's ideas. lol Let me encourage you to actually read the Bible for yourself.
> 
> The following were put forth against the Scripture as contradictions. These most like were taken from another person's website, et. without reference. I have seen them before. Most of these statements with the Scripture reference are given as single verse, which only the ignorant or those willfully opposed to Christ would do because it wrests the text from its context.



Ummm, yeah, you are obviously new here.... .   

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> I don't who or what "created" them, I don't even know if they were "created" or just have always been.  Do you?



Not really, but based on my reading...the Greeks.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> I appreciate the apology. Here was the personal attack "Because such punishments are only in your morbid imagination?"
> 
> Perhaps you did not mean that as a personal attack? But it does refer to me as morbid. It would be like me saying all atheists are immoral. Such a statement doesn't bring any good at all.
> 
> But if you want to continue a discussion I would be glad to, as long as it can remain civil, mature, and respectful.





fivesolas said:


> So who created the rules of logic? Perhaps I am an alogician. I don't believe in those rules. Who are you to impose your rules on that poster or anyone else? Are you the rules god?


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


>



        

Get some.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Personal opinion - unprovable.



Agreed.  It all depends on one's definition of what "better" is. 





> The lack of accountability to a higher power on the part of atheists has resulted in countless crimes against others.



The desire to serve a "higher power" has resulted in countless crimes against others.



> The murders by religious people as a whole can not and should not be defended. That some, under the guise of Christianity, have done such things is not a condemnation of that religious belief system, but the individuals involved.



It's a condemnation of "belief systems"



> Christianity speaks against sin. What does atheism speak against?



Religion.



> Do atheist agree on the basic tenets of their belief system?



It's not a "belief system"  It is non belief.  No tenets.  



> If an atheist has a code of conduct that allows him or her to murder, steal, lie, rape,etc...



He should go to prison or be executed if the conduct warrants it. Again, morality does not require belief in a supernatural deity.




> A sovereign God makes the rules and by definition is always just in His judgments and right in His punishments.



Then his name can be used to justify anything.




> On the contrary, it would please God if all would choose to believe in Jesus unto salvation. Who am I to argue with God. In fact, I agree with Him, even though He doe not need my support.



Well, they would not be "non-believers" then would they?





> Are you expressing doubt? Or just trolling ?



I admit that statement was trollish.


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Not really, but based on my reading...the Greeks.



That is more discovery than creation.


----------



## Branchminnow (Dec 31, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> That is funny



I did not know who you were........thanks for getting that snot nosed dog off the interenet!


----------



## pnome (Dec 31, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Nope, he already said who he was:


----------



## Branchminnow (Dec 31, 2008)

BTW I hear some drag being stripped!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

farmasis said:


> [B
> *(16)* Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt.
> 
> In (vs. 14), "another contradiction". (Compare Acts 7:14 with Gen. 46:27; Acts 7:14) says all his kindred were 75. (Gen. 46:27) says 70 "of the house of Jacob." Again reading and believing the texts will eliminate the contradictions. All of his kindred - all relations were 75, his immediate house were 70. (See Deut. 10:22, Gen. 46:26).
> ...



I looked up the verses referenced by your source... they all confirm even more that the bible says 70, not 75. In fact one of the verses is in context that practically lists each member of the 70, it is very specific that it is ALL of the 'kindred'... so in my view, this only verifies even more that the NT is wrong.  Not even sure why they used these verses as 'support' when all it does is show the error even more.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Get some.



The point was, you accused him of making a 'personal attack' by saying the thought of the punishments you described were morbid, and then went on to say you would continue the discussion if it could be done in a 'civil, mature and respectful' nature.

Then you went on to childlishly ask him if he were the 'rules god'.

If you're going to hang out around here, you'll need a thicker skin


----------



## matthewsman (Dec 31, 2008)

*hook, line, and sinker*



Branchminnow said:


> BTW I hear some drag being stripped!



Throw 'em back and fight 'em again another day...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 31, 2008)

matthewsman said:


> Throw 'em back and fight 'em again another day...



CUT THE LINE!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> CUT THE LINE!



 What's wrong with Danica? I hear she's a scrapper


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> The point was, you accused him of making a 'personal attack' by saying the thought of the punishments you described were morbid, and then went on to say you would continue the discussion if it could be done in a 'civil, mature and respectful' nature.
> 
> Then you went on to childlishly ask him if he were the 'rules god'.
> 
> If you're going to hang out around here, you'll need a thicker skin



I am going to hang out, but I won't argue with someone who just wants to attack people. I didn't get the impression from the other poster that he took my "rules god" comment as anything but humor, but you on the other hand read into something that wasn't there. 

Why don't you just deal with me instead of trying to play forum police. 

Now, bring it.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> I am going to hang out, but I won't argue with someone who just wants to attack people. I didn't get the impression from the other poster that he took my "rules god" comment as anything but humor, but you on the other hand read into something that wasn't there.
> 
> Why don't you just deal with me instead of trying to play forum police.
> 
> Now, bring it.



     

A Christian, talking about someone else reading into something that's not there?  Now THAT is FUNNY!!   

'Deal' with you? What's there to 'deal' with?   

I wasn't trying to be the forum police.  I call it like I see it... and you were being a hypocrite.  Now, take a tissue and get over yourself


----------



## fivesolas (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> A Christian, talking about someone else reading into something that's not there?  Now THAT is FUNNY!!
> 
> 'Deal' with you? What's there to 'deal' with?
> 
> I wasn't trying to be the forum police.  I call it like I see it... and you were being a hypocrite.  Now, take a tissue and get over yourself



Get over myself? Plaaaleeeze. where are my wading boots...it's getting thick in here... It seems obvious to me looking at your posts that you enjoy being an antagonist. This usually only results in contention. I probably won't respond to you much for that reason. 

Any theological challenge you want to present, bring it. I maintain that you have little to no ground to stand on. Also, if you wish to dialogue with me, what is your religion if any? From some of your replies it appears to me you adhere to modern Judaism. Am I correct?


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 31, 2008)

pnome said:


> PROVE IT!  I say I am the second coming.  Prove me wrong.
> (protip: You will find it difficult to prove a negative)




No one has to prove you are wrong.  You prove that yourself.


----------



## Branchminnow (Dec 31, 2008)

matthewsman said:


> Throw 'em back and fight 'em again another day...



Sometimes you gota go try a different spot. Than come back later and see if the ones that have been caught have grown or not.




You know what I mean .............
PRO  27: 17  Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

fivesolas said:


> Get over myself? Plaaaleeeze. where are my wading boots...it's getting thick in here... It seems obvious to me looking at your posts that you enjoy being an antagonist. This usually only results in contention. I probably won't respond to you much for that reason.



Many say that... but don't seem to be able to contain themselves...   



> Any theological challenge you want to present, bring it. I maintain that you have little to no ground to stand on. Also, if you wish to dialogue with me, what is your religion if any? From some of your replies it appears to me you adhere to modern Judaism. Am I correct?



Nope, you're wrong.  I guess you can get used to hearing that a lot from me    If you already know you 'probably won't respond' to me much, why ask about dialoguing with me?  

You're new here.  Maybe look around at some of the earlier posts (like from the last 4 years I've been a member here) and see that we have gone through it all before.  Just like Ecclesiastes says... there is nothing new under the sun (or on this forum).  We just resurrect stuff to argue about now and then.  I'm sure you have nothing new to add theologically, but it's always fun to see the spin each person puts on it individually  

Feel free to do a search on my screen name in this part of the forum and open up any new dead horses... err... discussions... for debate. (I vote you open up the one about Isaiah 7:14 and the 'virgin birth', since you seem to love reading things in context    ).  If it's a dead horse, why talk about it again? Probably for the same reason some catch a fish and then throw it back, then try to catch it again... it's for the fun of it    There are plenty of topics to choose from... in fact I'm almost positive I've even posted threads similar to this one before... so have at it!


----------



## MisterClean (Dec 31, 2008)

I am "one a them there dumb sheeps" too.  Sola fidelis to you!  "Sola intellectus" never got anyone anywhere near spiritual truth.  I have no problem with finding chinks in translations.  There are plenty.

Answer me this one.  Why after Jesus died (I assume you believe he stayed dead)  If he did remain in the grave and not appear to his own, why did those eleven keep on believing the lie?  It brought them no money, security or peace to be of "The Way."  In fact, it brought them scorn, rejection, beatings, cursing, abject poverty, imprisonment and brutal death.

If was hooey, at least one of them would have fessed up to save his own life.  There is always one or two nuts on a tree, but the likelihood of twelve insane men watching the others die horribly one by one and being content to die for a lie is a bit of a mental leap.

I seriously question why someone would have eight year's worth of intense study poured into something they don't believe.  Then I question why they share that fact.

Like a brother once said, "Dang brother, I wouldn't a told that!"


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Dec 31, 2008)

MisterClean said:


> I am "one a them there dumb sheeps" too.  Sola fidelis to you!  "Sola intellectus" never got anyone anywhere near spiritual truth.  I have no problem with finding chinks in translations.  There are plenty.
> 
> Answer me this one.  Why after Jesus died (I assume you believe he stayed dead)  If he did remain in the grave and not appear to his own, why did those eleven keep on believing the lie?  It brought them no money, security or peace to be of "The Way."  In fact, it brought them scorn, rejection, beatings, cursing, abject poverty, imprisonment and brutal death.
> 
> If was hooey, at least one of them would have fessed up to save his own life.  There is always one or two nuts on a tree, but the likelihood of twelve insane men watching the others die horribly one by one and being content to die for a lie is a bit of a mental leap.



Because I don't believe in the validity of any of the NT. It very well could be that none of the disciples ever existed in 'real life'.  But that's for another thread, I'm sure 



> I seriously question why someone would have eight year's worth of intense study poured into something they don't believe.  Then I question why they share that fact.
> 
> Like a brother once said, "Dang brother, I wouldn't a told that!"



That's because you're new here and you don't know me   You're making incorrect assumptions based on only having a small portion of information... although I guess that goes along with being a Christian  
I DID believe.. I was a Christian the first 30 years of my life.  Before I left the 'faith', I made sure I  was doing the right thing. THAT Is why I put so many years of intense study in it.  Wouldn't you?


----------



## Mako22 (Dec 31, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Because I don't believe in the validity of any of the NT. It very well could be that none of the disciples ever existed in 'real life'.  But that's for another thread, I'm sure
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jan 1, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't have a 'burden' to do anything. I enjoy debating religion, just as you enjoy hunting, fishing or whatever it is you enjoy doing.
> 
> I always find these sorts of pleas a bit humorous... considering the burden that Christians have to convert the world.  Who am I hurting by NOT being a Christian? So what if I don't believe in your book? Is that any of your concern?



I don't think you are hurting anyone but yourself by not being a Christian, and that is your business. 

I think you are wrong, but I would never say the mean and hateful things to you, that you have said to many on here in the last few days. 

Its your right to believe or not believe in something, and its our right to believe.  Why can't you leave it at that?


----------



## farmasis (Jan 1, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I looked up the verses referenced by your source... they all confirm even more that the bible says 70, not 75. In fact one of the verses is in context that practically lists each member of the 70, it is very specific that it is ALL of the 'kindred'... so in my view, this only verifies even more that the NT is wrong. Not even sure why they used these verses as 'support' when all it does is show the error even more.


 

 7:14 Seventy - five souls - So the seventy interpreters, (whom St. Stephen follows,) one son and a grandson of Manasseh, and three children of Ephraim, being added to the seventy persons mentioned Gen 46:27.

all the persons of the house of Jacob, who came to Egypt, were seventy.

Then Joseph invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come to him in Egypt-75 persons in all

4 people in the House of farmasis came to Christmas dinner, but on Christmas I came with all of my relatives, 14 persons in all.

I just made a conradiction...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> I don't think you are hurting anyone but yourself by not being a Christian, and that is your business.
> 
> I think you are wrong, but I would never say the mean and hateful things to you, that you have said to many on here in the last few days.
> 
> Its your right to believe or not believe in something, and its our right to believe.  Why can't you leave it at that?



Besides what I posted last night (which has already been removed, and rightly so) what have I said that is mean and hateful?  I would seriously like to know, because I don't recall saying anything mean or hateful to anyone.  On the other hand, I can list numerous posts that are hateful that have been directed toward me.  Have I come crying to the mods for it? Have I personally attacked anyone on here? There have only been 2 posts on here in 4 years (both made the same night) that I have ever 'reported' to the mods about, and they weren't even about me.  If I post something contrary to christianity on here, I expect there to be issues with it.  Not everyone can be like farmasis and Israel and discuss the material without throwing in their own personal attacks.  If you look back over the threads, I tend to give back what I get.  

You're right, we both have the right to believe what we want. Why can't I leave it at that? Because your beliefs condemn others.   If christians lived their lives and kept their lifestyle the way they expect homosexuals to, then it probably wouldn't be an issue.  But they don't.  They don't mind telling everyone else that they're wrong, but they don't like it when someone tells them THEY are wrong.  And, of course, I'm speaking in general terms here, because there are some christians that don't want their religion imposed on others, but for the most part that's not how it is.

And, for the record, what I posted last night was out of line and spiteful... but nonetheless true. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't know it to be a fact and couldn't back it up with proof.  However, that doesn't make it acceptable to post and for that I apologize.  Since I've been accused of working for the devil, I'll just chalk it up to a bad day at work and blame it on satan.  That seems to work for everyone else.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

farmasis said:


> 7:14 Seventy - five souls - So the seventy interpreters, (whom St. Stephen follows,) one son and a grandson of Manasseh, and three children of Ephraim, being added to the seventy persons mentioned Gen 46:27.
> all the persons of the house of Jacob, who came to Egypt, were seventy.
> 
> Then Joseph invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come to him in Egypt-75 persons in all
> ...



Where are you getting the info in red?  

Deuteronomy 10:22 Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

farmasis said:


> 7:14 Seventy - five souls - So the seventy interpreters, (whom St. Stephen follows,) one son and a grandson of Manasseh, and three children of Ephraim, being added to the seventy persons mentioned Gen 46:27.
> 
> all the persons of the house of Jacob, who came to Egypt, were seventy.
> 
> ...



Also, reading a little further down to Acts 7:16 (as I was reading in context of course  )  there is another contradiction... it says 

Acts 7:15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, 

Acts 7:16 And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor [the father] of Sychem. 

Except that Genesis says otherwise:

Genesis 23:19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same [is] Hebron in the land of Canaan. 

Genesis 49:29 And he charged them, and said unto them, I am to be gathered unto my people: bury me with my fathers in the cave that [is] in the field of Ephron the Hittite, 

Genesis 49:30 In the cave that [is] in the field of Machpelah, which [is] before Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite for a possession of a buryingplace.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> gt, it was a rhetorical point I was trying to make about shifting the burden of proof and the fallacy of agnosticism.
> 
> Your second statement is Pascal's Wager.  See #2 http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=2968250&postcount=5




Familiar with the wager and it is not a justification I use to support my belief in the Christian faith. It is , however useful in pointing out the foolishness of the atheist position. The atheist position is, at its very base, a negative proposition that says, "There is no god." If we both seek to prove the basic premise of our respective belief system, you will never be able to prove it. On the other hand, it may be proven that God exists in my lifetime. 

Statistically speaking, you have no chance, as the universe continues to expand and the advantage of probability goes to those who believe in God. 

You deal from a physical reality which lacks the tools to discern spiritual reality. I operate from a spiritual reality which has all the tools to identify a spiritual certainty, that God is.

Science will never comprehend God.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 1, 2009)

MisterClean said:


> I am "one a them there dumb sheeps" too.  Sola fidelis to you!  "Sola intellectus" never got anyone anywhere near spiritual truth.  I have no problem with finding chinks in translations.  There are plenty.
> 
> Answer me this one.  Why after Jesus died (I assume you believe he stayed dead)  If he did remain in the grave and not appear to his own, why did those eleven keep on believing the lie?  It brought them no money, security or peace to be of "The Way."  In fact, it brought them scorn, rejection, beatings, cursing, abject poverty, imprisonment and brutal death.
> 
> ...



Funny thing is, is that Peter denied Christ before He was crucified. 

What changed and made Peter be willing to acknowledge Christ enough to be crucified upside down?
He saw the risen Christ, and that was proof to him then.
That's why Christ showed Himself to them, as proof.

I didn't even see that happen and I'm ready to die for Christ if need be.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 1, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Where are you getting the info in red?


 
From my extensive notes without references.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 1, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Also, reading a little further down to Acts 7:16 (as I was reading in context of course  ) there is another contradiction... it says
> 
> Acts 7:15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, what is the 'contradiction'?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> So you yearn for the death of all non-believers.  That's what you are saying.



You either can't reason or are too self-absorbed to understand simple English. Your conclusion is not rational based on my simple response. It's not about what I want or don't want to happen. However, if God calls it that way, I'm alright with that, i.e. God sees that non-believers receive the just penalty for their unrepentant sin. 

All glory be to the just and righteous God and Lord, Jesus Christ.


----------



## leroy (Jan 1, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

farmasis said:


> From my extensive notes without references.



What I meant was, where is it in scripture? Are you assuming that's where the other 5 people came from? Where in the bible does it name those 5 people in all of this?  The way you posted it, it made it look like that was part of the Acts verse, but it's not, so I was asking what verse it came from.  If it didn't come from the Old Testament, then, well, it isn't valid, it's made up.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Sorry, what is the 'contradiction'?



Acts says they were buried in Sychem, Genesis says they were buried in Hebron.

And no, Sychem is not another name for Hebron.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 1, 2009)

leroy said:


> fivesolas said:
> 
> 
> > :
> ...


----------



## 1BigBuckDown (Jan 1, 2009)

to the Bible believing Christians on this forum... you have a lost soul (DD) who is crying out for the truth. She is lost and in need of Christ... Please remember what Jesus said about spreading the Gospel, and all of the verses about evangelizing the lost souls.  You (we) have an opportunity to bring a lost soul to the saving Grace of Jesus Christ... look at how she's crying out for Christ... you dont get a better chance to lead someone to Christ then this...  she's coming to you.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

1BigBuckDown said:


> to the Bible believing Christians on this forum... you have a lost soul (DD) who is crying out for the truth. She is lost and in need of Christ... Please remember what Jesus said about spreading the Gospel, and all of the verses about evangelizing the lost souls.  You (we) have an opportunity to bring a lost soul to the saving Grace of Jesus Christ... look at how she's crying out for Christ... you dont get a better chance to lead someone to Christ then this...  she's coming to you.



Another newbie 

In all seriousness.. thank you for your sentiment, I know you mean it with the most sincerity and I appreciate your caring heart.  But I'm not looking for Jesus.  I stopped that a long time ago


----------



## leroy (Jan 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> There's the one with hands over the ears....Now you only need the one with the hands over the eyes and the one with hands over the mouth.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 1, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Acts says they were buried in Sychem, Genesis says they were buried in Hebron.
> 
> And no, Sychem is not another name for Hebron.


 
14After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. 15Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. 16Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money. (Acts 7)

In this verse, it was not Jacob, but "our fathers" namely Joseph that was buried in Scechem. This is comfirmed in Joshua.

  32 And Joseph's bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver <SUP>[e]</SUP> from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph's descendants. (Joshua 24)

Jacob's bones were buried in Machpelah as he directed them previously.

 12 So Jacob's sons did as he had commanded them: 13 They carried him to the land of Canaan and buried him in the cave in the field of Machpelah, near Mamre, which Abraham had bought as a burial place from Ephron the Hittite, along with the field.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 1, 2009)

farmasis said:


> 14After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. 15Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died. 16Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum of money. (Acts 7)
> 
> In this verse, it was not Jacob, but "our fathers" namely Joseph that was buried in Scechem. This is comfirmed in Joshua.
> 
> ...



Abraham didn't buy a tomb at Shechem.  He bought it in Hebron.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 1, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Abraham didn't buy a tomb at Shechem. He bought it in Hebron.


 
Jacob bought it with Abraham's credit card.

Seriously, either 

Abraham bought a burying place of the children of Heth, Gen. xxiii. There Jacob was buried. Jacob bought a field of the children of Hamor. There Joseph was buried. You see here, how St. Stephen contracts these two purchases into one. This concise manner of speaking, strange as it seems to us, was common among the Hebrews; particularly, when in a case notoriously known, the speaker mentioned but part of the story, and left the rest, which would have interrupted the current of his discourse, to be supplied in the mind of the hearer
(John Wesley's Notes on the Old and New Testament)

or

After Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees, he "...passed through the land to the place of Shechem...", where "...he built an altar to the LORD..." (Genesis 12:6-7). Though there is no mention in the inspired text that Abraham purchased a plot of land on which to build this altar, it would certainly not be an unruly supposition. But if he did purchase it, then why would Jacob need to purchase it again? In Israel, when one purchased a property, it was in due time returned to it's original owner (Leviticus 27:24). Such may have also been the case in the land of Canaan beforehand. Or, if after the use by Abraham to build an altar, the land was not frequented by him or his family, perhaps the inhabitants of the land simply took possession of it once more. Thus, when Jacob came, he, like his grandfather, needed to purchase the plot of land. 
http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20070923.htm


or

1) Abraham bought a cave and field in which it stood (Genesis 23:17). (2) Abraham bought another sepulchre, but it is not stated that he bought the field in which it stood (Acts 7:15,16). (3) Years later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground (Josh. 24:32) or a parcel of a field (Gen. 33:19). This was, in all probability, the very field in which Abraham's second sepulchre stood, as this field once belonged to the same owners though they may have been miles apart.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=007


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 2, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Jacob bought it with Abraham's credit card.
> 
> Seriously, either
> 
> ...



OR choice 3, the writer of Acts didn't know the Torah, which is the real answer since he doesn't know how many souls went into Egypt or who bought what piece of land.

Acts 7:14 says  "And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor [the father] of Sychem. "

There is no record of this in the Old Testament.  Jacob is the one who bought the land in Sychem. Not Abraham.  Abraham purchased his tomb in Hebron, where he and Sarah were both buried.  This is well documented in the Old Testament. In order to make Acts work, you have to assume things that are not there.  Same goes with the 70 vs 75 who went into Egypt.  There is no mention of the extra 5 people, and it is documented at least 3 times in the Old Testament how many people went in.

Stephen was supposedly aweing the council during this part of Acts.  By reading it, I can't think they were awed by his knowledge, but more by his lack thereof.  It is a clear error.


----------



## 1BigBuckDown (Jan 2, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Another newbie
> 
> In all seriousness.. thank you for your sentiment, I know you mean it with the most sincerity and I appreciate your caring heart.  But I'm not looking for Jesus.  I stopped that a long time ago



ok, guys... STONE HER!!!!

just kiddin...  let me guess, before, when you were a "Christian", you were religious?  You'll never find the real Jesus in any religion. He's not there. He's looking for people that will worship Him in Spirit AND in Truth... If a person is religious, then they are not worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth.  Religion always adds "works" to the Grace of God.  God says NO to works. Every false religion mixes works with Grace or uses works all by itself... All wrong.  Bible is clear.  Your error is that you dont believe the Bible.  Nobody can ever find God if they think the Word of God is in error or pagan, as you said.  Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.  You should research the Bible and you will see that it is true. If its true then if you really want to go to Heaven you will fear the Lord... clearly you do not fear the Lord at this point and clearly you were not "born-again" when you say that you were a believer...  Pray for Truth and God will show you Himself in Jesus...


----------



## 1BigBuckDown (Jan 2, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Another newbie
> 
> In all seriousness.. thank you for your sentiment, I know you mean it with the most sincerity and I appreciate your caring heart.  But I'm not looking for Jesus.  I stopped that a long time ago



oh and btw... you are still looking for Christ.  that is why you are on this board.  if you were not looking for Christ and His salvation, you would be bashing the Bible on an athiest board... I pray you find Him, because life aint worth living without Him...


----------



## MisterClean (Jan 2, 2009)

I hate to break it to you, but you don't "leave" being a Christian.  That's like saying you leave being a human.  It's impossible.  But then since you "don't believe" now, I find it even stranger than before that you waste your time with what you "don't believe" anymore.

I am over Santa, but I ain't going to start a "De-bunking St. Nicholas" thread....

BTW - how does one become a Christian on their first day of life?  (...I was a Christian the first 30 years of my life...)

I'm done.  I feel sad for you and obviously you feel sad too, hence the hang-up.  Sad or not, you shouldn't attempt to destroy other people's faith in God because it's a total waste of time.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 2, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> OR choice 3, the writer of Acts didn't know the Torah, which is the real answer since he doesn't know how many souls went into Egypt or who bought what piece of land.
> 
> Acts 7:14 says "And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor [the father] of Sychem. "
> 
> ...


 
I tend to not think this is possible, because Stephen was being grilled for blaspemy by the Pharisees who well knew the Torah. Had he made such a blatent error, surely they would have pounced on him. They were looking for a reason to stone him. They did it anyway, but a reason would have been proclaimed had he made the error.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 2, 2009)

farmasis said:


> I tend to not think this is possible, because Stephen was being grilled for blaspemy by the Pharisees who well knew the Torah. Had he made such a blatent error, surely they would have pounced on him. They were looking for a reason to stone him. They did it anyway, but a reason would have been proclaimed had he made the error.



IF this account is even truly historical, they stoned him because he was blasphemous.  He was pounced on.  It was a blatant error... is it really such a surprise that the writers of the NT would leave out that part?  Do you think the writers of the NT would admit that he was stoned because he didn't know what he was talking about? The writers of the books of the NT leave out a lot of pertinent information.  In some places, it seems that the writers of the NT didn't even have a Torah or any other writings of the Old Testament to look up before they wrote their 'scripture'.  And they don't even agree on their information. 

For example... when Judas betrayed Jesus, what happened to him after that?

Did he take his 30 pieces of silver and purchase some land, whereupon he fell down and his guts burst open as stated in Acts 1:18?

Or, did he instead, as stated in Matthew 27:5, throw down the silver pieces to the priests (who then purchased land with it) and then go out and hang himself?

And what exactly is the story with the land bought?
Is the true story that the priests purchased it (as in Matthew 27:7) to make a graveyard for strangers, which is why the verse says it was called the 'Field of Blood" and fulfills the prophecy by "Jeremy" (or, Jeremiah... except for that the verse isn't in Jeremiah, it's in Zechariah... another error in the NT) "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;  And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me. "

OR was the field called the "Field of Blood" because Judas' guts burst there, as told in Acts 1:18, and nothing done with the field so to fulfil the psalm " For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. "

How can it really be believed that the bible is infallible?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 2, 2009)

DD, certainly has my sympathy.  She obviously have no spiritual discernment when it comes to the scriptures.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 2, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> DD, certainly has my sympathy.  She obviously have no spiritual discernment when it comes to the scriptures.



Obviously!  So are you able to explain the contradiction then to this spiritually-undiscerned soul?     Surely something like that doesn't take spiritual discernment.....


----------



## farmasis (Jan 2, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> IF this account is even truly historical, they stoned him because he was blasphemous. He was pounced on. It was a blatant error...


 
Umm no, it wasn't. And yes they would have recorded it. Also remember, EVEN if Stephen made an error, the writer was recording what he said. Even if someone says something false, wouldn't they have to record it? But no, the Pharisees did not stone Stephen because he made an error in who was buried in a tomb, or who bought it.



> How can it really be believed that the bible is infallible?


 
Because it is.

I am not going to run around correcting all the 'contradictions' that you find on the internet. You will have to find another one to chase them down for you. Or better yet, search for the corrections yourself.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 2, 2009)

farmasis said:


> Umm no, it wasn't. And yes they would have recorded it. Also remember, EVEN if Stephen made an error, the writer was recording what he said. Even if someone says something false, wouldn't they have to record it? But no, the Pharisees did not stone Stephen because he made an error in who was buried in a tomb, or who bought it.



Then why did they stone him?
And these chapters of Acts are not recordings of what Stephen said. They are based on RECOLLECTION of what was said. No one was there transcribing it.  These were written decades (or more) later.





> Because it is.
> 
> I am not going to run around correcting all the 'contradictions' that you find on the internet. You will have to find another one to chase them down for you. Or better yet, search for the corrections yourself.



There are none.
I know that sometimes it is hard to believe, but at one point I DID search the internet and books and commentaries, etc. looking for the 'corrections'.  They weren't there.  That's why I left Christianity.


----------



## farmasis (Jan 3, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> There are none.
> I know that sometimes it is hard to believe, but at one point I DID search the internet and books and commentaries, etc. looking for the 'corrections'. They weren't there. That's why I left Christianity.


 
They are there. I haven't found one that hasn't been answered yet and I have 'battled' many that have tried.

I would love to continue and I may after a bit, but it is always the same and it gets tiring.

Always 5 more after you answer the last 5, then defending the answer, then 5 more, and so on.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> How can it really be believed that the bible is infallible?



The presence of the Holy Spirit in your life to help you rightly divide the word. Not that we all listen to Him, but He's there with the ones of us who believe. When I read the book by Billy Graham named the Holy Spirit, I actually understood it for the first time in my life. I knew about Jesus but never knew about the HS. I used to think that I had a spiritual guide....and I did, I just didn't know who He was, until He revealed Himself to me....I tried it and I liked it. It's not like a trap that you can't leave and run away from God if you don't like it.

Besides the Bible doesn't have to be perfectly interpreted or translated to get to heaven.....we will all have the answers we need in the sweet by and by or maybe in the hot by and by. I'll take my chances with the sweet by and by, if I'm wrong, I'll die and never know the difference, but if I'm right a lot of unbelievers will need an  asbestos suit.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 3, 2009)

farmasis said:


> They are there. I haven't found one that hasn't been answered yet and I have 'battled' many that have tried.
> 
> I would love to continue and I may after a bit, but it is always the same and it gets tiring.
> 
> Always 5 more after you answer the last 5, then defending the answer, then 5 more, and so on.




I agree.  And no offense, because the truth is that I like you, I enjoy discussing with you, you always stick to the scripture and focus on the text rather than me personally, like some others do... so I don't mean this offensively, but if your defenses had any biblical support to them, then maybe they would be something to think about.  But they don't... all of the defenses you have posted in the last two days consist of making up alternate excuses for why things would be written the way they are.  "Maybe's' and 'possiblies' don't cut it, sorry.   I realize you are perfectly fine with accepting the 'answers' you have given on here, but that doesn't work for me, because it has no support whatsoever.

The bible is not infallible... neither the NT OR the OT.  Both have mistakes in them.  There is no defense for it.  When an 'inspired' writer of the NT attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah that was actually Zechariah, there is no defense for that.  When they take a verse (nearly verbatim) that says Joseph purchased land and from whom in the OT, but instead put Abraham's name in it in the NT, there is no defense for that.  They are errors.

And, the fact is, there are bound to be errors, since the bible was not written by one person, at one time, or even during the time period of the accounts themselves.  None of the gospels were written from an eyewitness. You have people writing things that have been passed down from decade to decade, century to century, etc.  How anyone would expect that to be 'infallible', I don't know. 

And I don't know why anyone gets mad at me for talking about these things.  I didn't write the bible, or  any part of it.  I'm not adding anything or taking away from it.  I'm simply questioning what is right there in front of you.  Whether I talk about it or not, that doesn't make the errors or problems go away.  If someone digs a hole, you can cover it up with sticks and branches or ignore it... but eventually, someone is going to fall in it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

Ya know most science books and history books aren't written with first hand knowledge, can we assume those 'could' be incorrect? Maybe hitler was really a woman, maybe the holocoaust never happened like some people even today are denying that it did....50 years from now it will only be a fairy tale, too. I know and believe it happened, but I didn't have first hand knowledge on accounts written by other people, and those will become questionable after this generation.

I have no proof personally myself that the holocaust happened, other than books and pictures about it...so how do I know it really happened? Could someone make a slight mistake here and there in the book and that totally discounts the holocaust altogether???

I couldn't swear on a stack of bibles that someone landed on the moon. I can't prove that Jeffrey Dahmer ate people, since I didn't see him to it...but he said he did and others that wrote about him said that he did....but I have no solid proof other than that.

There is nothing that I know of from history that could be totally absolutely infallible, that I haven't seen myself.

My first husband was killed in VN....how do I know it wasn't friendly fire? how do I know that it was really him and he's not just a pow still? I believe the people that said so, that it was him they identified, but how do I know for sure for sure for sure? And that little doubt in my mind drives me insane. But what I do know is I'll never see him again in this life....how do I know, I just know. Same with Christ. It's unmistakable peace that passeth all understanding and that is undeniable for me, be mistakes or not in the Bible, I know Christ and He knows me. 

And I could go on, but right now, I can't.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> Ya know most science books and history books aren't written with first hand knowledge, can we assume those 'could' be incorrect? Maybe hitler was really a woman, maybe the holocoaust never happened like some people even today are denying that it did....50 years from now it will only be a fairy tale, too. I know and believe it happened, but I didn't have first hand knowledge on accounts written by other people, and those will become questionable after this generation.
> 
> I have no proof personally myself that the holocaust happened, other than books and pictures about it...so how do I know it really happened? Could someone make a slight mistake here and there in the book and that totally discounts the holocaust altogether???
> 
> ...



You do whatever it takes.  Just allow others to do the same.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 3, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You do whatever it takes.  Just allow others to do the same.



I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing the same.
You don't see me mocking, making fun of someone's belief, or rolling around on the floor laughing at their responses do you?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2009)

mtnwoman said:


> I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing the same.
> You don't see me mocking, making fun of someone's belief, or rolling around on the floor laughing at their responses do you?



You are obviously sincere.


----------

