Infallibility, inerrancy and God's word are often used to describe the Bible.

Christians, generally believe at least one of these things, many believing all 3.

So if Jesus' own words contain errors, then aren't all 3 wrong?

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), empowers the law of Moses plus ategorically states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."

This statement is unequivocal! It includes the commandments and all other of Moses' laws!

Some of Moses', UGLY laws are :

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy22:20-21 2 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Could Jesus mean these laws? In Matthew 5:18, he is unequivocal!

How could the son of the most intelligent being Jesus allegedly agree to these laws? Doesn't it insult your God believing this?

Opinionated2

Who are you to suddenly decide what laws are good and what are bad? This kind of thinking leads to thousands of unborn babies being murdered in our country each year. I would of thought you would be smart enough to realize that the law of Moses is a tutor to lead people to the only Law keeper and I don't mean you. Try a little humility and bow your knee to your Maker and you might just understand a little about spiritual matters instead of standing in judgement of the Judge.

Runner,

Please don't think I am standing in "judgement of the judge" ... I am asking legitimate questions using references from the Bible to further my knowledge.

I'm wondering why you, and other Christians, sit idly by, whilst people actually sell your God and Jesus as none too bright?

It seems to me... if God's word is being misrepresented and wrongly taught by man, preachers and the churches, then, I am acting like John the Baptist. I may be the voice in the wilderness making straight the way for the Lord. I think, you have an obligation NOT to let your God be belittled by wrong teachings!

If God is the most intelligent being to ever live, who knows all things, who can tell what we have done, are doing, and will do in the future, then why do Christians belittle his name by believing this stuff? Are you letting your God down Runner?

Did God give us a thinking mind?

Why would he wire such a magnificent brain and then say just don't use it?

Why would he make laws that are so obviously flawed that they couldn't have come from him? And why as a faithful servant haven't you noticed this?

Why didn't you answer the questions Runner? ... isn't not answering actually letting your God down?

There is more spirituality found outside the bible than contained in many of it's ill informed passages, Runner... Seek and you may find. The fact that the Bible is OLD just isn't good enough, if it is God's word, then, we had better get it right. If it isn't we had better stop teaching it!

Misrepresenting God's word is a pretty big sin Runner, or so one would think!

But please don't accuse me of "judging the judge" when you won't even answer questions.

I ask again "How could the son of the most intelligent being, Jesus, allegedly agree to these laws? Doesn't it insult your God believing this?

The answer is simple...

Dear Opinionated2,

Is the Bible inerrant, infallible or God's word?

Readers have long differed over how to explain the
meaning of parts of the Bible.

Some people believe that every event mentioned in the
Bible actually happened exactly as the Bible says
it did. Other people feel that many events in the
Bible must be read as symbols of religious belief.

Many Biblical scholars today consider the Bible
to be chiefly an expression of faith.

It all comes down in my view to a question of faith
and belief. You believe or you don't.
It's our choice to make.

As you said - simple really!

Cheers.

Opinionated2

' I am asking legitimate questions using references from the Bible to further my knowledge.

I suggest you look for a way to clean your heart rather than puff your head up with more 'knowledge'.

I'm wondering why you, and other Christians, sit idly by, whilst people actually sell your God and Jesus as none too bright?

People like yourself have misrepresented Christ now for 2000 years. He needs no defending.

If God is the most intelligent being to ever live, who knows all things, who can tell what we have done, are doing, and will do in the future, then why do Christians belittle his name by believing this stuff? Are you letting your God down Runner?

I can assure you that your future without Christ is pitiful. Hopefully you will come off the drugs or get a little sanity before its to late.

Did God give us a thinking mind?

Yes He did and it appears the devil has given you a perverted mind.

Why would he wire such a magnificent brain and then say just don't use it?

The beginning of wisdom if the fear of God.

Why would he make laws that are so obviously flawed that they couldn't have come from him? And why as a faithful servant haven't you noticed this?

The rules are only flawed when read with a corrupt mind.

Why didn't you answer the questions Runner? ... isn't not answering actually letting your God down? Which one of your many?

There is more spirituality found outside the bible than contained in many of it's ill informed passages, Runner... Seek and you may find. The fact that the Bible is OLD just isn't good enough, if it is God's word, then, we had better get it right. If it isn't we had better stop teaching it! And so you believe Jesus to be a liar obviously.

I ask again "How could the son of the most intelligent being, Jesus, allegedly agree to these laws? Doesn't it insult your God believing this? No it confirms His part in making the laws.

Foxy and Runner TY for your replies. Are you John 3:16 Christians?

Sadly, John 3:16ers are generally in the first year of Christian pre-school, not yet progressing to Christian 101 yet.

I have a clean heart Runner. I am calling the churches to account after centuries of misleading their flocks. For breaking the very word they claim to hold dear.

John 3:16ers sit in their churches with a blind eye to all the wrongs. They are good loving people, "They just Believe".

What will the most intelligent being ever say when John3:16ers' books are opened. Will he say OMG another John 3:16er?

He might ask them .... How can people who were already dead before Christ's ministry enter the Kingdom of Heaven then? Hmmm tough question!

Runner you have just sinned. I am not on drugs or insane - Exodus 20:16: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Runner : "And so you believe Jesus to be a liar obviously."

No, I don't believe that Jesus would agree to some of the stupid laws that Moses created.

I don't believe Jesus said many of the things we are told he did!

I never called Jesus a liar! I'm sure I was talking about the Bible and it's questionable truths.

By rudely saying the 'devil perverted my mind" Runner you crossed the "bearing false testimony" line again. OOps!

I forgive you and turn the other cheek! Matthew 5:39

And just to top it all off Runner you actually state "No it confirms his part in making the laws" - the ugly laws of Moses.

Are you saying here that Jesus believes "a rapist should be allowed to pay the father of a rape victim 50 pieces of silver and gets the poor woman for life?" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

How could your saviour Jesus agree to such a law Runner?

With that gem I think you just made my point!

Christians - Please invite all friends to join this thread. Bible study for John 3:16ers. It is an open invitation! Who knows an atheist might be reading this and convert!

Newsflash, OP2.

>>Christians - Please invite all friends to join this thread. Bible study for John 3:16ers. It is an open invitation! Who knows an atheist might be reading this and convert!<<

I would humbly suggest that a "conversation" between yourself and runner is far more likely to achieve the opposite outcome.

Incidentally, I recall that you had elsewhere protested that you are not a Christian.

>>Thankyou for your explanation Pericles ... I am not a Christian.<<

This makes your present attitude even more puzzling, does it not? On what basis do you accuse runner of sinning, if not through a Christian faith?

>>Runner you have just sinned. I am not on drugs or insane - Exodus 20:16: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."<<

And why on earth, as a non-Christian, would you exhort Christians to join the thread, with the view to converting atheists?

You haven't been telling porkies, have you?

Or perhaps - and here's a thought - you are actually an atheist employing devious tactics to scare people away from Christianity?

In which case, you're very much on the right track.

But I still wonder why you would want to do such a thing. What satisfaction can it possibly give you?

Have a great day.

Dear Opinionated 2,

You do sound somewhat agressive in
your approach towards people who may
happen to have a different system of
beliefs to yours. However have no fear
no one is going to attempt to convert
you, especially me. Whatever we believe
in (or don't) is a personal choice
that we make. I wouldn't dream of putting
any one down because of their beliefs, (unless
they hurt people). I feel that what people believe
is a private matter and their own affair.

For me personally, I was raised as a Catholic, but
I'm probably not a very good one - because I cringe
at some of the things that Cardinal Pell (and Rome)
does. And I don't agree with many of their stands on
certain issues. I tend to follow my conscience,
demand meaning and relevance from my Church, and I
won't allow my God to be reduced to empty ritual and
all-absorbing law.

I certainly don't have all the answers and am in no
position to judge anyone. I can only struggle to find myself,
to love my fellow human beings, and to hope that in this
way I am truly loving God. All I can do is try to be a
decent human being.

As for the Bible being infallible - as I said, it's a
question of faith and belief. To me - the Bible was written
by men - so how could it possibly be infallible? It started
as an oral tradition before being written down. Language
translations are not always accurate - neither are men's
memories - but I'm not a Biblical scholar - so I won't be
entering into this discussion about its pluses or minuses -
anyone seeking to find mistakes in anything will eventually
succeed - I'm sure. But to what end? And why?

Be secure in your own belief (whatever it is) and don't try
to tear down those of others.

Anyway, that's my opinion - you do what you feel
you must. I'll see you on another thread.

Cheers.

So are you proseltysing for atheism or for some obscure Christian sect?

Come on godbotherers answer the question.
Is the bible true or not?

There are a variety of lists around which detail contradictions in the bible and there are rebuttals of the lists. The rebuttals seem to have to accept that the bible is not inerrant or infallible (depending on how you use those words).

Those who wish to treat the bible as a literal historically and scientifically accurate document have to turn a lot of blind eye's to maintain that belief. Those who don't try and treat it as that don't face the same problem. If it's a scientific document then the difference between Pi and 3 is not a big problem, if it's the inerrant and infallible word of god then the difference is significant. 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chron. 4:2

Contradictions/errors
- http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm
- http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

One of the rebuttals
- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Much depends on how people want to treat the text.

R0bert

Mikk challenges

'Come on godbotherers answer the question.
Is the bible true or not?'

The way you interpret it certainly isn't. You obviously have no idea who the Author is so you have little chance of understanding something you obviously hold in contempt. Hopefully your god hating will come to an end before its to late.

Foxy, Your answer does you proud... Obviously you aren't a John 3:16 christian, I apologise. I do not try to tear down others.

My bluntness is a bit like Jesus' when he allegedly talked to the Pharisees. His annoyance showed as does mine.

By rattling a few cages people start to think - there is no sweet way to challenge indoctrination, bigotry and unintelligent belief.

I question the crazy laws of Moses. because if God is the most intelligent being ever, he could never have come up with the unintelligent laws I have quoted!

Pericles, No I don't tell porkies. Remember your porky?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2530&page=0#57541

Christians shouldn't drop their spirituality they just need to get outside the book! Jesus achieved this when he changed ideas in Matthew 5 through 10. He stepped outside the OT.

Runner - Who wrote the books of the Bible? The Bible isn't a book - It's men's hand picked collection of ancient books.

mjpb - Neither! I am suggesting the Bible is wrong and using alleged scripture to do it! If it is wrong, churches are preaching untruths, in turn, they sin.

RObert - Your methodology is sound. Read criticisms and their replies and assess each on it's merit.

Mikk - I don't like the term "Godbotherers". I do think people should answer the questions.

Pericles - If a Christian loses their faith through what I am saying they had little faith to begin with. If they learn from what I am saying then they are using their intellect to grow.

Another biblical falsehood to consider John 15:16, 16:23-24. If all prayers are answered... why don't people with amputated legs who pray have their legs grow back? Why don't starving people who pray get fed?

Does your God really intercede or do you give people false hope?

Jesus allegedly said Matthew 17:20 "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Is your faith in God greater than a mustard seed?

You can read anything into what the bible says.

If it is god's word, god is schitzophrenic.

Dear Democritus,

You were wondering if God was schzophrenic?

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

Sorry, you left yourself open for that one,
I simply couldn't resist... :)

Hey Runner the question wasnt whether I beleived the bible to be true but whether you believe that it is true. You still havent answered. Neither has anybody else. hmmm

Dear mikk,

I'll keep it simple for you - because you
obviously want a "yes" or "no" answer.

"Yes" its true to those who believe in it.
"No" it's not to those who don't.

There you go!

What is all this Christian-baiting achieving? At least in Rome it boosted morale and - in theory, at least - patriotism. I have beliefs and they work for me. I don't read every passage of the Bible and examine its meaning out of context. I do, however, use the Bible as a whole as a bit of a guide. Overall, its message is positive. It says to love one another. It says that salvation and happiness awaits those who behave properly. It gives guidelines for how to behave properly.

Now, I am aware that the Bible's guidelines aren't the only ones. They may not even be the best, but that is a value judgment and each person is entitled to his own opinion on that matter. Certainly if you stop reading at Deuteronomy, there would be a lot of demand for death. At the end of the day, you cannot get a picture of the whole by examining its parts. Like almost all ancient texts, it contains many doozies which do not stand up to modern scrutiny. Just the other day, in another thread, someone listed Plato as one of many greater thinkers than Jesus. The same Plato postulated that women came into being as the second generation of morally, physically and socially degenerate men. Does that one suggestion mean that we should cast Plato aside altogether?

To answer Mikk's question, I have no idea whether or not the Bible was originally infallible. Certainly the many stages of translation and the centuries of writing and rewriting at the hands of very human monks would have destroyed that infallibility. The physical makeup of the Bible is a human construct and humans are fallible. Thus the Bible is, perhaps, the best humans could put together with the resources at hand.

I thought God admitted to Noah that causing the flood was a mistake and that He also regretted creating Man.

Not a good example of omnicience - so either God makes mistakes or the book itself is flawed.

Otokonoko,

My questioning, (not baiting as you wrongfully call it), is hopefully getting people to analyse their religion and it's foundations, rather than their spirituality or faith.

Where I took the Bible out of context? That was a big statement, if you are referring to me, and now I ask you to prove it.

John 8:32 (NIV) ... and the truth will set you free."

That is what this questioning is about.

So far two Catholics are the only Christians (I think) to have mentioned that the Bible is probably fallible due to man. That is a massive start!

The simple point is - Churches can't claim it to be God's word if it isn't! Christians likewise can't either!

Once that is realised we can step outside the book and the crazy limitations that it places on us and as you stated in another thread "love one another".

The problem is the churches keep telling good Christians fibs about the bible. They preach this hellfire and damnation rubbish! Would a loving God create such a place?

What would Jesus want me to do?

It is the institutionalised, indoctrinated belief that the bible is inerrant, infallible and God's word, and the unintelligent God that it portrays that astounds me.

If God and Jesus exist then they would want us to tell the truth and get this right.

Imagine a world where all bigotry was dissolved.

Imagine a world where the fact that you were gay wasn't an issue.

Imagine a world where people loved each other in peace and harmony.

Imagine a world where a woman could rise to become the head in her Church or religion of choice. (not man's 1 Timothy 11-12)

Imagine a world where we treasured God's gift the planet.

Imagine a world where money was secondary to love!

Imagine a world where their were no poor, starving or disadvantaged people!

I can envisage such a world. If religions can't let go of old flawed documents to justify their rules - None of the above will happen!

What would Jesus want us to do?

The oldest known copy of the Bible is the Sinaiticus (the Sinai Bible), followed by the Alexandrinus (Alexandrian Bible) and then the Vaticanus (the Vatican Bible) which dates back to the sixth century. There are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament there are 14,800 editorial alterations. The Sinaiticus also contains three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon.

In the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaticus does not mention Mary or the resurrection and is 500 words shorter than other versions.

The Gospel of Luke mentions no resurrection, is 10,000 words shorter and a further 8,500 words were added in the 15th century.
Even the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as "The Great Omission" - a total of 1,547 words.

Likewise, the resurrection in John does not appear in any Bibles until the sixth century.

In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius to prohibit publication of "erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers" that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.

Earliest versions are less accurate than newer versions?

In 1587, Pope Sixtus V established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, "Church history will be now be established ... we shall seek to print our own account". Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as Pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a "New Learning"

These are just a few examples (there are many more) but if this sort of serious editing can happen along the way, how can it be taken literally?

Is it the inerrant word of God, or something that is being constructed along the way?

The oldest version of the Bible was canonised in 90 CE by the Jewish Academy in Jabneh. Later the New Testament was added, and it has been downhill ever since.

Hmmm
So if you believe in it its true and if you dont believe in it its not true.
wow that was easy
its also complete bollocks

either it is or it isnt.
I still dont see anybody putting their hand up and saying that they personally believe it to be the true word of god. telling that is imo

The OT Bible is a collection of 39 writings by various authors reporting historical events, songs chanted, and warnings and hopes expressed by prophets.

The NT is the similar colection of 27 books reporting history, doctrine and expressing hopes and warnings of the future. In all it reflects the ideals and hopes that motivate man to seek spiritual truth in the ultimate intelligence - God. It is not a dictation from God, but a search by our forefathers for meaning and truth.

Somtimes it has cultural setting e.g. The story of Abraham who believed he was challenged by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac on an altar to God. The fact is Abram lived in a pagan culture that sacrificed children to their gods and he himself was surrounded by this pagan culture within his own relatives. (In fact that culture remained in some areas till Christian missionaries came in the 6th century after Christ). Remember his search as he moved from polytheism as practised by his father, to conclude there was only one God, and God would provide a substutionary sacrifice to atone for their sins and he would not have to sacrifice his son.

Philo wrote:

Somtimes it [the Bible] has cultural setting e.g. The story of Abraham who believed he was challenged by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac on an altar to God. The fact is Abram lived in a pagan culture that sacrificed children to their gods and he himself was surrounded by this pagan culture within his own relatives. (In fact that culture remained in some areas till Christian missionaries came in the 6th century after Christ). Remember his search as he moved from polytheism as practised by his father, to conclude there was only one God, and God would provide a substutionary sacrifice to atone for their sins and he would not have to sacrifice his son.

Dear Philo,

Your comment sounds right. unfortunately as Jews moved away from the primitive ideas of God as having the character of a human and the notion of human sacrifice Christianity which started as a Jewish sect went backward. The sadistic God of the New Testament who sacrificed 'his only begotten son' was a throwback. There was no merciful angel to prevent the torment of Jesus. Christianity retreated from monotheism in creating a Trinity. The Trinity included a humanoid God like that of the Greek and Roman pantheon. Unlike the humanoid God of the Greeks and Romans Jesus is not pictured as having sexual desire but is a heavenly eunuch. This is contrary to Judaism which regards sex as a good thing that has been placed on earth for humans to enjoy. Sexual guilt, a humanoid deity and a retreat from pure monotheism are all part of the perversion of Judaism called Christianity.

Davidf I note that you are pushing the Judaism line quite a deal.

So, trying to be fair minded, is there anywhere online, where I can view the Bible you refer to in English to make a few comparisons?

If not please explain the differences in the Judaism's Bible or holy books from the Christian Bible in the following passages

Exodus 31:15, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy22:20-21, Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Sorry to put you to all this work but I want to know if what you are saying stands the test of "a loving, caring God", and that your references don't allow discrimination against women and others in society.

TY in advance for your efforts.

Dear Opinonated2,

You cited (Exodus 31:15, Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy22:20-21, Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Death penalties for offenses that don’t merit the death penalty and marrying a woman one has raped and paying the father are all unreasonable.

Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote “Sins of Scripture”. On his website you can see:

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY: "No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6);This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.
ANTI-SEMITISM: And the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children'" (Matt. 27:25); No other verse of Holy Scripture has been responsible for so much violence and so much bloodshed. People convinced that these words conferred legitimacy and even holiness on their hostility have killed millions of Jewish people over history. Far more than Christians today seem to understand, to call the Bible "Word of God" in any sense is to legitimize this hatred reflected in its pages.
SEXISM: For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1Cor. 8-9)The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil to their core and it was built on the story of Eve. She was taken out of man and was not his equal, but his helpmeet. Evil entered human history through the weakness of the woman. She was made to bear the blame and the guilt. She was the source of death.
HOMOPHOBIA: "...the men of Sodom...to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.'" (Lev. 18:22) This story that portrays all of the men of Sodom as eager to gang-rape two heavenly visitors has been used to condemn faithful and loving homosexual relationships. (continued)

(continued) A story in which a father, in order to protect the Middle Eastern code of hospitality, can offer his virgin daughters to be gang-raped, and still be regarded by both God and the author of this story as righteous, has been turned by the prejudices of later interpreters into an anti-homosexual text that feeds the basest side of our humanity. How is that possible unless prejudice overwhelms rationality and moral judgment?
The church has sought to portray Jesus as sharing an anti-female bias that includes a commitment to celibacy. But there is a repressed tradition that counters this teaching, in the story of Mary, the sister of Martha, anointing Jesus' feet (John 12:1-8). The only thing that would have made such an act acceptable in that day is the knowledge she was his wife.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: "Do not withhold discipline from a child....If you beat him with a rod, you will save his life from Sheol" (Prov. 23:13, 14) It validates our own violence, since when we abuse others we are only acting after the example which God has set for us. God even required the crucifixion of the Son. The punishing God is thus replicated in the punishing parent, the punishing authority figure and the punishing nation. Violence is redemptive. War is justified. Bloodshed is the way of salvation. It all fits together so tightly, so neatly, and it justifies the most destructive and demeaning of human emotions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGREDATION: "Be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth" (Gen. 1:28) We human beings are not some alien visitors who happen to be on the planet earth. Our human life is part of this planet. Heaven is not our home. The earth is. Once this supposed divine command was seen as necessary to enable the human race to survive. Now it must be seen as nothing less than a prescription for human genocide. If followed literally, this "Word of God" all but guarantees our annihilation.

I wanted to write this out rather than refer you to it. Since I have reached my limit I shall continue tomorrow.

Opinionated2,

Sorry if you have misunderstood what I have said, or perceived it as some sort of accusation. I'll try to clear things up here.

CHRISTIAN BAITING: If you have a look through the last few threads relating to religion, there are many posts which make unsubstantiated claims against Christianity. It's not helping anybody, but it just keeps going. I wasn't making an accusation against you; rather, I was observing the general climate of religion-related discussions.

OUT OF CONTEXT: If you re-read my post, you'll see that I'm not accusing anyone of taking things out of context, and certainly not in a malicious way. As it stands, almost every Biblical quote presented as evidence by Christians and non-Christians alike is out of context. When you present a single sentence from a broader text, without acknowledging or explaining the surrounding sentences, you are presenting it out of context. Is this a bad thing to do? Not always. I was just pointing out that I use the text as a whole, rather than breaking it into its smallest parts for analysis.

Now, I will once again go on the record and agree that there are many flaws in the current Bible. Does this mean that it is entirely fictional, made up by sneaky men? Not necessarily. It can still be the word of God, albeit distorted either deliberately or accidentally by man. Really, as a 21st Century Australian schoolteacher, I'm not in a position to make an assertion either way with any real authority. I will, however, note that there is much in there that is worthy of a good read.

TY for your reply Davidf, I appreciate that you provided the detail in your answers.

The sad fact though is that Judaism, Christianity & Islam have these unGodly laws apparently from God. Go figure. It appears that all believers seem happy to accept that their most intelligent being God, G-d & Allah couldn't get it right in the beginning and that the most intelligent ever to allegedly exist is portrayed by ancient writings as rather unintelligent.

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY: I would have thought that all religious books from these 3 contain equal amounts of ugly bits creating hatred. Moses was not a model citizen! NUMBERS 31:13-19 I suspect Moses was a witch doctor who performed magic to get approval and power Exodus 4:2-5 then had all competitors killed Exodus 22:17 so to remain in power. Egyptian magicians did the same tricks Exodus 7:8-13

ANTI-SEMITISM - I would have thought that all religious books have created lots of reasons for idiots to kill one another. How many Muslims, Jews, Christians etc. have died - 1 is 1 too many!

SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, ENVIRONMENT - No Abrahamic religion is innocent!

But most people miss the most telling of all the parables - "The Parable of the Gold Coins" Luke 19: 11-27 - What was Jesus saying here if they are his words? Jesus used parables to instruct people. Was this an instruction too ugly for thinking Christians to think about in detail?

Otokonoko, TY for your apology but it wasn't necessary - I agree generally with what you say. I try to show the passages that really aren't out of context. I may fail but I always try.

Once again I am not questioning peoples faith or spirituality. I am questioning their religious teachings, doctrines & their religions interpretations.

I need sleep so I will continue with more tomorrow...lol

Opinionated2
Referring to John 3:16ers, i.e. those who believe that God gave his "only-begotten son", you imply that it must be a cruel god who would allow his son to die on the cross.

But of course Jesus did not die on the cross, the Bible says so. In John's gospel it is said that when he had had enough, Jesus said "I thirst" and someone held up a sponge soaked in 'vinegar', after which he seemed to be dead. So they took him down without breaking his legs and placed him in a tomb where Nicodemus brought him aloes (a purgative). Next we hear he is up and walking around, talking to his disciples and showing Thomas that he has survived despite his wounded hands and side. Incidentally, the fact that he bled when the soldier jabbed him with a spear shows that he was not dead, the dead don't bleed. So, if the Bible clearly says that Jesus did not die on the cross, why are all these church people going around lying that he did? And if they are lying about that, what other lies have they been telling us?

It seems as soon as religion and Christianity come up for discussion, computers everywhere light up. Christianity is a guiding philosophy, that is poorly taught by some, and brilliantly taught by others. Brilliant scholars in an independent Catholic Church in England in 1215 proposed that the New Testament be the English Constitution, and were immediately overruled by the Pope. In 1297 the Magna Carta was enacted by Parliament and remains in force but ignored by the poorly educated self serving Chairmen, of what should be Christian committees called together to determine if laws made by a Parliament are good or bad.

The Four Gospels of the Holy Bible were confirmed as Statute Law by the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) and the Cambridge Bible still carries the Official Seal, of the Queen. Every Parliamentarian in the Parliament of the Commonwealth swears allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second and to the principles set out in those four Gospels.

The best Bible Stories I have ever heard and the best Bible education I have ever seen is from Brian Houston and his team at Hillsong. He teaches the Bible on Television on a Sunday morning, and his team of gifted and dedicated pastors, teach it every weekend in Sydney. Hillsong is not successful because it wants money, it is successful because it teaches the lessons from the Bible with flair and honesty. The Bible makes judging the one unforgiveable sin. It teaches that there is a living God, that the power and glory of Almighty God are real, and that the lessons of the New Testament are relevant wherever you live and whatever you do.

And they believe in miracles. Kevin Rudd believed in miracles, when he won the leadership of the ALP by three votes. He then delivered a miracle and Howard has gone. This was a miracle Latham could not deliver in 2004. Latham lost 2% a week for seven weeks and lost an un-losable election. He was goaded into admitting he was an atheist.

As a collective the Body of Christ rarely gets it wrong

Since it seems to be a consistent theme in your posts, PtB, I'd like to ask you to expand a little on some of your more cryptic references to Magna Carta.

>>Brilliant scholars in an independent Catholic Church in England in 1215 proposed that the New Testament be the English Constitution<<

Of course, it might be sheer coincidence that this is the date of King John agreeing to the demands of his barons. In which case, who were these scholars, and in what form did they put forward such a proposal?

If not, where in Magna Carta do we find reference to it?

>>In 1297 the Magna Carta was enacted by Parliament and remains in force but ignored by the poorly educated self serving Chairmen,..<<

A far as I am aware, only three of the clauses "remain in force" from the 1297 version - freedom for the church, "ancient liberties" for London, and habeas corpus.

I presume it is the first of these that you perceive as being ignored - can you perhaps explain how you arrive at this conclusion? It isn't entirely clear from your (many) posts on the topic.

Sympneology,

TY for bringing up John 3:16ers again I was going to get back to that.

I was also going to bring up the points you raise they are most important.

John 19:30, Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46 all state Jesus died. (I haven't checked every version)

What was in the wine (vinegar)?

Mark 15:23 mentions the oil Myrrh - http://www.3dchem.com/moremolecules.asp?ID=167&othername=Myrrh%20(Botanical:%20Commiphora%20Molmol).

Matthew 27:34 mentions gall (hemlock)http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7219.htm Gall means bitter but hemlock (a poison) can cause unconsciousness and death. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/821362-overview

John 19:39 "...Nicodemus took Myrrh and Aloes" Myrrh has antiseptic qualities and alloes have healing properties (not embalmers) http://www.peacehealth.org/KBASE/cam/hn-2036003.htm

Why did Jesus die so quickly compared to others who were crucified.

Do people really know John 3:16?

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life"

Lets analyse it... God (an entity), gave Jesus (another entity), so that whosoever believeth (believers) in him (Who Jesus or God?) shall have eternal life.

So this one passage pours doubt on the trinity as does Jesus in John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I".

It states "whosever believeth" - so it includes, homosexuals, witches, etc. as long as they believe in God or Jesus or whoever "him" is.

Many Christians should be wondering how they missed all these contradictions and irregularities.

Should some hang their heads in shame for the way they have mistreated and maligned minorities in their misuse of God's word?

How can "because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" be taught wrongly?

I am waiting to hear from all those preachers out there who allegedly believe this stuff!

The most often quoted passage from the Bible is a nest of worms for Christians!

I think I mentioned that John 3:16ers are in the Christianity pre-school.

Christians - please print and ask your preachers to join this discussion. They teach this stuff now please let them explain the problems.

The Bible is looking very dubious as a reference.

The books of the New Testament were selected from a vast range of early Christian material. What we are left with is an extremely limited and prejudiced view of the teachings of Jesus, and just how limited that view is can be seen from the composition of the New Testament.

There are twenty seven books in the New Testament. Of these, twenty-three are epistleistic and four are Gospels. Of the Gospels, one, John, is epistleistic and the other three are known as the synoptic Gospels. The synoptic Gospels are not essential to the Christian faith, and in some ways are embarrassments. Three of the four Gospels were originally written in Greek.

The exception is Matthew, which was originally written in Hebrew and translated into Greek at a later date. Even though the dating of the Greek version of Matthew suggests that it was the last of the Gospels to be written, it may be the first because of its Hebrew heritage. It may even be a first-hand account of the life of Jesus.

The Old Testament is far more important to Christian dogma than are the Gospels: it justifies the position taken in the New Testament.
That is the parts of the OT that can be used very selectively by Christians to justify Jesus as the Messiah. The rest of the OT can safely be ignored by Christians and regularly is.

The epistleistic writings in the New Testament largely follow the doctrine of one man, Paul. Three-quarters of the New Testament is in the form of letters written by Paul and his immediate circle of friends. The reasons for the letters, or the replies, are not given. The New Testament is a one-sided conversation and the result is that the New Testament represents the views of one man, and that man is not Jesus.

The position of the New Testament is not in doubt. It is not the work of God, nor is it infallible. That leaves the OT that is largely irrelevant to Christianity anyway.

Opinionated2,

You wrote: "What was in the wine (vinegar)?"
and quote Mark 27:34 concerning gall (hemlock), which is probably the right answer. Hemlock was a popular poison at the time for committing suicide a la Socrates. Jesus probably had an arrangement for someone to provide him with this way out of his agony, since death by crucifixion normally took days and sometimes weeks. Hemlock would cause him to quickly lose consciousness (give up the ghost) so that his disciples could say he was dead and there was no need to break his legs.

His life was saved, however, because the followers of Simon Magus, one of the two 'thieves' pursuaded Pilate that it would be offensive to the Jewish law to allow the men to remain on the crosses on the Sabbath, which began at sundown, so they were all taken down and imprisoned. The legs of Simon Magus and Judas Iscariot were broken and they were placed in a different cell from Jesus. Simon, like many of the Magians, was a therapeut. He got Nicodemus to bring myrrh and aloes to Jesus. The myrrh was used to treat his wounds to prevent infection and gangrene setting in. The aloe juice was administered as a purgative to get rid of the poison. Simon was able to big-note himself then as the one who magically "resurrected" Jesus.

"Why did Jesus die so quickly compared to others who were crucified?"
He appeared to die because he lost consciousness from the poison. The others were conscious when taken down, that is why their legs were broken, to prevent their escape.

(continued)

You wrote: "Do people really know John 3:16?"
The deeper meanings of this verse cannot be discerned from the old English words of its translation. Greek is a very complex language, and when it is used to convey information on two levels, one for the "babes in Christ" and another for the initiates, it is even more complex.

To get some idea, consider the following possibilities:
"God" is the title of the person who is the secular head of the Essene mission at Qumran, in this case Joseph, Jesus' father.
Joseph was the leader of the Essene mission to the gentiles and expected his oldest son to continue with this mission. Jesus had been engaged on this when he got mixed up with Simon Magus and his plans for a violent overthrow of the Roman occupation and the puppet rulers, the Herods.

Jesus had plans for a more peaceful change which clashed with Simon's ambitions, hence the split with him after the crucifixions. He was basically a political leader and, although he was heir to the Davidic kingship, he effectively abdicated that role after the crucifixion in order to achieve a political transformation of the whole Roman empire.

He succeeded but I doubt whether the eventual outcome would have had any resemblance to what he had in mind.

The method used to determine that the Magna Carta is still in force in Australia despite the best efforts of misguided and uneducated individuals to repeal it, was to seek out and determine what Imperial Laws were in force here, when the people of Australia, relying on the blessings of Almighty God agreed to unite in one indissoluble Commonwealth under the Monarch currently ruling in the UK.

The legal profession is full of spivs and conmen. They have weaseled their way into parliaments across Australia. About 150 of them sit as Judges and many more as Magistrates. The brilliant scholars I refer to started with Thomas A’Becket, He was murdered after the King said, Will no one rid me of this pesky priest? He was simply the leader of a theological revolution, where the English realized that the four Gospels, contained the very essence of a promise made way back in Isaiah 9 Verse 6, that Government would be vested in the Son of God.

The Magna Carta incorporates into Statute, the single section of the New Testament represented by Matthew 18 Verses 15-20. Firstly it orders us to keep our word once given unequivocally. (15) Then it orders us if we are angry to take two witnesses and confront the person who has upset us (16) If that does not work, then the next step was to take him to the Ecclesia, translated into English as church. (17) The Clauses 18 and 19 contain the remedy, and Clause 20 says that the Living God Jesus Christ present as the Holy Spirit, will by divine guidance, determine who is right and who is wrong in a Christian court.

Our system of government is Christian. Our Parliament of the Commonwealth starts each day with the Lord’s Prayer. No one expected that nine separate Churches would be erected in nine separate overlapping jurisdictions, when the agreement was reached to form one country. The system is based upon the Four Gospels, not the epistles, and the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) is supposed to guarantee it stays that way; one God one Sovereign.

Who pays the most money to lawyers? It is criminals. Who has a vested interest in making the justice system ineffectual? Criminals again. If a lawyer knows that a client has committed a major crime, does he stand up and say my client is a liar and a cheat. Not in my experience.

The entire legal system today, is designed to benefit the criminal element in society and have them prey on the innocent and industrious. It can only work when lawyers give themselves absolute power, as Judges and Magistrates, and never obey the Statutory Command in the Gospel of John, 22 and 23, to separate the power to Judge, vested in Jesus Christ from the power to administer the law, vested in the Sovereign, representing Almighty God.

The Judges and Magistrates of Australia are in essence criminals like their clients were. Every time they sit without a jury, they are perverting the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonweath. This is a serious indictable offence, made so by s 43 Crimes Act 1914. Why do they continue to be offenders.

The system was that by S 13 and S 15F Crimes Act 1914 anyone could sue these criminals and bring them before a court to be judged, in this life, not the hereafter. To make this ineffective, The Director of Public Prosecutions was vested by s 9.5 of his Act in 1983, with power to take over and discontinue without reasons, any private prosecution. This is of course an illegal act because it does not provide just terms, as guaranteed by Section 51 (xxxi) Constitution, but to a criminal lawyer, that does not count. In 1980, the same power was vested in a Judge in Queensland, and corruption has become endemic.

For the first time in sixty years we have a PM who is not a lawyer. If he is genuine, he will call for the resignation of every Judge and Magistrate in Australia, and replace them with Christian men and women like himself, who take their Oath of Allegiance seriously

Peter the Believer wrote:

For the first time in sixty years we have a PM who is not a lawyer. If he is genuine, he will call for the resignation of every Judge and Magistrate in Australia, and replace them with Christian men and women like himself, who take their Oath of Allegiance seriously.

Such an action would be a violation of the Australian Constitution which states:

“116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

The Australian Constitution does not mention Christianity, and there are no references to religion in that document except that cited above.

The Constitution specifies that there be no religious test for office, and it is religious bigotry to try to introduce such a requirement.

Sorry, Peter the Believer, it is time to stop this silly game that you keep playing with Magna Carta.

>>The Magna Carta incorporates into Statute, the single section of the New Testament represented by Matthew 18 Verses 15-20. Firstly it orders us to keep our word once given unequivocally. (15) Then it orders us if we are angry to take two witnesses and confront the person who has upset us (16) If that does not work, then the next step was to take him to the Ecclesia, translated into English as church. (17) The Clauses 18 and 19 contain the remedy, and Clause 20 says that the Living God Jesus Christ present as the Holy Spirit, will by divine guidance, determine who is right and who is wrong in a Christian court.<<

Here's a translation of Magna Carta.

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html

Show us, please, where this "incorporation into statute" takes place.

You have referred to it on so many occasions, it has become something of a mantra, and it is well overdue that you explain yourself without this verbal crutch.

Peter the Believer are you trying to divert the topic away from actual Bible discussion? What are you afraid of?

Under PtB's "the NT is correct" thinking we need to get all judges/magistrates to resign replacing them with "good Christian" people. Great plan PtB - but let's test their good Christian qualities first.

We don't want a country run by religious zealots with skeletons in their closets do we? Maybe the Muslim model is more to your liking!

So which laws apply PtB?

Are Pentacostal & Charismatic churches teaching selective Christianity... The God wants Christians to be rich line?

Is it really what the gospels say?

Jesus allegedly said (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13, ) "..... You cannot serve God and money..."

Luke 12:33-34 Jesus allegedly says "Sell all your belongings and give them to the poor..."

Do these teachings apply to churches?

How much money do the leaders of churches get paid? Are they trying to serve both, against Jesus' teachings? The money pooring (ha! get it?) into this church is extraordinary - why?

Do churches follow what Jesus allegedly said on praying Matthew 6:6-15 - See how the Pagans pray? When I went Church the prayers were so long people ran the risk of dying during them...lol

And on miracles : All these charismatic churches seem to claim they heal people in God's name.

Let's get practicing Christians (so that lack of faith isn't the excuse if it fails) who have "amputated limbs" to be healed first.

Let it be seen by the media, be assessed by their usual Dr!

Jesus allegedly said Matthew 17:20 "...If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Is this still going on http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24232365-5006787,00.html in churches? Will the money be returned as Jesus would want?

Is it unChristian to tell lies, give false hope and decieve?

Why aren't they in all our hospitals curing all the sick people?

Would be more in line with Jesus' teachings than rolling in money?

Daviy,

The gospels are spread throughoit place as well as time. Communities after the Oral Lore period wrote down there local versions. Thomas is a very early written account.

Opinioned2,

Assuming Jesus did exist, his early death could have been brought about by the presence of organic toxins released into his blood stream in response to a heavy beating some hours beforehand. I have I have read moden foresic reconstuctions of similar events from the Middle Ages.

Relatedly, Christians often depict Jesus carrying the full cross. That is unlikely. It would have weighed 150 kg. The Romans would have had a post in the execution grounds and Jesus would have carried the cross beam only. Most likely across his shoulders where he has been flayed

Hi Oliver

I was referring to the Gospels in the NT. Thomas, other Gnostic Gospels and Gospels from other sources I had lumped together as the 'vast range of early Christian material'
I am never certain where to draw the line on what is and what is not a Gospel. For instance do the 'Gospel of Mary' and 'The Gospel of Truth' quaify?
If these are Gospels does that mean I can write my version and call it 'The Gospel of Daviy'?
That rises the question as how a gospel written by someone other than God could be included in the Bible if the Bible is claimed to be the work of God? I suppose there is the 'guided' arguement, but that gets very close to New Age channeling. I could always claim that I 'channeled' God and so my 'Gospel according to Daviy' was the work of God.

Maybe that is how the Pope does it.

I never saw your reply to my query in another place about your thoughts on The Book of Enoch. Maybe you did reply but I missed it. Since there has been much discussion here about the OT the parallels seem relevant, particularly the Book of the Giants and the Watchers

Dear opinionated2,

I am doing some research before I comment further on the OT laws you cited. I want to be sure of my facts.

Hi Daviy,

You wrote: "I was referring to the Gospels in the NT. Thomas, other Gnostic Gospels and Gospels from other sources I had lumped together as the 'vast range of early Christian material'
I am never certain where to draw the line on what is and what is not a Gospel. For instance do the 'Gospel of Mary' and 'The Gospel of Truth' quaify?"

The four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were canonised at Ephesus in 49 CE as recorded in chapter 4 of the Book of Revelation. They were symbolised by the riders of the four horses, white, red, black and green (the Greek word for 'green', 'chloros', is usually translated as 'pale') and the four 'living creatures' from Ezekiel, a lion, a calf, a man and a flying eagle.

Chapter 6 records how each of the Gospels and two Epistles, were unsealed and read. They were the new scripture for the Christianised version of Judaism and were studied at the Christian school for Diaspora Jews at Ephesus.

There were many other writings about Jesus and his followers, some of which have been labelled 'gospels', but there are only four which have been given the imprimatur of "The Lamb", i.e. Jesus himself.

Whatever ones view about the Scriptures etc, it is important to understand one's own heart and motives. It is important to deal with our negative and destructive attitudes. We were created to live in a quality human society. Because we fail we need to deal with our failures and our mistreatment of others by word and deeds. Christ's teaching brings us to the reality of the truth about ourselves and how we must recognise we need a spiritual awakening to live peacefully and lovingly in community. God gives us the image of what that idealism and purity is and supplies us with the desire of spirit to be renewed people to generously serve our community for their blessing and enhancement. If encouraging people to believe in better things gives strength and hope then that is a blessing. The ways of the spiritually dead person are to promote anger, fear, dissolusionment and hoplessness which currently characterises much of human reality today in our society - selfishness (how I spend my time and money) and mere personal survival and self justification (I'm better than him or her) fills most peoples conversational world.

Sympneology
Thank you for that information. I was actually thinking along on a more general lines. The four Gospels where canonized by the Christian church, but does this mean anything to anyone outside Christianity?
Did the Gnostics say 'Oh, Thomas is not a Gospels because the followers of Paul say it is not?'

If I started a Church (Not a difficult exercise) and Canonised the Gospels of Daviy, Mickey. Minnie and Pluto would they be any less Gospels than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

In my Church They would be the true Gospels and the four Christian Gospels would be nothing. That is apart from Matthew that seems to me to be more a Gnostic document than Paulian. I would certainly use the Sermon on the Mount stripped of its Christian distortions.
http://www.david-young.com.au/ezines/Sermon.html

So what is it that supposedly gives the Christians the authority to decide what is and what is not the word of God? Christianity is like any other club, such as the Brighton Women's Glee Club. It has its rules, regulations and its laws.

But for some unexplainable reason Christians (Jews, Moslems et al) claim that their little club has God as their President and therefore their rules and laws should be obeyed by everyone whether or not they are a member of the Club.

I am happy for the Brighton Women's Glee Club to do their thing in peace. I am happy for Christians to do their thing in peace between concenting adults behind closed doors. But I am tired of being continually assaulted by Christian propaganda at every turn.

Hi Daviy,

Yes, there could have been a Gospel of Daviy, were the true writer inclined to see value in adopted your name as a non de plum. St Davot has a god ring to it!The nomenclature used is meant to leand authotity. You might recall the Al Pacino chararecter stating there is as difference between in response from saying, "I'm Lowell Bergman" and, "I'm Lowell Bergman from CBS". The came principal applied then. Seems to be a case of setting-up agency for one much greater than one-self.

Regarding, agency today, the infallible (ex Cathedra)Vicar of Christ would seem relevant.

Dear Sympneology,

Intersting post. Thank you. Mack writing on the NT seems to suggest the Gospels fluid until 120 CE owing to different provincial themes.

Agree... we have sequence of ideologies; Early Hebrew from Canaanite, Tribal (henotheist) Hebrew, Legal Hebrew (Moses), Jesus' teachings, Christian-Judaism (Neo-Jesus), Judao-Christianity (after Pella, Latinization)), (Pauline Helenization), Christianity (Nicaea, Refit to Panganism and Institutionalization), Neo-Christanity (Constantinople).

Greetings Philo,

Christian or not, one wishing to follow the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount. Were one to place the following key religious constructs under the microscope of Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of morality, I think it would look something like this:

OT: (Before Moses): Reward and Punishment
OT: (Moses): Law and Order
NT: Law and Order
Institutional Christianity: Law and Order
Jesus: Post-Conventional

If one reads the above, we have the OT as redundant and the Christrian Churches and the Gospels, of a lesser moral kind than was Jesus. Moreover, there would have been many religious and non-religious peoles more moral than the moral kernel of the Churches.

It seems to make sense for a power elite to control subjects by adopting a Law and Order stance, as a opposed to a Jesus or Jesus-like stance in questionning the status quo.

When the English put the Gospels, into the Statute, the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp), that the Sovereign must take to be Sovereign, they rejected the rest of the Holy Bible as law. Those who have a KJV with the words of Jesus Christ in Red will understand why they did this.

There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ intended Church and State to be separated, because under the Romans it was not. The Roman Catholic Church, wanted it merged again. They wanted a monopoly on the Holy Bible, but the wily English mass published the Holy Bible, and everyone can now read it, as an International best seller. Jesus Christ prohibited one person from being Judge and Administrator. Matthew 7 Verse 1. He still insisted we honor Almighty God, but unless we honor Him, we don’t honor the Father, ( John 5 verse 22 and 23.) Jesus Christ did not want to be King. However he accepted his role, and did his duty, when at any time he could have become a Roman citizen and avoided execution. It is a pretty emphatic way to make a point.

The resurrection was to prove the dominion of Almighty God over all matter, and in Luke 12 verse 10, Jesus Christ gave us the one sin that cannot be forgiven. It is blasphemy. It is to deny the third part of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost. One disciple sold his Master and soul for thirty pieces of silver. It is fair to say Jesus Christ was not looking forward to his crucifixion, the state terror of the Romans.

Blasphemy as the one unforgivable sin, occurs every time a Judge denies a jury trial to a Christian. Because of jury trials, blasphemy as a Statutory offence, has never been prosecuted, because juries have common sense, but a blasphemer has none. Without a Capital letter, in S 79 Constitution, the word judges must when read in context with the Holy Bible mean juries. For 30 pieces of silver, or $6,000 a week, Judges are prepared to blaspheme. You cannot be a Christian Judge.

I think I must expand on why the Four Gospels are actually law. The system of Government established by the Holy Bible understands that there will be human error, in interpretation and translation. There will be human error by legislators, and by printers and writers, but the word of God, is timeless and everlasting. Jesus Christ understood all this and said, I will send you a comfortor. In Matthew 28 Verse 18, Jesus said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. A Judge must deny this to give a judgment. He does not deny Jesus Christ when he takes a verdict. It is quick, and honest. The Magna Carta says: S 29, We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right. Read in conjunction with the Holy Bible, the we means Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, all Judges and Magistrates, and the We means Almighty God and a Justice or Sovereign.

Jesus Christ said: In Matthew 6 verse 24, that no man can serve two masters. A delegate of the Sovereign, sworn to service to the Queen, cannot at the same time serve the State. In 1984, in Act no 27, the Labor Party legislated S 15AB into the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth). It allows passages of the Holy Bible to be used as extrinsic material in interpreting an Act. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an Act, and s 79 is so ambiguous that for nearly 39 years, Judges have been allowed to rule in the Commonwealth. The word is judges, and it means more than one. When read in conjunction with the Gospels, it can only mean juries which until the parliament prescribes, should remain as twelve.

The Habeas Corpus Act 1640 16 Charles 1 Ch X. which is fully transcribed in Victoria, in a searchable public website, declares all judgments not taken in accordance with the Magna Carta void. It declares as an Act of Parliament, in force in 1900, that no jury means no court

Dear Opinionated2,

According to Mosaic Law found in (Exodus 31:15), to violate the sabbath is a capital offense: A clear example of the law being enacted may be found at Numbers 15:32-36.

“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said to Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

A view of what was the usual punishment in biblical times can be gleaned from Christian scripture which states: (John 8:1):

“The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

(continued)

(continued)

However, Judaism like other religions has evolved. The Jewish Bible was canonized in 90 CE. In 200 CE Jewish sages and rabbis started writing the Talmud. This is a commentary on the Jewish Bible. The Talmud and not the Bible determines Jewish law. To the best of my knowledge there is no comparable document in Christianity or Islam. The Talmud limits the death penalty to such an extent the Israel does not have it.

In fact Talmudic Law has been employed in a brief against the death penalty in Florida.

Following from http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
In December 1999, the United States Supreme Court set a precedent by accepting for consideration an amicus curiae brief in a death penalty case (Bryan v. Moore). Aside from mentioning the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution in passing, the brief was based wholly on Talmud law. The Jewish Journal reports:
A man who will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court next year that his planned execution in Florida's electric chair constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" can point to a 2,000-year-old Jewish law when he pleads his case.

A friend-of-the court brief filed last week in the Supreme Court by the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs, which advocates the position of the Orthodox community, and the American Section of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, backs Anthony Bryan's position.

In citing only Jewish law and excluding any reference to previous Supreme Court decisions, the brief is believed to mark a first for America's highest court.

<skip>

CONCLUSION: If execution by the electric chair, as administered in Florida, results in unnecessary pain and disfigurement, it would be unacceptable under the principles underlying the traditional Jewish legal system applied 2000 years ago, and should also be unacceptable under the Eighth Amendment today.
— National Jewish COLPA and IAJLJ (17)
Talmudic law is closer to the words of Jesus regarding the death penalty than the law of the United States.

The basic conflict in this discussion is between those who treat the words of their scripture as final and unchangeable, to be obeyed without question or demur, the Fundamentalists, and those who regard it as an interesting insight into the times in which it was written with some useful guides to ones behaviour in society, the Pragmatists.

David F has pointed out how the Pragmatists wrote the Talmud to counter the Fundamentalists in Judaism. That has not always worked as the struggles between the two sides still continue in modern Israel.

Like the Talmud, the New Testament arose from the Pragmatists, led by Jesus, Peter and Paul, trying to find a peaceful via media with Rome rather than the path of violence of the Fundamentalists like John the Baptist, Simon Magus and the Zealots at Masada.

This conflict seems to be common to every ideology. It is found in Islam, first in the split between Sunni and Shia, and then throughout the history of Islam. The same sort of split also occurs in Hinduism.

King Henry VIII and Luther may be regarded as Pragmatists of their day and Oliver Cromwell as a Fundamentalist.

Even in Communism there are Fundamentalists like Stalin and Mao and Pragmatists like Yeltsin, Gorbachev and Deng Shao Ping.

While the way of the Pragmatists may not always lead to an ideal society, the way of the Fundamentalists does always seem to lead to repression, discrimination, violence and death.

Thankyou all for your wonderful inputs.

Oliver: Jesus' reaction to shock could have killed him early, yes the beating could have released toxins. OMG no cross lol

His early death and the possible intervention of his followers achieved his legs not being broken. Did man intervene in prophecy?

Philo: Are you calling the truth negative and destructive? Please explain Jesus' alleged "Parable of "the Gold Coins" (Luke 19: 11-27). Are you judging others "spiritually dead"? You as a Christian aren't entitled to make judgements(Matthew 7:1-5).

Know your bible Philo, you are not entiltled to misrepresent God!

Sympneology: TY for the information - the plot gets thicker. If true ,it indicates that the Churches are glossing over things and not representing the facts. Can Christ's alleged churches tell lies?

PtB-Have the churches paid their fair share covering up the sins of the priests/members?

Do churches run to lawyers first and the victims last when it comes to these crimes?

Why don't churches put crime immediately in the hands of the police?

Accessories after the fact if they don't?

If what this alleges is true http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html perhaps you should ask who paid for all the lawyers?

The constitution rightfully keeps religion out under 116 - why do we say prayers at the beginning of parliament? Have you seen the way those idiots behave?

OMG please don't argue blasphemy as a criminal offence... Did God invent humour and is it great to have the occasional God gag? "Newsflash : Jesus Second Coming Delayed - contemplating a plan that might actually work"..lol

Sympneology: I think on the whole you could see Jesus as a pragmatist but then there are those bits that davidf has pointed out. Did Jesus realise what the churches might do with God's alleged word? I refer you back to Luke 19: 11-27 - I doubt that was pragmatic!

Where are all the preachers when one needs them to help us with our bible studies - preaching to the converted?

Sympneology

<The basic conflict in this discussion is between those who treat the words of their scripture as final and unchangeable, to be obeyed without question or demur, the Fundamentalists, and those who regard it as an interesting insight into the times in which it was written with some useful guides to ones behaviour in society, the Pragmatists.>

That may be the 'conflict' in this discussion but in most of out earthly problems with religion (Palestine, Iraq et al) the problem is more the interpreters of their scripture.
Do churchgoers read the bible or do they gain their knowledge from what the priest tells them? Is it the Koran that rules in Islamic countries or what the religious leaders tell their followers?

In this and other debates there might be a bit of name calling now and again but none of it is likely to lead to murder. We are mostly talking academically about the status of the bible. But if we (individually) had the power to influence large groups of people it could lead to all out warfare. There would be coalitions formed and we would degenerate into what is generally known as civilization.

Does it matter if the Bible is seen by some as the word of God but not by others? What matters is what happens when leaders of religions start issuing instructions to followers according to their philosophies, not their holy text. In history we have seen the results over time and place with the major cults such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam and the minor cults such as at Jonestown.

I don't know the answer to this debate. Basically none of us do. But one thing that has become apparent to me is that no matter what State and religion must be kept separate. Up till George Bush Christianity had been kept mostly separate from the State. Judaism and Islam have still to make that change. With church and State separate we can have the luxury of debate about the Bible. Without it many of us would have been burnt at the stake long ago.

There are some great Biblical Scholars post here, but the most important people who should study it, either don’t believe its message, or don’t understand what it says. It is a Rule book, but like all rules, they must be tested in a crucible to see if they are right rules or wrong rules. Likewise all Statutes are Rules, but when we give a bunch of atheists power, ( S 123 Supreme Court Act 1970 Seven Judges a barrister and solicitor) as happened in NSW in 1970, to overrule any prior inconsistent Act, we have a recipe for the disasters that are this State and Queensland.

A nine man panel of Judges and lawyers, has ruled this State since 1970. I saw one even call the High Court a cabal of academics, at a public forum, and this same man refused to follow their clear precedent. Without a fear of Almighty God these atheists have no moral rudder at all. Until KR came along the government of Australia was in the hands of lawyers for nearly sixty years. Jesus Christ did not like them, ( Luke 11 Verses 46 and 52) and they deserve universal scorn and damnation for their violence and lack of impartiality.

Like all monopolies, the Judging monopoly has been bad for the society it serves. The New Testament does not allow a Judging monopoly. Parliament is not supposed to allow a judging monopoly, but because the Parliament dishes out the King’s shilling, it can buy and protect its Atheist servants.

While a Judge refuses to empanel juries, he is a State slave. From first judgment to last, he is vulnerable. He can at any time be Murphied, or Einfelded, if he does not serve his slavemaster. Under the Common law, a Judge was immune not because the parliament made him so, but because he could plead, Non est factum. It was not my Deed. I did not do it. The jury did, and in fact from 1670, juries but not a Judge were immune from prosecution. They were immune because they were doing God’s work.

The English model of democracy was tolerated by the Irish and million Roman Catholic Scots, because it was essentially New Testament Christian. The Roman Catholic Church became the hotbed of Irish nationalism, and like Australia, the English eventually gave them self government. As soon as the nationalistic usefulness fell away, I am told most Irish now regard the Church as nice but irrelevant. Instead of the English as ruler they now have a State. The Roman Catholic church is as excluded as ever from government.

However there was a post said S 116 Constitution excluded religion from Australian Politics. This is not the case. It simply says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance. What they have done is make atheism compulsory, excluded Christianity and its good government safeguards from the system of government, and despite saying the Lord’s prayer, from Matthew 6 Verses 9-13, every day, created godlets, in the form of Judges, to do the bidding of not Almighty God but whatever misguided legislation passes the Parliament.

Some of these Judges and Magistrates have a bit of decency in them, but while they refuse to abide the Coronation Oath 1688 and deny the Gospels as the law against which all legislation must be tested, they are a menace instead of a blessing. The Gospels are a condition precedent on all legislation, as the above cited passage from the gospels indicates. The Cambridge Bible has the Royal Seal on its Flyleaf, but American published versions do not. The Australia Act 1986 established atheism as the state religion. It is completely atheist. It does not allow Her Majesty, by section 8, to any longer take advice from a CH III Constitution court, that a law passed by a State is illegal. Consequently the States have turned into thieves, and the Judges of their Courts, accessories after the fact.

No Judge has ever put the Australia Act 1986 on trial. It is unconstitutional, repeals and continues the Constitution, and Judges and Magistrates are atheist, in reliance on its fraudulent provisions

Peter the Believer wrote: However there was a post said S 116 Constitution excluded religion from Australian Politics. This is not the case. It simply says the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance.

Dear Peter,

What you have done here is set up a straw man. That is to argue against something that was not said. My post referred to S116 and stated that under it your suggestion that Rudd should appoint Christian magistrates was a violation of the Constitution. Rather than responding to that point you chose to make the post say something it never said. Australian politics is full of religion, and I did not object to that.

I object to your suggestion that Rudd violate the Australian Constitution by appointing magistrates of a particular religion.

Please stop your distortions

I would like to correct my last post. There is nothing wrong in putting Christians in office. It is a violation of S 116 to make their religion a qualification for that office. Appointing only Christians would be evidence that S 116 had been violated.

Peter the deceiver,

"the Four Gospels are actually law". I don't believe you would know law if it hit you between the eyes. The quote you give essentially implies that there should be no law on earth, as law is useless without implemention.

While some can be trusted to abide by moral principles most (incl christians) cannot. Luckily even the greens are not that fruity.

Hi Daviy,

On Enoch;

According to Eisemann & Wise, the Book of Giants was extensively read in the Roman Empire. Multiple copies were found among the Qumran texts. The Watchers (Nephilim) were the progeny of fallen angels and human women.

And in the OT,

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. “ Genesis 6:1-2

Again, the heavenly angels (Sons of God) know terrestrial women. Unlike in Medieval Christianity, the Watchers (Sons of God in the OT) appear to have been only male: In Medieval times, these visitors were male (incubi) and female (succubi).

The concept of "walking with god” is interesting. 4Q532 (i.e. from Cave Four) though highly fragmented appears to refer to pious knowledge, mighty ones and Heaven. In the document, there is text referring to Earth and Heaven and great knowledge. Because Enoch was alive in Heaven, he gained knowledge of the “heavenly spheres” and he could, “compute the paths of their hosts”. Enoch the Righteous’ knowledge of the celestial matters seems to enjoin calendars (Jubilees):

“Enoch after we instructed him (missing) six Jubilees of years (missing) earth among all mankind and he witnessed against them all (missing) and also against the Watchers. And he wrote down all the (missing) the heavens all their paths of their hosts, all the months (missing) in which the Righteous have not erred.” 4Q277

Above, please note, “we (plural) instructed him”. Enoch appears to have ascended from Earth to Heaven, where he was instructed (including in astronomy) by some otherworldly others and then was returned to Earth. The plural is consistent with Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” Genesis 1:26.

Noah and Enoch were both Righteous and apparently had authority to instruct. Conversely, Sons of God, a.k.a, Demons, allegedly wrongfully convey knowledge to us. The Snake (an angel; Son of God?)
and the Tree of Knowledge seem to take a similar course:

“And the Lord God commended the man, saying ‘Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat; but not of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it…” Genesis 2:16-17

The tree of knowledge an allegory for learning from a fallen angel? That is, knowledge covereyed from the Unrighteous?

In Greek, the word “Demon” is etymologically related to the word, “knowledge”. Tertullian maintained Demons live in the air, “the stars are their neighbours”.

The early, middle and modern Christian Church stood/stands opposed to knowledge or “gnosis”, by self-discovery. Over time, said Church, seems to have placed itself, as a conduit and censor, between God and Man.

Following-on from these scriptures, if the Christian Church is Righteous, then it has the mandate of God. Would its history suggest this is the case? If not, then… “such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11: 13-14

Cheers,

Oly.

Dear Opinopnated2,

Just thought I'd add my two cents worth...
I'm learning more from your thread - and the
wonderful posts that it's produced then I ever
did in 'Bible Classes.'

Thank You for an interesting thread.

More please!

Hi Oliver

The text of Enoch I have is called the 'Ethiopian' text supposedly because three copies of The book of Enoch where found in an Ethiopian church.

<Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, and the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order. Behold ye the earth, and give heed to the things which take place upon it from first to last, how steadfast they are, how none of the things upon earth change, but all the works of God appear to you.>
The Book of Enoch chapter 2

From a twenty-first century perspective does this sound like a description of a spaceship in fixed orbit?

It seems from my reading that the crew of the spaceship had the rank of Angels. The four command officers of the starship had the rank of Archangels, and their names were (are?) Michael, Gabriel, Rachael and Uriel. The commander had the rank of God. Above All was the Lord of the Spirits.

Are you familiar with this version?

There are two separate accounts of the creation of man and woman in Genesis. The first is:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Man and woman were created together. It ends:

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Then another account starts:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

<SKIP>

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Woman was created from man.

One can see the obvious contradiction without any additional analysis. However, scholars have examined the Bible texts and made judgments as to their composition.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
The documentary hypothesis (DH) is the proposal that the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch) represent a combination of documents from originally independent sources. According to the influential version of the hypothesis formulated by Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), there were four main sources, and these sources and the approximate dates of their composition were:
The J, or Jahwist, source; written c. 950 BCE in the southern kingdom of Judah.
The E, or Elohist, source; written c. 850 BCE in the northern kingdom of Israel.

(continued)

(continued)

The D, or Deuteronomist, source; written c. 621 BCE in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
The P, or Priestly, source; written c. 450 BCE by Aaronid priests.
The editor who combined the sources into the final Pentateuch is known as R, for redactor.

Wellhausen was preceded by Jean Astruc (a Christian of Jewish ancestry, Sauves, Auvergne, March 19, 1684 - Paris, May 5, 1766) who was a famous professor of medicine at Montpellier and Paris. He wrote the first great treatise on syphilis and venereal diseases, and also, with a small anonymously published book, played a fundamental part in the origins of critical textual analysis of works of scripture. Astruc was the first to demonstrate—using the techniques of textual analysis that were commonplace in studying the secular classics — the theory that Genesis was composed based on several sources or manuscript traditions, an approach that is called the documentary hypothesis.

Before Astruc there were rabbis in the eleventh century who made critical examinations of the Bible. In the twelfth century Abraham Ibn Ezra suggested that there were additions to the Torah or the Five Books of Moses after Moses died. Moses ibn Gikatilla suggested that the author of the first thirty nine chapters of Isaiah was not the author of chapters 40-66. In the fifteenth century Isaac Abravenel attempted the first scientific study of the Bible, to be continued two hundred years later by Baruch Spinoza.

Before the ancient Hebrews the Sumerians had many of the same legends repeated in the Bible. Samuel Noah Kramer, a Sumerologist at the University of Pennsylvania, translated many of the Sumerian cuneiform clay tablets. Kramer wrote “It happened in Sumer: Twenty-seven "Firsts" in Man's Recorded History.” Law Codes like the laws of Moses, Moral ideals, proverbs and sayings, a flood story, a tale of resurrection, an Eden and other legends similar to what appear in the Bible. Not only is the Bible an account of Jewish tribal legends, but many of these legends were taken from earlier peoples and contemporaneous neighbouring peoples.

Op2,

You wrote: "Sympneology: I think on the whole you could see Jesus as a pragmatist but then there are those bits that davidf has pointed out. Did Jesus realise what the churches might do with God's alleged word? I refer you back to Luke 19: 11-27 - I doubt that was pragmatic!"

Yes, the Parable of the Pounds, hasn't that been worked to death by the social Darwinists of capitalism?

Contrary to what Peter the Gullible asserts, the Gospels are not a set of rules, they are records of the history of the beginnings of Christianity. The parables are written in a way that looks like a morality story, but for the cognoscenti they are a record of the political developments in Palestine and the Diaspora.

The pound given to each of the servants was to cover his travelling expenses to go to his station in the Diaspora. Each of the Diaspora Jews paid a half shekel for admission to the New Covenant, which the missionary was to pass on to Jerusalem.

Peter, appointed to City 10, Rome, was required to return 10 pounds to Jerusalem. Apollos, appointed to City 5, Pontus, was required to return 5 pounds. Simon Magus was appointed to the mission on Tiber Island, but being politically opposed to the Chief Therapeut, Matthew Annas, wrapped his money in his headcloth and stored it in his own vault. He should have brought it to the main council and placed it on the table for the sacred meal. Therefore Matthew Annas ordered that Peter's mission in Rome should take over the Tiber Island mission. "The pound that he had was given to him who had 10."

Each of the parables in Luke and Mark tell a similar chapter in the history of the period, but in a way privy only to the initiated. The tragedy is that, as the secret knowledge became lost over the centuries, the clergy who grew rich in power and wealth assumed the privilege of interpreting the scripture in any way that served their own interests, while the laity were condemned to ignorance.

Not many people are aware that the King James Bible was actually a political document intended specifically to reassert "the Divine Right of Kings" and to remove certain contentious passages that James (in particular) felt threatened by in the previous Geneva Bible.

King James himself was a notorious pedophile, sadist and homosexual - just the sort of person the Church damned during his bloody and vicious reign.

The Bible and truth?

To quote from the good Rabbi,

"It is true even when it is inaccurate, because there are many ways of being true. When I was a boy, movie theatrers would show a newsreel and a cartoon before the main feature. At one level, the newsreel (typically political speeches, beauty contests, and new car debuts) was true and the feature film was fiction. But at another level, if the movie was a good one, it was truer than the newsreel, because it said something true and valid about the human spirit (how different people respond to a crisis, how people are changed by love) while the newsreel did not."

"Shakespeare's plays are true at that level, because they portray human beings accurately and perceptively, even if the people by those names never lived and never spoke the words Shakespeare puts in their mouths. And the bible is truer than Shakespeare. No document ever written has understood the needs of the human soul as has the Bible."

From 'To Life' by Harold S Kushner;

I like the way he thinks.

Foxy,

TY for your comment.

See what happens when people dare to unshackle themselves from the teachings of the Churches using selective biblical texts & verses?

Many knowledgeable people prepared to share so much, often restricted, because they are howled down by the people who can't step outside the book.

Many atheists/non-believers often know so much because they walked the Christian journey and found the flaws. They dared to question, often, to their own detriment. Many preachers are very bigoted, angry wolves under their sheeps clothing, hanging on to false teachings like an insecure child clutching a teddy bear.

In Genesis 3:4 the snake allegedly told the truth, "man didn’t die", and yet Genesis 2:8 God allegedly fibbed … "if you eat…you will die the same day"! Why did God knowingly give us a questioning mind?

Are religious books men's rules designed to oppress free thinking?

Why does the Bible blame women for everything?

Adam couldn't say no?... of course he could, but it suits men to blame women and for men to rule churches.

Why can’t a woman, become the Pope?

Did the churches trample on Mary Magdalene's name calling her a prostitute? The fact that it had no biblical evidence to ever suggest she was a one didn't stop them.

So much for biblical scholarship! What would Jesus say about that?

So when Paul says "women can't teach and should be quiet" in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the churches (who if they follow Jesus' teachings can't discriminate) use this to restrict women in their jouneys of faith.

Why would God condone Paul oppressing a whole gender?

I used to ask "How does a woman who reads this rubbish" stay a Christian?

It seems their faiths are much stronger, and, their determinations much more intense, to overcome such an obstacle and still believe.

I'm sure, men wouldn't have coped if the shoe was on the other foot.

Men in many churches are still controlled by this old, bigoted energy.

Faith is not based on flawed teachings and fibs if you have it, it based on your spirituality and love!

Opinionated2

You forgot something. Supposedly the first person Jesus met after resurection was supposed to be Bishop of the new church. Paul claimed to be the founder (second hand after Simon.) Of course Mary Magdalene didn't count. If there been any equality Mary Magdalene would have been the first Bishop of Christianity. I think we should have gone with Mary rather than Paul. The results could not have been worse.

I just looked at the list of "General Discussion", and found this thread sitting right next to the one entitled "Recycled Sewage"

Coincidence? I don't think so.

And my early vote for mixed metaphor of the year?

>>Many preachers are very bigoted, angry wolves under their sheeps clothing, hanging on to false teachings like an insecure child clutching a teddy bear.<<

It deserves to be framed. Thank you OP2.

For god so loved the world that he drowned every body, except Noah, who when it was all over went out and got pissed.

This is the basis of the Christian religion, along with Moses coming down from the mountain with his commandments and killing 3000 of his parishioners; and Lot having sex with his daughters.

Like the rest of it, it's nonsense. Using 'faith' as a reason to justify this stuff is a nonsense too.

When someone writing in the Next Testament justifies their position by logic, I'll sit up and take notice.

Frank Blunt

Op2,

You wrote, "Did the churches trample on Mary Magdalene's name calling her a prostitute? The fact that it had no biblical evidence to ever suggest she was a one didn't stop them.

So much for biblical scholarship! What would Jesus say about that?"

It was in the interests of the church to blacken the name of Mary Magdalene. The did not want it known that she was the mother of two of Jesus' children, that after she left him to follow Simon Magus he divorced her and married again and had another son.

However, I doubt whether Jesus would have had any part in slandering her, he was in the business of forgiveness after all.

"So when Paul says "women can't teach and should be quiet" in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the churches (who if they follow Jesus' teachings can't discriminate) use this to restrict women in their jouneys of faith.

Why would God condone Paul oppressing a whole gender?"

Silly question. There is no "God" to condone anything. The Bible is a history of politics, not the words of an imaginary being in the sky. "God" was invented by the tribal rulers to frighten the ignorant into consenting to the maintenance of their hegemony, and serves the same purpose today.

The Bible is indeed a male-oriented doctrine.

From the beginning, it says that woman was not made from the same stuff as man but from a part of man and so was not his equal.

Likewise, when somebody was deciding on what particular mythological tales to include, they chose the Adam and Eve story - not the Adam and Lillith version, which would have elevated woman to be the equal of man.

It's deliberately been kept that way ever since.

Sympneology,

Yes it was a silly question... I should have asked "Why would an alleged loving and caring God (if he/she/it existed) allegedly condone Paul oppressing a whole gender?"

It is difficult with the limitations placed on these articles as to word length to be totally precise at all times... I will pick up my game...lol

Daviy, you are correct I did forget to mention that. OMG Imagine that, Mary Magdalene the first Bishop of Rome. Ha! How wonderful!

I am wondering where all the "soldiers of Christ" are on this thread? Can't they debate the Bible in an open forum that gives equal opportunity?

I remember singing "Stand up stand up for Jesus" and yet I do not see many examples of it here.

Have Cristians invited their "knowledgeable teachers" to join this intelligent discussion on their religious book of choice?

Did you know that there is a movement in many churches called "KYB" - know your Bible?

I wonder if the people who run these groups actually know theirs or is it just another selective text money spinner for the churches?

Rache you are also correct... It's like when Christians use that unintelligent statement "God created Adama and Eve not Adam and Steve". They think it is funny and yet if they actually believed their Bible it proves them wrong. If God made all people he did make Adam and Steve ... fools!

In this thread Denny accused me of hating Catholics
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8616&page=0#136648

I do not hate anyone ... I just show how unreliable the Bible is as a series of documents and how churches are continuing to break every rule it contains.

Why do Christians see "the dumb God" who supposedly gave Moses the dumb, ugly laws?

Is portraying their God as dumb blasphemy PtB?

We attract some silly comments sometimes, but that is life. People who say the holocaust never happened are denigrated and reviled. The same sort of people are picking little pieces of the Holy Bible and denying the tried and tested philosophy that derives from it.

On their heads be homelessness, misery, the Victorian Bushfires, the breakdown of mental health care in New South Wales, the shortage and expense of new housing sites, and a whole host of other practical consequences of failing to understand the message from the Book.

The Liberal Party in 1952, caused the departure from Christianity and it principles in force in Australia by virtue of the Constitution, by permitting the High Court in breach if S 77 (i) Constitution to write a Set of Rules making it the exclusive Canberra Club. It became the atheist Temple of Mammon. The Holy Bible was displaced as the guiding philosophy of the Commonwealth.

Without a day to day way of putting a check and balance on Government excess, Menzies created a de facto dictatorship in Australia that has led to a series of similar dictatorships JWH included. The conduct of the Australian Government has been Fascist government since 1952. This is totally un-Christian.

The scoffers concentrate on detail without understanding the great practical advantages of Protestant Christianity, and its adoption as the State religion of England. It became the State religion of Australia in 1900, and S 116 Constitution was supposed to make it stay that way. Court and Church were one and the same until 1952, when the head of the universal catholic Australian Christian Church was cut off by Menzies. Menzies men cut off its head by making a High Court Registrar the gatekeeper and instructing him to refuse access to Almighty God and the justice (not Justice) only God can deliver.

The English were governed by Protestant Christian principles since 1297. One of those principles was that everyone have access to the universal catholic Protestant Christian Church, and when there be treated equally by being given a jury trial, not trial by a State appointed lawyer/priest.

Peter the Believer wrote: The scoffers concentrate on detail without understanding the great practical advantages of Protestant Christianity, and its adoption as the State religion of England. It became the State religion of Australia in 1900, and S 116 Constitution was supposed to make it stay that way.

Dear Peter the Believer,

Australia is not a Christian nation. Despite vigorous assertions to the contrary, it never has been.

Those two sentences begin "Church and State" written by Tom Frame, Anglican Bishop to the Australian armed forces. The book probes the relationship between church and state in Australia and raises the question of separation between the two. Frame includes a section for further reading at the end of the book. I suggest Frame's book as a corrective to the posts of Peter the Believer.

Which Bible are we talking about?

I recently looked a 'new translation' used by Pentecostal churches and it is a re-write of an already re-written (many times) document. It goes under the name of the 'American Standard' Bible.

'Deliver us from evil' has been re-written to 'Deliver us from the evil one' and so on. This is but one example of this Bible being re-written to suit a particular agenda.

But then I suppose the Bible has always been a political document. It started as a political document and has been continuously revised as 'new translation' to suit changing political needs. Use the Bible if you want (which ever version suits your political needs) but can we please stop claiming that there is any authority to be derived from it.

The real problem with the Bible is that it is claimed to be the work of God and that there are those who try to claim that it gives them the authority to speak on behalf of God. That is the real issue in this debate. The reason for claiming the Bible is somehow derived from God is the claim to power and authority to 'rule' on behalf of God.

Does anyone have the authority from God to tell us how we shall run our lives? Does anyone have the authority to compel those who do not want to join their club to obey their rules? Does anyone have the authority from God to suppress 50% of the human race (women)? Does anyone have the authority to order us to declare war on others?

These comments on the non-authority of the Bible applies to the Koran and Jewish 'Holy' books as well. How many wars have we had, and are still having, because someone claims that their holy book gives them the right to declare war on behalf of God?

I feel sorry for God if it exists. It gets all the blame for everything but has nothing to do with anything. We are the problem, not God

There's already been a period in human history where the Church and State were one.

Religion decided what was right, what laws and punishments should apply and how society should function and behave.

It was known as "the Dark Ages".

Society works by making compromises and taking various options as determined by circumstances. Belief systems do not.

I’m afraid Peter I can’t bite my tongue any longer. To sanctify Brian Huston while calling the High Court the Temple of Mammon is just a little beyond the Pale.

Here is a bloke who has spat in the face of Jesus’ unequivocal messages about the rich and written a book titled “You Need More Money!”. In my opinion he is about as close to the notion of true Christianity as the KKK, one of the “spivs and conmen” you accuse the legal profession of being. To quote; "anyone who puts the Kingdom of God first (rich or poor) can expect bible economics to work in their life NOW".

If you subscribe to his teachings on this matter, indeed the whole prosperity gospel tripe, I would love to know how you can claim to be a Christian. How does one get a camel through an eye of a needle?

You earlier stated that “Jesus Christ said: In Matthew 6 verse 24, that no man can serve two masters.” in making your argument about the High Court. The full verse actually reads “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” NIV

I am interested to know why you misrepresented the true meaning of the message when using it to make your point? Although Brian seems to make a habit of just that. I see it as a form of biblical abuse, the likes of which would appear to validate OP2’s argument about the misteaching by some of the people in power in some of our churches.

Thankfully it is not as widespread as she would have us believe, however it is still damaging to the faith. Indeed it can easily be seen as a form of blasphemy.

Therefore Peter the Believer why shouldn’t you be regarded as a blasphemer?

The image I have of the Bible is of a preacher spewing fire and brimstone with a Bible held high waving around in his left hand and claiming the Bible gives him authority to speak on behalf of God. Plenty of 'the word of God' as the Bible is thrust skywards.

Total rubbish of course, but see the congregation waving their arms in the air crying 'I believe.' In the last Church I went to, to see the current state of corruption for research for a new book, this spectacle was immediately followed by a direction that the more people gave the more they would receive. The 'automated' collection followed and within 5 minutes at least $20,000.00 changed hands. Three times every Sunday plus weekly meetings equals a lot of (tax free) money.

The highlight for me was a slip by Pastor Baker when he said 'In this business' followed by a short pause before continuing 'In this business of saving souls'.

Communion was self service with little cups of wine and biscuits passed around. I have to admit it was a very slick operation. So this is the new Christianity.

So why doesn't God put a stop to this bull (and war and poverty etc)? We have free will. If we want to replace a sense of being with ceremony, rules, regulations and being 'poor sinners' there is nothing anyone, not even God, can do about it.

The more I participate in OLO discussions along these lines the more I appreciate I am not opposed to the concept of an unknowable force in the Universe. What I am opposed to is those who claim speak on behalf of God and the Havoc they cause in the world.

But I guess there will always be a new messiah for the people to follow like sheep. And invariably the new messiah will have a book. The Christians have the Bible. Its not the Bibles fault, it is just words on paper. It’s a people problem. Until people stop 'Believing' and start thinking we are stuck with religions and their holy books.

Hi Daviy,

Yes, the description does read as a spacecraft orbiting Earth. Also, it is noteworthy Enoch travelled to the ends of the Earth, where in the North he encountered snow: An interesting comment given the Principal in the account lived in the Middle East.

Moreover, I follow the ranks of the crew, as you posit.
The above said, significant claims would require collaborative support. So, there seems the need to triangulate the observation from other sources. Also, the question of, “when,” comes to mind. If all humanity had its DNA altered by communion with the Watchers, the event would likely that the event occurred around 16,000 year BP, to account for the homogeneity of Homo Sapien Sapiens, linked to Ice Age migration.

The (sinful) transgressions appear to involve the providing knowledge to humanity. This corruption is a theme existing in Christian mythology and elsewhere too, Prometheus and Pandora. To digress to Star Trek, interference by a highly technologically superior civilization, could be breaking a “Prime Directive”.

Given we know there are beings (us) intelligent enough to travel in space and that our true Science is really only existed since the Great Divergence (c. 1760) and, that Newtonian mechanical world and thinking were supplanted in the twentieth century; the notion of ETs, while “out there” (ahem) is certainly more compatible with the observable than the idea of a divine God. I mention a divine God, as distinct from an envisaged God, with recall to the Cargo Cults in WWII New Guinea, wherein aircraft were seen by primitives to be sent from the gods.

Many readers would see your claim as highly speculative a - as would I. Yet, given universalities throughout the Cosmos, the claim a civilization 16,000 BP was cable of what we humans, will capable of 16,000 years AP, is more presentable than a extra mundane, extra cosmological divinity.

Csteele,

Rabbi Kyshner refers to is what some philosophers call, “subsistence”. The sub-existence of fictional characters which don’t truly existence, yet do exist within a culture: e.g., Venus, Superman, Yahweh & Snoopy.

rache,
You said, "From the beginning, it says that woman was not made from the same stuff as man but from a part of man and so was not his equal".

No where in the NT does it state women are not equal to men. The Jewish teachings and the Islamic Kor'an both teach men as superior. However in NT Scriptures both men and women are equal, though living different roles.

Beside consider the Hebrew text of the first man was neither male nor female but sought a companion among the animals. In the story it does not say woman was a part of a male. The text means out of the very being of man, of his flesh and of his bone see Genesis 2: 23. It is a genetic offspring. It is more likley the first human had a womb as man was taken out of the first man.

Hello Philo,

True. Women did have an equal place in the early church.

"Not only were Christian women prominent in the early churches membership and recognized to be so by Christians and pagans Rome, c. 200, we have a precious insight into their social status and the balance within the community." (Fox)

Where there was imbalance, it related to Roman Law. If a high-born woman married far below her social rank, she lost her legal previldeges. Concequently, Christian unions, involving high-status Christian, were unions of cubinage, rather than marriage.

Augustus' Code would have widowed women re-marry after two years.On the otherhand, the early Christian church discouraged re-marriage.
Herein,the Christian Church sought to take control of the widow's property when she was alive and was in line for the bequest, when the widow died.

In fact, later (370 CE), Valentinian chided The Pope of Rome, for the Pope, having his clerics visit the houses of widows, to encourage the widows, to bequeath their wealth to the Christian Church.

Albeit, 2 Timothy 3:2-7 cautions:

"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Perhaps, the Chrisian Church, then, was not keeping good faith with its own scriptures? In the third century, the Church encouraging bequeaths, to me. sees errant and fallible and not in keeping with its God's word.

Philo
<No where in the NT does it state women are not equal to men.>

Romans 7-2
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth.

Corinthians 1 12
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Jut a small sampling of the letters of the sexist, bigoted Paul who founded what we call Christianity today.

Daviy,

Insightful quotes. My comments primarily were not from the Bible but from the sociology of the Christians verses the Pagans in
Rome Empire, circa 200 CE herein the Church often grew itself through the female lines.

During the persecutions it was determined that more women than men attended services based on the footware, which was left behind when Roman soldiers raided them and they fled.

If memory serves Constantine's mother was a Christian, whilst he himself possibly saw a duality between the Christian god and Sol Invictas (history isn't clear).

Philo, Didn't I warn you to know your Bible?...sheesh

I've mentioned I Timothy 2:9-15 before Philo but have another read.

Now - I Corinthians 14:34-35

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Yep! Paul sure was a feminist male, where's his female side?

Oliver, Women have always had the most important roles in society, they have the kids, bring up the kids, educate the kids, calm & service the big kid (their husbands) etc. etc. etc. Tell em ladies!

But to pretend that they weren't treated as second rate citizens in the Church is folly. They can't even be priests in many now!

It is at this point that I should declare that I am 100% heterosexual MALE so watch it Csteele..I carry a brick in my handbag...lol

Daviy - you sure are getting quick with the verses that prove the garbage... well done, your input on this thread has been most insightful. I appreciate it!

Csteele <<Thankfully it is not as widespread as she (OP2) would have us believe>>

Um yes it is! How can anyone not see that from my first article on this thread - Christians believe in & sell a "dumb" God. Admittedly he allegedly does the odd miracle, but, this is the alleged Master of the Universe!

He/she/it allegedly knows all before, during and after things happen!

How does he get it so wrong?

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), empowers the law of Moses plus categorically states in verse 18 "As long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the law will be done away with...."

Please spend some time in Moses' crazy, bigoted Laws.

Unless, Csteele, you are a converted Christian? who has totally forgone the Bible and never attended a Church. Most sell unintelligent God every week!

Philo,
I actually agree with you that the status of women changed from the OT to the NT but it later regressed to somewhere near its former state for various reasons.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

Many aspects of the NT have been directly taken from other religions that pre-existed or co-existed at the time. The "New Testimony" sponsored by Constantine was actually an attempt to unite and standardise all the religions.

If the true authorship of its contents can be doubted, alterations and additions made over centuries accepted and blatant contradictions ignored - how can it possibly be be "inerrant, infallible or God's word"?

Yikes, sorry OP2. It must have been because your posts were reading a little shrill ;).

I love the Bible for many reasons but I am certainly not a believer in any sense you would recognise. I also love the description of it as a Rorschach test, a kind of inkblot whose interpretation by individuals varies enormously but is hugely informative about their personalities.

From the prosperity gospel pundits to the rabidly anti-gay through to the Salvos, all are reading from essentially the same book and taking away vastly different perspectives, as are you in your denouncement of it. This is why I continue to be curious why you are so veherment when discussing it.

From my experience asking precisely the same question on previous threads, you have Buckley's chance to get an intelligent answer, csteele.

>>This is why I continue to be curious why you are so vehement when discussing it.<<

One of my theories is that OP2 is a confused year 12 student, who was brought up in a Christian household, and has only just learned to question his previously automatic acceptance of Bible stories. He probably had one of those illustrated versions as a child - you know, the ones that depicted Jesus as a six-foot white guy with a beard and a kindly face - and the shock of discovering that he was in fact a swarthy Middle-Eastern Semite was too much for his hormone-fuelled brain.

Hence all the confusion.

I have other theories, of course...

Dear OP2,

My comments were not pretence, but history. That is, historians' history not the Churches' interpretation. Moreover, the comments made more truy relate to Christianised-Judaism, not institutional Christianity, which came later. Here, we need to remember, the time duration between the first Christians and Nicaean Christianity is as long as. the time between the First Fleet and us.

The first Christians were more often women than men and were what we would call working class. Rarely, did the ranks include the wealthly or, the very poor or slaves. Missions were not made to the underclasses, because it was not financially viable. The few better-off Christrians would have their own slaves with the full blessing of the Scriptures and the Church.

Returning now to the OT, we learn that the Christian god allegedly breathed life (spirit) into Adam, not Eve. So, yes, there exists scriptural bias.

Hello Foxy,

I agree with you - again! These Forum threads do provide a more interesting exchange of information than do the Mass or Service. It wuld be hard to call a Priest or Minister, to account, over an error in history, during a sermon and then have the Gathered debate alternative propositions.

It seems as if the Christian Churches see themselves as a censor and the only true channel of knowledge to be acknowledged. The (Evil) Tree of Knowledge is knowledge not endorsed by the Churches.

OMG Csteele are you assessing my gender on "shrillness" and insodoing calling women "shrill"? Brave man!...lol

I know you stated you weren't a Christian csteele - just playing...lol

OMG Pericles you said

<<One of my theories is that OP2 is a confused year 12 student>>

Does this now answer my question, when, I asked, if you were a conspiracy theorist? Isn't it amazing how people show themselves when their guards are down...lol

Pericles I have looked at some of your other posts in other threads. You are far better than this!

I am seeking the TRUTH!

Oliver I understood your comments to be history. I just wanted to make the point, that generally speaking in society, women usually have the greatest inputs and get the least credit. My pal Paul "the feminist male" must have suffered severe rejection in his life to be so anti-female!

Although the Abrahamic religions do have a tradition of limiting women's achievements through discrimination!

I agree with you that the Churches see themselves as far more important in the process of people being spiritual than they ought. Money tends to do that to people...lol

So to recap can I claim the following yet?

1. The Bible is fallible, in error, and therfore cannot be all God's word?

2. That Churches are selling an unitelligent God?

3. That Christians and religious people generally are far too accepting and do not question enough?

4. That Paul was sexist and therefore should be understood in that way?

5. That women are more likely to bring about reasonable change than men in society? They know what it is to be discriminated against?

6. That based on Paul's teachings most churches do discriminate against women? Jesus didn't discriminate man did!

7. That Jesus' words are probably not really Jesus' words and it is difficult to tell which ones were?

8. That Christianity and the Bible are treated as a mutli-level marketing scheme and therfore need to be questioned?

9. That any laws contained in the Bible should be treated as suspect?

10. That God doesn't intercede in our daily lives?

Opinionated2

1. The Bible is words on paper. Nothing more or less.
2. The Churches sell a God of their own creation that has the intelligence of the creator.
3. The Christians follow dogma and are not accepting of anything else.
4. Paul was a Pharisee that created a Jewish sect with Jewish attitudes.
5. Which man? Which women? Elevating women over men is sexist.
6. Paul is the creator of Christianity not Jesus. See point 4
7. You could try looking at and interlinear English/Greek New Testament and play look for the Christian lies. I suggest Marshal. At least you will be able to eliminate Paul.
8. See 1. What the Christians do with it has nothing to do with the Bible.
9. The Whole of Christianity is a set of laws. Moses gets blamed for a lot. He/She only had 15 laws. The rest where added by the Pharisees. The Jewish Pharisees and the Christian Pharisees.
10. The Christian God does not intercede because it does not exist. If another God intercedes it can be over ridden by free will.

The Bible is the Bible and that is all. If the power hungry and the deranged choose to claim it is Gods word it is only a claim to non existent Authority. If God comes and tells me I will believe it. If the Christians tell me I shall ignore them.

Anyone heard for Sells lately?

Oliver

<Tertullian protests especially the participation of “those women among the heretics” who shared with men positions of authority: “They teach, they engage in discussion; they exorcise; they cure” he suspects that they might even baptize, which meant they also acted as Bishops!>
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1979

Pagels seems to think the Gnostics, as far as can be put together from the limited surviving Gnostic material, included a male and female principle in their teachings.
What is known is that there was complete equality in their teachings, and this is in total opposition to Paul’s doctrine that women are subordinate to men, and women must cover their heads in church as a sign of their subordination to men, and must not speak in church:

Tertullian seems to state that the inclusion of women is a heresy.

Is there any way of knowing which are the church of Paul and which are Gnostic when stating the participation of women?

Daviy wrote: "Is there any way of knowing which are the church of Paul and which are Gnostic when stating the participation of women?"

The essential point is that the woman baptized Gentiles and the priest would only baptize Jewish celibates. The "Miriam" (Mary), the Chief Woman of the Therapeuts, was permitted to act in ministry, following the example of Miriam the sister of Moses in Exodus 15:21. The Therapeuts, not living in monasteries but only in hermitages, admitted female hermits. The Therapeuts were the ones who attracted and accepted Gentiles. Since both the woman and the Gentiles were uncircumcised, and the baptismal rite of immersion in a river required physical proximity, only a woman was allowed to be close to such "unclean" men. But the rite of immersion baptism in monasteries was performed by the highest priests on Jewish men who were committing themselves to the permanently celibate life. John the Baptist as the Zadokite, when living in the monastery, performed these ceremonies.

The Christian version of baptism came through the Gentiles. The Gospel of Philip, II 52, 21-25, says, "When we were Hebrews we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians we had both father and mother". This gospel comes from the 1st century AD (as may be argued, with strong evidence, against some present day scholarly opinion). It came from Gentiles, who had begun with the Therapeuts and called themselves "Hebrews". They had known only baptism by a woman, who was symbolised as their "Mother". But when the views of the Gentile party led by Jesus prevailed, adopting the name "Christian" in 44 AD, Gentiles were no longer treated as "unclean", and they were baptized by a village priest whom they called "Father", a title preserved in the Church.

http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Questions.html

From the fair sprinkling of OMGs and lols, I suspect my year 12 student-in-confusion "conspiracy theory", as you describe it OP2, is not far from the mark.

But my curiosity is still unsated.

>>Pericles I have looked at some of your other posts in other threads. You are far better than this! I am seeking the TRUTH!<<

All I can say is that if you have been looking for clues in other threads, you should be pretty clear by now that this will not do as an answer to the question "why are you so keen on this line of questioning and reasoning?"

The first problem is that there is no "TRUTH!" to find.

Only opinions. Only emotions. Only ideas.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course - that's why we're all here, to share this stuff and gain different perspectives.

But your form of aggressive questioning cannot possibly uncover any "TRUTH!s" apart from the ones you have clearly predetermined for yourself.

If you can find the courage, at some point you might even "come out" as an atheist, given that there has to be a physical limit to the number of times you can verbally trash a religion without coming to some pretty naked and obvious conclusions about your attitude towards it.

You may perhaps arrive at this point when you discover that the answer to all your niggling little questions is simply that some people believe, and some don't.

Some people barrack for Collingwood, some for Essendon. Some believe John Howard was an ethics-free disaster zone, others that he was the most competent PM ever. Searching for "TRUTH!" in religion shares many of the attributes of getting one of these believers to change their mind.

While it is theoretically possible to do so, the new position they adopt will still be belief-based, not facts-based.

Hey Pericles,

I suspect you may be correct. Though to be more precise I would say it is the original OP2's son we are talking to who is using his father's account. He would be 18 now and doing his HSC.

The Kath and Kim-isms aside, the apparent lack of ability to argue from anything but a negative position is indicative of that age, it certainly was for me. One rarely starts cementing in their core beliefs until a little further down the track.

I think we can forgive him for his youthful feckleness however it would be probably unforgivable in anyone much older than 25. Once life kicks a little more sense and tolerance into him I think it bodes well for the future. Hell at that age I remember telling my betters the world would be far better off when their generation passed on and left it to us.

However also at that age the usual tactic is to put up a position, defend it to the death just for the thrill of the debate, but still be open enough to weave it into ones set of beliefs, therefore in continuing to engage with him you are providing a service, so don’t give up. He might end up as our prime minister or even the Archbishop of Sydney.

Very plausible csteele.

>>Hell at that age I remember telling my betters the world would be far better off when their generation passed on and left it to us.<<

For me it was flower power and the love revolution - the Vietnam War, for example, played a key role in my journey from childhood certainty to atheism.

http://tinyurl.com/b3nfs2

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius!

(James Rado, Gerome Ragni)

Thank you for your reply Sympneology

Oliver posted to the effect that there is evidence that women had a very active role in Christian churches. I hope I have paraphrased that correctly.

My question was 'was it known if the churches that this evidence came from were Paul's churches or Gnostic churches?'

Hi Daviy,

As the evidence comes from the 1st century Gospel of Phillip, one of the Gnostic writings, I would assume that where women had an early role would be among the Gentile dominated Gnostic churches.

Paul's mission was mainly to his fellow Diaspora Jews and so would have preserved the male oriented Essenic liturgy.

By the time of the Council of Nicaea, of course, males had reasserted their hegemony in all churches.

Dear Opinionated2,
What do you make of these words of Jesus translated to modern usage "Can't you see that what you eat won't harm your soul.
For food doesn't come in contact heart, but only passes through the digestive system. It is the thought-life that pollutes. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts of lust, theft, murder, adultery, wanting what belongs to others, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, pride, and all other folly. All these vile things come from within; they are what polutes you and makes you unfit for God."
My understanding is that when Adam CHOSE to trust the devil instead of God the communication lines with God were broken and God gave the law to unspiritual earthy man to as a guide to live by.
BUT they didn't save him for only God creates Life. O T.
N T Jesus came to restore the lines of communication for man John 3:16. Without John 3:5 there is no restoration of the spirit. You can sit in a church all your life and hear the word of God and never become a child of God { christian} for you MUST be born from above,
God iniated not the will of man.
No Unregenerated man can hear Gods word or understand it because God is Spirit and without the Holy Spirit we are only a handfull of dust waiting to go back to the ground from where we came.

Richie 10 wrote: You can sit in a church all your life and hear the word of God and never become a child of God { christian} for you MUST be born from above,

Dear Richie 10,

That God you describe is a narrow bigot who only considers people his children if they accept a particular Christian mumbo-jumbo.

The Talmud is the Jewish commentary on the Bible. Midrashim are little stories in the Talmud which make clearer parts of the Bible.

There is a midrash about the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea as they pursued the Jews. The story tells that angels cheered as the Egyptians drowned. God wept and told the angels, "Do not rejoice. The Egyptians are also my children."

A God who considers only Jews or Christians his children is not worthy of worship.

We have free will. We have the ability to think. We may not choose to use these attributes but we have them.

Under these circumstances a 'master/servant' relationship between man and God is impossible. The early OT God may have tried to force us back into a master/servant relationship but it had to fail.

Christianity (Judaism and Islam) seeks to re-impose that master/servant relationship. It cannot work for anyone who chooses to use their ability to think or assert their free will.

The only valid relationship a thinking person can have with God is a one to one relationship between two thinking entities. How we relate to God is a personal relationship. Everyone's relationship will be different to everyone else's because we are individuals and relate to God in a different way.

Hence, as Jesus said, the Kingdom of God is within. If we want to know God we can only look to ourselves to find our unique relationship.

A thinking person can look at a document like the Bible and decide for themselves what is of value to them and what is not. The Christian assertion of the divinity of the Bible is an attempt to crush thinking and free will and impose a master/servant relationship.

From this and other threads I am slowly moving to the position that their probably is a God, but it is not Christian. It could be Taoist. That seems like it could be a religion/philosophy for a thinking person.

Dear Davidf
As the creator Jesus said "The Gateway to Life is small and the road is narrow, and only few ever find it"
His words not mine. If he is a narrowminded bigot in your opinion all I can say is you do not know him.
As the creator he has the authority to back his word. Do you have the authority to back your word.

Dear Daviy,
Was your relationship with your own father/servant. I would chose Gods will ahead of my own every time for he is a loving Father and wants only the very best for his children which is sonship not serventhood.

Dear Daviy, Your post is interesting. I agree that we can look at the Bible and decide what is of value and what is not. That really seems to me to be the only reasonable way to look at the Bible.
If there is a God that deity cannot be the God of the Bible as that deity is unreasonable, inconsistent and sometimes cruel. However, there is wisdom in the Bible, and a thinking person can absorb the wisdom while discounting the miracles and other improbable happenings.
If we regard a relationship with God as a one to one relationship between two thinking entities we assume that God thinks like us and that it communicates with us. I relate to you as a thinking entity because you will answer my post if you think it worth answering. However, God does not express its thoughts to us so there can be no relationship. In fact I look upon those who tell me what God wants or thinks with great suspicion. They cannot know.
If there is a God, God exists whether or not we think it exists. A God we can relate to is a particular kind of God, and I see no reason to accept that God if it exists is that particular kind of God.
A Taoist God is a contradiction since Taoism is nondualistic, nontheistic naturalism.
Dear Richie 10,
Certainly I do not know Jesus. If he ever existed he has been dead for a long time so I can’t know him. Neither can you. It is absolute nonsense to refer to him as the Creator.

Since I am alive and real, and Jesus is dead and his problematic existence shrouded in myth I have more authority to back up my words.

Dear Davidf,
Why would God bother with your thoughts when you obviously think you can cherry pick his thoughts. In the book of revelation ch 22:18 & 19 Jesus puts a warning which you obviously ignore and cherry pick. It is there for your benefit not to harm you,
but as you say we have free will and it is our choice. If I am wrong I lose nothing in being a better person, But if you are wrong you will pay the price.

Dear Richie 19,

We neither of us lose nothing by being a better person. I think being a better person is by being kind, thinking of others, making others glad you are around and trying to make the world a better place. However, believing in religious mumbo jumbo has nothing to do with being a better person. A Muslim might say you are condemned to hell because you don't believe their mumbo jumbo. There is no reason to prefer your mumbo jumbo over their mumbo jumbo. In my opinion the most reasonable course to follow is to avoid mumbo jumbo entirely.

Oh csteele and Pericles so much intellect and yet so much underuseage of same.

Pericles inadvertantly did pick up an error I made although I have answered his silly question before.

You are correct about "Truth" I am asking for "Honesty"!

Remember the test you failed when you made up a statistic?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2530&page=0#57541 honesty!

At the end of that thread Daviy posted the following which no one commented on - I brought it over Daviy

The date of the birth of Jesus has nothing to do with the Bible. The date came from Dionysius Exiguus working backwards from 533 AD.
“We have seen his star in the East” (Matthew 2, KJV) has been mistranslated from the original Greek. “We have seen his star appear in the first rays of dawn” would be correct. According to Jewish prophecies, the Messiah would appear when there was a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Pisces. This unusual astrological event occurred three times in the year 7 BC and is consistent with the correct translation of Matthew. Also Herod the Great died in 4 BC so 7 BC seems the favorite.

Working backwards from 533 AD being 7 years out wasn't to far off.

Is the Bible true? If it is not true Christianity self destructs.
Do Christians seek God or seek to justify Christianity?
The Bible was put together by Christians for Christians and no system that feeds on itself to support itself is valid. If Christianity is to be valid it must be able to be supported by outside sources.
Is the Bible True? Does it matter? It is only a self fulfilling prophecy at the best.
The existence (or not) of God is something that can only be known to each of us one to one basis. No self fulfilling system can do that for us.

Richie 10 wrote:
"Why would God bother with your thoughts when you obviously think you can cherry pick his thoughts. In the book of revelation ch 22:18 & 19 Jesus puts a warning which you obviously ignore and cherry pick. It is there for your benefit not to harm you."

Are you not cherry-picking verses to suit your argument? What makes you think that something written in the second century would have any significance to someone in the third millennium?

For the record, those verses contain a warning given on Sunday June 25, Pentecost 114 AD to Pope Alexander I by Jesus III, at the christening of his son Jesus IV, that Hyrcanus would try to change the boy's education in ways that were contrary to the teachings of Jesus I. For this Hyrcanus was subsequently excommunicated.
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Word_for_Word_REVD.html

Some interesting comments to my post.

First Taoism. That which and be named is not the way. (God/life is beyond comprehension).
How do live in the ways of a God beyond our comprehension?
The Way gave birth to the ten thousand. (God created everything).
Therefore to live according to Gods way we live in harmony with everything God has created.

We are facing all sorts of problems because we have not lived in harmony with all that god has created.

<God does not express its thoughts to us so there can be no relationship. In fact I look upon those who tell me what God wants or thinks with great suspicion>

God does not express his thought to us as a collective (even if the Christian/Jewish/Christian preachers claim it does to them). Totally agree if you intened that as a collective; but to say this means that we as individuals cannot have a relationship with God is incorrect.

You may or may not, but this is your relationship only. You cannot speak on behalf of another person. I totally agree with the last part of your statement. They would be trying to do exactly what you did in the first part of your statement.

What I am suggesting is 'Gnosis'; the truth from within. This was the very thing that the church of Paul labeled heresy and went to great lengths to eradicate. Gnosis is death to Paul's version of Christianity. I am all for that outcome.

I agree with Jesus that the gateway is small. Jesus told us exactly how small the gateway was. Take personal responsibility for our actions. Say yes to what we want and no to what we don't want. Do away with judgment and listen to what comes from with (for it will save you if you do and destroy you if you don't).

OP2, you still insist upon labouring under a massive illusion.

>>Is the Bible true? If it is not true Christianity self destructs.<<

This is, simply put, a fallacy. A complete and all-encompassing misreading of the situation.

To take every word of a religious scripture as literal "truth" is to be a fanatic. What you need to remember is that the Bible was written by people, edited by people, translated by people, and relevant/expedient/ useful sections hand-selected by people.

To imagine that inconsistencies, contradictions, misunderstandings, mistranslations and politically convenient additions would not find their way into such a document, is to be wilfully ignorant of the conduct of real life.

It is possible to conjecture that Christianity might not have survived so long without the existence of the Bible. However, pointing out a few discrepancies is not going to cause its disappearance.

Some people need a religion to help them make sense of a confusing world, one that contains far more questions than answers. You aren't going to change their minds with your clumsy attacks.

And you might remind me, what was the error I picked up?

>>Pericles inadvertantly did pick up an error I made although I have answered his silly question before.<<

I do recall many questions, though, none of which you have been brave enough to address.

But please don't worry about me. I'm not holding my breath.

Pericles, I never typed this

>>Is the Bible true? If it is not true Christianity self destructs.<<

That was pasted from a Daviy post that others had missed on the thread "Is Christianity for real"?

Furthermore you contradicted yourself by actually stating a criticism you made of me.

>>To imagine that inconsistencies, contradictions, misunderstandings, mistranslations and politically convenient additions would not find their way into such a document, is to be wilfully ignorant of the conduct of real life.<<

You admonished me falsely for "calling christians dumb" which I never did, and yet you refer to some as "wilfully ignorant"?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2530&page=0#57496

Pericles you have perfected the "foot in mouth" diet!

I put the "error you inadvertently picked up Pericles" in my last post I used "truth" rather than "honesty".

Daviy an interesting documentary explained a lot about the astonomical events. I checked it all out with an astronomer and it's conclusions were wrong.

It alleged "A major astronomical event was alleged to have occured in 6BC. The planet Saturn ("Protector of Israel")aligned with Jupiter (the Kingstar) in Pisces "the constellation of the Messiah" and this conjunction would have been seen in Israel as a very bright star which rose in the East".

The astronomical calculations to test this theory are very complex and take quite a deal of computer time, but if anyone is astronomically gifted I would love their input.

My astronomer disagreed that this conjunction was seen in Israel on the morning of the 12th April 6BC as a bright star over Bethlehem. She also refuted the 4th October 7BC others calculated to have been the birthdate of Jesus.

I have quite a lot of detail on this as I actually wrote a short paper on it.

But it does beg the question - Why don't the churches tell their people that the calendar is out? The dates allegedly have a lot to do with alleged prophecy.

Davidf - worse than that people who tell you God thinks and answers their prayers are actually the ones who believe in the "most unintelligent model of God" Amazing!

Your protestations become increasingly confusing, OP2.

>>Pericles, I never typed this. 'Is the Bible true? If it is not true Christianity self destructs.'<<

Funny, I'm sure I read it in one of your posts. Ah yes, here it is.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572#58426

Please explain exactly how to distinguish between your own words and excerpts from others'?

On second thoughts, it is bound to add another layer of confusion. Don't bother.

But it gets weirder, if that were possible.

>>You admonished me falsely for "calling christians dumb" which I never did, and yet you refer to some as "wilfully ignorant"?<<

A quick "find" of the word dumb will not discover it in any of my posts, OP2. Plenty of yours. None of mine.

And it is crystal clear from the context that this was aimed at you:

"To imagine that inconsistencies, contradictions, misunderstandings, mistranslations and politically convenient additions would not find their way into such a document, is to be wilfully ignorant of the conduct of real life"

>>I put the "error you inadvertently picked up Pericles" in my last post I used "truth" rather than "honesty".<<

I didn't pick it up inadvertently, OP2, it was quite deliberate.

Sadly, if you substitute "honesty" for "TRUTH!", it kinda loses all its impact. Because people can, and often are "honestly" wrong. They honestly do the best they can, but are prone to error. Possibly through not knowing the whole story, or perhaps from a zeal to "do the right thing"

If you look at it that way, it's difficult to find anything that you could possibly prove to be wilfully dishonest in the Bible.

Pericles ... You are right, I can't expect you to decipher my comments from others in the same post. The fact that it actually stated it wasn't clear enough for you... I apologise!

But hang on... You are allowed to misinterpret but I'm not. If you think I am "wilfully ignorant" then you are back to your childish "name calling" ways again. Please grow up!

<<A quick "find" of the word dumb will not discover it in any of my posts, OP2. Plenty of yours. None of mine.>>

I would have thought wilfully ignorant could be synonymous with dumb but in the Pericles mind anything is possible.

<<If I understand you, you are hoping to persuade Christians that they are dumb to believe what they believe.>> That statement was below even you Pericles!

Another of your false statements Pericles - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2530&page=0

You have failed to understand the simplest concepts... but you bat at 100% on that...lol

So to refresh -

Did you make up statistics? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2530&page=0

Can you read English? - Scroll up

Can you type English so that it makes sense? - Scroll up

Are you prone to name calling - Scroll up & http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2530&page=1

Are you prone to asking dumb questions!

Yep you have a gift...lol

Perhaps you should change your name to Periwinkles...lol ENOUGH!

Daviy - One school of thought is that Dionysius Exiguus chose December 25 for Jesus' birthday by combining the Jewish ritual of circumcision which occurs on the eighth day after a birth of a male child and the 1st day of the Roman year which is the 1st of January.

Another theory is that Jesus was born during the reign of Saturnius as legate from 8BC to 6BC and that a census may have taken place at that time. The Romans were great tax collectors and so it is logical (although not in anyway proven) that regular census' would have taken place. The bible however lists Quirinius as the census taker and yet all other records don't have Quirinius as legate until 6AD.

It all makes for a most interesting journey of discovery.

And this is the point. Mental sickness through the horrors of primitive beginnings, would of had our worst institutionalized modern day humans just looking tame as a biscuit!. Talking too a burning bush! come on! Does that sound well to you?
Its mans word, coming from the three parts of the human mind or sole as in the 33 and a third.

We all are on a merry go round, just like it has been written, so the time line we are on, will seal our fate, just like where they got their information from and so on. ( A burning city will insight the imagination) and a lot more.

It has been luck up till now on how we have exist at all.

And after the year 2000! our governments are now to blame!

Dam them to hell! ( The planet of the apes )

EVO

For all your scroll-ups and lols, OP2, you still don't get it, do you?

>>It all makes for a most interesting journey of discovery<<

The question you have never attempted to answer is why you are taking this particular journey?

If you are genuinely interested in getting answers, you should learn to phrase your questions in an open and curious manner. So far, your approach has been to pour scorn and ridicule on Christians, on the grounds that (you assume) they believe every word of the Bible.

It is so distasteful, the only assumption that can be made is that you have some form of grudge against their religion, and get your jollies from demonstrating that the book is not entirely internally consistent.

Throwing your petty verbal stones at me won't convince anyone that your quest is sincere, so you may as well give up.

>>I would have thought wilfully ignorant could be synonymous with dumb but in the Pericles mind anything is possible<<

Not in my language. You can be dumb without knowing it. But to be wilfully ignorant, you have to make an effort.

Whichever, if the cap fits, wear it. My statement was clear

"To imagine that inconsistencies, contradictions, misunderstandings, mistranslations and politically convenient additions would not find their way into such a document, is to be wilfully ignorant of the conduct of real life"

Do you fit this profile? I think you do. And you probably would admit to it as well, if you gave it a moment's thought.

>>Christians - Please invite all friends to join this thread. Bible study for John 3:16ers. It is an open invitation! Who knows an atheist might be reading this and convert!<<

Do you really believe that you are going about this in the right way? Your approach is one of aggressive non-belief, which gives atheism a bad name.

But perhaps that was your intention all along?

Hi Opinionated2

This was the source I used as my refernece to the birth date of Jesus.

“We have seen his star in the East” (Matt.22), said the Wise Men, according to the A.V. The translation is however incorrect, for the words “in the east” are in the original “En te anatole” - the Greek singular - but that elsewhere “the east” is represented by “anatolai” - the Greek plural. The singular form “anatole” has, it is maintained, quite a special astronomical significance, in that it implies the observation of the early rising of the star, the so called heliacal rising. The translators of the Authorised Version could not have known this.
When “en te anatole” is translated properly Matth.22 reads as follows:
“We have seen his star appear in the first rays of dawn.” That would have corresponded exactly with the astronomical facts.
Keller, Werner. The Bible as History. Hodder & Stroughton, 1975.

The idea that the conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter in the year 7 BC was the “star” referred to in Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus is supported by the nature of the conjunctions. The conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter were “heliacal” risings in Pisces; that is, the first visible sightings were at daybreak.

But this is not of any great importance. 6BC or 7BC? 1AD still came about by working backwards over 533 years.

How can we ever get anywhere with a religion that acknowledges that it book that is supposed to the word of God but contains errors? Then Christians go on to decide what is true and what is false in the Bible to support whatever argument they are supporting at that time.

To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false? If it is true you must accept the negative arguments based on the Bible. If it is false then all your arguments must be rejected. It is a totally fallacious form of argument to pick and choose what you want to be true and what you want to be false

Pericles ...you have become tediously boring with your waffle!

The reason is to alert Christians that their preachers are not telling them the truth and to question their churches. Is questioning false teachings wrong? Is teaching falsehoods unChristian?

I am quite happy for them to have faith but they should also be told honest things not falsified ones! Jesus admonished the Pharisees for wrong teachings! Mark 8:15

They do want honesty don't they?

Now enough!

Daviy - I agree entirely.

The reason I use biblical quotes to debate is so that Christians can read those verses and see how the notion that the bible is "God's Word" is a false teaching! If religions fib about this what else do they fib about?

Anyone with a reasonable mind would see quite simply Jesus' empowering of Moses laws in Matthew 5:17-20 and then reading some of Moses ugly laws proves it is very fallible and in error! Either that or Jesus is not what the Churches sell! Is it wrong for churches to tell fibs or even half-truths about God?

Once they realise that their Bible contains errors they can get back to developing their faith & spirituality rather than religion. The problem is they just can't let go of these old books.

They must be true they are old...lol

They don't seem to evaluate what they are taught and they don't seem to understand that dishonesty from preachers would be sinful in the eyes of their Lord and leaves Christians ill-informed. Jesus allegedly said Beware false prophets...wolves in sheeps clothing. Matthew 7:15.

Are these preachers the false prophets Jesus warned us all about?

So your final question

"To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false?"

is a very significant one and one that cannot be ignored.

I am staggered that we never hear from all those Bible toting preachers out there. Surely they should be correcting us if we are wrong as part of their ministry!

OR could we be right?

"But it does beg the question - Why don't the churches tell their people that the calendar is out? The dates allegedly have a lot to do with alleged prophecy." -OP2

Because Jesus' place in history may have more to do with the coming the Jewish fourth millenium, in relation to the Jewish messiah and the Jewish End Time, than Christianity. Also, Churches deem themselves the custodians od Knowledge (and Lies). I can recall a slide show on the true Shrourd of Turin. Afetr forensic science showed in to be a fake, the Catholic Church said it made no claims to its authenticity and held it a fake since the Middle Ages. Incistency - that is the Church for you.

If Jesus was born under Herold the Great, one needs to note that Herold was dead in 1 CE. According to Thiering his physical birth was 7 BCE and his spiritual birth (Bar Mitzvah) was 6 CE.

You still haven't given an answer, OP2.

Let's all agree that there are inconsistencies in the Bible.

Why is it so important to you, that you rub every Christian's nose in the minutiae of the Bible, like some over-zealous puppy-owner undertaking house-training?

>>The reason is to alert Christians that their preachers are not telling them the truth and to question their churches.<<

That's not a reason. Priests are not historians, OP2.

They tell stories. Draw lessons. Provide guidance.

They have - and their congregation has - little interest in the precise dates of this event, or the exact translation of that passage.

>>I am quite happy for them to have faith but they should also be told honest things not falsified ones!<<

I'm sure that they are eternally grateful that you permit them to have their faith. But I suggest that the idea of rewriting the Bible so that it only contains the parts that you are happy with, may not go down so well.

>>So your final question "To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false?" is a very significant one and one that cannot be ignored.<<

On the contrary, it should be totally ignored. "TRUTH!", as you so succinctly described it in an earlier post, can exist in the whole, for those who believe, without checking off every last detail. They are, after all, histories written by men.

Presenting yourself as the self-proclaimed arbiter of what is right and what is wrong is simply the height of arrogance.

Heck, I'm not even religious, and I find your whining questions offensive, and your tone of voice insufferable.

Pericles Go away!

<<Presenting yourself as the self-proclaimed arbiter of what is right and what is wrong is simply the height of arrogance.>>

You are correct, look in the mirror, and stop!

<<You find my tone of voice insufferable>> OMG Pericles you need a psychiatrist you are hearing things...lol

Why don't you go and make up a few more statistics...lol

Daviy

That was most interesting about the correct translation of the Greek.

Not only are there problems with his birthdate there are problems with his death.

Already we have seen that the calendar is wrong. As 6BC was the most likely birth date of Jesus then the length of Jesus' ministry may also be affected. Based on biblical accounts we know that the crucifixion was on the 14th day in the Jewish month of Nisan. Whilst many Christians believe that Jesus was crucified on a Friday there is some debate that suggests he may have been crucified on a Wednesday, Thursday or a Friday. Some scholars believe it is more likely that he died on a Wednesday and rose in the evening of the following Saturday. The only years that the 14th fell on a Friday in Nisan during the time of Jesus were the years 27AD, 33AD and 36AD (Note : These years are from our modern calender not the correct calendar that indicates Jesus was born in 6BC). Some scholars have said it is possible for the 14th of Nisan to also have fallen in the year 30AD depending on the date of the new moon but this cannot be proved one way or the other.

Pontius Pilot was appointed Governer of Judea in 26AD and committed suicide in 36 AD so this doesn't help in our search for the real date. All three years 27AD, 33AD, and 36AD are still possible and so we just don't know in which year Jesus died or how old he was at the time of his death. Add to this the error in the calendar and the calculations as to the year of his death are further complicated

Is it my imagination, OP2, or are you becoming a little more aware of the proper tone of voice to use in discussions like these?

Could it be that my constant nagging is having an effect?

Compare and contrast your perfectly reasonable and rational contribution here:

>>That was most interesting about the correct translation of the Greek...<< et seq.

...and your previous posturing:

>>The reason I use biblical quotes to debate is so that Christians can read those verses and see how the notion that the bible is "God's Word" is a false teaching! If religions fib about this what else do they fib about?<<

There is a significant difference between a sober analysis of available historical information, and your personal determination that because there are challengeable and/or controversial verses, the entire religion should be thrown out of the window.

The writers of the Bible did not have your access to Google, OP2. They did not have the same tools with which to check dates and times. Nor did they have recording devices, or reporters' notebooks with ballpoint pens attached.

It is one thing to discuss the various possibilities that a historical analysis of the Bible present. It is entirely another to start with the premise - as you did - that because there are disputable facts in the Bible, Christianity is a crock.

>>Infallibility, inerrancy and God's word are often used to describe the Bible. Christians, generally believe at least one of these things, many believing all 3. So if Jesus' own words contain errors, then aren't all 3 wrong?<<

If you are going to turn over a new leaf as indicated in your last exchange with Daviy, you won't have any argument with me. But while you continue to insult Christianity with your string of non sequiturs, I'll continue to contribute my observations.

The Bible was not 'written.' It was compiled. The OT compiled from a compromised selection of old documents. The NT is largely a selection of letters from Paul to various sources without the answers to those letters being included.

Imagine selectively taking the posts from one person from OLO, pick anyone, and putting them together in a book without any reference to the other posts, and then claiming them to be the undisputed word of God. If you examine the NT that is exactly what you have except it was the letters of Paul instead of a selective OLO person.

Using this method you can end up with a self fulfilling prophecy that proves any political agenda you want.

The System was that the Bible was written in Latin. If a practitioner asked the priest a question the priest could open the Bible and tell the partitioner whatever he liked and claim it was the word of God. Tyndale ended that by translating the Bible into English and was burnt at the stake as a result. The Bible was about (and still is to some) control and manipulation.

There is the old problem of people saying the want the truth but what they really want is a truth they will like. If you want truth you must be prepared for the possibility that you will not like the truth you will find. It you want to know the truth abut the Bible stop arguing about what is in it and look at where it came from.

It did not come from God, nor is there anything about its birth that can stamp it as infallible.

Hey OP2,

Can I try a different tack?

The reason why you are able to hold the faith of Evangelical Christians up to scrutiny is that they have a solid position on the historical reality of Jesus and his place in the spiritual realm.

You seem to be giving slightly schizophrenic responses in your posts skipping from Jesus 'allegedly' said to "Jesus used parables to instruct people."

I am interested in what you believe so if you would be so kind as to answer three preliminary questions I feel it would be helpful.

1. Do you believe there was a historical person called Jesus who inspired the New Testament?

2. Do you believe that any part of his oral message has made it into written form in the bible?

3. Do you believe a God had any part in his life, teachings and/or death?

Thanks.

Pericles, How arrogant, you change me?...ha

I never stated that Christianity should be "thrown out the window" another Pericles fib! Any new statistics you have falsified to share?...lol

Daviy - I was taught Jesus loves me... cause the Bible tells me so.

You mean preachers have been fibbing to me all this time? How unChristion for them to fib?

I share Christians disappointments.

They want to know the truth, love their alleged God and generally be nice to everyone (except homosexuals).

Do preachers misrepresent the Bible, present false histories and their religious organisations cover up crimes?

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another"

Does homophobic bigotry destroy this verse?

Why can't Christians see this for what it is?

Paul discriminated against women 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and I Corinthians 14:34-35 and yet many women Christians don't see the parallels. Why?

Where else is the Bible wrong?

The trinity (a man made construct) is directly contradicted by Jesus himself in John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I". Not to mention what he says at his death, in the Lord's prayer etc.

Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon. Matthew 1:6 and yet it was traced through David's son Nathan. Luke 3:31. How can this be?

The Bible lists 28 generations from David to Jesus in Matthew 1:17 but 43 generations from David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-31. How can this be?

We all know that the Bible has been re-interpreted many times so how can every interpretation be inerrant when they changed the words?

Finally where are all the preachers? I have asked for "the experts" assistance in these complex matters and they fail to comment.

And where are the Christians from the "Get rich quick ministries"?

How do they justify their teachings when Jesus said Mark 10:25

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God."

Csteele,

As I understand it, this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.

>>1. Do you believe there was a historical person called Jesus who inspired the New Testament?<<

There was such an historical person, so it makes no difference whether Op2 believes it or not.

>>2. Do you believe that any part of his oral message has made it into written form in the bible?<<

Whether Op2 believes it or not, the words of Jesus form a large part of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, some of them dictated by Jesus to his scribes (it is hard to write when you have had nails driven through your hands!). What they mean, however, depends upon whether they are taken literally or interpreted in the way that his contempoaries understood them.

>>3. Do you believe a God had any part in his life, teachings and/or death?<<

You or I or Op2 may or may not believe that there is such a thing as 'a god', (I don't), but it is obvious that the writers of the New Testament did, and their authority to command the obedience of their followers depended upon this belief.

Incidentally, the phrase "the Word of God" which occurs frequently in the NT, does not mean God is dictating the Bible, but is a coded reference to the royal line of David. "The Word of God increased" means that a child was born to the heir to the kingdom, i.e. when Jesus Justus was born to Mary Magdalene, when Jesus III was born and when Jesus IV was born.

This is an interesting claim, Sympneology.

>>the words of Jesus form a large part of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, some of them dictated by Jesus to his scribes (it is hard to write when you have had nails driven through your hands!)<<

Who were these scribes? Do they have names?

I have said on many occasions that one of the major shortcomings of the Bible, and biblical interpretation, is the fact that none of the writers was a contemporary. No-one to date has mentioned that there were scribes hanging around, writing it all down.

It would help to know which parts of the gospels were dictated, if it were clearer, which were the exact (dictated) words, and which were invented?

It would be a great help in discussions with OP2, if we could explain to him "Yes I know that's what the Bible says, but that part wasn't recorded verbatim. This part, on the other hand..."

And yes, OP2, it is clear that my efforts to tone down your hysteria has been unsuccessful. It was a forlorn hope only, I'm afraid.

>>I never stated that Christianity should be "thrown out the window" another Pericles fib!<<

Very true, OP2, you did not use those precise words. And I should have realized that you are only able to take words at their face value.

So what words have you used?

>>I am calling the churches to account after centuries of misleading their flocks<<

>>I don't believe Jesus said many of the things we are told he did!<<

>>there is no sweet way to challenge indoctrination, bigotry and unintelligent belief. I question the crazy laws of Moses<<

>>My questioning... is hopefully getting people to analyse their religion and it's foundations<<

>>religions can't let go of old flawed documents to justify their rules<<

>>The Bible is looking very dubious as a reference.<<

>>Are religious books men's rules designed to oppress free thinking?<<

Seems to me that you are heading in one direction, and one direction only.

If you succeed, and you completely discredit the Bible, what will you leave Christians with?

Pericles,

You continue to make a goose of yourself!

<<If you succeed, and you completely discredit the Bible, what will you leave Christians with?>>

Pericles are you, as an atheist, advocating Christians not be told the truth? They will have their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, God and their spirituality! It's only a reference book!

WOW and you said I undermine atheists. You just undermined atheism yourself...lol

You are like a dog chasing a parked car and wondering why your nose is sore...lol

Seems to me you don't know what you are talking about with the quotes you listed.

You make dumb and dumber look bright...lol

I have said all along I am not trying to undermine a persons "faith or spirituality".

1. If someone wishes to believe in God or Jesus they need to be told the truth. Faith based on honesty is better than the model you propose!

2. I can't say there isn't a God, and I haven't, all I can explain is why the Bible doesn't necessarily represent his words. Sorry I have an opinion in an Online Opinion site...go figure!

Hence lines like >>I don't believe Jesus said many of the things we are told he did!<<

3. Unlike you, your a self-confessed atheist, I am not pretending to be interested in a Christians feelings. I am pointing out (at times bluntly) why they should not just believe. That is what I meant by the term John 3:16 Christian. If their God gave them a brain I guess he meant them to use it!

4. If the Bible is their reference book of choice - I want them to think more broadly than their preacher teaches. Is thinking wrong?

5. When I was at school I was encouraged to think "outside the square" to enhance my education and I want all people (including Christians) to do the same. Are you against education and thinking?

So Periwinkles once again you have had your butt whipped... now go back to "atheist island" and make up some more statistics.

You are failing Atheism badly

In your dreams, OP2.

>>You make dumb and dumber look bright...lol<<

I'm not going to trade insults with you, so you needn't bother to pursue that line any longer.

>>If someone wishes to believe in God or Jesus they need to be told the truth.<<

Why?

This is the question that you keep evading.

Avoiding.

Hiding from.

What is it to you, if some people, of their own free will, hold certain beliefs through faith alone?

And why have you suddenly decided that it is, indeed, truth that needs to be told? Moreover, that it has to be you who tells it?

I'd just like to point out that you previously admitted that it isn't "TRUTH!" that is at issue here, but honesty. Remember?

>>I am seeking the TRUTH!<<

When I suggested that "TRUTH!" was not to be found, you confessed that...

>>You are correct about "Truth" I am asking for "Honesty"!<<

But now, it appears, we are back on that rickety old bicycle, "truth".

At least this time it doesn't come in capital letters and with an exclamation mark:

>>Pericles are you, as an atheist, advocating Christians not be told the truth?<<

Where the truth is undiscoverable, unimportant, irrelevant, obscure or a matter for perpetual conjecture, no-one should be subjected to the barrage of innuendo and needling criticism that you load into your posts.

>>Seems to me you don't know what you are talking about with the quotes you listed.<<

I stand by that list of verbatim excerpts from your posts. I notice that you haven't been able to defend a single one of them.

>>all I can explain is why the Bible doesn't necessarily represent his words. Sorry I have an opinion in an Online Opinion site...<<

It is not your opinion that is at issue here, as I have pointed out before.

"It is one thing to discuss the various possibilities that a historical analysis of the Bible present. It is entirely another to start with the premise - as you did - that because there are disputable facts in the Bible, Christianity is a crock."

csteele

<The reason why you are able to hold the faith of Evangelical Christians up to scrutiny is that they have a solid position on the historical reality of Jesus and his place in the spiritual realm.>

Why do you mix up Evangelical Christianity and spirituality? They have nothing in common, Evangelical Christianity is a purely physical religion. Spirituality is what comes from within.

How can Evangelical Christians even argue about the truth of the Bible when they have butchered the Bible for their own purposes such as changing 'Deliver us from evil' to 'Deliver us from the evil one'? The 'Evil one' is not even in the real Bible. It comes from a distorted version of the story of the watchers from the Book of Enoch. What the Evangelical Christians call the Bible is not even the Bible.

Evangelical Christianity is not based on the Bible. It is a mish-mash of unrelated trivia borrowed and distorted from a wide of material that was excluded from the Bible.

Evangelical Christianity came about as a reaction to the evil of Social Darwinism. But they made the mistake of attacking Darwin instead the concept of the 'Master Race' based on survival of the fittest that lead through to Hitler.

Darwin and the Origin of the Species had nothing to do with Social Darwinism. Yet the Evangelical Christians attacked Darwin and invented a new religion that is totally divorced from Christianity. When debating Christianity, Evangelical Christianity does not even come into it. It is not Christian. Even if the original intent was good (to fight Social Darwinism) it execution was appalling, bastardizing the very worst from a multitude of material.

Evangelical Christianity came about as a misguided attempt to combat a social evil that eventually went full circle until we recently had the spectacle of an Evangelical Christian as the President of the USA practicing Social Darwinism.

None of this has anything to do with spirituality and never will.

Pericles, as you are an athiest, your mock indignation on behalf of Christians is clever but laughable.

So now you have introduced unimportant truths, and irrelevant truths as not necessary for Christians to know. Can you please explain to our Christian friends why you as an athiest don't want them to be informed?

It was you who first called me a troll - I just called you a name for a laugh! Sniffed out any parked cars lately? lol

Some truths are to be found in the Bible : Herod's rule for example - It's just the dates Christians are taught are incorrect. Herod died in 4 BC.

I said <<You were right about the truth>> trying to appease your ego... I am looking for honesty and where possible the truth. If a preacher doesn't know he should say "I don't know" NOT "God works in mysterious ways".

<<It is entirely another to start with the premise - as you did - that because there are disputable facts in the Bible, Christianity is a crock.">> I never said this - You lie - undermining atheism again!

So far a christian will notice Pericles the atheist, makes up statistics, lies to suit his argument and makes false accusations. Yep that sure is doing atheism the world of good!

Go away!!

Sympneology - TY for answering csteele's points - your statement

<<As I understand it, this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.>> is absolutely correct!

Daviy, TY for setting csteele straight on Evangelical Christianity and spirituality. The fact that he doesn't know the difference is instructive. I have been most impressed with your inputs throughout this thread and the way in which you keep people on topic and contiually inform.

Pericles and csteele just don't get it. They have a mutual admiration society and continually try to divert the conversation. Could Mrs Pericles please get Mr Pericles off the computer - he is obsessed and very rattled!

Hey Sympneology,

You are wrong when you say “this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.”.

Probably if it were left at that many of us would not have an issue with OP2 but he consistently takes the discussion well past that point.

"To all you Christians out there. Make your choice. Is the Bible true or false?"

“Once they realise that their Bible contains errors they can get back to developing their faith & spirituality rather than religion.”

If those are not statements and challenges about people’s beliefs then I’m not sure what would qualify.

OP2 has called on others to explain and justify their beliefs but would appear to be afraid to enlighten us of his own. Hypocrisy bordering on cowardness?

I would invite him once more to answer and let’s let him speak for himself.

I must say though I do get a sense of a kid who has discovered that Santa is not real and has set off around the playground stamping his feet and loudly informing the others of his discovery, not especially because he wants them to know the "TRUTH" but more because he is pissed off that he has had the legs cut out from under his own formative belief system.

May I finish with a couple of OP2 quotes from his reply to Runner:

"Why didn't you answer the questions Runner?"

and

"But please don't accuse me of "judging the judge" when you won't even answer questions."

Indeed!

Hey Daviy,

I have done my fair share of railing against fundamentalist Christianity in the past but I do recognise its power to move people and change their lives. It often provides succour to some much damaged people and allows them to deal with fears, anguish and pain that can be outside the skills and patience of ordinary society to minister to.

You might be able to dismiss this as not having a spiritual growth component but I certainly can’t.

I note a Wikipedia definition “Spirituality is the personal, subjective dimension of religion, particularly that which pertains to liberation or salvation.”

I am quite vociferous when challenging bigotry from them but I have little taste for stripping Evangelists of a ‘rock’ that many hold vital to their faith.

The famous words from the Holy Bible that seem to confine Christians to poverty, from Mark 10:25, all about camels and the eye of a needle, are entirely taken out of context. The entire passage from 10:23 the King James Version finishes thus at 10:27: With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It goes on: at Mark 10: 28 -31: 10:30, There is no man that hath left house….for my sake and the gospels,(30) but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brethren, and sisters and mothers and children, and lands with persecutions, and in the world to come eternal life.

This is the gospel, not of poverty but of abundance, that the lawyers of this world hate, because they are now first but when they cash their chips, die like any one else. ( Mark 10:31.) When coupled with the 23rd Psalm, much beloved of Christians, and read in the light of Luke 11 verses 46 and 52, it is no wonder lawyers hate Christians.

There is a superannuated Roman Catholic Priest and lawyer running around Australia trying to convince himself the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not law, and convince the public the Parliament of the Commonwealth did not enact it as law, and did not intend it as a Schedule to be part of the law of the land. This is because when Eleanor Roosevelt proposed it to the UN in 1946, she got the idea from the New Testament and it represents the very essence of the gospels.

It bans discrimination, because Jesus Christ did not discriminate. It bans lawyers in Article 25 because Jesus Christ held them in contempt. It paraphrases the Statute of Monopolies, and the Magna Carta, and it became law in Australia in 1981 with a five year sunset clause. Unless renewed in 1986, it was to lapse. The Parliament of the Commonwealth reenacted it unanimously, and our history buffs should check Hansard, to see that I am not a fibber. Lawyers hated Jesus and they hate the Covenant

Your ability to firmly grasp the wrong end of the stick and wave it over your head appears to be infinite, OP2.

>>Pericles, as you are an athiest, your mock indignation on behalf of Christians is clever but laughable.<<

That's not indignation, mock or otherwise.

It is simply my opinion, voiced on an opinion forum, on your snide and gratuitous attacks on Christianity.

I certainly don't represent Christians, or any other religion, in doing so.

I have precisely the same discussion with people who try the same tactics with Islam.

Your approach is highly reminiscent, in fact, of a previous poster, who used this forum to attack Islam, through a one-eyed and personal interpretation of the Qur'an. It is a cheap, and utterly pointless, trick.

>>So now you have introduced unimportant truths, and irrelevant truths as not necessary for Christians to know.<<

That is a pretty poor precis of:

"Where the truth is undiscoverable, unimportant, irrelevant, obscure or a matter for perpetual conjecture, no-one should be subjected to the barrage of innuendo and needling criticism that you load into your posts."

It is your motive, OP2, that is under scrutiny here.

If you succeed in your strategy, and every single Christian in Australia is convinced that the Bible is a crock - sorry, full of lies, what religion do you suggest that they follow?

Without Herod, the entire crucifixion story falls apart.

No Easter. No resurrection. No "died to save mankind".

Presumably, you are equally able to discredit the nativity, Mary and Joseph and all that prophetic star-in-the-sky imagery.

What do you intend to leave the Christians with?

Just that 'Jesus was a really nice guy, and you should all be like him'?

Doesn't exactly set him apart, does it OP2?

So, it's confession time.

Why are you doing this?

No, really.

Why are you doing this? What are your intentions?

So far, you have been needlessly argumentative about trivia - a few irrelevant historical inaccuracies.

What's your game, OP2?

csteele
<Those who speak of spirituality as opposed to religion generally believe in the existence of many "spiritual paths" and deny any objective truth about the best path to follow. Rather, adherents of this definition of the term emphasize the importance of finding one's own path to whatever-god-there-is, rather than following what others say works. In summary: the path which makes the most coherent sense becomes the correct one (for oneself). But just as aspects of spirituality can be found in many religions and traditions, spirituality based on spiritual practice rather than belief, with the aim simply of developing inner peace, is another option. This secular spirituality (QV) is consistent with holding any supernatural belief, or importantly with holding none.>

From the same Wikipedia article you quoted.

I am not so generous with fundamentalist Christianity. My contact with fundamentalists has confirmed for me that they prey on the weak and the vulnerable, often using 'love bombing' techniques learnt from the 'Moonies'.

Is it turning a persons live around if an alkie switches his/her drug of choice from Jim Bean to Fundamentalism as did George W Bush? Or the newly divorced person who gets caught in a web of lies?

Swapping one addiction for another or one problem for another problem is not helping. It is not constructive to give people lies so they don't feel so bad. Sooner or later the hangover catches up.

All through these posts I see a continuing theme that 'Something is better than nothing'. Maybe if people could face nothing they would find it is not nothing. It is full of life. Do people hang on to religion only because of the fear of the unknown? I am beginning to think so from this discussion.

PtB Congratulations! Are you a wealth-driven Christian? Why did you & the churches conveniently miss Jesus' most explicit instructions on wealth?

The rule of wealth-driven Christians -

If Jesus' word is absolutely specific, ignore it, then, find the bit that justifies your stance even though it isn't explicit!

Mark 10:21-23

And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"

Matthew 6:24

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

Luke 6:20

"...Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God"

Luke 12:33

"Sell your possessions, and give to the needy.Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

Now I don't think Jesus wanted you to be poor BUT what you are suggesting is a long way from what scripture really states.

Isn't the wealthy Christian syndrome just another way that Jesus' word is watered down by his alleged followers? Isn't it a money spinner for churches when you change Jesus' word to attract more wealthy clientelle?

Should a Christian misuse Jesus' word to justify his own position? Isn't that unChristian?

IF Charismatic and Evangelical Christians misrepresent Jesus' word from the Bible, is that a sin?

And then you jump back onto lawyers again ...

Pericles and csteele go away! I have answered your questions! You have nothing to offer this thread!

There seems to be confusion about Herrod.

Herod the great died in 3BC. Herod named his three remaining sons as successors, Archelaus as king, and Antipas and Philip as tetrarchs.

It was Herod the Great at the time the birth of Jesus and Herod Antipas by the time of his death, so there were 3 Herods. At the time of the story telling it was probably irrelevant as most listeners would have know which Herod was which.

My understanding is the 'eye of a needle' thing was a reference to the 'needle gate'. When the gates to a town where closed at night there was a very small 'needle gate.' People arriving at night could still crawl through, but they had to leave their camels outside till morning.

< “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, and yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel” (Micah 52 KJV).>

So it was prophesized 700 years before the birth of Jesus that the 'King of the Jews' would be born in Bethlehem. Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or was this given as his birthplace because of Micah?

Was Jesus King of the Jews? Probably. And that could be the reason why his crucifixion was such a big deal.

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews; for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
(John 19-22, KJV)

If Jesus had been another wandering preacher he may have been forgotten. It is not the story of Jesus that is the problem. The problem is what the Christians have done with it.

Pericles wrote:
"This is an interesting claim, Sympneology.

>>the words of Jesus form a large part of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, some of them dictated by Jesus to his scribes (it is hard to write when you have had nails driven through your hands!)<<

Who were these scribes? Do they have names?"

Yes, they do. One was a Gentile named Philip, whose knowledge of Greek helped Jesus to write in the two levels of meaning required, since Hebrew and Aramaic were not flexible enough.

Another was John Mark, the 'beloved disciple' who lent his names to two Gospels and the Apocalypse. Like Luke, and Matthew Annas, he was taught by Jesus how to user the pesher to record their activities in a way that meant one thing to the initiates and something else to the 'babes in Christ'.

For the full story I suggest you read "The Book That Jesus Wrote, John's Gospel" by Barbara Thiering.

Hey csteele,

>>You are wrong when you say “this thread is not about anyone's beliefs but about the way the Bible is used to influence beliefs by promoting it as 'inerrant' or 'infallible' (the same thing) or 'God's word'.”.<<

Yes, well asking whether the Bible is true or false is presenting a false dichotomy. The only possible answer is, "Yes", since it, like any other archaic document, is both. There are only a small minority of Christians who hold the fundamentalist view that all of the Bible is literally true, most of them in the USA. They are not going to take any notice of anything Op2 writes and the rest have grown comfortable with the thought that what matters is not whether the words are literally true but whether the ideas presented represent a reliable guide to living a good life.

For many people it is enough to live a good life unencumbered with any obligation to an organization, and these do not feel a need to know which words in the Bible are true or untrue. These people, however, do not have the power to influence the course of events in the way that large and wealthy organizations do. It is therefore in the public interest to know that some LWOs are accruing their power and wealth on the basis of demonstrable falsehoods and threats. In the language of the law they are obtaining money by deception and menaces, i.e. fraud.

When the organization that does this is the Mafia then people are rightly outraged and demand that the police arrest the criminals. When the organization that does it is a big corporation like Enron, HIH, or Goldman Sachs, then there is surprise that such 'respectable' people should behave so dishonourably, and some politicians duck for cover. However, when the organization that does it is a religious one then everyone goes quiet lest they be thought to be discriminating on the basis of religion, and we must not do that!

Bah! Humbug!

Are you sure, Sympneology?

>>[one of the scribes] was a Gentile named Philip, whose knowledge of Greek helped Jesus to write in the two levels of meaning required, since Hebrew and Aramaic were not flexible enough. Another was John Mark...<

This relies very heavily on the pesher theory, which - although attractive to those who want to believe that the Bible has layers of meaning - seems just a little too convenient for uncommitted observers like me. The generally accepted position - not that the majority is always right of course - is that there is no presently known proven direct link between Jesus and the Gospels.

Unless there emerges another information source, we are left with conjecture only. There are still many lively discussions, for example, on whether Jesus spoke Greek, based on the conversations attributed to him that he conducted with Pontius Pilate (assuming he was alive, of course!) and the Roman Centurion.

I am in far greater agreement with your overall summary of the relevance of this entire discussion:

>>asking whether the Bible is true or false is presenting a false dichotomy. The only possible answer is, "Yes"<<

And OP2, you may have started this thread, but having done so, you are going to have to live with the consequences.

>>Pericles and csteele go away! I have answered your questions! You have nothing to offer this thread!<<

On the contrary, you have consistently avoided two key questions:

What are your motives for telling Christians that their Bible is not the "TRUTH!", as you most eloquently put it.

And what result do you expect, if you were to succeed in your quest to discredit the Bible in the eyes of its Christian readership?

Because - and here's the kicker - if you are consistent in your views, you would not be able to use any biblical quotation to justify your actions.

If you genuinely believe that the Bible is a crock, then you should not rely upon it to support your mission.

Whatever that might be.

I can't be absolutely sure Pericles, but when I am given the choice between the miracles version and the no miracles version, I am inclined to opt for the latter as being the more likely.

>>This relies very heavily on the pesher theory, which - although attractive to those who want to believe that the Bible has layers of meaning - seems just a little too convenient for uncommitted observers like me. The generally accepted position - not that the majority is always right of course - is that there is no presently known proven direct link between Jesus and the Gospels.<<

One can hazard a good guess without relying on the pesher at all as to the reality of the central miracle, the 'resurrection'. Taken at its face value, the story is that Jesus was crucified, and while on the cross was given some poison (said to be vinegar) and soon lost consciousness. Claiming him to be dead, his disciples got permission to take him down before the Sabbath and placed him in a cave. One disciple, Nicodemus, brought him aloes (a purgative) and myrrh (a commonly used treatment for wounds). Some time later he was seen to be walking around, talking to his disciples (showing one of them, Thomas, the wounds in his hands and side) and later meeting Paul on the road to Damascus. When he was supposedly dead on the cross a soldier pierced his side with a spear, and he bled.

(continued)

(As I was saying ...)

Now the official version of this story is that he died on the cross and on the third day he was resurrected and miraculously appeared to his disciples and Paul and then "ascended into Heaven".

Is it not more probable that he was still alive but unconscious when he was taken down? After all, dead men don't bleed. Is it not more probable that the reason Nicodemus brought the aloes and myrrh is that he knew Jesus was still alive and needed a purgative for the poison and a dressing for his wounds? Is it not more probable that it was a living human being that talked to the disciples and showed Thomas his wounds, and not some miraculous phantom?

It follows, then, that if Jesus did survive the crucifixion, it is quite feasible to assume that he would have a large say in the writing of the scriptures for his new church. As to his speaking Greek, that language had been the lingua franca of the region for some time, even Cicero spoke it, according to Shakespeare.

Dear Sympneology,
Could you please tell me how you reconcile John 19;34
with your belief as I have been led to believe that water seperates from blood after death.A medical person should be able to tell us.

Dear Symempelogy,
If you want to do anything with your life you will have to learn to use your imagination for positive posibilitys because if you only use your imagination to reinforce your unbelief you will always be an underachiever and never receive your full potential for without faith vou can not please God. Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for and I am sure that you have dreams of acomplishment. For man it is impossible . BUT with God all things are possible. If you Know God is in your corner rooting for you "for with God nothing is impossible" you get up and have another go.
Jesus came to save our soul {your mind,will,and emotions} so you can be a winner or overcomer not a looser. If you always need others to motivate you, you will underacheave in life.
Don't judge what you don't understand for you and those most precious to you pay the price,

That would be quite an assumption, Sympneology.

>>It follows, then, that if Jesus did survive the crucifixion, it is quite feasible to assume that he would have a large say in the writing of the scriptures for his new church.<<

Unlike your alternative version of the crucifixion, there is no evidence - even circumstantial - of a link between Jesus and the stuff that was written about him. In fact, given the significant discrepancies between versions, is not more likely that there was no written history at all, merely word-of-mouth campfire stories?

If such a scribe existed, and did indeed do his scribing as you... err, describe, would you not expect a greater degree of similarity in the stories?

But once again I have to ask, why is it so important to discredit Bible stories?

Placing events more accurately in a historical perspective is one thing, and is the proper pursuit of archaeologists and historians. But faith, as far as I can tell, does not need historical accuracy.

Deliberately setting out to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation document is like drowning puppies. It may be possible to justify intellectually, but it doesn't make a difference to the expression on the children's faces as they watch you do it.

Pericles wrote: Deliberately setting out to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation document is like drowning puppies. It may be possible to justify intellectually, but it doesn't make a difference to the expression on the children's faces as they watch you do it.

Dear Pericles,

Drowning puppies cannot be justified intellectually since there are less painful ways to dispose of animals, and one doesn't have to do it in the face of children.

However, faith in religion has done intense harm. It has inspired oppression, conquest, torture and massacre.

It has also inspired sending out missionaries whose purpose is to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation documents in order to accept the faith of the missionaries' foundation documents. If sincere believers resent attempts to undermine their faith they should stop encouraging missionaries whose purpose is to undermine the faith of believers in other religions.

Losing religious faith can bring a sense of loss. It can also bring a feeling of joy and liberation.

<Deliberately setting out to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation document is like drowning puppies. It may be possible to justify intellectually, but it doesn't make a difference to the expression on the children's faces as they watch you do it.>

I would have likened it more to children finding out there wasn't a Father Christmas. Children grow up. It is about time that religious adults did the same.

I agree this davidf that religion has done intense harm to the human race. Faith? Believe what I tell you without any support or evidence solely because I tell you to believe. It is worse than that. Believe what I tell you even though the evidence is that what I tell you is total rubbish. Dare I suggest cognitive dissonance?

There is grief in all passing. I am certain that for some ex-Christians that in giving up their fairy tale there will be sadness at their loss. But is giving up a lie a loss?

But if anyone is truly seeking answers getting religion out of the way is a major step forward. Nobody will find God in Christianity because Christianity is godless. In Christianity 'God' is only an image created to support the claim to authority based on Gods will. Christianity has no more way of knowing 'Gods will' than anyone else.

Hitler was (correctly) vilified for his crimes against humanity. But we continue to argue about Christianity whose crimes against humanity far exceed anything Hitler thought of.

And what is the reason for not ditching Christianity? From the posts here the main reason seems to be anything was better than nothing. To millions of starving Germans after the Great War Hitler was better than nothing.

If the Abrahamic fairly tales (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) is the best the human race can come up with to believe in then the human race really does not have much going for it.

As I have said before, this is not directed at Christians as people, but against the Abrahamic system of control, manipulation and fraud

Daviy, You state that Herod the great died in 3BC. I'm not sure that it is proven. I have seen very good arguments for 4BC, 3BC and 1BC.

When I last looked into this many years back 4BC was at that time the generally accepted date.

Can you point to where your information is proved?

I have found these reference sites although there are many more - how did you settle on 3BC?

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/ph01.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~murrellg/Herod.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/chrdat.txt

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/p_greetham/Wisemen/chron2.html

http://www.biblicalchronology.com/herod.htm

Pericles: Please allow these three statements to be burned into your grey matter.

MOTIVE : Honesty from preachers, churches & religions!

GOAL : Greater understanding and a questioning mind, so Christians and others might be better informed, so that they can focus more on their faith and spirituality, and less on a book, that if read properly and taught honestly, is full of problems for believers.

METHODOLOGY : WHICHEVER I CHOOSE

Trust me : I live with the consequences of this thread every day... I have to read the dribble you and csteele type...lol

Pericles, Two questions I wanted to know.

Why is an atheist so interested in this subject? Haven't you made your decision?

What is your definition of an atheist?

Your persistence in wondering why Christians aren't entitled to some honest answers staggers me.

And your comparing a discussion on biblical matters to drowning puppies is weird.

Seeing you can make that comparison couldn't I compare religions with mushroom farming. Keeping them in the dark and feeding them compost?

Why are you so happy to keep them uninformed/misinformed and unquestioning? What do you gain from pretending to be on their side?

Not so sure, davidf

>>Drowning puppies cannot be justified intellectually since there are less painful ways to dispose of animals, and one doesn't have to do it in the face of children.<<

I thought it was a rather appropriate analogy, on both counts.

One, there are less confrontational ways to address the shortcomings of religious beliefs. And two, it can be accomplished in a manner that is not overtly designed to inflict public humiliation.

>>However, faith in religion has done intense harm. It has inspired oppression, conquest, torture and massacre.<<

The danger here is that the label of oppressive, torturing, massacring conquistadors is applied to anyone with religious leanings. Which you know, of course, is ridiculous.

>>Losing religious faith can bring a sense of loss. It can also bring a feeling of joy and liberation.<<

As far as I am concerned, religious belief is something that is a freedom to be enjoyed by consenting adults, without interference from do-gooders offering them feelings of "joy and liberation".

[Somewhat ironically, "joy and liberation" echo the promises made by religious evangelists. How about that.]

OP2, you continue to misunderstand simple words like "motive".

>>MOTIVE : Honesty from preachers, churches & religions!<<

That isn't a motive OP2.

It is a possible (although highly unlikely) result of your persistent niggling and needling.

But it isn't a motive.

Let's imagine for a moment that you murder someone. If the detective asks "what was your motive for killing this person?", it would not be sufficient to say "so that he is dead".

Your motive for the action would be something along the lines "I didn't like his face", or "he trod on my toe."

Once again. Why are you doing this? What's your motive?

You ask:

>>Why is an atheist so interested in this subject?<<

I am motivated to voice my opinion on this forum by an intense dislike of attacks, of any type, on any religion. The fact that I am also an atheist has no bearing whatsoever on this personal view, since I don't speak for anyone except myself.

You can add an inability to count, OP2, alongside your inability to answer simple questions.

>>Pericles, Two questions I wanted to know.<<

I counted at least four, possibly six or even seven, depending upon your definition of the word "question"..

>>Why is an atheist so interested in this subject?<<

See previous post.

>>Haven't you made your decision?<<

If you mean "am I sure that I am an atheist?" the answer is yes, I am sure. And I have been since I was around ten years old.

>>What is your definition of an atheist?<<

My definition is someone who rejects the notion that there is a God. Fairly normal.

>>...couldn't I compare religions with mushroom farming. Keeping them in the dark and feeding them compost?<<

Strictly speaking, that's two more questions, although you left out the question mark in between them so I suppose you could count it as one.

Yes, of course you may do so, if that is your opinion. That is what opinion forums are for, after all.

What I have been commenting on is your bully-boy tactics. Where you use your questions to bludgeon Christianity into a position of submission. Where you try to force it to say "yes yes, OP2, you are right, there are inconsistencies in the Bible", and then fall at your feet begging forgiveness for being so misguided.

It's the same tone of voice that the whack-a-mozzie brigade use when "discussing" the Qur'an.

I dislike it just as much.

>>Why are you so happy to keep them uninformed/misinformed and unquestioning?<<

That's not a question, it's a statement with a question mark at the end. You're fond of those. But I will say, that it is not up to you to decide what others may or may not believe.

>>What do you gain from pretending to be on their side?<<

Another non-question. For the record, a) I'm not pretending anything, b) I'm not on anybody's "side", I am simply voicing an opinion and c) the only thing I gain is a vague sense of having done the right thing in defending liberty against tyranny.

Hi OP2

In my book 'What I have Written' I stated the death of Herod the Great as 3BC based on,

Keller, Werner. The Bible as History. Hodder & Stroughton, 1975

I no longer have a copy of Keller to check. If someone offered evidence that the date was between 4 BC and 1 BC I would not dispute it. The essence is that the Bible refers to 'Herod' as if it where one person when there where three 'Herods'.

I tend to want to understand the essence rather than the detail. As soon as it degenerates into detail it becomes volume upon volume of details that completely bury the essence. This is what tends to happen in OLO.

It becomes like a murderer pleading not guilty of murdering his mother-in-law on Wednesday the 3rd of November because he had actually done it on the 4th. This is the reason why the police charge is 'on or about.' So Herod the Great died 'on or about' 3 BC.

Nothing changes. He still died. And there where still three Herods during the life of Jesus.

I don't think Christians are misinformed. How could they miss the information unless they simple do not want to know? If that is the case there is not much to be done.

It is a pity because I would like to see the end of the insanity of Christianity/Judaism/Islam. I would like to see the end of it because it has caused so much suffering in this world, and continues to do so. And all the suffering happens with 'God' as the excuse which is the ultimate blasphemy

Pericles,

>>Unlike your alternative version of the crucifixion, there is no evidence - even circumstantial - of a link between Jesus and the stuff that was written about him.<<

There may not have been any evidence prior to 1947, but the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed everything. Even though Christian scholars have tried desperately to prove that these were all written 200 years before Jesus and now a Jewish scholar, Rachel Elior, says that they were not even written by Essenes, but by Sadducees in the 2nd century BCE, I accept that the relevant scrolls, called the pesharim, have been shown by Barbara Thiering, from internal evidence, to have been written in the 1st century CE. I also accept that she has shown that the two main characters in these scrolls, the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest, refer to John the Baptist and Jesus respectively.

>>In fact, given the significant discrepancies between versions, is not more likely that there was no written history at all, merely word-of-mouth campfire stories? If such a scribe existed, and did indeed do his scribing as you... err, describe, would you not expect a greater degree of similarity in the stories?<<

Given that in these scrolls the writers used the pesher to reveal the hidden, contemporary meaning of OT scriptures, Jesus would have been well acquainted with this method. The discrepancies and contradictions in the Gospels are a signal to the discerning reader to look for a hidden meaning, and by applying the pesher Dr Thiering has revealed this meaning and all the discrepancies and contradictions disappear.

Richie, 10, wrote:
>>Could you please tell me how you reconcile John 19;34 with your belief as I have been led to believe that water seperates from blood after death. A medical person should be able to tell us.<<

Good question Richie, and only one spelling mistake.

All a medical person would be able to tell us is that if water came from the wound the stomach or bladder might have been pierced and he may or may not have been dead. But he would say that if blood came from the wound then the heart was still beating and he definitely was not dead.

That the writer was trying to emphasize this fact can be seen from the following verse, John 19:35.

Then you spoil it all with this:
>>Dear Symempelogy,
If you want to do anything with your life you will have to learn to use your imagination for positive posibilitys because if you only use your imagination to reinforce your unbelief you will always be an underachiever and never receive your full potential for without faith vou can not please God.<<

I thank you for what seems to be some concern for my welfare, but I can assure you that my interest is solely in getting the history right, and if I have not been able in the last eight decades to receive my full potential then I do not expect to change that now by trying to please some imaginary being.

The pesher technique is interesting and opens up a whole can of worms about the Bible. Using Dr. Thiering's methods anyone can claim anything and claim to have the key to the secret meanings of any text.

It is too open and quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that cannot be disproved. In her book I found the great leaps too much to take seriously. In the case of 'pesher' anyone claim to have found the key. Nothing can be claimed to be true unless would be possible to show it to be false if it is false.

I am all for looking at different ways of reading of text and see if there are alternatives and presenting them as hypothesis, but to take an unproven hypothesis as truth is not acceptable.

The basis of an 'Historical romance' is to pick a series of historical facts and then write a story that weaves itself around those facts. But few people would try to assert that the story is true simply because it fits the facts.

Unfortunately in other areas there are too many people who would make up little stories and claim them to be true because they can be made to fit the facts. I have never liked Dr. Thiering's work because contain too many neat little stories to connect the unrelated.

There have been any number of people who have claimed the knowledge of secret meanings. You will find many of them at 'speaker corner' scattered around the world. Some have had a higher profile like the 'Moonies' or Jonestown.

If a lay person had come up with 'pesher' it would probably been labeled a conspiracy theory.

I don't think anyone has come anywhere near understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. They seem so unrelated to any understanding of the times that they don't have a point of reference as a starting point. We need that reference point, an anchor, before understanding begins. Pesher is not that anchor.

I think all we can claim at this stage is that all is not as it seems.

to all,
The bible is much Loved much melined and much miss represented by people of the human race. To understand the spiritual you must first understand the natural.
I. In the natural everything reproduces after its own kind unless it is manipulated by a higher authority eg. plant breeders.
2. Babies drink milk and as they grow they are introduced to meat not vise versa.
3. Maturity does not depend on x number of birthdays there is no cutoff date. I have thrown tantrums at my present age because I am not perfect yet.
4. The bible is a many facited book and if you can get an understanding in a short study you are a genius or a freak for it has taken me 28 years of study to connect the dots and get a basic handle on it because everybody sees through diferent eyes that is why we have diference in the four gospels eg. in the account of Jesus linage
Matthew writes Solomon as David's son. Luke writes Nathan as David's son. Jesus mother is also reported to decendant from Judah and as the records where destroyed in the first centuary A.D. your guess is as good as mine and I have only the bible to place my asumptions on I would assume one traces Mary through one of David's sons and Joseph through the other But I stand to be corrected if anyone has irrifutable proof to the contrary.
Thank you

If our education system taught history well, every Muslim child in Australia would grow up as a Christian. Islam grew out of revelations to Mohammed that revealed failures in the interpretation of Christianity, adopted by the early Christians. When only an elite priesthood could read the Holy Bible and they were all men, the ground was fertile for a new belief structure. The tremendous success of Islam was based upon its discipline, and its roots in the Old Testament.

As education has spread, and the Holy Bible is freely available for all to read, especially the lately introduced copies with the words of Jesus Christ printed in red ink, comparisons can be made between the two great religions.

As Lord Erskine said in 1792, When He came in the flesh he might have come like the Mohammedan Prophet, as a powerful sovereign, and propagated His religion with an unconquerable sword, which even now after the lapse of ages, is but slowly advancing under the influence of reason, over the face of the earth; but such a process would have been inconsistent with his mission, which was to confound the pride and to establish the universal rights of men. He came therefore in that lowly state which is represented in the Gospel, and preached His consolations to the poor.

He goes on to say we find political power taking the Church into partnership; thus began the corruptions of both religious and civil power, and hand in hand together what havoc have they wreaked on the world! Ruling by ignorance and the persecution of truth, this very persecution only hastened the revival of letters and liberty.

Erskine would be aghast at Australia today. The Church and State are merged in one man, called a Judge or Magistrate. He goes on to say The Court of Star Chamber, the first restriction of the press in England, was erected previous to all the great changes to the Constitution.

Menzies restored the Star Chamber in 1952. The High Courts great sin was offering a jury trial to Sharkey, the Communist. The Star Chamber is Islamic.

Daviy wrote:
>>The pesher technique is interesting and opens up a whole can of worms about the Bible. Using Dr. Thiering's methods anyone can claim anything and claim to have the key to the secret meanings of any text.<<

Barbara Thiering wrote:
>>The essential methodological point is the rule of consistency. Every special meaning, every particular procedure, is applied in all occurrences throughout the six books. When it is found that there is perfect consistency, it becomes certain that the pesher is objectively there and has been placed there. No arbitrary interpretations will work, no guesses. There are tests of consistency from many different directions.<<
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index3.html

Daviy wrote:
>>I don't think anyone has come anywhere near understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. They seem so unrelated to any understanding of the times that they don't have a point of reference as a starting point. We need that reference point, an anchor, before understanding begins. Pesher is not that anchor.<<

If anyone has come near to understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls I think Dr Thiering has come nearest. I suggest you have a look at the item "The History of Dr Thiering's Research" at this site:
http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/index_Questions.html
and then go on to browse the rest of the site, it is most enlightening.

Peter the Believer wrote: The High Courts great sin was offering a jury trial to Sharkey, the Communist.

Dear Peter the Believer,

I don't understand. I thought anybody under our system of law is entitled to a jury trial regardless of their political connections and beliefs. Why shouldn't Sharkey have a jury trial?

Hello Daviy,

Sorry, I haven't replied to your question on women's role
within the early Gnostic churches. Women were certainly involved in the early Christian church before Constantine. Some writings on Medieval Gnostism refer to a tradition of sex equality, but don't support with citations. Although I have been busy, I have been keeping an eye open for something relevant. Good question.

Excuse typos but the genealogies of Jesus are also a noteworthy problem for people who believe the Bible is God's word, inspired by God or who believe the writer's hands were guided by God.

Matthew 1:1 Lists David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat,
Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah,
Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Akim,
Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph, Jesus.

Luke 3:23 Lists David, Nathan, Mattatha, Menna, Melea, Eliakim, Jonam, Joseph, Judah, Simeon, Levi, Matthat, Jorim, Eliezer, Joshua,
Er, Elmadam, Cosam, Addi, Melki, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, Joanan, Joda, Josech, Semein, Mattathias, Maath, Naggai, Esli, Nahum, Amos, Mattathias, Joseph, Jannai, Melki, Levi, Matthat, Heli, Joseph, Jesus

Either God (the alleged inspirer) doesn't know his sons genealogy OR again we have a major problem.

Richie10 - Mary didn't get mentioned in the list ...why? There are 28 names in Matthew Vs 43 in Luke's why?

See how the Catholic Encyclopaedia explains it http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm Amazing!

I typed them all in so people could copy the lists to ask their preachers.

Daviy, Like you I don't really care when Herod the Great actually died - but it begs the question for believers - Why weren't they taught this by their preachers?

TY for posting the links to the "Pesher of Christ" Sympneology, I'm sure many will find those most interesting reading.

Pericles OMG are you delusional? Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane No it's Superpericles "defending liberty against tyranny"! You are a funny one...lmao

I knew you would waste your time on the number of questions/non-questions... It is what you do best...lol

Op2 wrote:

>>See how the Catholic Encyclopaedia explains it http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm Amazing!<<

I always wondered what people meant when they described an argument as "Jesuitical", now I understand!

What rational person would prefer this mess of convoluted obfuscation to the clear and coherent explanations offered by Dr Barbara Thiering?

Discussion on the pesher technique reminds me of two things.

1. 'Foucault's Pendulum' by Umberto Eco which contains a chapter explaining how easy it was to find a number 'code' in anything to support whatever you want to support.

2. and Richard P Feynman comment that 'Just because some thing was possible does not mean that it is probable.'

<The term pesher technique refers to the interpretive technique presented by Barbara Thiering, which she discusses in her books and scholarly articles. According to her view, in the four Canonical Gospels, Acts and Revelation, historical facts have been encoded into the text in the form of parables and accounts of "miracles" and can be recovered by applying the pesher technique. This view is widely discredited by scholars, however, and Thiering's thesis has received little support. Although Thiering alleges use of the pesher technique in the New Testament, there is no comparable term in New Testament texts and apocrypha corresponding to that of pesher as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesher

Barbara Thiering may be correct, but we are a long way from showing that her work can be used with any degree of validity.

Even if Pesher is shown to be valid who created the Dead Sea scrolls anyway? They may yet to be the work of some obscure loony sect, or the comic book library of a sub pubic child. Maybe we have the found a 2000 year old version of Batman, Robin and the Joker.

There is a real danger that theories are accepted because of there 'academic' source when if they where the product of a non academic that person would have been called a 'conspiracy theorist' or a 'smack head'.

You know, I do worry about you OP2.

>>Pericles OMG are you delusional? Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane No it's Superpericles "defending liberty against tyranny"! You are a funny one...lmao I knew you would waste your time on the number of questions/non-questions... It is what you do best...lol<<

An OMG, a lmao and a lol all in a row.

That stuff is all very... 2008, you know.

I am really glad you were able to find the humour in my little postscript. I thought I had hidden it so well, too.

Never mind.

There was however a serious underpinning to my frivolity. If the OP2's of this world - and there are regrettably large numbers of you - are continually allowed to get away unchallenged with their drip-feed religious nagging, liberty is, in a small but real way, under threat.

It may have escaped your notice, OP2, but there are people on this, and other, threads, only too willing to put the boot into any religion that happens to be passing, more often that not from an equally one-eyed stance that has its basis in another religion entirely.

I have spent more than a few hours elsewhere on this forum, trying to straighten out those who would slag off Muslims for believing in the Qur'an in exactly the same manner that you attribute Christians' belief in the Bible.

Religion has started far too many wars in the past, and as we know from bushfires, it only takes a single unfortunately-lit match to set an entire State blazing. Who is to say that your constant needling of Christian fundamentalists won't have the same result?

So in my small way I like to burst as many of the succession of self-important religious bubbles that I come across, as I can.

And you, OP2, with your pointless droning about this confusing date, and that odd contradiction, fall into that sad category.

From the Wikipedia article on the pesher:
>>Although Thiering alleges use of the pesher technique in the New Testament, there is no comparable term in New Testament texts and apocrypha corresponding to that of pesher as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.<<

Thiering responds:
>>The gospels themselves suggest the method of approach to such stories when Jesus says, in Mark 4: 11, 'for those outside, everything is in parables', but says to his inner circle: 'To you has been given the secret (Greek mysterion) of the Kingdom of God'. Hellenistic literature, especially Jewish Hellenistic literature, has many examples of such a theory of scripture.<<

It seems to me that the Greek term 'mysterion' corresponds quite well with the Hebrew term 'pesher' as they both imply a hidden meaning.

The next bit of the Wikipedia article (not quoted by Daviy) says:
>>Supporting Thiering's view is the fact that the early fathers of the Christian Church, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, his follower in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, both held that the holy scripture (today shortly referred to as The Bible) would have minimum three layers of meaning: The "Skin", known to every Christian ("the babes in Christ"); the "Flesh", the layer for the adept, which are the Christians who studied the subjects of theology, especially Exegesis; and the "Core", exclusively known to the initiates in a strictly apostolic succession.<<

When the word 'scholars' is used, as in "widely discredited by scholars", one must always be aware that most scholars have a baggage of their own preconceived interpretations and theories, which they will not readily concede have been superseded by new data. This is especially true in the field of history and moreso in religious history.

>>Even if Pesher is shown to be valid who created the Dead Sea scrolls anyway? They may yet to be the work of some obscure loony sect, or the comic book library of a sub pubic child. Maybe we have the found a 2000 year old version of Batman, Robin and the Joker.<<

Now you're being just silly.

Sympneology, I did quite enjoy reading the "Pesher" website.

However, the greatest mind in the Universe has created a three tiered system 1. For you ordinary folk, 2. For the more enlightened and 3. for people like me (the glitterati of religion) ...well that would make sense, but is it right?(some say two tiered)

I can trace my "apostolic succession" through Thomas...I definitely would put my hand into the wound if Jesus appeared to me! John 20:27 It's a gene succession...lol

The Catholics view of Apostolic Succession - Are they saying IF you become a Bishop it is automatically held true?..http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

Once you start down Pesher road you create elitism. We know elitism works. We all want to be in the inner circle, whether it's at the footy club, or in religions.

Take one look at religions and you can tell that they still haven't worked out the inner secret. Pssst "honesty" is the inner secret!

Pesher follows the tried and true methods of the elitist model.

1. Tell people there are secrets that can be proven to be true

2. Tell them that there are 3 levels Plebs, Slightly better than plebs, and super-plebs.

3. Tell people that to advance from pleb to level 2 you need greater scholarship. (few qualify)

4. Due to their lack of "apostolic succession" they'll never be a super-pleb

5. Turn unproven assumptions from the old writings into "known facts" that only super-plebs can determine.

Voila ...You have a religious order/religion!

I know many groups have multi-levels of secretiveness and I know some religions play the multi-level game.

Put this elitism in the hands of most people and they will believe they are at the top.

Put this elitism into the hands of believers and they will automatically be at the top.

Afterall they are "born again" already in Christ so they achieved God-dom already!

To achieve "Super-Pleb" status change the questionable qualifying standard from "apostolic line" to "born again" even though this is against the rules and Voila our work is done.

Questioning Dr Thiering's views http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/251/Thierful.htm

Op2,

Being given an interpretation of the New Testament which is free of miracles and the supernatural does not make me an elitist, except in the sense that I feel intellectually superior to those whose grasp of reality is so tenuous that they still believe all that magic.

>>Turn unproven assumptions from the old writings into "known facts" that only super-plebs can determine. Voila ...You have a religious order/religion!<<

Jesus' advice in Mark 4:11 is no different from any organisation with a large membership, there will always be an "inner circle" or "executive council" or whatever to whom will be known some matters that they do not share with the general membership. This is not elitism, it is simply an organizational necessity. Conversations in Cabinet or Boardroom must remain confidential, at least for a time.

In the case of the early church such confidentiality was a matter of life and death. With enemies like the Pharisees and the Herods and Rome it would have been unwise to broadcast the fact that Jesus had survived his execution. Nevertheless, it was still important to find a way to tell his followers his message, and the pesher offered a way to do it.

As to the fulminations of Dr Forbes, his arguments, and Dr Thiering's answers to them are reported in Leonie Star's book, "The Dead Sea Scrolls - The Riddle Debated" (ABC Books, 1991).

Dear Sympneology,
I was wondering how you edit and rewrite Mark chapter 16 verses 15 through to 19 to fit your beliefs

Sympneology,

I wasn't calling you elitist in any way, shape or form, I apologise if you got that impression.

My previous post, was a tongue in cheek way of showing, how simple it is to set humans on the road to believing that they are "special", and, using this method, to develop intrigue and longing to join the “in the know” club.

The elitist model is a very clever method of shutting down the brain of many people by boosting their egos.

That is why "apostolic succession" is such a weak concept. I would argue it is just a complicated way of saying "promoted" or "appointed"!

It sounds important, and to most people, I would think they would relate it to “Royal Succession”, or “birth rite”, except Priests, Bishops and Popes don’t usually have progeny.

I have problems with Dr Thiering's work. The fact that her theories have had little support from historians ,peers, or anyone for that matter is of concern.

One could say that the silence is deafening!

I would expect Christian organisations to be scathing, as the links show below, but surely some of the many unbiased historians, would have stepped up to the plate in her defence, if any, of what she concludes was defendable.

It doesn’t mean she is wrong, on all counts, but does it bring her methodology and conclusions into question?

I also wonder about people who sell books. Isn't the best form of advertising (within reason, controversy. Does Dr Thiering call herself a Christian?

I guess her books have been good little money spinners and good luck to her for that.

About Dr Thiering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Thiering

Pro Dr Thiering

http://thiering.net/ (Is Webmaster ReichardtT a Thiering?)

Critics of Dr Thiering

http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/thiering.htm

http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/251/Thierful.htm

One man's summary of the book

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_thiering__riddle.htm

I doubt I'll be buying a book!

Richie 10,

Just to let you in on the secret, here is Dr Thiering's take on it:

8:00 am

Mark 15:15 Pilate turned to all three Herods who had combined into a pressure group influential with Rome. He gave Theudas into the care of Annas as his deputy abbot. Theudas performed self-flagellation as a sufficient punishment. Jesus was given his first cursing before being crucified as a Magian.

Mark 15:16 Agrippa was led by his servant Merari to the north base at 8:00 am. Jesus on the south base was to be subjected to mocking by Merari.

Mark 15:17 Directed by Agrippa, Merari derided the ambitions of the Davids to be king instead of the Herods, putting on Jesus the purple cassock worn by bishops in the outside world, and the garland worn by Roman emperors, with the letter Qof used by the Sadducee priest-kings.

Mark 15:18 Merari mockingly hailed Jesus, addressing him as a deacon only.

Mark 15:19 Merari used his 2 cubit measuring rod on behalf of Agrippa to lift the garland off Jesus' head. Then he spat on him and knelt beside him as if pretending to give him the tribute due to the emperor- money that ought to go to Agrippa in his financial need.

It is easy to make up a story, and devise a system that fits the facts. That is what writers of period romances do all the time. Couple this with the division into ranks, such as the Masons, and you have Pesher.

Dr Thiering does a Barbara Cartland and we are all supposed to bow down to her superior intellect? In a previous book 'Jesus the man' she made such leaps of credibility that using her methods it would be possible to 'prove' anything.

And there is still the problem of where the Dead Sea Scrolls come from. What was their heritage? Where is the anchor that places them into the society of the time? Did they originate from a weirdo sect? Do they tell the truth or are they fiction?

None of these questions can be answered. Dr Thiering may be proved to be correct, but for now it is a just hypothesis.

Some may find it all very interesting but I cannot see the relevance to this debate until some factuality can be added.

Op2,

>>I have problems with Dr Thiering's work. The fact that her theories have had little support from historians, peers, or anyone for that matter is of concern.<<

It should not be of so much concern if you were being strictly objective about her research. The fact that few historians have gone on record as supporting her is irrelevant if she is right.

The Wikipedia article on Dr Thiering used to be much more even-handed, but I guess it has been got at in the way that any controversial Wikipedia site is prone to. Which is why nobody can rely on Wikipedia as a serious authority any more.

>>http://thiering.net/ (Is Webmaster Richard T a Thiering?)<<
I used to wonder that when this was the only site on the web publishing her ideas. When Dr Thiering's own site was created I no longer used this one, and it seems not to have been developed any further since then.

>>http://www.christian-apologetics.org/html/thiering.htm<<

This tirade from a "Christian Apologetics" site, suggests that Mr Cargill should be more apologetic to Dr Thiering. He would prefer to believe that the Jesus who walked and talked three days after his crucifixion was actually dead, and therefore everything Dr Thiering says must be wrong.

I dealt with Dr Forbes' article above. I think Dr Thiering has adequately rebutted all his criticisms.

>>http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_thiering__riddle.htm<<
This review of the American edition of "Jesus The Man" is by Robert M. Price, Professor of Theology and Scriptural Studies, Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary. I would expect him to be about as objective as Justin Cargill, but surprisingly he is far more sympathetic. However, he still falls back on the same argument that she must be wrong because he thinks "it seems arbitrary to assume that any New Testament writers viewed themselves as writing scripture." He should check out chapters 4 and 6 of Revelation which records them doing just that.

You cannot dismiss a person's ideas simply because they are not accepted by those with a vested interest in their rejection, nor because you do not understand how they work. Time will tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

Daviy wrote:

>>None of these questions can be answered.<<

Why bother asking them then?

Sympneology

>>None of these questions can be answered.<<

Why bother asking them then?

Because you are presenting as fact answers to questions when you do not know what the questions are. Pesher is totally meaningless to this debate.

Daviy,

>>Because you are presenting as fact answers to questions when you do not know what the questions are.<<

I am not quite sure what that means, but let us look at some of your "unanswerable" questions:

1. Where did the Dead Sea Scrolls come from?

They were found in caves near the Dead Sea in 1947. They are believed to have been placed there for safe-keeping in anticipation of the Roman reaction to the first Jewish revolt (66-70 CE) because the jars were dated as from the first century CE. Some scholars maintain that they were from the Temple in Jerusalem, while others, including Thiering claim that they were from the community occupying the buildings in Wadi Qumran. Whether this community was a sect of Essenes or Sadducees or some other sect is still in dispute. Thiering bases her ascription to the Essenes based on the correspondence between the rituals described in the scrolls and those described by Josephus as belonging to the Essenes.

2. What was their heritage?

The scrolls themselves declare their heritage. They are copies of Old Testament books like Isaiah, Psalms, and Habakkuk, with commentaries by learned scholars relating the verses to current events. They also contain the rules and rituals by which the community lived. This much is not in dispute.

3. Where is the anchor that places them into the society of the time?

There are differences between authorities as to when they were written, but all acknowledege that they must have been written before 70 CE and many agree with Thiering that references to the Romans date the Pesharim documents to the common era.

4. Did they originate from a weirdo sect?

That depends upon what you define as "wierdo".

(continued ...)

(continued ...)

5. Do they tell the truth or are they fiction?

This is the crucial question applying to all ancient documents. Deliberate fiction writing a la Barbara Cartland is a comparatively modern invention. It is assumed that when ancient texts were committed to stone, papyrus, leather or copper, the writers believed that what they wrote contained the truth. The writers of the DSS pesharim believed that ancient documents contained hidden messages relating to their own times, which could be interpreted by the pesher. That would have been a mistaken belief, but the commentaries would have contained factual descriptions of current events.

The relevance to this debate is that, although the tales of miracles and the supernatural in the New Testament are obviously fiction, the motive of the writers may actually have been to tell the truth, albeit in a way that would not endanger their lives or those of their readers.

Sympneology wrote:

Deliberate fiction writing a la Barbara Cartland is a comparatively modern invention.

Dear Sympneology:

An example of early fiction writing was The Republic by Plato written about 370BC. His Utopia corresponds to contemporary science fiction.

Another Utopian literary piece was De Re Publica by Marcus Tullius Cicero written about 52BC.

I doubt that the imaginative fiction of the classical world was confined to Utopian literature.

Chinese fiction goes back a long way.

FOUR MASTERPIECE NOVELS: The novel as a literary genre germinated in the Wei, Jin and the Northern and Southern Dynasties (220-589 AD). It bloomed during the Ming (1368-1644 AD) and Qing Dynasties (1644-1912 AD). Four novels are commonly recognized as the greatest in classical Chinese fiction.

-- THE ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS: The narrative turns history into epic and has educated and entertained readers with unforgettable examples of martial and civic virtue, personal fidelity and political treachery.

Its author, Luo Guanzhong (1330-1400 AD), portrays a fateful moment at the end of the Han Dynasty (206 BC- 220 AD).

-- TALE OF WATER MARGIN: Also known as Outlaws of the Marsh. This great novel by Shi Nai'an (1296-1371 AD) was set against a fading Song Dynasty plagued with corruption and bogged down in political and social turmoil. To transform society and make it more equitable, 108 heroes joined together in Liang Shan, east Shandong Province, to oppose the government and spread justice.

-- JOURNEY TO THE WEST: A combination of parable and comedy, the story tells of a Buddhist monk and several animals with human characteristics who traveled west to India in search of Buddhist scriptures. The animals are celestial beings in mortal form, and they have magical powers that protect them from goblins and evil spirits.

The author, Wu Cheng'en (1500-1582 AD), created an imaginary world that gives readers a glance of the different sides of human nature.

-- DREAM OF RED MANSIONS: Also called Dream of the Red Chamber, by Cao Xueqin (1715-1763 AD). It is basically a tragic love story between a boy named Jia Baoyu and a girl, Lin Daiyu.

david f,

Your disproof of my assertion that "Deliberate fiction writing a la Barbara Cartland is a comparatively modern invention" only succeeds in illustrating my point.

The four "masterpiece novels" from China were all written in the period from the 14th to 18th centuries and are thus "comparatively modern" in the sense that I used the term. Even so, they seem to deal mainly with historical events and political, philosophical or ethical issues and are therefore not really fiction.

Plato's "Republic" was, like his other dialogues, an exercise in philosophy mainly, with some psychology and politics being discussed. It was in no way a work of fiction.

Cicero, who studied philosophy in Greece, wrote a number of dialogues including "De Republica", of which only about a third is extant, to express his views on political theory. Although some utopian ideas may be propounded in philosophical treatises that does not make them works of fiction in the modern, or even medieval, sense.

The writers of the New Testament, if they were Essenes, no doubt were influenced by Pythagoras, and possibly also by Plato and Cicero, and they certainly seemed to envision a coming "utopia". However, the only fiction they wrote was in the form of parables which Jesus himself explained contained a hidden message.

Dear Sympneology:

I repeat part of my post.

The novel as a literary genre germinated in the Wei, Jin and the Northern and Southern Dynasties (220-589 AD).

"The "Masterpiece Novels" were written much later, but the novel originated much earlier."

You also wrote:

"Even so, they seem to deal mainly with historical events and political, philosophical or ethical issues and are therefore not really fiction."

We define fiction differently.

Many novels deal with "historical events and political, philosophical or ethical issues."

"War and Peace" is definitely fiction but deals with real historical events. Camus' novels have as a subtext his philosophy of existentialism. There are many other examples. Utopian literature has a long history. I class it as fiction. Apparently you don't.

Your original statement about fiction ala Barbara Cartland was not written in ancient days may well be true. However, fiction is a much broader category then what Barbara Cartland writes. At least to my way of thinking.

Sympneology

<<I dealt with Dr Forbes' article above. I think Dr Thiering has adequately rebutted all his criticisms.>>

HIS? Maybe we are talking about another Dr Thiering. Are there two?

<<This is the crucial question applying to all ancient documents. Deliberate fiction writing a la Barbara Cartland is a comparatively modern invention>>

And <<The relevance to this debate is that, although the tales of miracles and the supernatural in the New Testament are obviously fiction, the motive of the writers may actually have been to tell the truth, albeit in a way that would not endanger their lives or those of their readers.>> Come on. You cannot have a two way bet. They wrote fiction or they didn't.

So they (whoever) didn't write fiction? Did they tell lies? There is plenty of evidence that people of that era could get into personal agendas. By the way, is The Epic of Gilgamesh fact or fiction? Some date that as early as 2150 BC.

<<4. Did they originate from a weirdo sect?>>
<<That depends upon what you define as "wierdo".>>
If that cannot be answered we have no idea who we are dealing with. Hardly a sound base truth.

Trust me, I am an academic?

Daviy,

<<I dealt with Dr Forbes' article above. I think Dr Thiering has adequately rebutted all his criticisms.>>

<<HIS? Maybe we are talking about another Dr Thiering. Are there two?>>

Do you suffer from a reading problem? The "his" obviously refers to Dr Forbes.

<<Come on. You cannot have a two way bet. They wrote fiction or they didn't.>>

I do not deal in false dichotomies. They wrote fiction, and that fiction is what today is treated as the inerrant, infallible word of God by the people who have appointed themselves as our moral guardians. It is Dr Thiering's thesis that in writing that fiction they were conveying a secret history to be revealed by use of the method of interpretation learned from the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So yes, I can have it both ways.

<<4. Did they originate from a weirdo sect?>>
<<That depends upon what you define as "wierdo".>>
<<If that cannot be answered we have no idea who we are dealing with. Hardly a sound base truth.>>

"Who we are dealing with" was answered in relation to questions 1 and 2. It is up to you to decide if they can be described as "wierdo".

What has the Epic of Gilgamesh got to do with a discussion of the Bible?

Sympneology

The 'Epic of Gilgamesh' is often recognized as the first piece of fiction. 2000 BC?

<<Do you suffer from a reading problem?>> No more than you do judging by the way you answer my questions.

Where did the Dead Sea Scrolls come from? They where found in a cave. I suppose that in a very simplistic manner you did answer the question but it says nothing about the origins. Enough. You want to put your faith in Dr Thiering then I will say no more on the subject.

The writers of the New Testament, if they were Essenes, no doubt were influenced by Pythagoras, and possibly also by Plato and Cicero, and they certainly seemed to envision a coming "utopia". However, the only fiction they wrote was in the form of parables which Jesus himself explained contained a hidden message.

….If they were…..no doubt influenced……and possibly also……they certainly seemed……(all in one sentence).

How many guesses do you need to make to come up with your version of the truth?

Daviy,

<<The 'Epic of Gilgamesh' is often recognized as the first piece of fiction. 2000 BC?>>

By whom? Sir Leonard Woolley's excavations at Ur in Mesopotamia (Iraq) found clear evidence of a massive flood occurring about 7,200 years BP where the sea level rose suddenly about 5 metres, remaining high over a 2.3 millennium period before returning to present day levels.

This flood could well have been the source of the legend of Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic, as well as the legend of Manu in the Mahabharata and that of Noah. If later writers add embellishments to a true story but keep the core narrative, is that fiction or history?

Sympneology

Descent into the underworld etc. etc. an embellishment of a true story and keeping the core narrative is not fiction? Did they keep the core narrative? All rather Barbra Cartland to me.

I would regard it as fictions as I would a movie that starts with the 'Based on a true story.' I am satisfied by your answers that the originators of the Dead Sea Scrolls where capable of writing fiction.

From my readings I am satisfied that the only thing that has changed is technology. The ancients were no less or more intelligent than we are. Why would we want to deny them the ability to write fiction unless it was to support a particular agenda?

Sympneology,

Daviy is correct. Since time in memorial humans have told stories. Some true, some fiction, some a mixture of both to varying degrees.

When Jesus allegedly said to his disciples when answering a question why he taught in parables Matthew 13:11 "...Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." a jar of worms was opened.

Does Dr Thiering suddenly becomes one of the only people who has unlocked "the code" whilst not a disciple?

Other Christians calling themselves "born again" think they have unlocked the code.

The problem is there isn't a code.

But back to the Bible.

I would like to concentrate on Moses for awhile.

Moses is considered a hero of the Bible because he allegedly led his people out of Egypt. But do people really read how terrible God was in these events culminating in the passover.

In Exodus 7:3 God allegedly says "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart..."

GOD HARDENS PHARAOH'S HEART!

If the Bible had stated that "The Devil" hardened Pharaoh's heart that may have made sense.

God stated he would do it...culminating in

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..."

God did it, he allegedly planned it, and it was the culmination of this allegedly intelligent God's murderous plot!

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the most intelligent being in the Universe doing such a thing!

Why do Churches "Celebrate the Passover"? What is to celebrate with such an ugly story?

Who in their right mind could justify this in any way, shape or form, let alone celebrate it?

Exodus 9:12, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10 repeats how God made Pharaoh's heart hard!

Once again the Bible is telling of an unintelligent God who waged a allegedly murderous campaign against the Egyptians when he could have just organised the Israelites to leave...Afterall he is GOD!

Why don't people have major problems with these fictions? Aren't they a blasphemy against your loving God?

Dear Opiniated 2,
Do a word study on the word, Repent and you may start to get an understanding of one word in the bible as all words have a meaning and without understanding you are only presuming.

Richie 10

Thanks for the advice BUT I don't think I need to repent for these postings or this thread.

Isn't Christianity supposedly based on honesty? Well I am telling the truth, quoting directly from your Bible, and proving that the Bible is a dubious set of reference books at best.

It seems to me the people who state the Bible is true and God's word may be the greatest sinners. Surely it is a blasphemy to present falsehoods as God's inerrant word... isn't it?

Surely it is a blasphemy to believe God is such an unintelligent God?

Are preachers who teach this stuff the real problem in society?

Let's look at Moses for Moses was not a model citizen! NUMBERS 31:13-19

Was Moses a witch doctor who performed magic to get approval and power Exodus 4:2-5 then had all competitors killed Exodus 22:17 so to remain in power.

Egyptian magicians did the same tricks Exodus 7:8-13 Did God give them their powers?

But God had previously TRIED to kill Moses - Exodus 4:24 He was only saved by Zipporah, his wife cutting the foreskin off their son and touching the foreskin on Moses' feet.

Firstly how could the most powerful entity in the Universe FAIL to kill Moses if he wanted to? Secondly rubbing Moses feet stopped God killing him... This is crazy stuff!

But back to Numbers 31:13-18 Moses orders the killing of women and boys in anger, but allows the Israelites to keep the virgins and girls!

How can a caring compassionate God allow ethnic cleansing?

Seeing we are in the period of Passover (9th - 15th, although Jews commence it on the evening of the 8th) it is a great time to reflect on the ugliness of this time and to ask yourselves "Could my God have ordered these things?"

If your answer is "YES" I pity you!

If you are looking in the wrong direction what you see is not what you think you see. I have proved my case with one word for your gaise is fixed 180 degrees from your professed target. And you don't have a clue because you don't know what repent means and I don't mean the common usage religious meaning but the true meaning

Richie 10 wrote "And you don't have a clue because you don't know what repent means and I don't mean the common usage religious meaning but the true meaning."

Dear Richie 10,

The meaning of words is determined by usage. Dictionary definitions merely follow usage. Words only have meaning according to the way people use those words. You apparently favour a particular definition for the word, repent. That is only the definition you prefer. If it is not the definition used by other people you do not communicate.

There is no such thing as a true meaning of a word apart from its common usage.

Dear David f,
My old uncle used to say to me that I shouldn't be lost in Australia because I have an English speaking mouth I am not to sure where I would end up if I follow your directions. Sorry if I ofend.

Dear Richie 10,

We are both aliens. I am from the US and had to learn a new language. "Refuse tip" does not mean 'reject a gratuity.' "Rug up. Colder is tipped." does not mean that Colder was exposed as a dirty dog, and the rug was pulled out from under him. 'Tea' does not mean snacks served in mid-afternoon. 'biscuit' means cookie etc.

Best wishes with your language.

Richie 10

What a strange method of adding to a discussion - this comment <<And you don't have a clue because you don't know what repent means and I don't mean the common usage religious meaning but the true meaning>>

Please tell me your definition or REPENT Richie so I don't get side tracked with conventional definitions?

Not to be rude (as you would say) I usually, where word count permits, explain things a little better than you do.

I try to give the Bible Chapter and verse and the words to save people the time of dusting off their old black book and reading it.

<<If you are looking in the wrong direction what you see is not what you think you see>>

Actually if you are looking in the wrong direction you see what you see. It may not be what you are looking for but you still see it. On this subject I have looked in every direction and seen it all!

Would you like to expand on your gem of literary confusion.

I suspect from reading your comments, that English may not be your first language. If that is the case might I suggest that you explain things in somewhat more detail so that we can at least try to understand the points you are trying to make.

Your one or two sentence comments don't convey what you mean properly.

Dear Opiniated 2,
The old testament starts with creation, then the fall, judgment at Methuselah's death, and so on all about infalible God talking to man throgh falible men and sometimes the meaning gets lost in the telling. If you do a study of God you will find he is a good God, is Love, is light, is the Truth, is Life and in him is no shadow or turning. Adam chose to believe the devil and changed gods {sides}. The old testament foretells Jesus as God with man, creator, word of God, Lamb of God, First born from the dead, the redeamer, son of man and in the begining, born of a virgin, King of Kings and Mighty God.
When I was young Gay was a girls name and meant to
be happy. Today Gay means homosexual so if a book was written 50 years ago with the word gay in it they were not talking about homosexuals. As the bible was written over a 4000 year period modern usage of words only brings confusion and misunderstanding.
Repent means to feal deep sorrow at ones rong doing, Modern Oxford
Dictionary.
In the new testament Jesus tells us God is not mad at mankind but wants a father son relationship not through a third person
whether he be a King, the Pope or an interlect{well educated} person.
Jesus fulfilled the old testament and became the door for all mankind once more to have relationship with God the father. All you have to do is believe in the one who God sent. so in Jesus times to repent meant to change direction from where you are going and turn around
and head for God. As a man thinks in his heart the mouth speaks. To repent requires a change of heart. Impossible for man but possible with God for with God all things are possible. Unless God builds the house we labour in vane. When man builds a kingdom it is for power and benifit to the builder. When God the Holy Spirit builds the Kingdom it benefits all mankind.

Richie 10,

TY that was a far better post than your previous.

Now for the problems...

Is the Bible God's word? If not which bits are and which aren't?

In this thread I have given some pretty good examples of where the Bible is a very poor reference book. For you to take out of a book that God is so wonderful when "GOD" hardened Pharaoh's heart is just not logical.

IF the story of the passover is correct...It states quite categorically that God killed the first born of Egypt. If God is good he COULDN'T have done such a thing.

It is simple to understand... It is wrong!

In Jesus' times repent meant far more than just to turn around and change direction.

I can't see how God has built a Kingdom that benefits all mankind... when the OT states he killed the firstborn of Egypt.

From what I see God's Kingdom building is a failure!

Look at the wealth of churches...Where is their compliance to Jesus' word?

"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Luke 16:13

When will the first amputees leg grow back through God’s grace?

Matthew 17:20...NOTHING will be impossible for you!

Where are all the prayers being answered in John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”

Richie all those words Christians love from the OT are just words if what Jesus says is not happening!

You can't say God is a loving, caring entity if you read the Bible properly. He allows mass murders of innocents by Moses.

It seems to me that if there is a God he must be thinking how can my followers believe I would do such horrid things! How do my son's followers believe this rubbish?

Isn't believing the Bible to be God's word, actually the greatest insult to a God, (if one exists), than anything else? It is an insult to an intelligent being!

Dear opiniated 2,
Even you should be able to understand if you stand in the rain you get wet. God is the God of the living not the dead. If you chose to leave or not accept his covering your blood is on your hands not Gods. The bible is not an easy book to understand BUT ALL Scripture is given by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. I again make the point if you understand the bible you are either a genius or have made the study of the bible your lifes work.

Dear Opiniated 2
Unless God builds the house we labour in vain . In church building who is getting the glory. If God is in the house this sign is evident
1. God comes first.
2. Love for one another.
I have heard reports of amputees growing hands in muslim countrys but I can't verify this. Most people can talk the talk. It is impossible to walk the walk unless God builds the house. Have you ever wondered why before pentecost Peter denied Jesus but after pentecost He was a different character . What changed.

Richie 10,

Have you lost the plot?

TY for explaining that if you stand in the rain you get wet... That was the most ridiculous line I have ever read!

I agree that the Bible isn't easy to understand for you... but I have no problems whatsoever understanding it.

All scripture isn't given by God.. The passover didn't take place...Pharaoh was the first born of his line...he didn't die. You need to study harder!

How can anyone, who is of sensible, believe that their alleged loving God would kill all the first born of Egypt?

Your God, who knows all things past, present and future plants a tree, then blames Eve and the snake for getting Adam to eat.

He knew they would fail! He tricked them...if you believe the story.

Richie ... trust me no hands have grown back in Muslim countries...It just doesn't happen! If it happened once, it would be reported in every medical journal and newspaper throughout the world!

I would have thought in Muslim countries you would be more likely to lose a hand than to gain one..Quran 5:33 and 5:38. Some people who are against this barbaric treatment have even filmed it and placed the films on the web. It is horrendous!

You are believer, believe if you choose - but if God gave you an enquiring mind the least you should do is use it!

It doesn't take a lifetime of study or to be a genius to understand the Bible...that is rubbish! You just have to use the brain your alleged God gave you and study with an open mind!

If there is a God he will be ashamed that his followers teach him to be so horrid.

If you truly believe you had better get out of the rain...because even you, yes even you Richie, should understand if you stand in the rain you get wet.

If God exists he is so much more intelligent than religions teach!

Dear Opiniated 2,
Are you the ONE the world has been waiting for . You sure seem confident that you know the past, present, and future.

Richie 10,

I gather that was a tongue in cheek question but NO I am not the one you have been waiting for.

I just have problems that Christians on one hand believe that God created all things in the Universe but then also created some of the crazy laws in the Bible.

An intelligent all powerful God would never do so many ugly things.

Furthermore I don't believe that a God that was all powerful would be jealous, vindictive or vicious like the Bible portrays. Those are human traits not Godly.

I believe that people who teach such rubbish have little or no respect for God's intelligence, and, if God exists he/she/it would be very troubled that his followers would believe he was capable of such horrid things.

It seems to me that Atheists respect God more than his alleged followers because what his follower's teach is infantile, objectionable and blasphemous.

Atheists don't mention God...Christians make him look unintelligent.

Read the story of the plagues of Egypt carefully... Could your God deliberately & intentionally harden Pharaoh's heart so many times so that in the end GOD killed all the first born of Egypt?

If God hardened Pharaoh's heart then killed the innocent first-born of Egypt as the Bible says then that is NOT a God of love.

If God drowned all the innocent children with Noah's flood then that is NOT a God of love!

Simple stuff really!

Dear opiniated 2,
Do a study on lucifer,s character and you will find that the characteristics you atribute to God belong to him. Also sin can't enter the presence of God. What happens when you connect positive and negative.

Richie,

I do not have to study Lucifer to know that is what he is supposedly like.

But let's discuss the Bible.

Either the Bible is wrong OR God killed the Egyptian first-born!

In Exodus 7:3 God allegedly says "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt."

This loving caring alleged God pronounces that he will HARDEN PHARAOH'S HEART!

Is the Bible wrong?

If the Bible had stated that "The Devil" or "Lucifer" hardened Pharaoh's heart that may have made sense. According to all the Abrahamic religions the Devil would be that evil.

But worse The Bible repeats that God did it in Exodus 9:12, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10.

It can't be a typo!

God allegedly stated he would do it...What about the innocent Egyptian children when this happens? Surely this can't be correct?

Exodus 12:29 "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt..."

According to the Bible Exodus Chapter 7 through to Chapter 12 expressly states that God did it, he allegedly planned it, and it was the culmination of this allegedly intelligent God's murderous plot!

I'm sorry, but I just can't see the most intelligent being in the Universe doing such a thing! Can you?

So please explain to me why do Churches "Celebrate the Passover"? What is to celebrate with such an ugly story?

This story in no way shows a loving, caring compassionate God does it?

How come everyone has gone quiet on this? Where are all the preachers who preach this stuff? Why won't Christians debate the problems with their book?

Dear Opiniated 2,
God is the God of can. Lucifer is the god of cant.
Which one is your God. Are you limiting God or are you looking for posiilities in all situations. What is your focal point. Is it All things are possible or is it Its impossible I can't do it. If You are not multipling you are dieing. Bad things happen to all. A friend of mine lost his only son last Tuesday to canser and he is totaly devistated. Like Job he has 2 choices. He can curse God and die or like David he can chose to worship God and live for at the end of his time in his earth suit of dirt he will again rejoin his son But his son wont come back.If you have complete understanding of the bible you must be agreat leader and the servent of ALL. Do you realy know what you are talking about.

Richie,

I am terribly saddened to hear that your friend lost his son. I too have a friend who lost his son. It is an indescribable and unimaginable pain that parents who lose children feel.

You shouldn't really mention his loss as an example in a debate on God.

You are a believer Richie BUT you are not entitled to deceive!

The Bible verses illustrate my points. You will notice I especially quote the Son of God, Jesus' teachings.

Your friend can curse God and "not die" - God is more understanding when someone loses a child! Didn't he lose a son to a crucifixion?

Why is your God so unintelligent? What is wrong with you believers?

You cannot debate the points I raise that show absolute falsehoods in the teachings, why?

I don't believe in Lucifer Richie....Lucifer(Satan) is a load of rubbish!

If God can defeat Satan anytime, and as God knows all things past, present and future why didn't he destroy Satan when Satan visited God in Heaven? Job 1:6-7

In Genesis 3:4 the snake told the truth, "man didn’t die"! Genesis 2:8 God allegedly fibbed … "if you eat…you will die the same day"!

Adam and Eve didn't die the same day!

You guys have to get away from simplistic duality, good or evil, God or Satan, it is very unintelligent stuff.

How do you explain all the errors in the Bible?

Christians believe God evicted Satan from heaven...why didn't he just kill him? Afterall according to the Bible he was allegedly quite happy to kill all the first-born of Egypt in the passover!

Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Again Satan didn't do it...GOD did!

Could the most intelligent being ever who is the father of us all deliberately and intentionally slay so many innocents?

I say no... what do you say?

Dear Opiniated 2,
If you go back to genesis you will see that Adam and Eve didn't die physicaly but they died to God and became subjected to Satin because they chose to believe his word over Gods. When Jesus was confrunted by the devil He answered thus. " It is written devil".
He never argued he just quoted the written word. Ias 55:11 states Gods word shall acomplish what he desires.
The natural is the shadow of the spiritual not as evolutionists believe. Everything reproduces after its own kind .
We understand words as pictures. We have a concious and a subconcious mind. Programed by word and experience. Jesus came to save our mind
{reprogram it} Gods word causes faith, it shows us the way and is the
truth, it reprograms our mind so that we have the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit came to lead us into all truth.
It is much harder to believe Gods word then it is to say it is not true and make it to mean what ever you chose. To get the truth you have to build a Relationship with God the Holy Spirit, and to recieve him you must first make Jesus your Lord.
Gods word is not complicated. Man can't understand it with an unregenerated spirit and it is nonsence to the carnal man. God is not uninteligent Proud Man is.

Foxy,

I think I owe you another apology.

Earlier in this thread I posted this http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0#58106

I thanked you for your comment as it was very much appreciated, BUT then, I went on with the post. On re-reading it, it sounds like I took your nice comment and then turned it into a reason to lecture.

I was very appreciative of your comment and I was just commenting further on this thread. I will try to do better next time with the sectioning of my replies. I apologise!

Richie you certainly put a spin on things. The selective use of scripture is one of the problems that you Christians continue to fail in.

On one hand you guys say that this is God's word and should be taken as read but suddenly when it doesn't make sense you manipulate it to suit your argument.

To say that Adam and Eve died to God on that day is just nonsense. The Bible gets it wrong.

So now you have the mind of Christ...Well that is a mighty big statement. In fact it is a dangerous statement if you truly believe it. It is saying that you are as clever as Christ...I doubt that totally!

The reason it is much harder to believe God's word is because the Bible isn't God's word.

God's alleged word may not be complicated but most Christians don't seem to understand it.

I notice you never answer the simplest questions I ask. What are you afraid of? If you have the mind of Christ you should be given the answers!

How can a loving God smite all the first born of Egypt, but only humans and cattle?

The first born weren't stopping the Israelites leaving. God kept hardening Pharoah's heart!

If you believe that the Passoever is the truth then I'm afraid you need to study further.

A loving caring God would never do murder, and it is an insult to his name for anyone to say that he would!

Every word of every text that exists, has existed or will exist is the product of human thought unless some other being evolves capable of creating texts.

Regard yourself superior or inferior to anything within the universe. You are only part of it.

Look no further for 'miracles' than that of your consciousness and your existence. Realise you are privileged in that.

Drink freely from the well of human knowledge and contribute to it if you can.

One moment of remorse is worth more than a life of guilt.

Respect the sanctity of doubt.

Question authority.

dear Opiniated 2,
I choose to disagree with your make of the Bible so let us leave it at that. Ps I don't cherry pick the Bible but believe it to be the living word not static.

Richie 10,

I understand that you no longer wish to debate the Bible. It is hard to argue when presented with Jesus' words in a way that Churches never teach. But I was quoting the Bible and I do it more than the average Christian.

I disagree with yours and other interpretations of the Bible when they just don't make sense.

I didn't think I had a "make of the Bible" mine is the same as yours. I just read it and analyse it correctly. To argue it is "God's Word" is insulting to the alleged God.

I am not against Christianity per se...I have many Christian friends.

I just believe that if Christianity stands for anything it should commence with "honesty". Honesty in teachings, words and deeds.

If churches and people can't be honest about the Bible and their religion then their faith is built on sand not rock.

Matthew 7:20-24 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.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

So if this is the case according to Jesus "building your house upon rock" or knowledge is most important.

To look at the Bible simplistically and to just accept does your religion no good whatsoever. In fact I would say that is the greatest failing of Chritianity...It premotes an unintelligent God.

So we agree to disagree...I still think you are a good person!

Dear Op 2,
Are you born again. Are your sins forgiven. Do you have assurance of salvation. Is your final destination settled. Does the Holy Spirit live in you. Do You talk in other tongues. Do you cast out demons. Do you lay hands on the sick. Have you been baptised as a believer in Jesus. {cut your covernent with God with the circumcision not made with human hands}.
If you have the true knowledge of the bible you have to say "yes" to ALL these words of my Lord Jesus the anionted son of GOD [the Christ] other wise it is only head knowledge and will not rescue you when you are in a jam.

Richie,

This is a dangerous area of Jesus' teachings!

(Mark 16:15-18). Then Jesus predicted what would happen: "These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well"

Please don't try this stuff!

Do you really believe all these things?

It took awhile, but I suspected your religious beliefs would out themselves, sooner or later.

That is why I quoted Matthew 7:20-24, I hoped it wouldn't, but I thought it might bring out the real you.

What demons have you cast out? It is unChristian to fib!

Do you do the things, that you suggest I should do, or be able to do?

Do you have the faith to be a healer? Why do we need Doctors? Why isn't Richie and his clan, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, at hospitals to heal everyone.

You will save Medicare a fortune!

Do you actually heal people? If God is so miraculous, why do you need to "lay on hands" surely your prayers are enough?

John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”

Have you or any of your clan cured a mute person, rebuilt a polio affected leg or rebuilt an amputee's leg?

Matthew 17:20...NOTHING will be impossible for you! Do you have "the faith of a mustard seed", Richie?

If you are such a great Christian...answer my questions.

So Richie let's quietly try John 14:14 - I have an obvious disability. I am open to God's Grace and a healing. Can you please ask God to heal me in Jesus' name?

I promise to convert to Christianity and take up the cross if your prayer works today.

REMEMBER :John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, AND I WILL DO IT”

This is an unequivocal statement Richie...I hope your prayer works!

Dear Op 2,
So what is God and his son Jesus. A liar and a religious
myth. My God is everywhere at all times {omnipresent} , is Love {agapa} not carnal. Is Jehovah Jira my provider. He is my healer and in him I live and move and am. Without him I am dead meat. You are 30 years too late with your message of doubt fear and unbelief to make me doubt God.
John 3:16,17 & 18 says it all . If you don't believe you disqualify your self. God has done his part You either connect or reject there is no pergurety where you get another chance.
Sorry old mate but it is your choice and you need to get accurate
Knowledge. And I don't where else you can get it aside from the book you reject.

Richie 10,

You Christians just can't help yourselves can you?

Even though you lack the courage to answer my questions, I at least have the courtesy to answer yours!

Richie "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12 FAIL

I'll point out the passages you fail Richie. Sorry you have taken 30 years to be corrected.

<<So what is God and his son Jesus. A liar and a religious
myth.>>

I think the Bible is full of myth...and if there is a God/Jesus, they are ashamed Christians portray them as unintelligent, by teaching the Bible as truth.

Am I healed yet, or has the mustard seed parable come true again? Matthew 17:20

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

If a person or organisation teaches a falsehood in Jesus name, is he a ravenous wolf?

Where was your God during the Victorian bushfires, the Asian Tsunami, and where is he protecting the innocents in Iraq that have been killed? If he is, omnipresent, maybe we are in his 7th day and he is resting?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

http://www.smh.com.au/national/victorian-bushfires-death-toll-drops-to-173-20090330-9g9y.html

If God and Jesus exist they do not intervene and therefore break Jesus' alleged word in John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”

I do not have a message of "fear" that is what Christians threaten! "Do not bear false witness" Exodus 20:16 FAIL

John 8:7 ….let he who has not sinned cast the first stone….” FAIL

Did you just threaten hell on me? Oh so now you can speak for God?
Be careful or Matthew 7:20-24 might apply to you. You are on dangerous ground!

Fundamentalist Christians just can't help threatening people..Who gave you the right to threaten hell & damnation on people?

John 8:7 ….let he who has not sinned cast the first stone….” FAIL

I have accurate knowledge...plus, I understand that if God exists he will be proud of me questioning false teachings! God deliberately gave us a questioning mind...I choose to use mine!

Dear Op 2,
Have I got your atention tet.
God is the God of the supernatural for the bible tells me so.
Jrsus worked in the supersatural after his baptism.
Jesus said we would work in the supernatural after our baptism. Do you believe he is a liar or the trutm,your choice not mine for I believe He raid it.
If you do not cut your covernent witm God this side of the grave you are too late. Our spirit returns to God at death and if tou havn't purchased your ticket you burn for when negative and positive connect sparks fly (Eccl 12:7).
For those who trust in Jesus to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, at the right hand of the father.
So to sum up, come in my good and faihful servent or the lake of fire prepaired for the devil and those who don't trust God.
Hard words. Each person choses his own destination. It is not an accident but a choice. Man was created in the image of God. Your words
create life or death for you. Are you looking for the posibility for without faith you can never please God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. What do you hope for.

Richie,

You seem to be standing on a soap box but failing your own belief system.

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours - to not do that means you fail "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12

If there is a God he is the God of all things so he would be the God of the supernatural.

However, he isn't doing what the Bible says he does. So either the Bible is wrong OR God doesn't intervene the way you are saying. Why do you misrepresent God?

What should I say to you then other than ask "Why do you pretend God does the things he obviously doesn't?

Why are you so afraid to answer my questions?

Why are you so afraid to question the Bible?

Why do you spread fear by mentioning the lake of fire? Isn't that what you accused me of "spreading fear"? Are you such a hypocrite?

Why do you think that you are correct when you are obviously wrong? The Bible proves you wrong!

Why couldn't you heal me? Is it a sin to give "false hope"?

Until you answer these things you are just another Christian who cannot use "god's Gift" of an intelligent mind!

God, who knows all things past, present and future placed the tree of good and evil in full knowledge Adam and Eve would fail. If the devil exists he created him!

To pretend otherwise is just delusional?

If you are so full of the Holy Spirit answer my questions...you are failing your God badly!

My hope at the moment is that you answer one of my questions! OR become honest enough to say - I can't answer your questions - I just don't know!

Dear Op 2.
1. God does not intervene on earth for it is satins domain, we have to ask. I doen't pretend that Gods does anything. Just because you havn't got your answer yet why doubt Gods word. Sin can't enter the presence of God 1 Cron 13:9 without getting zapped.
2. I am not afraid to question the bible but I happen to know it is true so my line of questioning is diferent from yours.
3. If the Lake of Fire causes you fear seak the truth for perfect Love casts out fear 1 John 4:18. Put your faith in Jesus.
4. It is up to God who gets healed not me. Jesus is the healer for by his stripes you were healed.Until you believe and fight the good
fight of faith you receive nothing from God.
5.The devil Lucifer was incharge of the choir in heaven. He was thrown
out for rebelion and decieved Eve into disobedience .Adam CHOSE to follow his mate and the rest is history.
I thank God we live under Grace for there but for the grace of God goes I. Gods grace is available to ALL, still your choice.

Richie,

This is getting really silly and illogical.

1. OK, so then what you told me about the healings you fibbed. Either you are saying you do the healing (as God doesn't intervene) OR there can't be any healings as this is the Devil's domain.

Your answer disproves John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”!

I think you are getting very confused.

2. How can you know it is true if it is demonstrably false. I have shown you already that it is a seriously flawed document. See 1. You proved it with your answers!

3. The lake of fire cause me no fear whatsoever...it is you who is scared. Would a loving caring, compassionate, forgiving God create such a place?

Would that same God kill all the first-born of Egypt?

Again by saying that hell exists I believe YOU are showing God to be unintelligent!

4. Wow so now you can't heal people...and it is the person who is unwell who gets the blame for the lack of healing!

You have not shown me evidence of one healing that would be recognized by medicine, science and Christians as a miracle! Why doesn't God grow back amputees legs?

5. So in the most wonderful place ever, Heaven, Lucifer the choir master rebelled and was thrown out?

If God knows all things past, present and future, he knew, his actions of expelling Lucifer rather than killing him would ruin the perfect world he had created!

So God, in your argument is totally responsible for all sin, as he took the decisions that led to man failing. He knew we would fail!

So according to your argument by expelling the Devil your GOD, CHOSE TO CREATE SIN BY HIS OWN ACTIONS ! He knew the consequences or he isn't God.

Do you actually hear what you are saying? It is totally illogical!

The most supreme being ever, made some terrible choices OR the Bible is wrong!

Why do you sell an unintelligent God?

Dear Op 2,
I will get real personal. 3 years ago I had a 2nd Stroke and the doctor said I wouldn't make through the night. I called on the name of the Lord and he raised me up contary to doctors opinions.
I asked the specialist what I could do to help my self. The answer I got was"nothing because it is in your genes and you are going to have another and you WILL DIE". Very good news like hell. I have always believed when the going gets rough the rough get going.
3 years on I am still here and still believing for a complete recovery
Yesterday on the Michael Parkenson show I listened to Kurt Douglass talking about his stroke and how he overcame. The race is not over till the finish. With God on your side you are a winner not a quitter
I have to fight my own Goliaths and you have to fight yours. I thank God daily that he is in my corner and helps me to say with confidence in my weekness he makes me strong and nothing is impossible with him.
Ps he isn't a fairy Godfather.

Richie,

I am sorry to hear that you have had a stroke, if I had known that I wouldn't have debated with you. You are obviously fighting a great fight and whatever makes you strong is way more important than this discussion.

A few years back I had a near death experience after a severe car crash. It was the most amazing thing I have ever had and it changed my life.

I didn't see God and I definitely didn't get to meet satan (who I don't believe in anyway). After it, when I became relatively well again, I began a journey of discovery.

There is much more than we know, and there is something very special that we get to experience when it is our time.

Keep fighting the good fight Richie...You are doing brilliantly, especially after such a devastating illness as a stroke.

I wish you all the very best!

Dear Richie 10,

May your strokes be limited to strokes of affection from those who love you.

The point about this whole thread was I wasn't questioning people's faith in God...I am questioning the accuracy of the Bible being called God's word.

Many who have posted here have blurred the two.

Jesus allegedly said "The wise man builds his house upon the rock" doesn't that apply here. The Bible is shifting sand at best!

I do not know if there is a God or not. I do not know whether Jesus was the Son of the God or a good man.

I do know however that the Bible is a very poor guidebook. I do not hold the OT in any regard whatsoever. It seems to be the old one sided writings of the Israelites who justified all manner of terrible things by saying it was "from God".

To see so many people in the modern world who believe in it's accuracy is astounding.

The gospels, whilst holding more interest for me, are also very flawed.

On judgement alone Jesus allegedly doesn't know what he is doing.

John 5:22 "The Father has committed all judgement to the Son."
John 8:16 "My judgement is true..."
John 9:39 "For judgement I have come into the world."

BUT he also says

Luke 12:14 "Who made me a judge?."
John 12:47 "I did not come to judge but to save."
John 3:17 "God did not send the Son to judge the world."
John 8:15 "I judge no one."

From the ACTs on this is man's teachings and interpretations. Anyone with half a brain should object that Paul in 1 Timothy 2 11-12 oppresses women! One man's view oppressing a gender is outrageous!

A loving caring God would never agree to such rubbish!

The Bible is a seriously flawed document. Why haven't your preachers told you these things?

So is teaching the Bible's unintelligent God actually sacrilege and a blasphemy against God? Why do Churches teach God is so unintelligent?

Don't be scared to have an opinion...as shown earlier God knew humans would eat of the fruit...so he must want you to have a questioning mind!

Op2,

The answer to your question: "Is the Bible inerrant, infallible or God's word?" is: "No".

You have made your point, let's give it a rest, OK? :)