How Many Here Have Even Read The Bible?

dkst0426

Inky wrote:

You can't really say that the bible is logical. I do agree that the commandments may be but the OLd Testament with genesis, 300-year-old people, the Flood and stuff isn't logical at all. Jesus curing people isn't logical either, you only can believe he did so.

Faith transcends logic, which in no way disqualifies the logic inherent in Scripture. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Put more simply: As has been said--just because one does not understand does not make it illogical.

dkst0426

crittables wrote:

organized religion and the bible are two different things. my problem is the way some people use the bible as a tool in organized religion. the problem isn't the bible itself, it's the interpretation.

Yes, unfortunately, Christians can be their own worst enemy. I'm well aware of that.

That being said, it is not entirely fair to base one's entire opinion on a minority of (mis)deeds committed by those who may share the same faith/creed/whatever.

I don't think all blacks are racist based on a couple of black people who acted racist towards me.

I don't think all Germans are megalomaniacal psychos bent on world domination based on Hitler and his Nazi cronies.

crittables

dkst0426 wrote:

Yes, unfortunately, Christians can be their own worst enemy. I'm well aware of that.

That being said, it is not entirely fair to base one's entire opinion on a minority of (mis)deeds committed by those who may share the same faith/creed/whatever.

I don't think all blacks are racist based on a couple of black people who acted racist towards me.

I don't think all Germans are megalomaniacal psychos bent on world domination based on Hitler and his Nazi cronies.

yes but unfortunately it only takes a few to create a movement.

and organized religion (not just christianity) has created people that are so firmly rooted in their beliefs it causes conflict, even wars.

and one thing that really bothers me is when people justify discriminating with the argument that it's against their religion, or it's in the bible. maybe the bible says it's not okay to be gay, but it also says it's okay to have slaves. but, how many people do you know still believe slavery is okay?

Inky

angelica wrote:

I'm wondering what you mean by logical here. Faith healing is an alogical process, and yet it works. I've personally been healed of many disorders and illness, based on spiritual experiences that have shown me how to heal. Also when I have medical issues, I have learned to "go within" to my spiritual self, and head them off. This includes back problems, sciatic nerve problems. I head colds off with mind body techniques, too. The process is from alogical intuitive processes, and it works.

I have a book right here, called "Spontaneous Healing" by Dr. Andrew Weil, a Harvard educated doctor: "The body can heal itself. Spontaneous healing is not a miracle but a fact of biology--the result of the natural healing system that each one of us is born with. Drawing on fascinating case histories as well as medical techniques from around the world, Dr. Andrew Weil shows how spontaneous healing has resolved life-threatening diseases, severe trauma, and chronic pain."

Because you don't understand how something works is different than it not being possible.

In my opinion what you're speaking of is something completely different since you kind of heal yourself or your body heals itself. That's totally different from somebody else curing you by touching or something.
But on the other hand I understand what you mean. Maybe it worked because the people who were cured believed that Jesus could do it.

So I have to admit that this curing thing wasn't really an argument but you definitely can't say that the OLd Testament is logical...well, I guess I've got to think about that again...

Inky

dkst0426 wrote:

Faith transcends logic, which in no way disqualifies the logic inherent in Scripture. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Put more simply: As has been said--just because one does not understand does not make it illogical.

Yep, okay I agree with that. What I said wasn't really logical....
I tried to explain something with the wrong word...

dkst0426

crittables wrote:

yes but unfortunately it only takes a few to create a movement.

and organized religion (not just christianity) has created people that are so firmly rooted in their beliefs it causes conflict, even wars.

and one thing that really bothers me is when people justify discriminating with the argument that it's against their religion, or it's in the bible. maybe the bible says it's not okay to be gay, but it also says it's okay to have slaves. but, how many people do you know still believe slavery is okay?

I hear you, but I'm having trouble with the way you're phrasing yourself. One minute it's nothing against Christianity in particular, the next it is.

Inky

crittables wrote:

eden wrote:

Seriously....for instance, everyone always wants to know why organized religion can be so evil but if they actually read the Bible they would see that one of The main themes of it is to watch out for Bad men who would use it for unrighteous gain (war and money.)

quote]


organized religion and the bible are two different things. my problem is the way some people use the bible as a tool in organized religion. the problem isn't the bible itself, it's the interpretation.

So true!
But it's also that the people take everything that's written in the bible verbatim thinking it's impeccable and forget that it were human beings who wrote it down
and not God himself.

eden

Ahnimus wrote:

Nothing. There was just this talking about wether the Jews had Jesus killed or not. So I posted the pertinant excerpts from the Bible. It's up to the reader to inerpret it.

Actually, thank you.Those scrips were great.
I guess Im confused when Jewish people are defensive that they didnt arrange for Jesus' murder when THAT is one of the things in the bible that is spelled out so plainly.I mean the entire Hebrew Scrips is them waiting for Messiah - He finally shows up, they rejected him and had him killed!? Why is it offensive if someone point that out (Passion of the Christ)? Ill have to ask my Jewish friends that.

eden

dkst0426 wrote:

Faith transcends logic, which in no way disqualifies the logic inherent in Scripture. .

Beautifully put.

And to some of us, we honor faith as superior to logic, yet never forgetting that logic is very important as well.

dkst0426

Inky wrote:

But it's also that the people take everything that's written in the bible verbatim thinking it's impeccable and forget that it were human beings who wrote it down and not God himself.

Well, there are literalists, and then there are those who believe very strongly that the Word of God was inspired, not literal.

eden

Ahnimus wrote:

My bad, million not billion. You were right, interesting news none-the-less.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060721090947.htm

Good thing I check my facts.

.

The problem is, they ARE NOT facts. There are as many scientists that back up the "young Earth" theory as those that back up an older Earth theory. Stuff like this is moot and its where faith takes over to me.

A bit of logic to back up a younger Earth- (of course, I copied and pasted this!)

The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).

Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.

Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.

Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.

The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.

crittables

dkst0426 wrote:

I hear you, but I'm having trouble with the way you're phrasing yourself. One minute it's nothing against Christianity in particular, the next it is.

i have a thing against organized religion in general. not the bible, the religion that follows it, and others like it.

ilana

eden wrote:

That was just ignorant, both you saying that I havnt read the Bible and your views on Jesus.

You can be Jewish darling and not hate Jesus, many Jews choose to view him as an important prophet even though they dont believe him to be the Messiah.

And as you can probably guess I have no problem backing up my claims of The Jewish religious hatred for Jesus and eventual murder of him. We all know it was Rome who killed him but it was the Pharisees who arranged for his arrest etc. Thats not even debatable.

What I want to know is- If I went to the trouble of solid proof, would you even open your mind to it? Your hatred of all things Christian and New Testament related comes across clearly. So to people like you, ANYTHING from NT is not even acceptable for arguments sake.

you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay
jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.
and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????
how so
the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.
the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true
and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me
please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."
i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs. add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all

dkst0426

One verse to sum up all the round judgments you've made about Jesus' character? There's no responding to that. If you care to have rational discussion, I'll be right here. I'm not interested in namecalling.

ilana

dkst0426 wrote:

One verse to sum up all the round judgments you've made about Jesus' character? There's no responding to that. If you care to have rational discussion, I'll be right here. I'm not interested in namecalling.

firstly it only takes one proof that jesus did something wrong or cruel or unjust to proove that he was not perfect as u xians believe, secondlly the fig tree thingy turn to matthew 21 :19
then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?
according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is
i am still waiting for the proof of how the pharasees where cruel to the commoners
i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense

dkst0426

ilana wrote:

firstly it only takes one proof that jesus did something wrong or cruel or unjust to proove that he was not perfect as u xians believe, secondlly the fig tree thingy turn to matthew 21 :19
then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?
according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is
i am still waiting for the proof of how the pharasees where cruel to the commoners
i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense

Firstly, please calm down. I'm not whomever it is you seem to have a problem with here. There is no room for rational discussion when all you can do is throw terms and phrases like "obserdaty" (which I assume you meant as "absurdity"), "utter rubbish," and "learn to read" in my direction.

With all due respect, I am going to have to take some time to respond, because I need to decipher the spelling and grammar. If English isn't your main language, then I mean no offense. I just need to make sure I get what you're saying.

Fair enough?

eden

ilana wrote:

you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay
jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.
and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????
how so
the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.
the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true
and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me
please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."
i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs. add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all

What threatens you so much about Jesus that you spout anger so palpable that I can feel it coming off my screen?

Are you Jewish, if so...do you hate Muhamed as much as Jesus? Just curious..

dkst0426

ilana wrote:

you are obviouslly so jesus intoxicated you cant see shit from clay

Not worth responding to.

jesus could not be a prophet, prophets speak in the name of G-D they dont claim to be G-D.

He wasn't a prophet. He was the Son of God. Fully human, fully divine--a mystery we in our humanity cannot wrap our puny minds around.

and your bold statement that jesuses death being organised by the pharasees is not debatable?????

It is debatable, to the extent that you don't "organize" someone's death.
It is debatable, because who was truly culpable for Jesus' death, after all:

The Sandhedrin, for their riling up the Jewish people to the point that they clamored for His death?
Pilate, for passing the sentence, even with his showboating with the bowl of water to wash his hands of the sentence?
All of us, for our sinful nature?

the only proof you have is the nt , written by people as jesus intoxicated as you are, out side of the nt therte is no evidence to coroberaste this.

At this point, it is worth noting that NON-Christian historians such as Flavius Josephus (ironically enough, a Jewish historian), Pliny, and Plutarch corroborated the accounts of Jesus' trial, crucifixion, and resurrection.

the nt is full of nonsense ,that cannot be coroberated, as a learnerd rabbi once said, what is true in the new testement is not new
and what is new is not true

See above. Who is this "learnerd rabbi" you speak of? I'd be interested to read his theories and sources.

and as you claim yuou have read the bible, i am still waiting for wear exactlly the pharrasees where cruel to the commoners, please do enlighten me

John 9: The Sandhedrin were so steeped in legalism that they completely missed the point of a miracle. And oh, by the way, the pool of Siloam has been unearthed. That's just one example.

The Pharisees may not have been entirely "cruel" to commoners, but fact is, the Pharisees were far more interested in micromanaging religion than they were in faith. Jesus was not against the idea of the Pharisees. It was what they had become that He railed against. They burdened those who would have followed Jehovah with all sorts of legalistic decrees, and allowed status to become a marker of one's religious standing.

I don't care how rich or poor you are--if you have faith, that speaks volumes about your character far more than your actions or your socioeconomic standing.

The Pharisees either refused to or couldn't see the way to differentiate between faith and legalism.

please open your nt, tomatthew 15:22"and behold, a woman of canancame out of those same coasts, and cryed unto him., saying,have murcyon me,ohlord, thou son of david; my doughter is greivouslly vexed with devil.
but he answered her not a word. and his desiples came and besought him saying,sdend her away: for she crieth after us.
but he answered and said , i am not sent but unto the lost sheep of israel,
then camr she and worshiped him, saying lord help me. but he answered,and said, it is not meet to take the childrens bread , and to cast it to dogs."

And as for my above point, thank you for bringing up Matthew 15. Don't quote selectively. Look at the context. Read the opening verses to the chapter. The issue about clean vs. unclean is EXACTLY what I was getting at above.

Now as for the passage you refer to:

i thought you said he was all with the common folk, seems to me jesus thinks the common folks are dogs.

I find it highly ironic that you are using a verse where Jesus is AFFIRMING the historical tension between Canaanites and Jews to build a case against Jesus. Have you forgotten the words of Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 20 with regards to Canaanites?

Anyway, on to commentary on Matthew 15: 22-28. It's worth nothing here that Matthew is probably the Gospel most sympathetic to the Jews, so the portrayal of Jesus as arrogant and aloof here is understandable.

Keeping that in mind, does the "dogs" reference make more sense now, given that the woman was a Gentile? Does the fact that this Gospel was written BY a Jew FOR a Jewish audience have any bearing at all on your understanding of the passage (and more to the point, your understanding of why Jesus seemed aloof and arrogant)?

Or are we going to get hung up on the small stuff (Jesus' comment) and neglect the main point (Jesus ministering to Gentiles and healing the child)?

add to that cursing a fig tree and being rude to his mum, turns out jesus was not such a nice guy after all

Still looking for specific references on those.

And by the way, I have to add this: Yes, Jesus came preaching a message of love. Yes, Jesus is about grace. But make no mistake--when it all boils down to the bottom line, this "nice guy" image about Jesus is a misconception. Just because the Gospel of Jesus is one of love and grace, it does not automatically follow that everything's rosy. Just about every Christian who has ever been through trial will tell you that.

dkst0426

ilana wrote:

firstly it only takes one proof that jesus did something wrong or cruel or unjust to proove that he was not perfect as u xians believe,

Let the record reflect that never once in any debate with anyone from any other religion will I submit to using the term "You Jews" or "You Muslims" or anything like that. It is far too easy to resort to generalizations.

secondlly the fig tree thingy turn to matthew 21 :19

Ah, here we are. I'm sorry, but you're not going to like the common Christian understanding of why Jesus cursed the fig tree.

Jeremiah 8:13

It was symbolism. The failure of Israel to live up to its role as God's chosen people. And that wasn't just a New Testament thing, either. You are no doubt familiar with Judges, of course.

then to see another obserdaty of your so called savior,
he sais that who ever sais " you are a fool, shull be in danger of hell fire
matt 5:22-24, now turn to matth 23:17 and tell me is not jesus then in danger of hell fire seeing as he screems out fools to the pharasees?

It would help to use verses/passages in context. All you have to do is go one verse back, to Matthew 5:21 and then through verse 24.

ilana, I implore you (and everyone else who would participate in this worthy discussion), please consider that prooftexting in this discussion will do nothing but cause further confusion. It would be unfair for me to pluck individual verses out of the Tanak while completely ignoring its surrounding text and context.

according to jesus who ever changes the law will be least in the kingdom of heaven, then go's right ahead and changes the law, so i gues we know where his place in the kingdom of heaven is

I assume you're referring to Matthew 5:19 ("Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...").

Once again, it would help to refer to the full context, and ironically enough, once again, it's only a verse (or 2, in this case) back: Matthew 5:17-19. Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law. Good gracious, no. Far from it. He came that others might see a tangible example of God's faithfulness as promised BY the Law.

i could add alot more obserdatys and utter rubbish in your nt if really whant me to, its so easy to destroy this jesus myth, all you need to do is learn to read, and use your common sense

And again, let the record reflect that no matter what my issues with anyone in a religious discussion, I refuse to and will NOT submit to referring to one's holy book as "obserdatys" (sic) and "utter rubbish". There is NO ROOM for rational discussion when statements like that are made, and I would hope for better from anyone willing to participate in a discussion about the issues raised here.

I can read perfectly well, thank you. I apologize for taking so long to read your responses and offer my own. As I said, I had to make sure I understood what you meant, and didn't misunderstand anything as a result of typos or grammatical errors.

Final note: I can understand the objections you would have with a Gospel from a Jewish standpoint if you used the almost belligerent Gospel of John, which (having been written later) was frankly much less sympathetic towards the leadership within the Jewish community in particular. Your citing Matthew numerous times almost befuddles me, given how specific the author's audience clearly was (i.e. the Jewish people).

rigneyclan

eden wrote:

The problem is, they ARE NOT facts. There are as many scientists that back up the "young Earth" theory as those that back up an older Earth theory.

The scientists used radiometric dating to find the age of those rocks; so there is no possible way to get around the fact that those rocks are billions of years old.