The Bible (a discussion)

Quote:

Frank Apisa said: You have no idea if I am telling the truth or not. And we have no idea if you are.
If you want to think the words are true...and that everyone else should also...fine. Go for it.
But it is madness to suppose that is logical.

We have to use our commonsense to decide whether the input through our eyes and ears is true or not.
For example last year I began reading the supposedly true book "The Long Walk: The True Story of a Trek to Freedom" about a small group of escapers from a Siberian gulag who walked to India.
A quarter of the way into it I began to have my suspicions that it was a pack of lies, and by halfway I was almost certain it was hogwash, the author couldn't fool old Romeo.. Smile

I looked the book up on the internet and saw I was right, critics have torn it to pieces!
But with the gospels I suspect nothing because they've got the ring of truth about them!

http://www.mikaelstrandberg.com/2011/01/03/the-long-walk-did-it-ever-happen-2/

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

. . . One might easily understand why somebody like Romeo embraces the teachings of Jesus.

Did you mean to say distorts the teachings of Jesus?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

As for your quote- "When their spirit departs, they return to the ground", what about it? Whatever you want to call it, (soul or spirit), it flies when the body dies-
Jesus said- “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last" (Luke 23:46)

Your spirit is the force keeping your soul alive. In itself, it has no consciousness. It is not the same as your soul. Your soul is you. When your soul dies, you experience that last sentence of Psalm 146:4 you so spuriously ignore. "In that day his thoughts do perish"

The entire Bible is a work inspired by God - 2Timothy 3:16. One part is not more true than another. So, as you have so often said:

Romeo wrote:

If you disagree with him you'd better argue it out with him yourself.

You are proving what you are, sir.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

What Christians? Are there any here besides me and Anonymously?

I've asked you this before. Define 'christian'.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Even Genesis has 2 stories of creation that contradict one another.

Quote them so I may show you they are in harmony.

1 Reply

@neologist,

In one version man is created first and woman second, from a man's part, and after all animals are created. In the second version, they are both created together, man and woman.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

A quotation would help. Human creation is referenced in Genesis 1:21 during the 6th day:

Quote:

And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

The entire first 6 days are summarized in Chapter 2:4

Quote:

4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

Please note: treating days 1-6 as a single day is further proof that the days mentioned are not 24 hour days, but simply indefinite time periods as the Hebrew word 'yom' would indicate.

It should also be noted that the seventh day has not yet been recorded as having ended. The earth could very well be several kazillion years old, as is our current understanding. So much for the naive arguments of young earth creationists and their caterwauling critics.

2 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

Human creation is referenced in Genesis 1:21 during the 6th day:

And it is not as far-fetched as what had gone before. Not by a long shot your worships.

And it was perfectly reasonable given the belief in God prevalent at the time.

1 Reply

Quote:

Spendius said:One might easily understand why somebody like Romeo embraces the teachings of Jesus.
Neologist said: Did you mean to say distorts the teachings of Jesus?

Hey Spendius, Jesus was the actual Son of God so it's only logical to embrace him and not Solomon or anybody else.. Smile

Jesus once asked his disciples if they'd ever desert him:-
"Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (John 6:68)

As regards "distortions", Neologist's JW chums are dab hands at it, they've ignored Paul's advice- "I'm worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
and instead plunged into the Old T to weave obscure verses together that look like a Frankensteins monster and have ended up convincing themselves that Christmas, Easter, birthdays, and church spires are pagan, and that transfusions and crosses are to be shunned, and that Jesus was crucified on a stake.. Wink

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/JW-beliefsB_zps2f57a26b.jpg~original

1 Reply

Quote:

Neologist said:@RF-I've asked you this before. Define 'christian'......
......The entire Bible is a work inspired by God - 2Timothy 3:16. One part is not more true than another.

1- Everybody has their own idea of what a true Christian is.
My own definition of one would be "somebody who likes Jesus". By making that connection/ bonding, the person automatically becomes like Jesus.

2- Jesus was quite clear that only HE saves-
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:5/6),
so for anyone to say that other Bible figures were equal to him is technically blasphemous and satanic.
For example Moses okayed divorce, but Jesus overuled him-
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matt 19:8/9)

And people quickly cottoned on-
"Through Jesus we are saved,and not through Moses" (Acts 13:39)
"The covenant of which Jesus is mediator is superior to the old one" (Heb 8:6)
Jesus said "It was said 'eye for eye,tooth for tooth' but I say turn the other cheek" (Matt 5:38/39)
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb 12:2)
"Jesus gives us all we need for life" (2 Pet 1:3)
"Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4)
"The law brought us to Christ like a schoolmaster, but now through Christ we are not under that schoolmaster" (Gal 3:22-25)
"In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (Acts 17:30)

0 Replies

@spendius,

I wrote:

Human creation is referenced in Genesis 1:21 during the 6th day:

spendius wrote:

And it is not as far-fetched as what had gone before. Not by a long shot your worships.

And it was perfectly reasonable given the belief in God prevalent at the time.

Just exactly what point are you trying to make?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Jesus was the actual Son of God so it's only logical to embrace him and not Solomon or anybody else..

Jesus quoted frequently from the OT

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

As regards "distortions", Neologist's JW chums are dab hands at it, they've ignored Paul's advice- "I'm worried lest you be led astray from the simplicity of Christ" (2 Cor 11:3)
and instead plunged into the Old T to weave obscure verses together that look like a Frankensteins [sic] monster and have ended up convincing themselves that Christmas, Easter, birthdays, and church spires are pagan,

You have been told many times about the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter. But you claim they have been "christianized". It's much like taking a scoop of effluent from the sewage treatment facility and adding it to the holiday punchbowl.

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

and that transfusions and crosses are to be shunned, and that Jesus was crucified on a stake..

Impaled on a stauros.. What would that mean to those who spoke the language of the time?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Genesis 1:1–2:3 tells how man and woman were created together at once, while Genesis 2:4–24 says that man (Adam) was created first, and woman (Eve) is then created for man's pleasure and companionship, out of his rib. The two versions are parallel, and to a degree contradictory. The theory is that those two sections of Genesis were written at different periods by different people. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

1 Reply

Quote:

Neologist said: Jesus quoted frequently from the OT....
You have been told many times about the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter. But you claim they have been "christianized"...
Impaled on a stauros.. What would that mean to those who spoke the language of the time?....

You're just parrotting JW teachings mate, you signed your brain over to them when you signed up-
WIKI- "Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature.
Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding."
The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses

You therefore don't follow Jesus, you follow the JW big bosses who order you to believe all sorts of nonsense.. Wink

1- Yes, Jesus often quoted from the OT to back himself up, but at the same time he trashed its harsh bits once and for all.

2- If Christmas and Easter were once pagan rituals, Christians have DESTROYED their pagan links by taking them over to turn them into joyous celebrations of Jesus's birth and his sacrifice on the cross.
Likewise, you Seattle citizens have taken over the heathen Chief Seattle's land and built Christian churches and meeting halls on it, thereby stamping out the areas bad heathen vibes.. Smile

3- Yes, 'Stauros' translates as 'stake', it was permanently embedded in the ground, but the JW big bosses mistakenly overlooked the fact that the victim usually had to carry a crossbeam (patibulum) on his back where it was tied to the stauros to form a cross.

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

bad heathen vibes..

1 Reply

@anonymously99,

Yes mate, the indian Chief Seattle was a warmongering slave-owning worshipper of other gods whose people lived in the Seattle area, but the whites went and took his land off him.. Smile

There are probably ancient indian pagan sites all over the place but many have been built over by Christian churches and JW meeting halls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Seattle

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Genesis 1:1–2:3 tells how man and woman were created together at once, while Genesis 2:4–24 says that man (Adam) was created first, and woman (Eve) is then created for man's pleasure and companionship, out of his rib. The two versions are parallel, and to a degree contradictory. The theory is that those two sections of Genesis were written at different periods by different people.

That man and woman are mentioned in the same sentence in the first chapter does not mean they were created simultaneously or in the same 24 hour period. It is creationist folly to assert the creative days were solar days. The Hebrew word 'yom' allows for an indefinite period. Additionally, the earth was in existence for an unspecified time before the first day began. Check Genesis 1:1 again to see if I am making sense.

The truth of the Bible has been obfuscated by 'believers' whose internal desire is more for reward or moral license than discovery of truth. If you want to learn what the Bible really says, you have to put those inclinations aside. That being said, you should be equally wary of any pronouncements made by me. The conclusion will be between you and God.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

I find it interesting that you rely on Wikipedia articles and online forums to dredge up your conclusions about Jehovah's Witnesses.

0 Replies

@neologist,

All I am saying is that there are in Genesis two accounts of creation that contradict each other. This is a fact. I am not making the argument that the days of Genesis should be taken literally, of even that the entire Bible should be taken literally. To me it's all ancient literature.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I don't see a contradiction. I see Genesis, chapter 2 as explanatory.

1 Reply

The Bible (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know