Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

The Bible is not one Book, but 66+

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:19:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

I treat it as a single divinely inspired book because I can find no toehr rational explanation.

If read and studied with the poewer of reason it proveds to be a library (the true maning ot teh word Bible) tells the same story from Genesis to Revelation.

The fiorst 3 chapters of Revelation explain God's opriginal plan, what went wrong, and what God isintended to do about it.

The last 3 chapters of Revelation describe the results of teh success of that plan.

Everything in between is a description of the progress of that plan, some of it told years centuries, even millennia, before it happened or will happen.

Since it is a plan which eitehr does, or will, affect all of us it behooves us top learn about it, and if we refuse to we will be taken by sur4prise by what happens to us.

So it is indeed a library, a bible, but it is also simnly one story from beginning to enbd, albeit written over thousands of years by 40 different "secretaries".
It is also the only bok to give you accurate history, some of which is still about 900 years ahead of the events it describes.

Some say it contradicts itself, but that is only because they don;t really understand what it si saying. In fact there is not one real contradiction which cannot be explained away by otehr scriptures.

I hope that answers your question.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:19:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I treat it as a single divinely inspired book because I can find no toehr rational explanation.

So you claim.

If read and studied with the poewer of reason it proveds to be a library (the true maning ot teh word Bible) tells the same story from Genesis to Revelation.

But it doesn't...

The fiorst 3 chapters of Revelation explain God's opriginal plan, what went wrong, and what God isintended to do about it.

The last 3 chapters of Revelation describe the results of teh success of that plan.

Everything in between is a description of the progress of that plan, some of it told years centuries, even millennia, before it happened or will happen.

Sure you believe that.

Since it is a plan which eitehr does, or will, affect all of us it behooves us top learn about it, and if we refuse to we will be taken by sur4prise by what happens to us.

So it is indeed a library, a bible, but it is also simnly one story from beginning to enbd, albeit written over thousands of years by 40 different "secretaries".
It is also the only bok to give you accurate history, some of which is still about 900 years ahead of the events it describes.

It gives pretty much what we would expect of the time and age and circumstances. Neither good or bad.

Some say it contradicts itself, but that is only because they don;t really understand what it si saying. In fact there is not one real contradiction which cannot be explained away by otehr scriptures.

Simply claiming this doesn't make it so. And virtually no historians or biblical scholars, the majority of which are themselves Christian, taker that view. SO tell me, why should I take your word on it when I can see the Bible for what it is in the English translations, and have those thoughts affirmed by those who understand the ancient Hebrew/Greek translations.

Do you understand Ancient Hebrew/Greek> Do you understand the context in which all these texts are written in>

The claims you are making here are patently absurd, and you have not attempted to evidentially support any of it. I already argues that the contradictions of the Bible (especially motivated ones, like in John's description of Jesus' death) tell a story in themselves.

You are missing that story by pretending they aren't there.

I hope that answers your question.

Sounds like a typical conservative. Your literal only justification is "I can find no toehr rational explanation." which is simply for

1. Lack of trying
2. An argument ad ignorantum

It certainly is not hard for the people who actually study the books of the Bible to see how they came to be.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 5:54:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:30:50 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:19:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I treat it as a single divinely inspired book because I can find no toehr rational explanation.

So you claim.

If read and studied with the poewer of reason it proveds to be a library (the true maning ot teh word Bible) tells the same story from Genesis to Revelation.

But it doesn't...

The fiorst 3 chapters of Revelation explain God's opriginal plan, what went wrong, and what God isintended to do about it.

The last 3 chapters of Revelation describe the results of teh success of that plan.

Everything in between is a description of the progress of that plan, some of it told years centuries, even millennia, before it happened or will happen.

Sure you believe that.

I believe it because that is what is in tehre.


Since it is a plan which eitehr does, or will, affect all of us it behooves us top learn about it, and if we refuse to we will be taken by sur4prise by what happens to us.

So it is indeed a library, a bible, but it is also simnly one story from beginning to enbd, albeit written over thousands of years by 40 different "secretaries".
It is also the only bok to give you accurate history, some of which is still about 900 years ahead of the events it describes.

It gives pretty much what we would expect of the time and age and circumstances. Neither good or bad.

Oh? so back then they knew the exact order of creati9on dod they? We've only worked that out ourselves over teh last century?

When did we work out that teh continents divided? Because Genesis has that covered in Chapter 10.

How long ago did we realise that we would be destroying the very planet we live on? Because we are, and Revelation told us we would be.

Yeah, very run of teh mill info for the tme conseering we didn't discover it for hundreds of years.


Some say it contradicts itself, but that is only because they don;t really understand what it si saying. In fact there is not one real contradiction which cannot be explained away by otehr scriptures.

Simply claiming this doesn't make it so. And virtually no historians or biblical scholars, the majority of which are themselves Christian, taker that view. SO tell me, why should I take your word on it when I can see the Bible for what it is in the English translations, and have those thoughts affirmed by those who understand the ancient Hebrew/Greek translations.


No, of course it doesn't,but I have proved it over and again to people who have tried to produced contradictions.

Do you understand Ancient Hebrew/Greek> Do you understand the context in which all these texts are written in>

No I don;t understand HEbrew and Greek, and yes I understand teh contrext, it's simple enough, scripture itself supplies it.


The claims you are making here are patently absurd, and you have not attempted to evidentially support any of it. I already argues that the contradictions of the Bible (especially motivated ones, like in John's description of Jesus' death) tell a story in themselves.


There is not contradiction in John's decscription of Jesus death, it is quite simply portrayed he was executed and buuried on the friday, the day before the Great or Double Sabbath, whcih was so called because two seperate Sabbaths, the annual one and the weekly one fell on the same day of the week, and resurrected on the Sunday morning, exactly as reported by Luke.

You are missing that story by pretending they aren't there.

No I am mnissing something, tell me where you find teh contradiction in that story, and I'll show you where you are wrong.


I hope that answers your question.

Sounds like a typical conservative. Your literal only justification is "I can find no toehr rational explanation." which is simply for

1. Lack of trying

Oh I've trieed, very hard.

2. An argument ad ignorantum


The exact opposite. I suspect there is more ignorance in your arguments than in mine and I am happy to porve it if you raise the specific questions.

The simplest rule I have evern heard for understanding is that if you fnd two scriptures which appear to contradict, then you are misunderstanding one or both so find out how.

And don;t forget, a contradiction is something which says the exact opposite of another statement on teh same subject, not just something which sees it from as different angle.

That is why scripture has most events recorded by two different "reporters"

It certainly is not hard for the people who actually study the books of the Bible to see how they came to be.

It is not hard for people who have really, deeply studied teh bible to find out why everything I have said above is true.

Go on, I challenge you, bring out the contradictions, just a few at a time thugh please, and I will easily destroy every one you bring out, as I have many times before.

Keep goping, post after post until you run out. I have dealt eassily with well over 100 supposed contradictions whihc aren't, some weren;t even contradictingf each othere merely giving a different reporters viewpoint, ilke the number of stab;le Solomon had, whihc would obviously vary greatly depending on wether the one caounting couted the stalls or the buildings, either of which is valid.

I don;t know iof this applies to you or not, but most people who make teh claims yuo have made are simlpy looking for an excuse not to believe, and scripture is full of those if that is what you want to find.

Howqever if you want the truth it has that too.

That is why Paul said:

Hebrews 4:12
ASV(i) 12 For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Because it shows up wether or not you are interested in truth or not, or wether or not you are just looking for excuses.

Have you fallen into that trap like so many do? God will know by hpow you respond to my challenge and my answers.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:54:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

The original writings of the saints and prophets were changed up drastically by religious antichrists and false prophets who added all their religious ideas to make up their new testament and Jewish laws contrary to the Law of God. These false writings greatly benefitted these false prophets with a wonderful lifestyle and power to control others who had no idea that these false prophets didn't know our invisible Creator.

Everyone who has read the Bible has been totally deceived by it. Only our invisible Creator can teach us saints about the past, present delusion we're in and the future age to come. He uses His chosen saints to testify to His invisible knowledge by having His knowledge converted to the languages we saints were taught during childhood. This is how we saints learned who we are in God as invisible vibrations. We also learn that everything we observe are only illusions in a dream.

Christians have no idea that the Bible was meant to deceive them while He uses His saints to read the prophecies about the future so He can interpret them. God has never used a practicing Christian as one of His chosen saints. He makes sure He removes them from Christianity before He used them to testify to His knowledge.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

I agree with the primary point being laid-out here. The Bible was never suppose to be a single book. Its various authors would have NEVER AGREED WITH EACH OTHER ON VARIOUS religious points and all have views that contracted each other.

The various books of the Bible were only organized into one large, contradictory books after a variety of important church members and politicians got together to decide what should be in it. The Bible is not really a source of divine knowledge, though it does have a smattering of a few books written by individuals that really did perceive something supernatural. Many of the books in the Bible, however, have sham testimonies.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:17:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:19:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

I treat it as a single divinely inspired book because I can find no toehr rational explanation.

You treat it as one divinely inspired book because you were taught that it is, and never learned to practice intellectual integrity. Many of the books contain claims which are contradictions (yes they are), to the claims in other books. This isn't explained by divine inspiration. It's explained by different authors from different cultures, writing down their differing beliefs and proclaiming they were inspired by God. It's a purely false claim.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Gentorev
Posts: 2,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:34:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

You speak of the authors of the bible when there is but one author and many scribes who were under his control.

And here, I am not referring to the authors of the gospels, who were only men, who, apart from John the beloved disciple, were merely recording the stories of Jesus as they had heard from others who had known the man.

But pray, please reveal to me where John the beloved disciple, who walked and talked with Jesus, contradicts Matthew, Mark and Luke, whose accounts of Jesus were second hand.

I believe that you should have said that some of the other gospel writers contradicted John, who was the only one of the four to have walked and talked with the man Jesus.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 5:49:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:34:03 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

You speak of the authors of the bible when there is but one author and many scribes who were under his control.

And here, I am not referring to the authors of the gospels, who were only men, who, apart from John the beloved disciple, were merely recording the stories of Jesus as they had heard from others who had known the man.

But pray, please reveal to me where John the beloved disciple, who walked and talked with Jesus, contradicts Matthew, Mark and Luke, whose accounts of Jesus were second hand.

I believe that you should have said that some of the other gospel writers contradicted John, who was the only one of the four to have walked and talked with the man Jesus.

Who says he did and who says his name was John? Strange name for a bronze age hebrew.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:56:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 5:49:36 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:34:03 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

You speak of the authors of the bible when there is but one author and many scribes who were under his control.

And here, I am not referring to the authors of the gospels, who were only men, who, apart from John the beloved disciple, were merely recording the stories of Jesus as they had heard from others who had known the man.

But pray, please reveal to me where John the beloved disciple, who walked and talked with Jesus, contradicts Matthew, Mark and Luke, whose accounts of Jesus were second hand.

I believe that you should have said that some of the other gospel writers contradicted John, who was the only one of the four to have walked and talked with the man Jesus.

Who says he did and who says his name was John? Strange name for a bronze age hebrew.

Bulproof wrote.........: Who says he did

Gentorev responds...........I do. I say that Envisage wrote that there are several contradictions in John's Gospel, but as you have difficulty in comprehending the written word I suppose that you missed that completely as you do in most cases.

Bulproof wrote..........and who says his name was John? Strange name for a bronze age hebrew.

Gentorev responds........ Jonathan=John was a common name in those days as it is today, but who would expect you to understand that?.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 5:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 10:11:11 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

I agree with the primary point being laid-out here. The Bible was never suppose to be a single book. Its various authors would have NEVER AGREED WITH EACH OTHER ON VARIOUS religious points and all have views that contracted each other.

The various books of the Bible were only organized into one large, contradictory books after a variety of important church members and politicians got together to decide what should be in it. The Bible is not really a source of divine knowledge, though it does have a smattering of a few books written by individuals that really did perceive something supernatural. Many of the books in the Bible, however, have sham testimonies.

I've decided that I'm being too hard on the Bible. Yes, it's my belief that much of what is written in the Bible does contradict, but perhaps there is a divine message in this: that diverse views can be a good thing.

Additionally, even though many of the authors of the various books in the Bible may not have perceived God or anything supernatural directly, that doesn't mean the advice they're giving, the views they're promoting are wrong.

It's my opinion that morality and laws come from man--not necessarily from God, though God does set-up experiences to allow humankind to learn from them. I do believe many of the moral lessons in the Bible have value in today's time. I do not believe the Bible should be dismissed as a source of wisdom, as source of inspiration, as a source of morality and laws, even if I do hold the opinion that some of the testimonies therein aren't based on factual events. Because the primary source of morality and laws is humankind and the careful reasoning we construct to reach these conclusions, I think the Bible remains a powerful and valid source of morality and spiritual instruction. This is my view of many religious texts that humankind has constructed over the years.

Of course, when I come across something I disagree with, I will announce it out loud and I encourage others to do the same. I think peer debate and hearing out/being open to diverse views will make our moral foundations--and, by extension, our law-formulating work--better-suited for the complexity and life-affirming requirements of our modern age.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:56:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Belief isn't a choice. Basic psychology affirms that much.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

Again.. Not a choice.. Although I would argue it's a highly educated belief.

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?
Gentorev
Posts: 2,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:05:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 11:56:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Belief isn't a choice. Basic psychology affirms that much.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

Again.. Not a choice.. Although I would argue it's a highly educated belief.

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?

We all must pay the blood price for the sins of our flesh.

Even "The Son of God" who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind (According to our concept of one directional time). He (The Son of Man) descended from the highest point in time to pay the blood price for the sins of the body, in which He, the successor to the throne of the Most High in the creation, had developed. Where, through the pain and suffering that was endured by his body (Mankind) from the sins and mistakes that were made, He gained all the wisdom, knowledge and insight needed by the heir to the throne of the Most High.

Psalms 51: 5;; Behold! I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.

And the woman (Eve, the expanded and pregnant body of mankind) is saved in the child that she bears to her Lord, the Most High in the creation.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:10:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 6:05:51 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:56:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Belief isn't a choice. Basic psychology affirms that much.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

Again.. Not a choice.. Although I would argue it's a highly educated belief.

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?

We all must pay the blood price for the sins of our flesh.

Even "The Son of God" who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind (According to our concept of one directional time). He (The Son of Man) descended from the highest point in time to pay the blood price for the sins of the body, in which He, the successor to the throne of the Most High in the creation, had developed. Where, through the pain and suffering that was endured by his body (Mankind) from the sins and mistakes that were made, He gained all the wisdom, knowledge and insight needed by the heir to the throne of the Most High.

Psalms 51: 5;; Behold! I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.

And the woman (Eve, the expanded and pregnant body of mankind) is saved in the child that she bears to her Lord, the Most High in the creation.

I am aware you believe that. But what has this got to do with the topic at hand.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:25:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 6:10:24 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:05:51 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:56:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Belief isn't a choice. Basic psychology affirms that much.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

Again.. Not a choice.. Although I would argue it's a highly educated belief.

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?

We all must pay the blood price for the sins of our flesh.

Even "The Son of God" who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind (According to our concept of one directional time). He (The Son of Man) descended from the highest point in time to pay the blood price for the sins of the body, in which He, the successor to the throne of the Most High in the creation, had developed. Where, through the pain and suffering that was endured by his body (Mankind) from the sins and mistakes that were made, He gained all the wisdom, knowledge and insight needed by the heir to the throne of the Most High.

Psalms 51: 5;; Behold! I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.

And the woman (Eve, the expanded and pregnant body of mankind) is saved in the child that she bears to her Lord, the Most High in the creation.

I am aware you believe that. But what has this got to do with the topic at hand.

Just quoting the revelations received from reading and studying all 66 books of the bible, which are but a percentage of the Holy Scriptures that were written by many scribes under the control of the one author.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:05:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 6:25:52 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:10:24 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:05:51 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:56:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Belief isn't a choice. Basic psychology affirms that much.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

Again.. Not a choice.. Although I would argue it's a highly educated belief.

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?

We all must pay the blood price for the sins of our flesh.

Even "The Son of God" who is the spirit that is currently developing within the body of mankind (According to our concept of one directional time). He (The Son of Man) descended from the highest point in time to pay the blood price for the sins of the body, in which He, the successor to the throne of the Most High in the creation, had developed. Where, through the pain and suffering that was endured by his body (Mankind) from the sins and mistakes that were made, He gained all the wisdom, knowledge and insight needed by the heir to the throne of the Most High.

Psalms 51: 5;; Behold! I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.

And the woman (Eve, the expanded and pregnant body of mankind) is saved in the child that she bears to her Lord, the Most High in the creation.

I am aware you believe that. But what has this got to do with the topic at hand.

Just quoting the revelations received from reading and studying all 66 books of the bible, which are but a percentage of the Holy Scriptures that were written by many scribes under the control of the one author.

Well you are quoting what these numerous scribes wrote those things. But what is the purpose of quoting these passages to me? Normally declaring things to someone comes prefaced with why you are saying those things.

At the moment you are just quoting random things at me, for no apparent reason.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 11:56:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:13:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 11:55:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
<Rant>

I find the Bible interesting. I really do, even as a strong atheist, as the books within give a view of theology, history, culture and motives at the time each of the books was written.

So why, pray tell me, do so many treat the Bible as a singular "divine work", when:

1. This is patently false
2. Doing so takes away so much from what each author intended

St. Paul had a theology, and motivation. Each of the Gospel Writers has a motivation. Each of the composers of the OT documents had a motivation. And the composers of the pseudiphilographic Gospels/Epistles had a motivation. Ignoring all this and taking sections of each to make some sort of divine statement completely misses the point that the authors intended.

For example, St. Paul clearly had visions, and believed he had divine revelation from God. He had his own idea of theology which was built from older literature, oral traditions, etc. Therefore to quote St. Paul on things like "spiritual with spiritual" to make a statement on how the rest of the Bible should be read completely bastardises what Paul was trying to say.

To ignore there really are several contradictions in John's Gospel over the time of Jesus' death leads one to completely miss the theology that John had over the other authors. John believed Jesus was the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed. It's clearly why these details are different to how the synoptic gospels depict them. Etc. John believed different things about Jesus to what the other authors and St. Paul did.

The time has come to appreciate that and to stop this absurd conservative inerrant take on the Bible which ignores essentially ALL of it's history, composition, day and age and scholarship.

</rant>

Envisage good to meet you..
I reply: You have to CHOOSE to be an atheist, you "BELIEVE" there is no God.

Belief isn't a choice. Basic psychology affirms that much.

Question: What do you see as the advantages to yourself in your choice?

You are right to BELIEVE what you want to believe, it is your "CHOICE" your "FAITH" in your "BELIEF" it is just that Yours!

Again.. Not a choice.. Although I would argue it's a highly educated belief.

I point out... Jesus said he was a "Gate/Door" the definition of door is; "An entrance"!
So all MUST Enter through Jesus "the Door to heaven"!

Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

Yes... Jesus was the UNBLEMISHED lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Not a bone was broken.

OLD TESTAMENT
Exodus The Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
12 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, 2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. ...............................


Envisage All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?

Envisage I say.. You are wrong.. "Belief" is a CHOICE!
You CHOOSE to believe or not to believe!
Sure all believe the sun will rise tomorrow.... But their belief is based on what they know it rose yesterday! They can still make a free choice to NOT believe!

Your words.. Did he? You do realise that the Gospels contain virtually nothing if what Jesus actually spoke, right? Such is the unreliability of oral traditions and authorship at the time. And this is assuming that a Jesus existed and the Gospel authors really were trying to give an entirely historical account.

I reply: You are CHOOSING to not believe.. the Gospels!

You reject God.. You reject God because you BELIEVE there is no god!
Your belief is based on what you ALONE have chosen to be true or untrue!
You have based your belief on what YOU have decided to believe!

All sacrifices for sins must be bloody offerings!

Okayyy. What is your point?

The point is.. Jesus was a Passover Lamb!
John believed Jesus was the lamb of the Passover to be sacrificed. Because Jesus is called "The Lamb Of God", A Lamb looking as if he was slain sits on the Throne of God!
No bones of Jesus were broken "Jesus was an UNBLEMISHED Lamb of God!"
Envisage All Passover meals MUST be eaten all Sacrificial lambs must be eaten..

53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 5:54:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
When did we work out that teh continents divided? Because Genesis has that covered in Chapter 10.
The continents separated 200million years ago, show me where the bible confirms this.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 2:05:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Bible is a library of books. You can call it a book in that case, too. There are other books which are just assemblies and notes of other works, and so forth. It's normal.