Do you believe in God?

[LeMansAid]

The definitions of cast are as follows, the act of force is not only implicit in the text but definitively stated.

You left some out. He may have just been getting in early in finding the right man for the job that Jim Caviezel ended up with. See who could take a good scourge to the back, and all.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Surely you mean cast out instead of just cast?

to drive or force out <cast them out of the tribe for violating sacred traditions>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/cast out

 

[Hun200kmh]

Sorry to budge in this interesting conversation about the existence of God, but I'd like to remind all concerned that the delicacy of the job in ascertaining the correct definition of the word "cast" may in fact face the unsurmountable problem that comes from the historical fact that none of the Evangelists knew English.




EDIT - Oh and btw they didn't know Portuguese either, but I just checked and the portuguese version of the Bible (on Mark 11:15) uses the word equivalent to the English word "expel".

 

[TenEightyOne]

Surely you mean cast out instead of just cast?

to drive or force out <cast them out of the tribe for violating sacred traditions>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/cast out

No, the language and dictionary you're using there is far far later. Kasta, the root, is the verb "to throw". This is followed as required by a directional term, in this case "out". To cast out is to throw out, that's the root meaning despite what a later American English synonym might suggest.

I'd like to remind all concerned that the delicacy of the job in ascertaining the correct definition of the word "cast" may in fact face the unsurmountable problem that comes from the historical fact that none of the Evangelists knew English.

But Wycliffe did, fortunately

His translation is a germanic one, the latin translation from the Hebrew does indeed give "expel" in its original sense of "forcibly eject".

 

[RalliArt/////]

Actually no I haven't.

you chose to focus on that small part of my post not me, my point is and remains that these are not the actions of one who is perfect.

And one of those actions you said Jesus was “beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people".

Since my response, you've gone very quite on this claim.

Instead you moved your focus on Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers and the type of whip he made, neither of which broke Gods law.

You seem to have no idea how either a scourge was used or how animals function.

You seem to have difficulty differentiating between how a scourge was normally used and how it was used or not by Jesus. And please tell me how the animals would’ve reacted.

No it doesn't limit to adultery. It goes on to say that should any part of you cause offense (such as eyes for lust) it should be removed. Adultery may be the initial example, but its expanded on far beyond that (unless we have to dismember ourselves for lustful thoughts).

You’re really clutching at straws on this one...

If it really does “expanded on far beyond that” surely you can quote many verses supporting your claim that specifically talks about all “thoughts are as bad as the deed.”

The fact is we all get intrusive thoughts and God knows the intent behind them.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

God knows how insubstantial our thoughts can be...
Psalm 94:11 the LORD—knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.

As its down to interpretation I disagree,

Oh, so now its down to someone’s interpretation if Jesus struck anyone. Was this your opinion before my original response?

however what you may have to re-read my posts to understand is that wasn't the point I was making, simply your focus.

It was the only point you made in your OP to try and say Jesus was imperfect.

Sin is an abstract concept with no meaning at all. Now did he do something wrong here? Yes.

You can believe what you like, but since our discussion is about what the Bible says, its pointless mentioning it. So according to the Bible you’re wrong.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins is breaking God's law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.

You don't get to demand how I post, please drop the attitude.

I just asked,

Not one bit of what he says removes a single OT law....

"17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

....so the law still stands until the prophylactic is fulfilled. With Jesus claiming he will do so, its my contention that he was not perfect and as such didn't fulfill the prophecy. However even if he did, it still means that from the minute he said that, until the moment of his return to Dad/Himself he was still in full favour of every word of the OT law, with all its horror (something I would argue is far from perfect in itself).

I don’t understand your comment; anyway you need to keep reading it starts at verse 21.

These people have done nothing wrong at all? Why should they be consigned to a harsher judgement based on no wrong doing at all?

Unless immediate death and eternal damnation are OK with you.

Wrong according to you, or God?

John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

That’s the whole basis of Christianity.

Two thousand years of Christian theologians disagree with you, what makes you interpretation of the Bible right and the one they hold wrong?

Its not just my interpretation, just google “Jesus is not God”.

You see that's the issue with a text that has its origins in pre Bronze Ages tribal religions and has been added to, translated, edited and generally changed to suit the needs of the (very human) authors over a period of thousands of years.

I disagree, but I’m not going to start a new discussion on this.

It leaves it open to a wide range of interpretations, and to claim one to be the only true interpretation (as you seem to be doing) would need to be confirmed directly by the claimed chief editor (for want of a better term), God.

He has...

Ephesians 4:5 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

[TenEightyOne]

The fact is we all get intrusive thoughts and God knows the intent behind them.

Source required. The bibble's a bad one, obviously, try to find a proper one

 

[Scaff]

And one of those actions you said Jesus was “beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people".

Since my response, you've gone very quite on this claim.

Instead you moved your focus on Jesus overturning the tables of the money changers and the type of whip he made, neither of which broke Gods law.

No I haven't.

My contention is still that it would not have been possible to have carried out the claimed action without resorting to violence, it always has been and I have not 'gone very quiet about it at all'.

You seem to have difficulty differentiating between how a scourge was normally used and how it was used or not by Jesus. And please tell me how the animals would’ve reacted.

No I don't and I've been around enough farm animals in my time to know your not going to shift a load of them in the manner you are suggesting, let alone fully grown adults. Did he simply ask them to leave in a calm or orderly manner?

You’re really clutching at straws on this one...

If it really does “expanded on far beyond that” surely you can quote many verses supporting your claim that specifically talks about all “thoughts are as bad as the deed.”

The fact is we all get intrusive thoughts and God knows the intent behind them.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

God knows how insubstantial our thoughts can be...
Psalm 94:11 the LORD—knows the thoughts of man, that they are but a breath.

so something has to be mentioned multiple time in the Bible before it counts now?

Got you.

Oh, so now its down to someone’s interpretation if Jesus struck anyone. Was this your opinion before my original response?

everything in the Bible is down to interpretation, not a new standpoint from me at all.

It was the only point you made in your OP to try and say Jesus was imperfect.

Nope.

You can believe what you like, but since our discussion is about what the Bible says, its pointless mentioning it. So according to the Bible you’re wrong.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins is breaking God's law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.

The law of God allowed for the murder of children, forcing rape victim to marry the attacker or killing them for not crying out loud enough.

As such I don't care what the Bible defines as sin or law, and as such you have my answer. His action in that reegard was morally wrong.

I just asked,

It was the manner in which you did it.

I don’t understand your comment; anyway you need to keep reading it starts at verse 21.

what don't you understand?

Oh and I've read the rest, many times. At what point does it say that the old laws are gone?

Wrong according to you, or God?

I have no belief in any gods, as such according to me and quite frankly to date I've done a better job that the texts in question.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

That’s the whole basis of Christianity.

So your good with the death of people who have differing beliefs to you then?

Its not just my interpretation, just google “Jesus is not God”.

I'm well aware of the argument, its however not the one accepted by Christian dogma. Rather its a minority view that would put you in the camp of the unbeliever....

John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.


..according to them; and them in the camp of the unbeliever for your view.

I disagree, but I’m not going to start a new discussion on this.

Why not?

He has...

Ephesians 4:5 There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Are you seriously attempting to use the Bible to prove the Bible?

Really!

 

[Scaff]

It seems Muslim and Jewish faith schools are not the only ones providing a poor standard of education and teaching nonsense.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...y-must-obey-a7066751.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

[Hun200kmh]

That you can find christian nutjobs and their crazy churches in the USA is not news (do the Westboro loonies still exist?).

But it is news to me that they also have a foothold - and even their own schools - in Europe (at least in the UK)

 

[Scaff]

That you can find christian nutjobs and their crazy churches in the USA is not news (do the Westboro loonies still exist?).

But it is news to me that they also have a foothold - and even their own schools - in Europe (at least in the UK)

Sorry should have been a bit more specific that I was referring to the UK.

The shock for me is how long they have been operating in the UK.

 

[ryzno]

We(America) do have Christian Academies.

 

[JKgo]

...Well, I did attend a Seventh-day Adventist-funded boarding school back in the day. That was fun.

In hindsight, the experiences I "earned" from those days probably put me off organized religion for good.


Oh well, you can't win them all, eh?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

It seems Muslim and Jewish faith schools are not the only ones providing a poor standard of education and teaching nonsense.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...y-must-obey-a7066751.html?cmpid=facebook-post

Girls must submit to their husbands?

And they wonder why some women stay in abusive marriages.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'll just leave here TheraminTrees' most recent video.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

...Not so sure this is what Jesus wanted!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ctly-controlled-no-contact-outside-world.html

 

[FoRiZon]

God may create everything. But if he creates politics then screw him.

 

[TenEightyOne]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ctly-controlled-no-contact-outside-world.html

Good for The Mail finally trying to bring its "readers" grunting and wriggling into the modern age by treating women as equals in its paper. There are more of their Top Stories in the sidebar, if you're interested

 

[RalliArt/////]

No I haven't.

My contention is still that it would not have been possible to have carried out the claimed action without resorting to violence, it always has been and I have not 'gone very quiet about it at all'.

Which is why I asked....

"Where does it say "he drove out hundreds of people"?
Why would it be impossible for Jesus to drive out "the people buying and selling there" without striking them?

They knew what they were doing was wrong. You make it sound like they were all holding their ground ready to fight Jesus, so he had to whip them out."

Got no response.

so something has to be mentioned multiple time in the Bible before it counts now?

Got you.

If you cant quote a few relevant verses (even though you said "Adultery may be the initial example, but its expanded on far beyond that") how about 1 that says all “thoughts are as bad as the deed.”

everything in the Bible is down to interpretation, not a new standpoint from me at all.

So everything I've said so far could be right?

The law of God allowed for the murder of children, forcing rape victim to marry the attacker or killing them for not crying out loud enough.

As such I don't care what the Bible defines as sin or law, and as such you have my answer. His action in that reegard was morally wrong.

Since you can't use the Bibles viewpoint to say Jesus was wrong for cursing the tree, you're just left with your opinion that he was wrong, and therefore have no argument.

what don't you understand?

Oh and I've read the rest, many times. At what point does it say that the old laws are gone?

Galatians 3:25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.
Hebrews 8:7 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

So your good with the death of people who have differing beliefs to you then?

If you're saying that's wrong I couldn't care less, just like you

don't care what the Bible defines as sin or law

I'm well aware of the argument, its however not the one accepted by Christian dogma. Rather its a minority view that would put you in the camp of the unbeliever....


John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.


..according to them; and them in the camp of the unbeliever for your view.

Whats your point? That the minority view is the wrong one? Great reasoning.

Why not?

Psalm 5:9 Not a word from their mouth can be trusted; their heart is filled with malice. Their throat is an open grave; with their tongues they tell lies.

Are you seriously attempting to use the Bible to prove the Bible?

Really!

If a Christian believes the Bible is the word of God your question reads like this...Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?

 

[UKMikey]

If a Christian believes the Bible is the word of God your question reads like this...Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?

If a Christian wants to convince a non believer of the truth of the Bible he's going to have to do better than "God said it" and use independent sources of proof, otherwise those non believers are going to stop listening to him.

I'm pretty sure neither side of the debate will make any headway with the other though because one side depends upon rational, conscious thought and reasoning and the other relies on gut feeling and personal revelation. It's apples and pomegranates.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?

I don't know how much you're aware of the bible... but God didn't write it.

 

[Famine]

If a Christian believes the Bible is the word of God your question reads like this...Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?

Which, as it still is asking if you are using a self-referential source, is an entirely reasonable question.

 

[Scaff]

Which is why I asked....

"Where does it say "he drove out hundreds of people"?
Why would it be impossible for Jesus to drive out "the people buying and selling there" without striking them?

They knew what they were doing was wrong. You make it sound like they were all holding their ground ready to fight Jesus, so he had to whip them out."

Got no response.

Passover and temple attendance at the time were sizeable, as such the number of people present would potentially have been quite numerous. You are aware that other sources for life in that time period exist apart form the Bible?

Oh and you make it sound like they just wandered out because he asked them to, in which case why was a sourge needed?

And yes you did get a response.

If you cant quote a few relevant verses (even though you said "Adultery may be the initial example, but its expanded on far beyond that") how about 1 that says all “thoughts are as bad as the deed.”

So it doesn't go on to if you hand offends? Or if your eye offends?

Hence my question about the need to dismember one self if you have lustful thoughts. Its either than is the case or the example was being expanded on.

So everything I've said so far could be right?

It could also be wrong. It could also be a total and utter work of fiction with no basis in reality.

I'm open to evidence to show any of these three to be the case, are you?

Since you can't use the Bibles viewpoint to say Jesus was wrong for cursing the tree, you're just left with your opinion that he was wrong, and therefore have no argument.

So unless one uses a Biblical viewpoint it can't be commented on?

What exactly makes my view that its wrong so easy to dismiss?

You haven't even asked why I consider it wrong, you have just dismissed it because it doesn't follow your world view, which to be blunt is a rather fundamentalist approach.

Galatians 3:25 And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.
Hebrews 8:7 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

So are you saying that Jesus contradicts himself?

Wouldn't that make him imperfect?

If you're saying that's wrong I couldn't care less, just like you

I didn't say I couldn't care less. I said I wasn't going to use a Biblical standard (sin) to comment on it, I quite clearly said I considered it wrong. You then dismissed my world view as invalid and have quote mined me in attempt to make out I hold a position I don't.

Don't do so again.

Whats your point? That the minority view is the wrong one? Great reasoning.

Nope. Didn't even come close to saying that at all.

Given that I don't see any evidence for either position I actually consider them equally invalid (and will consider that to be the case until new evidence is presented).

Your the one saying that one side is wrong, and your the one basing that position on zero credible evidence.

If a Christian believes the Bible is the word of God your question reads like this...Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?

If its the word of God then why does it contradict itself (and please don't say it doesn't - you have provided an example yourself).

Oh and "Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?" doesn't change a single thing, you can't prove God exists simply by saying God exists!

 

[RalliArt/////]

I don't know how much you're aware of the bible... but God didn't write it.

Who said He did? 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God...

Passover and temple attendance at the time were sizeable, as such the number of people present would potentially have been quite numerous.

Jesus only drove out "those who were buying and selling", and not "hundreds of people" like you said. The total number of people there has nothing to do with it.

Oh and you make it sound like they just wandered out because he asked them to,

I only make it sound like how the Bible says it, been quoting it since the start.
You've been twisting the meaning of verse and just blatantly making things up to suit your view from the start.

in which case why was a sourge needed?

Have you ever thought it could be used as a deterrent? "Made a sourge" ≠ "beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people."

And yes you did get a response.

Only now after posting it twice.

So it doesn't go on to if you hand offends? Or if your eye offends?
Hence my question about the need to dismember one self if you have lustful thoughts. Its either than is the case or the example was being expanded on.

There is nothing at all here that tells us that “thought is as bad as the deed.”

The reference to the eye is clearly linked to his previous statement that looking at a woman lustfully is sinful.
The mention of the hand relates to what we do with our hands, a physical action, not a mental action.

If you were able I'm sure you would've by now used an alternative verse clearly backing your statement.
Since none exist you have no choice but to continue to twist its simple meaning to conform with your statement.

Since you can't use the Bibles viewpoint to say Jesus was wrong for cursing the tree, you're just left with your opinion that he was wrong, and therefore have no argument.

So unless one uses a Biblical viewpoint it can't be commented on?

You can, but you have no argument. You were trying to use the Bible to say Jesus was imperfect and then it became your opinion when you couldn't use the Bible to back up your statement.

You haven't even asked why I consider it wrong,...

I know why.


I asked... "Do you think Jesus committed a sin here?"

Your answer...


"I think Jesus acted in a manner that is quite a way from perfect here, I've already said that quite clearly.
Do you not think that one who is perfect should be able to explain a point without resorting to causing harm to anything?"

So are you saying that Jesus contradicts himself?

Wouldn't that make him imperfect?

If its the word of God then why does it contradict itself (and please don't say it doesn't - you have provided an example yourself).

Suit yourself, but its pointless asking questions if you don't want answers.

Nope. Didn't even come close to saying that at all.

Given that I don't see any evidence for either position I actually consider them equally invalid (and will consider that to be the case until new evidence is presented).

Your the one saying that one side is wrong, and your the one basing that position on zero credible evidence.

"What exactly makes my view that its wrong so easy to dismiss?

...you have just dismissed it because it doesn't follow your world view, which to be blunt is a rather fundamentalist approach."

Sound familiar?

I didn't say I couldn't care less. I said I wasn't going to use a Biblical standard (sin) to comment on it, I quite clearly said I considered it wrong. You then dismissed my world view as invalid and have quote mined me in attempt to make out I hold a position I don't.

Don't do so again.

You've misunderstood. Notice there is no full stop at the end of my sentence. Read both as one sentence.

If you're saying that's wrong I couldn't care less, just like you

don't care what the Bible defines as sin or law, and as such you have my answer. His action in that reegard was morally wrong.

______

Oh and "Are you seriously attempting to use Gods words to prove Gods words?" doesn't change a single thing, you can't prove God exists simply by saying God exists!

I know, I'm not trying to prove God.

 

[Scaff]

Jesus only drove out "those who were buying and selling", and not "hundreds of people" like you said. The total number of people there has nothing to do with it.

I only make it sound like how the Bible says it, been quoting it since the start.
You've been twisting the meaning of verse and just blatantly making things up to suit your view from the start.

Then you will have no problem at all citing the verse that states the exact number of people involved.

Have you ever thought it could be used as a deterrent? "Made a sourge" ≠ "beating the 🤬 out of a bunch of people."

I've already addressed this.

Only now after posting it twice.

Nope, but given that you are asking me to repeat areas I have already covered you seem to have missed them.

There is nothing at all here that tells us that “thought is as bad as the deed.”

The reference to the eye is clearly linked to his previous statement that looking at a woman lustfully is sinful.
The mention of the hand relates to what we do with our hands, a physical action, not a mental action.

If you were able I'm sure you would've by now used an alternative verse clearly backing your statement.
Since none exist you have no choice but to continue to twist its simple meaning to conform with your statement.

Nope not at all.

Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!
Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Now in 18:7 we have the word 'things' indicating more than one, and if we look at alternate versions of the this verse we get:

New Living Translation
"What sorrow awaits the world, because it tempts people to sin. Temptations are inevitable, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting.

English Standard Version
“Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!

Berean Study Bible
Woe to the world for the causes of sin. These stumbling blocks must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

Berean Literal Bible
Woe to the world because of the causes of sin. For the stumbling blocks are necessary to come, but woe to the man by whom the offense comes!

New American Standard Bible
"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

King James Bible
Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

So we get Temptations (now the devil didn't use adultery as a temptation in the desert), ...woe to the world for the causes of sins (again a world of causes of sin is clearly not just adultery) and ...woe to the world for the causes of offenses (again a world of causes of offenses is clearly not just adultery).

So either adultery is the only temptation, offence or sin; or its talking about more than just adultery.

Oh and just to round things off 18:8, your foot! I've no idea what you imagination conjures up in regard to adultery, but it doesn't involve using a foot, or maybe it does for you. Then again you didn't answer my question in regard to the need to dismember oneself simply for thinking about adultery.

You can, but you have no argument. You were trying to use the Bible to say Jesus was imperfect and then it became your opinion when you couldn't use the Bible to back up your statement.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not an infallible objective source, as such the actions within it can be reviewed from a separate moral standpoint.

I know why.

I asked... "Do you think Jesus committed a sin here?"

Your answer...

"I think Jesus acted in a manner that is quite a way from perfect here, I've already said that quite clearly.
Do you not think that one who is perfect should be able to explain a point without resorting to causing harm to anything?"

Rather assumptive to think that may be all? Not that it isn't enough.

Suit yourself, but its pointless asking questions if you don't want answers.

A rather big cop-out.

You have clearly shown a contradiction in the Bible, and its not the only one (how many animals went onto the ark, who carried Jesus cross), the question is (and its a very valid one) if it is the word of an infallible God why does it contain contradictions (and flat out inaccuracies, rabbits don't ruminate and bats are not birds)?

Nor would an infallible God need to borrow heavily from other, far older religions, I'm sure he/she/they would have been able to create something original?

"What exactly makes my view that its wrong so easy to dismiss?

...you have just dismissed it because it doesn't follow your world view, which to be blunt is a rather fundamentalist approach."

Sound familiar?

No, not at all.

I've quite clearly explained that I would be willing to re-evaluate my position should credible evidence come to light, you on the other hand have simply refused to answer the question.

So not familiar at all.

I know, I'm not trying to prove God.

Sorry but you are. For it to be the word of God, then God would have to exist.

If you can't prove the existence of God then you can't prove that its God's words (hence the reason why you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible is true, or to prove that it the word of God or that God exists). Its akin to using the Harry Potter books to prove that Harry Potter is real and not a work of fiction.

 

[JKgo]

....I didn't mean to butt in, but this bit stopped me from moving on.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God...

I'm gonna use an analogy here, if you'll bear with me; I own several albums by musicians that are "inspired" by other artists. Covers, basically.

As expected, they sound almost nothing like the original, nor do they sound the way the original authors intended to be. Why? Simple.

When people are "inspired" by something, they don't just liberally copy/paste, but pour a healthy dose of their own interpretation on it. There lies in The Problem.

You fervently believe The Bible is the Truth, and it carries His Word to its fullest. The question now becomes -

1. Can you honestly put stock in the man/men who were "inspired" to record everything as was? Or did they put some dramatic spin on the narrative to make it more grandiose?

2. Even if you say yes to above query, then can you trust the expertise of the translators? After all, there are multiple interpretations of The Bible everywhere. They may contain the same message, but they all deliver it in slightly different ways.

3. And finally, who's to say it was God's Word these writers were "inspired" by?

All I'm saying here is, don't put too much of your faith in a book. After all, it is just a book.

That is all.

 

[dylansan]

On the whole "scourge" topic, I'd like to clarify what I think is @Scaff's point, which is that a scourge is specifically a whip with knots added to make it more painful. The knots don't add anything if it's not being used on a person.

So if you're just trying to frighten people or animals away, a whip would do fine. And the bible does use the word whip as much as scourge, so it's not something lost in translation.

So either Jesus specifically made a whip more painful for no reason, or he used it to actually hit people/animals.

That, or the author chose the wrong word. Which would make the claim that the bible is the word of an infallible god a little hard to buy.

 

[Rallywagon]

On the whole "scourge" topic, I'd like to clarify what I think is @Scaff's point, which is that a scourge is specifically a whip with knots added to make it more painful. The knots don't add anything if it's not being used on a person.

So if you're just trying to frighten people or animals away, a whip would do fine. And the bible does use the word whip as much as scourge, so it's not something lost in translation.

So either Jesus specifically made a whip more painful for no reason, or he used it to actually hit people/animals.

That, or the author chose the wrong word. Which would make the claim that the bible is the word of an infallible god a little hard to buy.

To further this thought train, the whole idea of needing the scourge would be to intimidate, otherwise why even have that in the first place. Is intimidation not a form of subtle violence?

 

[DCP]

If we're all going to die and not remember anything, why waste your time trying to please a God?

That's your religion, not mine. I don't believe that. Everyone must be judged. No one is allowed to get away scot free. God cannot be God if He is not Just, and just sweeps sin and crime under the carpet, like religion does.

Also, I don't try to please God. Again, that is religion.

I worship my Lord not because I have to, but because I know what He has done for me, and He is worthy of my worship.
Others worship football games, women, drugs, money, scientists, theories, self logic, lust, sin etc, but me and my house, we choose to serve the Perfect Saviour.

It's also fitting that people believe in an uncaused universe, but can't believe in an uncaused God. Such is our free will.

As I expected.. no response to my question.

Why do you worship a God who has condoned, at any point in time, to any people, for any reason, to seize the virgin girls of their enemies, slaughter the rest, and keep the virgins "for yourself"? In the US someone who seizes and rapes the children of the enemies they slaughter is called a rapist, murderer, and pedophile and is given about the worst conviction we can muster. That person would be the worst among us, yet you worship someone who condones and encourages this behavior and call him the source of perfect morality.

Feel free not to respond to this either (I know you like ignoring things that don't fit nicely into your view of your religion). Just let it stew in the back of your mind that your God is the God of rapists and pedophiles. Just let it gnaw at you when you're at church that your perfect morality condoned barbarism of the worst kind. Keep in mind too that your God is without time, he sees all across all time, and so his take on morality is exactly the same today and will always be the same as when he was cool with Moses rounding up the little girls, slaughtering their parents and brothers, and enslaving them. That's your God, right now. Christ did not change his take on morality, Christ just brokered a deal, and apparently a temporary one.

because no matter what answer I give you, your heart is trained by yourself to reject it immediately, because your logic is greater than you. It is your authority. My Authority is the Saviour Jesus Christ. It is personal and Spiritual. You wouldn't understand it. Sorry. See, the bible points out people like you. The bible read you before you were born. The path you would choose to become who you are today. If you are proud of who you are. That is great, because you use your free will just like everybody else.

Jesus said He is the door. Great, you probably picturing Him being a physical wooden door, opening and closing like any other. Such is the carnal mind, lusting over the things of this world.
So, when you are ready to deny the things of this world, then we can talk. Until then, you will continue doing what you say to yourself is right.

You also said the most silliest thing I've ever heard.
To love your neighbour is committing adultery.
So if your neighbor is your brother, his wife and their teenage daughter, then you are committing adultery, homosexuality, and you are a pedophile? Carnal mind indeed bro.

The Greek word agape is often translated “love” in the New Testament. How is “agape love” different from other types of love? The essence of agape love is goodwill, benevolence, and willful delight in the object of love. Unlike our English word love, agape is not used in the New Testament to refer to romantic or sexual love. Nor does it refer to close friendship or brotherly love, for which the Greek word philia is used. Agape love involves faithfulness, commitment, and an act of the will. It is distinguished from the other types of love by its lofty moral nature and strong character. Agape love is beautifully described in 1 Corinthians 13.

Outside of the New Testament, the word agape is used in a variety of contexts, but in the New Testament it takes on a distinct meaning. Agape is used to describe the love that is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself: “God is love” (1 John 4:8). God does not merely love; He is love itself. Everything God does flows from His love. Agape is also used to describe our love for God (Luke 10:27), a servant’s faithful respect to his master (Matthew 6:24), and a man’s attachment to things (John 3:19).

Finally, God made a promise to the Israelites. An eternal promise. He can't be God if He breaks that promise, correct?
Have you seen Israel today, after 2000 years of exile and separation?
If God didn't destroy Israel's enemies before they destroyed Israel, then God would have failed, correct?
To this very day, God never fails His word and still protects Israel, being outnumbered heavily from the surrounding enemies. Grasp on that, because nothing you say can change this amazing fact.

Why is Israel still standing? That small New Jersey sized land? Well er, I don't know. I think a specific God said He will always protect them. Go figure.

@Scaff

You don't WISH to say what you want, else who are you wishing from? The spaghetti monster?
No, you choose to scoff as the bible says such people we can be sure will exist. Same as Danoff, you immediately reject the bible, because your logic is your own god.
It just surprises me that you keep coming back to read the same response from us Christians, as if you are waiting to hear something different that may trigger you to believe in God. It doesn't work like that. Can you deny yourself? That is the question.

The fact that you continue to argue against Christianity and the bible and the God of Israel, must tell us that it must be true, else why argue against it time and again? Rally Art answered your question you've asked about the laws Christ came to fulfill, but you still choose not to accept it. It's that simple.

 

[Scaff]

Why is Israel still standing? That small New Jersey sized land? Well er, I don't know. I think a specific God said He will always protect them. Go figure.

Or it could be the backing of the US and ownership of nuclear weapons?

@Scaff
You don't WISH to say what you want, else who are you wishing from? The spaghetti monster?
No, you choose to scoff as the bible says such people we can be sure will exist. Same as Danoff, you immediately reject the bible, because your logic is your own god.
It just surprises me that you keep coming back to read the same response from us Christians, as if you are waiting to hear something different that may trigger you to believe in God. It doesn't work like that. Can you deny yourself? That is the question.

I don't have a god and I don't immediately reject anything, you seem to be talking about yourself.

The fact that you continue to argue against Christianity and the bible and the God of Israel, must tell us that it must be true, else why argue against it time and again? Rally Art answered your question you've asked about the laws Christ came to fulfill, but you still choose not to accept it. It's that simple.

He's answered (much like you have in the past) with vague Biblical passages, an attempt to use the Bible to prove the Bible and existence of God and contradictions, contradictions that can't both be true yet are supposed to be given that you both claim they are the word of god.

Yet not only does the Bible contradict itself, but also contains many factual inaccuracies (rabbits don't ruminate and bats are not birds), has numerous versions and translations and has had books added and removed.

As such its more than reasonable to ask how you square these with a claim that it is the word of an infallible, omnipotent, omnipresent God?

 

[DCP]

Or it could be the backing of the US and ownership of nuclear weapons?




I don't have a god and I don't immediately reject anything, you seem to be talking about yourself.



He's answered (much like you have in the past) with vague Biblical passages, an attempt to use the Bible to prove the Bible and existence of God and contradictions, contradictions that can't both be true yet are supposed to be given that you both claim they are the word of god.

Yet not only does the Bible contradict itself, but also contains many factual inaccuracies (rabbits don't ruminate and bats are not birds), has numerous versions and translations and has had books added and removed.

As such its more than reasonable to ask how you square these with a claim that it is the word of an infallible, omnipotent, omnipresent God?

I've told you before, for every supposed contradiction you assume is the case, you can just as easily find it debunked.
The question is, are you going to accept the response, or continue rejecting it. This is the point I'm trying to make.
Regarding bats and birds, do you think men 3000 years knew what the difference was?
Is it so important to God, that he should tell those men the difference?
What's important to God is men coming to repentance.

This verse is typical:

18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Hence, people being so blinded that they don't even realise that they believe in an out of nothing / uncaused universe, that found all the ingredients from somewhere, to eventually get to where we are today.

Tell me, is it so important that the Sun doesn't revolve around the earth, even though it is seen to be the case from our perspective on earth? Can we change it? Did man become more loving to one another after they found that the earth does the rotating and revolving? Does it in any way change your daily life and living?

Versions and translations doesn't mean it is changed. It confirms that Gods word is universal, and will reach every nation and tongue, fulfilling what the bible actually says. Even when they add a later found verse, they tell you in the footnote such is the case. It doesn't in anyway take away the truth of the word.
No one can tell us if the word was changed or corrupt, because what can we compare the corruptions/changes with?
It might as well be the case for every book. Apply the same criticism.