Recent content by Truth OT

This statement in no way legitimizes whether or not the Bible is a writing of supernatural construction as opposed to a work of men. The writers of the text CLAIMED Jesus did certain things and CLAIMED he said this. How does there claims verify these things actually occurred? A non-biased...

Bingo! 100% what I am saying.

Why do you believe a narrative concocted by men would be easy to follow?

Thanks for chiming in Bob. The fact that there is contention within the Christian faith(s) bolsters my point that the Bible is very ambiguous, at times contradictory, and downright confusing regarding numerous religious subjects that would appear to be of upmost importance.

Many texts have done the very same thing and have (rightly so) been relegated to myth and historical fiction. Here's where we have contention.

Made up drivel. Where's the proof?

Oh so if someone "interprets" the bible differently than you they are influenced by a cult. I think I get it now, pompous bias......

I agree. He's DEFINATELY not the author of the Bible. Man is.

Mark 16:16 for $300, Alex.

Are you being willfully blind or just dishonest? Seriously in one keystroke you talk about how a parent passes something to their offspring and then you ignore the FACT that Mary had a father that passed things to her that she in turn passes to her children as well. So for your point to make...

Your interpretation of this text is almost laughable. Sperm of the woman, really?! You know good and well the text says no such thing. Stop reaching. Again, YOUR interpretation. This position you take is quite opposed to many within Christendom and even with certain texts like 1 Peter 3:21...

The Bible presents a very broad general narrative many believe and have built varying beliefs systems around. Yet, the book is very ambiguous, at times contradictory, and downright confusing regarding numerous religious subjects that would appear to be of upmost importance. Such ambiguity...

All of the parts that insert deity, invoke the miraculous, and conflict with history. Other than that it may be fairly true. :)

The book of John is anonymously written. Nowhere does it declare who should be credited with authorship. It was attributed to the apostle John nearly a century after the events it described would have transpired if they were real. That depicts a 1st person narrative and nothing else. It doesn't...

Did Luke not admit he was NOT an eyewitness? My point is proven by the very words you quoted. Argue with the Bible, not me on this. As far as this claim goes, I'm not 2000 years with early life experience in Palestine so I can't confirm the accuracy of the accounts. What I do know from...