What do you think about how the present bible came to be?I'm sure you are all familiar with the Council of Nicaea, a gathering of priests and bishops in A.D. 325, motivated by the roman emperor Constantine to compile an "official" book for christianity. It was in that council that it was "decided" which books and gospels went into the Bible. One very interesting aspect of this counsil is that it too decided the "divine" status of Jesus Christ. Up until then, Christ was not necessarily seen as "the son of g*d" but a prophet, the messiah.
Man made Bible
- Thread starter skeptik
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(skeptik;4233)
What do you think about how the present bible came to be?
The content of the Protestant Bible has never been unilaterally laid down, and people other than Roman Catholics can have any canon they like.
I'm sure you are all familiar with the Council of Nicaea, a gathering of priests and bishops in A.D. 325, motivated by the roman emperor Constantine to compile an "official" book for christianity. It was in that council that it was "decided" which books and gospels went into the Bible.
So are we to understand that the saints of God are ruled by a worldly power?
What do you think about how the present bible came to be?
The content of the Protestant Bible has never been unilaterally laid down, and people other than Roman Catholics can have any canon they like.
I'm sure you are all familiar with the Council of Nicaea, a gathering of priests and bishops in A.D. 325, motivated by the roman emperor Constantine to compile an "official" book for christianity. It was in that council that it was "decided" which books and gospels went into the Bible.
So are we to understand that the saints of God are ruled by a worldly power?
What do you think about how the present bible came to be?
As a Christian I think you have to believe in divine guidance to some degree or another; otherwise why even believe if this benevolent God cannot even give us a book that tells us what to do?
One very interesting aspect of this counsil is that it too decided the "divine" status of Jesus Christ. Up until then, Christ was not necessarily seen as "the son of g*d" but a prophet, the messiah.
That's funny because the Bible, even if you accept the secular academic attempt to label the dates of various books of the New Testament, puts the books of the Bible at least nearly and in some cases well over two centuries ahead of the council of Nicaea.
As a Christian I think you have to believe in divine guidance to some degree or another; otherwise why even believe if this benevolent God cannot even give us a book that tells us what to do?
One very interesting aspect of this counsil is that it too decided the "divine" status of Jesus Christ. Up until then, Christ was not necessarily seen as "the son of g*d" but a prophet, the messiah.
That's funny because the Bible, even if you accept the secular academic attempt to label the dates of various books of the New Testament, puts the books of the Bible at least nearly and in some cases well over two centuries ahead of the council of Nicaea.
(pointer;4236)
The content of the Protestant Bible has never been unilaterally laid down, and people other than Roman Catholics can have any canon they like.
How come? Isn't the christian bible the same as the roman catholic?
The content of the Protestant Bible has never been unilaterally laid down, and people other than Roman Catholics can have any canon they like.
How come? Isn't the christian bible the same as the roman catholic?
No Skeptik it is not although Catholics believe in the Christain bible they have their own that they prefer and they are different perhaps you would find my last post on the following thread enlightinghttp://www.christianityboard.com/right-rel...t768.html?t=768
(SwampFox;4237)
As a Christian I think you have to believe in divine guidance to some degree or another; otherwise why even believe if this benevolent God cannot even give us a book that tells us what to do?
Does it really come to that? What about the rejected gospels? And how come the present day bible was compiled three centuries after christ returned to the father? I am really having a hard time accepting that the book so many people refer to as the word of g*d was compiled and edited by a committee. Specially since this was not set forward by any sort of force like the holy spirit, but by a roman emperor who only converted to christianity to "get with the program". It is widely accepted that he kept his pagan beliefs and was only baptized in his deathbed. Baptism which was only witnessed by the same christian leaders that allegedly carried it out BTW. (SwampFox;4237)
That's funny because the Bible, even if you accept the secular academic attempt to label the dates of various books of the New Testament, puts the books of the Bible at least nearly and in some cases well over two centuries ahead of the council of Nicaea.
And still, many decades after christ returned to the heavens. The earliest gospels were, in fact, not included in the bible.
As a Christian I think you have to believe in divine guidance to some degree or another; otherwise why even believe if this benevolent God cannot even give us a book that tells us what to do?
Does it really come to that? What about the rejected gospels? And how come the present day bible was compiled three centuries after christ returned to the father? I am really having a hard time accepting that the book so many people refer to as the word of g*d was compiled and edited by a committee. Specially since this was not set forward by any sort of force like the holy spirit, but by a roman emperor who only converted to christianity to "get with the program". It is widely accepted that he kept his pagan beliefs and was only baptized in his deathbed. Baptism which was only witnessed by the same christian leaders that allegedly carried it out BTW. (SwampFox;4237)
That's funny because the Bible, even if you accept the secular academic attempt to label the dates of various books of the New Testament, puts the books of the Bible at least nearly and in some cases well over two centuries ahead of the council of Nicaea.
And still, many decades after christ returned to the heavens. The earliest gospels were, in fact, not included in the bible.
Well it's a reminder that God works through everything as the Old Testament documents repeatedly through various governments and figures. Just because they do not believe in God (or in other cases wrongly believe) doesn't mean that they cannot be relative pawns in this chess game that we call life. Especially for an omnipotent God; it would not be the first time God used man. History itself is an interesting field for a variety of reasons; I've heard some professors say some things and many others say something to the contrary. I've learned you've got to be careful what you read and what you believe. As for me, the faith (or lack thereof) possibly of a Roman Emperor has no affect upon me. Salvation is a personal matter.
(kriss;4285)
No Skeptik it is not although Catholics believe in the Christain bible they have their own that they prefer and they are different perhaps you would find my last post on the following thread enlightinghttp://www.christianityboard.com/right-rel...t768.html?t=768
Could someone please point to me the differences between the protestant and catholic bible? I was born an raised a catholic. And lately I've found myself reading a KJB to be able to communicate on forums such as this in english and not having to translate myself.My beliefs nowadays are somewhat all over the map. And as you can see from my posts. I have serious issues with the bible being regarded "g*d's word" because the more I read it, the more I find that it is the work of corrupt priests and not the word of a benevolent g*d. I believe that christ left us but one law: LOVE. Everything else falls into place once you fill your heart with it. Maybe that is why christ didn't feel the need to write a gospel himself, he thought his message was clear enough. Leave it up to humanity to screw it up.
No Skeptik it is not although Catholics believe in the Christain bible they have their own that they prefer and they are different perhaps you would find my last post on the following thread enlightinghttp://www.christianityboard.com/right-rel...t768.html?t=768
Could someone please point to me the differences between the protestant and catholic bible? I was born an raised a catholic. And lately I've found myself reading a KJB to be able to communicate on forums such as this in english and not having to translate myself.My beliefs nowadays are somewhat all over the map. And as you can see from my posts. I have serious issues with the bible being regarded "g*d's word" because the more I read it, the more I find that it is the work of corrupt priests and not the word of a benevolent g*d. I believe that christ left us but one law: LOVE. Everything else falls into place once you fill your heart with it. Maybe that is why christ didn't feel the need to write a gospel himself, he thought his message was clear enough. Leave it up to humanity to screw it up.
Ah but we mess everything up to be honest. God tried giving us the commandments verbally as we see from the very beginning of time, but that didn't work either; there's a reason Jesus quoted from the Old Testament; in fact, there's reasons. Scholars will have you believe that the writings were edited here and there and this and that was inserted. Again, if you want to believe them, then do so, but I'll stick with the all-knowing guy myself. What the Catholics do and what they believe is a result of all sorts of conferences and writings of man. Again, it all pretty much goes back to my initial statement. Either you believe God loves us enough (afterall, he did give us his Son to die for us) to make sure that what gets passed down does, or he doesn't. That's a personal matter that no amount of study in done by this world can ever prove or disprove. I Corinthians 1:27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; The so called "higher critics" have been at it for hundreds of years now and they still cannot find consensus. With all my faults - I've been on this Earth barely a 5th of a decade now - I know what I need to know and what was ordained by God rests in this letter to you, myself, and everyone else that lays right besides me as I type this.
(SwampFox;4293)
What the Catholics do and what they believe is a result of all sorts of conferences and writings of man.
Is what protestants believe not the result of this also? And how can one come to believe that the writings of catholics are somehow less worthy or divinely inspired than those writings in which protestants base their beliefs? Moses broke the only thing that g*d has given to humanity directly. In the end, its the word of one man against another's: the torah, the bible and the koran are all man made.The protestant church (all of its denominations) are, after all the result of Lutheran reform. The church of england is the result of king Henry VIII wanting to get a divorce. Joseph Smith was allegedly inspired by g*d to translate the book of mormon. Who are we to say that he was not?The relationship of every man and woman with g*d should be personal, and each person should look for enlightenment within herself, and with g*d. 2000 year old writings of men should not stand in the way.
What the Catholics do and what they believe is a result of all sorts of conferences and writings of man.
Is what protestants believe not the result of this also? And how can one come to believe that the writings of catholics are somehow less worthy or divinely inspired than those writings in which protestants base their beliefs? Moses broke the only thing that g*d has given to humanity directly. In the end, its the word of one man against another's: the torah, the bible and the koran are all man made.The protestant church (all of its denominations) are, after all the result of Lutheran reform. The church of england is the result of king Henry VIII wanting to get a divorce. Joseph Smith was allegedly inspired by g*d to translate the book of mormon. Who are we to say that he was not?The relationship of every man and woman with g*d should be personal, and each person should look for enlightenment within herself, and with g*d. 2000 year old writings of men should not stand in the way.
(skeptik;4297)
Is what protestants believe not the result of this also?
See #2. How does a Catholic explain that it took a Roman emperor, who had the nerve to designate himself a bishop, and call himself 'the thirteenth apostle', to bring about the Catholic Bible?
And how can one come to believe that the writings of catholics are somehow less worthy or divinely inspired than those writings in which protestants base their beliefs?
Everyone makes his/her own judgement. Many Protestants find the Catholic 'Deuterocanonicals' to be insipid at best, humanist and heretical at worst. There are now no soldiers with papal backing to convince them otherwise.Individual Catholics often seem to think that the Bible was decided upon by them, and that Protestants do not realise it, but the official Catholic position is much wiser than that. Non-Catholics (including the Orthodox) make their own judgement quite independently of what the RCC thinks, as though the RCC does not exist. Or are we to understand that the saints of God are ruled by a worldly power?
because Moses broke the only thing that g*d has given to humanity directly.
If one chooses to believe that, of course, and many don't.
In the end, its the word of one man against another's: the torah, the bible and the koran are all man made.
Agreed.
The protestant church (all of its denominations) are, after all the result of Lutheran reform. The church of england is the result of king Henry VIII wanting to get a divorce.
Not the result of Lutheran reform?Henry was perhaps a protestant, but he was certainly not a Protestant. The Protestant credo includes sola Scriptura and sola fide. Henry had no truck with those ideas, for which England had to wait until Henry was dead.The very significant point about Protestantism is that its denominations have differed about many things, but the canon of Scripture has not been one of them. To a Protestant, the OT canon was the Hebrew one used and therefore hallowed by Jesus; and the NT chooses itself. To a Catholic, these things had to be decided by a committee. To a Catholic, the process was one that needed protracted debate. To a Protestant, this one at least, to take three hundred years to decide what God has said must take a lot of explanation. But not much explanation when it is remembered that Constantine and his predecessors had made the Bible illegal within their Empire, so they could have no official canon until the Empire officially converted.
Joseph Smith was allegedly inspired by g*d to translate the book of mormon. Who are we to say that he was not?
Certainly not a Catholic, who believes that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 justifies the acceptance of just about any tradition. People make their own canons, such as Smith's BoM, The New World Translation, The Qur'an, the Granth, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or they make none at all. Unless there is a 'Hitler' to decide what it right, there is no-one to say that Smith was not divinely inspired.
Is what protestants believe not the result of this also?
See #2. How does a Catholic explain that it took a Roman emperor, who had the nerve to designate himself a bishop, and call himself 'the thirteenth apostle', to bring about the Catholic Bible?
And how can one come to believe that the writings of catholics are somehow less worthy or divinely inspired than those writings in which protestants base their beliefs?
Everyone makes his/her own judgement. Many Protestants find the Catholic 'Deuterocanonicals' to be insipid at best, humanist and heretical at worst. There are now no soldiers with papal backing to convince them otherwise.Individual Catholics often seem to think that the Bible was decided upon by them, and that Protestants do not realise it, but the official Catholic position is much wiser than that. Non-Catholics (including the Orthodox) make their own judgement quite independently of what the RCC thinks, as though the RCC does not exist. Or are we to understand that the saints of God are ruled by a worldly power?
because Moses broke the only thing that g*d has given to humanity directly.
If one chooses to believe that, of course, and many don't.
In the end, its the word of one man against another's: the torah, the bible and the koran are all man made.
Agreed.
The protestant church (all of its denominations) are, after all the result of Lutheran reform. The church of england is the result of king Henry VIII wanting to get a divorce.
Not the result of Lutheran reform?Henry was perhaps a protestant, but he was certainly not a Protestant. The Protestant credo includes sola Scriptura and sola fide. Henry had no truck with those ideas, for which England had to wait until Henry was dead.The very significant point about Protestantism is that its denominations have differed about many things, but the canon of Scripture has not been one of them. To a Protestant, the OT canon was the Hebrew one used and therefore hallowed by Jesus; and the NT chooses itself. To a Catholic, these things had to be decided by a committee. To a Catholic, the process was one that needed protracted debate. To a Protestant, this one at least, to take three hundred years to decide what God has said must take a lot of explanation. But not much explanation when it is remembered that Constantine and his predecessors had made the Bible illegal within their Empire, so they could have no official canon until the Empire officially converted.
Joseph Smith was allegedly inspired by g*d to translate the book of mormon. Who are we to say that he was not?
Certainly not a Catholic, who believes that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 justifies the acceptance of just about any tradition. People make their own canons, such as Smith's BoM, The New World Translation, The Qur'an, the Granth, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or they make none at all. Unless there is a 'Hitler' to decide what it right, there is no-one to say that Smith was not divinely inspired.
(pointer;4302)
See #2. How does a Catholic explain that it took a Roman emperor, who had the nerve to designate himself a bishop, and call himself 'the thirteenth apostle', to bring about the Catholic Bible?
I don't know how a catholic explains it. Thats how it was done. I've been asking over and over: can somebody point me to a difference between the protestant bible and the catholic bible? They look the same to me.(pointer;4302)
Not the result of Lutheran reform?
What does this mean? Is the origin of the protestant church as a whole not the result of Lutheran reform?(pointer;4302)
Henry was perhaps a protestant, but he was certainly not a Protestant.
This dosent make any sense. (pointer;4302)
Certainly not a Catholic, who believes that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 justifies the acceptance of just about any tradition. People make their own canons, such as Smith's BoM, The New World Translation, The Qur'an, the Granth, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or they make none at all. Unless there is a 'Hitler' to decide what it right, there is no-one to say that Smith was not divinely inspired.
Exactly my point. Who's to say whom was or was not divinely inspired? Its all writings of men. When the King James Version I've been reading dictates that someone who does this or that should be stoned, I don't feel that is the result of a loving, forgiving g*d, but some nut trying to legislate claiming his political views are the "word of g*d".
See #2. How does a Catholic explain that it took a Roman emperor, who had the nerve to designate himself a bishop, and call himself 'the thirteenth apostle', to bring about the Catholic Bible?
I don't know how a catholic explains it. Thats how it was done. I've been asking over and over: can somebody point me to a difference between the protestant bible and the catholic bible? They look the same to me.(pointer;4302)
Not the result of Lutheran reform?
What does this mean? Is the origin of the protestant church as a whole not the result of Lutheran reform?(pointer;4302)
Henry was perhaps a protestant, but he was certainly not a Protestant.
This dosent make any sense. (pointer;4302)
Certainly not a Catholic, who believes that 2 Thessalonians 3:6 justifies the acceptance of just about any tradition. People make their own canons, such as Smith's BoM, The New World Translation, The Qur'an, the Granth, Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, or they make none at all. Unless there is a 'Hitler' to decide what it right, there is no-one to say that Smith was not divinely inspired.
Exactly my point. Who's to say whom was or was not divinely inspired? Its all writings of men. When the King James Version I've been reading dictates that someone who does this or that should be stoned, I don't feel that is the result of a loving, forgiving g*d, but some nut trying to legislate claiming his political views are the "word of g*d".
I'm going to pose these questions to you skeptic in regards to this quote:
I believe that christ left us but one law: LOVE.
Where would you draw this from? Perhaps Christ came and said for us to follow the laws of the Tanakh only. Perhaps the same corrupt priests wanted to absolve the law because they knew they couldn't follow it and wanted an easy way out? Maybe everything Jesus said in the Bible was constructed by these comissions and priests including the law of love.
I believe that christ left us but one law: LOVE.
Where would you draw this from? Perhaps Christ came and said for us to follow the laws of the Tanakh only. Perhaps the same corrupt priests wanted to absolve the law because they knew they couldn't follow it and wanted an easy way out? Maybe everything Jesus said in the Bible was constructed by these comissions and priests including the law of love.
(SwampFox;4369)
Where would you draw this from? Perhaps Christ came and said for us to follow the laws of the Tanakh only. Perhaps the same corrupt priests wanted to absolve the law because they knew they couldn't follow it and wanted an easy way out? Maybe everything Jesus said in the Bible was constructed by these comissions and priests including the law of love.
Many gospels, including rejected gospels. And other historical accounts speak of this. What I am talking about is how, 300 years after jesus died at the cross, a committee decided what christians should believe. Up until then there were a myriad of gospels going around, telling the story of our savior from many points of view, but many facts about the life of christ on this earth and what he preached are not disputed. I dislike the editorial censorship of all the other ideas that were in play. And the subsequent destruction of them.I specially dislike the "laws" put into the bible and how some people seem pretty comfortable quoting the bible to say that this or that is prohibited, and break a considerable amount of impossible laws themselves, breaking the fundamental one.Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
Where would you draw this from? Perhaps Christ came and said for us to follow the laws of the Tanakh only. Perhaps the same corrupt priests wanted to absolve the law because they knew they couldn't follow it and wanted an easy way out? Maybe everything Jesus said in the Bible was constructed by these comissions and priests including the law of love.
Many gospels, including rejected gospels. And other historical accounts speak of this. What I am talking about is how, 300 years after jesus died at the cross, a committee decided what christians should believe. Up until then there were a myriad of gospels going around, telling the story of our savior from many points of view, but many facts about the life of christ on this earth and what he preached are not disputed. I dislike the editorial censorship of all the other ideas that were in play. And the subsequent destruction of them.I specially dislike the "laws" put into the bible and how some people seem pretty comfortable quoting the bible to say that this or that is prohibited, and break a considerable amount of impossible laws themselves, breaking the fundamental one.Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!
(skeptik;4331)
I don't know how a catholic explains it.
Catholics have no answer to it. That is because the RCC is first and foremost a political organisation, not a religious one.
I've been asking over and over: can somebody point me to a difference between the protestant bible and the catholic bible? They look the same to me.
The Catholic version contains 'Deuterocanonical' books in its Old Testament that are not found in the Protestant version. Any Catholic 'Bible' (it's not really a Bible, imv) contains them. Protestants paid no attention to Catholic ideas about what was divinely inspired. It would have been very surprising if they had, as they had been maltreated by Catholics for a long time.
Exactly my point. Who's to say whom was or was not divinely inspired? Its all writings of men. When the King James Version I've been reading dictates that someone who does this or that should be stoned, I don't feel that is the result of a loving, forgiving g*d, but some nut trying to legislate claiming his political views are the "word of g*d".
Why should that be troublesome? No-one today advocates stoning because the Bible says that, not even the Jews; and there is of course no-one to tell you that you must accept it as Scripture yourself.
I don't know how a catholic explains it.
Catholics have no answer to it. That is because the RCC is first and foremost a political organisation, not a religious one.
I've been asking over and over: can somebody point me to a difference between the protestant bible and the catholic bible? They look the same to me.
The Catholic version contains 'Deuterocanonical' books in its Old Testament that are not found in the Protestant version. Any Catholic 'Bible' (it's not really a Bible, imv) contains them. Protestants paid no attention to Catholic ideas about what was divinely inspired. It would have been very surprising if they had, as they had been maltreated by Catholics for a long time.
Exactly my point. Who's to say whom was or was not divinely inspired? Its all writings of men. When the King James Version I've been reading dictates that someone who does this or that should be stoned, I don't feel that is the result of a loving, forgiving g*d, but some nut trying to legislate claiming his political views are the "word of g*d".
Why should that be troublesome? No-one today advocates stoning because the Bible says that, not even the Jews; and there is of course no-one to tell you that you must accept it as Scripture yourself.
(pointer;4375)
The Catholic version contains 'Deuterocanonical' books in its Old Testament that are not found in the Protestant version. Any Catholic 'Bible' (it's not really a Bible, imv) contains them. Protestants paid no attention to Catholic ideas about what was divinely inspired. It would have been very surprising if they had, as they had been maltreated by Catholics for a long time.
But it still contains all the other books no? The protestant bible is just the catholic bible with fewer books. So its been edited a bit more! (pointer;4375)
Why should that be troublesome? No-one today advocates stoning because the Bible says that, not even the Jews; and there is of course no-one to tell you that you must accept it as Scripture yourself.
Of course there isn't. But many people advocate quite a few things written in the bible. Why do they get to pick and choose which ones they like? Seems to me thats extremely hypocritical. I found an interesting quote
Mahatma Gandhi)
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ!
The Catholic version contains 'Deuterocanonical' books in its Old Testament that are not found in the Protestant version. Any Catholic 'Bible' (it's not really a Bible, imv) contains them. Protestants paid no attention to Catholic ideas about what was divinely inspired. It would have been very surprising if they had, as they had been maltreated by Catholics for a long time.
But it still contains all the other books no? The protestant bible is just the catholic bible with fewer books. So its been edited a bit more! (pointer;4375)
Why should that be troublesome? No-one today advocates stoning because the Bible says that, not even the Jews; and there is of course no-one to tell you that you must accept it as Scripture yourself.
Of course there isn't. But many people advocate quite a few things written in the bible. Why do they get to pick and choose which ones they like? Seems to me thats extremely hypocritical. I found an interesting quote
Mahatma Gandhi)I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ!
(skeptik;4376)
But it still contains all the other books no? The protestant bible is just the catholic bible with fewer books.
So why did you say you could find no difference? The theological difference is great.
But many people advocate quite a few things written in the bible.
Loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, generosity, patience, self-control, humility; but not stoning. So what's the problem?
Why do they get to pick and choose which ones they like?
You do; why shouldn't they?
Seems to me thats extremely hypocritical.
Why?
But it still contains all the other books no? The protestant bible is just the catholic bible with fewer books.
So why did you say you could find no difference? The theological difference is great.
But many people advocate quite a few things written in the bible.
Loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, generosity, patience, self-control, humility; but not stoning. So what's the problem?
Why do they get to pick and choose which ones they like?
You do; why shouldn't they?
Seems to me thats extremely hypocritical.
Why?
skepticI believe that christ left us but one law: LOVENothing personal but thats a really ridicoulous statement love can not be a law if it isn't given freely it can not be called love thus we were given free will so each could freely chose to love God.second this whole argument is getting no where the fact is I suspect no matter what kind of facts anyone uses your going to argue it.So basically you are left with faith (belief in an unseen thing or idea) Christ was not magic yet he raised the dead,fed the many,changed water to wine.How did he do this FAITH in his father in heaven.The bible teaches us to love and have FAITH and all things are possiable it also tells us we have a free will to chose to do so.Most here choose to have FAITH that if God can make the world and all thats in it including you he can see that his word is recorded in a book.And my last word is about your statement below from GandiOriginally Posted by Mahatma Gandhi I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ! He may be a great man to some but what do his words have to do with any part of this debate as far as I know he was from a faith that worship false idols of stone so why would a Jewish or christain person care what he says?
(pointer;4379)
So why did you say you could find no difference? The theological difference is great.
The laws are the same. The gospels are the same. Genesis is the same. How did protestants decide which books to take out?(pointer;4379)
Loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, generosity, patience, self-control, humility; but not stoning. So what's the problem?
Those are nice. I have no problem with those. I just say that if you regard a book as the timeless, inequivocal word of g*d then you can't pick and choose! You can't decide which parts are to be followed and which not without acknowledging that the book is deeply flawed. Now, if you regard it as a general guide as to how you should act. Then no problem!(pointer;4379)
You do; why shouldn't they?
I do because I know that the bible is not the word of g*d, but the word of men. Just like every other holy book out there. They do because they like some parts, and others not.(pointer;4379)
Why?
Already stated it above, and I feel like repeating it: If you regard the bible as the word of g*d, then it is highly hypocritical of you to pick which parts you follow and which not. People quote scripture to support the death penalty, and in the same breath talk about the evils of abortion. THAT's hypocrisy. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't this people understand? If you quote Leviticus 18:22 to say that homosexuals are an abomination, then you better not cut your hair or eat pork and shellfish.
So why did you say you could find no difference? The theological difference is great.
The laws are the same. The gospels are the same. Genesis is the same. How did protestants decide which books to take out?(pointer;4379)
Loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, generosity, patience, self-control, humility; but not stoning. So what's the problem?
Those are nice. I have no problem with those. I just say that if you regard a book as the timeless, inequivocal word of g*d then you can't pick and choose! You can't decide which parts are to be followed and which not without acknowledging that the book is deeply flawed. Now, if you regard it as a general guide as to how you should act. Then no problem!(pointer;4379)
You do; why shouldn't they?
I do because I know that the bible is not the word of g*d, but the word of men. Just like every other holy book out there. They do because they like some parts, and others not.(pointer;4379)
Why?
Already stated it above, and I feel like repeating it: If you regard the bible as the word of g*d, then it is highly hypocritical of you to pick which parts you follow and which not. People quote scripture to support the death penalty, and in the same breath talk about the evils of abortion. THAT's hypocrisy. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" don't this people understand? If you quote Leviticus 18:22 to say that homosexuals are an abomination, then you better not cut your hair or eat pork and shellfish.
(kriss;4381)
Nothing personal but thats a really ridicoulous statement love can not be a law if it isn't given freely it can not be called love thus we were given free will so each could freely chose to love God.
Love can be a law. You can break any law if you want to.(kriss;4381)
second this whole argument is getting no where the fact is I suspect no matter what kind of facts anyone uses your going to argue it.
Please point me to a single fact uttered in this discussion.(kriss;4381)
So basically you are left with faith (belief in an unseen thing or idea) Christ was not magic yet he raised the dead,fed the many,changed water to wine.How did he do this FAITH in his father in heaven.
I'm not arguing against faith, I'm not arguing against g*d. I'm saying that the bible is NOT the word of g*d and that even if it was, no christian makes a genuine effort to follow it. They just go with the parts they like.(kriss;4381)
The bible teaches us to love and have FAITH and all things are possiable it also tells us we have a free will to chose to do so.
It also teaches you to stone "sinners".(kriss;4381)
Most here choose to have FAITH that if God can make the world and all thats in it including you he can see that his word is recorded in a book.
So please explain why do you choose to blatantly disregard g*d's word by not stoning anyone you see working on a sabbath.(kriss;4381)
He may be a great man to some but what do his words have to do with any part of this debate as far as I know he was from a faith that worship false idols of stone so why would a Jewish or christain person care what he says?
It's not about his faith or anything. I found it very interesing in the sense that I've described in the post above.
Nothing personal but thats a really ridicoulous statement love can not be a law if it isn't given freely it can not be called love thus we were given free will so each could freely chose to love God.
Love can be a law. You can break any law if you want to.(kriss;4381)
second this whole argument is getting no where the fact is I suspect no matter what kind of facts anyone uses your going to argue it.
Please point me to a single fact uttered in this discussion.(kriss;4381)
So basically you are left with faith (belief in an unseen thing or idea) Christ was not magic yet he raised the dead,fed the many,changed water to wine.How did he do this FAITH in his father in heaven.
I'm not arguing against faith, I'm not arguing against g*d. I'm saying that the bible is NOT the word of g*d and that even if it was, no christian makes a genuine effort to follow it. They just go with the parts they like.(kriss;4381)
The bible teaches us to love and have FAITH and all things are possiable it also tells us we have a free will to chose to do so.
It also teaches you to stone "sinners".(kriss;4381)
Most here choose to have FAITH that if God can make the world and all thats in it including you he can see that his word is recorded in a book.
So please explain why do you choose to blatantly disregard g*d's word by not stoning anyone you see working on a sabbath.(kriss;4381)
He may be a great man to some but what do his words have to do with any part of this debate as far as I know he was from a faith that worship false idols of stone so why would a Jewish or christain person care what he says?
It's not about his faith or anything. I found it very interesing in the sense that I've described in the post above.
Similar threads
