another reason why the Christian bible is false

[Hapsburg]

Hey, visitor, instead of just saying crap, why don't you post some REAL proof of your BS? Photographs, eyewitness reports, articles in national geographic, documentaries, historians and biologists opinions and findings, etc.

 

[TheVisitor]

Hey, visitor, instead of just saying crap, why don't you post some REAL proof of your BS? Photographs, eyewitness reports, articles in national geographic, documentaries, historians and biologists opinions and findings, etc.

Another skeptic......that doesn't "get it"
With an attitude like yours, you never will.....
Didn't you understand anything I just said?
Of course not.

Jesus didn't clown for skeptics when they asked for proof the first time He was here.
He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[geeser]

we wont laugh at you, visitor indulge us, if your so sure would'nt you wish to convert, us skeptic, jesus would like that would'nt he.
all it would take is one tiny instant, of proof. one tiny grain of sand in the evidence stakes, this would be nothing for a man such as yourself surely.
or are you just full of it.
I would be come a flag waving christian, in the wink of a eye, for the wont of a grain of sand.
you would be our new messiah.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Since God ordered the execution of the giants in Moses' day, and except for a few that were finnished off by Davids' group of warriors about 1000 b.c,.... the evidence of a seperate species is pretty slim.
I'd try these burial mounds, if I were looking for "tangible" evidence, that have been reported right here in America of the 12' giant humoniods with double rows of dentition, low slopeing foreheads, and I'd suspect...6 fingers on each and toes on their feet.
It was a seperate species.
The pits were found during road and building construction all through the 1880's to 1970's in many U.S. states.
The remains are only less than 1000 yeas old, and Indian legends say they banded together to wipe them out about 500 years ago or so.

A pro-creation natural history museum in Texas claims to have the thigh-bone of a giant man that coresponds with a height of over 30 feet.
Also it has dinosaur remains that are so recent they aren't even fosilized yet.

Theres a clue...... go for it.

The burden of proof lies on you. So say the skeptics. If you have that information, then why not sharing with us? I, myself, would love to take a look at that...

 

[Giambattista]

You can't add too or take from, that means if futher revelation is to come, it had to be there all along....just overlooked or mis-read.

Can't add or subtract? You are, I assume, referring to the closing passage of the Book of Revelations? That part was in there before it was part of the official canon of scripture.
The Greek word that is here translated as "book" is a diminutive form of the more common word for book, "biblos". Thus, it denotes something like a small book, or very likely a scroll or other written document. Why are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also called books, when they are generally found more as chapters in a larger book called the Bible?

Matthew begins with the phrase

"The record (or book) of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham"

Record is a translation from the same word found in Revelations "biblion". It clearly is not referring to a book. The genealogy given for Jesus takes less than a page. Do you really think a half-page of writing is the same as a whole book?
Because the Revelation was a separate work from the rest of the Bible, the warning not to add or subtract from the work was referring only to Revelations. There was no book called the Bible at that time, as I'm sure you know.

The Apocalypse of John (Revelations) narrowly missed being excluded from the canon.
The Apocalypse of Peter was considered by Clement of Alexandria, one of the major figures in the early church, to be divinely inspired, hence worthy of canonization. And Clement lived well before the Nicean council, closer to the source of Christianity than the people who formed the book we have today.

Is he now burning in hell for this heresy? Just wondering...

 

[The Devil Inside]

In some aramaic, or arabic (I forget which to be sure)....dialects, serpent still translates as "ape"
So there!
Maybe it's time for your bannana....
Because if you don't see it,after having it explained by the scriptures and being spelled out for you in infinite detail, that tells me what lineage your from.
You see, the serpents' offspring were used as hosts for evil spirits.
"The Devil Inside" is very fitting, as the case may be, for someone with your "outlook" on things.
I hope that can change yet someday for your sake.
Have a nice day

it is said that he who only reads the words of the torah is like a man that never takes the wedding dress off of his wife.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Everything I said about it is in the bible , sealed in the bible...between the lines.
You can't add too or take from, that means if futher revelation is to come, it had to be there all along....just overlooked or mis-read.
To teach anything less than the "true" which is a whole or perfect revelation as opposed to a partial would be taking away from the truth.
Paul said "now we see in part as through a glass darkly, then (when..? when He returns and we are taught of God at His feet)...we shall see face to face.

um, didnt you just criticize me for saying pretty much the exact same thing (read between the lines into the actual meaning of the scriptures)?

Where did I get this revelation?------------
From Jesus Christ the Son of man....at His return to His people.
He is the one that is here teaching these things.
He has returned.

i bet. well, just make sure you have plenty of brains for him to eat. as far as i know, when someone rises from the dead in such a manner...they have an insatiable hunger for them.

 

[Giambattista]

The Apocalypse of John (Revelations) narrowly missed being excluded from the canon.

Martin Luther considered several books in the canon to be questionable, and the Revelations of John is one of them.
He says of it :

I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, -- Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, 'Ye shall be my witnesses.' Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

He was also primarily responsible for the removal of the "apocrypha" from the Biblical canon, which most Protestant churches do not consider inspired, and many modern Christians know very little of them. This despite the fact of having been considered holy scripture for centuries before.

Looks like people have already added or subtracted from the Biblion (however you interpret it), so people with the incomplete Bible apparently are being misled by Satan. Do you agree? I guess if you're Catholic, you don't have anything to worry about.

 

[The Devil Inside]

actually, christians have added a HUGE section to scripture.
so, by their own argument THEY are the ones being misled by "satan" (whom i do not believe in)

 

[Silas]

it is said that he who only reads the words of the torah is like a man that never takes the wedding dress off of his wife.

Surprising as it may seem to you, I'm pretty sure that Visitor would precisely agree with you.

It's evident to me that TheVisitor is some kind of Gnostic. Gnosticism was originally one of the very earliest sects of Christianity (and one of the first to be ruled heretical) in which, taking their cue from current pagan cults, everything is wrapped up in "mysteries" which are only to be revealed to the initiated. (Gnosticism comes from gnosis which of course means "knowledge"). However, it's some new century form, I should think, rather than original Gnosticism. The original Gnostics believed that Yaweh was an evil God, and that Jesus was not the son of YHWH of scripture, but of El Elyon, translated as "God Most High", in the Bible.

Looks like people have already added or subtracted from the Biblion (however you interpret it), so people with the incomplete Bible apparently are being misled by Satan. Do you agree? I guess if you're Catholic, you don't have anything to worry about.

Tut, of course not. The Protestant belief is that the Apocrypha are the words of the Devil having insinuated themselves into the old Bibles, but being uninspired. Actually, although the Protestant Churches relegated them to a separate section, there was originally no consideration of removing them from the Bible, and they were considered in the Anglican church to be good guidance for morals, but not to be relied on to determine the Doctrine of the Church. It wasn't until the 19th Century that the Apocrypha began to be omitted altogether.

I've looked and looked, but in bookshops with Bible shelves (not devotional bookshops, I don't generally frequent those) you can search high and low and you'll never see a Protestant "Bible with Apocrypha" (where the Apocrypha are put as a separate section in between the Old and New Testaments). However, I like to visit churches here in England, and I've noticed that in Anglican Churches, the lecturn bible does in fact generally have it. So they do exist and are still being printed (I've seen KJVs, NEBs and NRSVs), but you can hardly find them in the shops to buy.

(Edited because I thought some of Giam's quotes were from TheVisitor and not, as it turned out, Martin Luther himself!)

 

[Giambattista]

I don't know how many Bibles included the Apocrypha as part of their main body, or even within the book itself.
Another thing Martin Luther differed with Catholics about is Purgatory:

Since Purgatory is a place where people go to "purge" themselves of sinful behavior before they enter Heaven, and since a sufficiency of good works has nothing to do with entry into heaven for Protestants, there is no place for Purgatory in Protestant thinking. Thus, for Luther the sale of indulgences was pure sophistry erected for the expropriation of money from the people of Europe. This conclusion was buttressed by the fact that there is no mention of Purgatory in the Bible.

No mention of Purgatory in the Bible? Certainly.
But, while we're on the topic of omittance and inclusion (and confusion) one must also ask:where does the confusing notion of hell come from? From at least 3 different words and concepts: gehenna, sheol, and hades/tartaros. Gehenna, some kind of valley where refuse is thrown into pits of fire; sheol, which is a more or less neutral underworld, roughly equivalent to the Greek Hades; and Hades, again, basically neutral, for MOST dead persons, and Tartaros, a lower level of Hades reserved for the truly wicked or those deserving of punishment.

Sheol was basically all the pre-Christian Hebrews knew. If you went ANYWHERE after death, it was to Sheol. There was no differentiation between good and evil.
In fact, it can be gathered from the curious argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees, recorded in the Gospels, that the concept of life after death or the spirit/soul was hotly disputed. But the Old Testament gives very little information about either souls, or the afterlife. It raises an interesting question about where such ideas originated from. Certainly, it was something the Pharisees believed in, but not the Sadducees. If it were clear from the Jewish scriptures, then they probably wouldn't have been fighting about it.

In the same way, this concept of hell seems to have been spawned out of "nowhere". It certainly isn't based on the Jewish concept of the afterlife. I'm positive there were TRADITIONS and sectarian ideas, much like the apocrypha, which were accepted by certain groups, and rejected of course by others. There seems little other way that such strong concepts could have evolved from what the Bible considers Old Testament.

 

[Giambattista]

Sorry to get this so off-topic! The paragraph I quoted jumped out at me and beggened me to say things...