I'm sorry, I misread you.
But still, the analogy does not work. What they said is more akin to saying that you want only eggs for breakfast and then saying you want only toast for breakfast. You can't have only both.
Biblical Contraditions: Question #3
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
I'm sorry, I misread you.
But still, the analogy does not work. What they said is more akin to saying that you want only eggs for breakfast and then saying you want only toast for breakfast. You can't have only both.
Yeah, but those scriptures don't say "only". In fact, James says not only.
If they said only, I would agree with you.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I am a Theist, good job. And no, I'm not pretending to be an Atheist. I'm just not Christian and I think the bible is a load of crap.
Last edited:
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
And what have you proven? I haven't seen one post where you've proven anything?
ryan austin clarke
Registered Senior Member
It's the Paul vs. James argument. I'm on the side of James, that is, I'm a big believer in works ... compared to faith ... as a means to salvation.
The Bible has many meanings to many people. Parable or parabowl ... they sound alot the same ... and don't forget the Son of Man ... sounds alot like the Sun of Man ... or Sun produced by man.
Why the difference in meaning?
The bible has been translated hundreds of times ... every time a new meaning is attached to the original interpretation. More than likely, you are reading a varient of the King James bible which was translated from the 4th century Latin Vulgate bible. The Vulgate was scribed by St. Jerome about four hundred years after the death of Christ ... from not only Greek and Hebrew written sources, but also from Jewish ( the Catholic church at the time was still considered by all to be a sect of the Jewish faith )verbal sources who had handed down 'knowledge only by the tongue' from generation to generation.
More than likely, neither St. Jerome nor any of the Jewish faithful had access to Euclid's book on geometry ... the Elements. In fact, during the times of Christ ( and even during the time of Constantine the Great ) very few of the population had the ability to read the written word. Some four hundred years later the knowledge had 'changed' and was 'lost.'
You could say that would be the Holy Spirit at work ... which is a feminine version of God. But make no doubt ... Christ was a historical figure, and the Bible is history which is a version of history ... sometimes at conflict with the works of Tacitus, Joseph ben Matityahu, and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus ... and other times in agreement. The purpose of the Bible is simple ... it's to get converts who had practiced Pagan rituals ... to change to Jewish/Christian rituals ... most notably to follow the 10 Commandments.
If you study all the above documents carefully ... you might reach the conclusion ... Christ in the Bible was Drusus Julius Caesar. Sejanus was St. Matthew. St. Peter was Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. King Herod was in fact the same person as Caesar Augustus. Salome who witnessed the Crucification of Christ in the Bible was also Mary Magdalene ... which was also the same person in history as Boudica and Aggripina the Younger. The woman Christ saves from being stoned in the bible for committing adulery is, in fact, Boudica.
St. James the Less, St. James the Greater and St. James the Just ... are all the same person ... who in the Bible is also known as Barabbus ... is also known in history as Eleazar ben Ya'ir who died at Masada.
Titus mentioned in the Bible was in fact, St. John, who was also the same person as Aristobulus of Britannia. He's also John of Gischala and was also the same person who become Emperor after Vespasian. Vespasian was St. Paul who was also Saul and Pontius Pilate who was also the brother of Andrew. Andrew was the same person as St. Peter.
Tacitus mentions Drusus was poisoned ( but not crucified ), but if you read the Bible ... Christ was poisoned before he died on the cross ... which is why he cursed the fig tree ( the leaves are poisonous but look like onions when prepared by a follower of Medusa which rhymes with Boudica.)
Keep in mind, when you read Tacitus ... no one is following the Laws of Moses or obeying the concept of marriage as known today. As such, almost all male offspring during the times of Christ has not a clue as to who his biological father really was, and so the 'son of' listing given by all the documents is really 'unknown except to God.'
As for me, I'm Catholic ... and I thank Drusus Jesus Christ for his works ... because if he hadn't done what he did ... this world we know today wouldn't even be reading the Bible or any Hebrew written work as it was going to be destroyed in fire by the followers of Boudica.
Last note, Timothy in the Bible is also the same person as Demetrius who was also the Emperor Domitian.
The Bible has many meanings to many people. Parable or parabowl ... they sound alot the same ... and don't forget the Son of Man ... sounds alot like the Sun of Man ... or Sun produced by man.
Why the difference in meaning?
The bible has been translated hundreds of times ... every time a new meaning is attached to the original interpretation. More than likely, you are reading a varient of the King James bible which was translated from the 4th century Latin Vulgate bible. The Vulgate was scribed by St. Jerome about four hundred years after the death of Christ ... from not only Greek and Hebrew written sources, but also from Jewish ( the Catholic church at the time was still considered by all to be a sect of the Jewish faith )verbal sources who had handed down 'knowledge only by the tongue' from generation to generation.
More than likely, neither St. Jerome nor any of the Jewish faithful had access to Euclid's book on geometry ... the Elements. In fact, during the times of Christ ( and even during the time of Constantine the Great ) very few of the population had the ability to read the written word. Some four hundred years later the knowledge had 'changed' and was 'lost.'
You could say that would be the Holy Spirit at work ... which is a feminine version of God. But make no doubt ... Christ was a historical figure, and the Bible is history which is a version of history ... sometimes at conflict with the works of Tacitus, Joseph ben Matityahu, and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus ... and other times in agreement. The purpose of the Bible is simple ... it's to get converts who had practiced Pagan rituals ... to change to Jewish/Christian rituals ... most notably to follow the 10 Commandments.
If you study all the above documents carefully ... you might reach the conclusion ... Christ in the Bible was Drusus Julius Caesar. Sejanus was St. Matthew. St. Peter was Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo. King Herod was in fact the same person as Caesar Augustus. Salome who witnessed the Crucification of Christ in the Bible was also Mary Magdalene ... which was also the same person in history as Boudica and Aggripina the Younger. The woman Christ saves from being stoned in the bible for committing adulery is, in fact, Boudica.
St. James the Less, St. James the Greater and St. James the Just ... are all the same person ... who in the Bible is also known as Barabbus ... is also known in history as Eleazar ben Ya'ir who died at Masada.
Titus mentioned in the Bible was in fact, St. John, who was also the same person as Aristobulus of Britannia. He's also John of Gischala and was also the same person who become Emperor after Vespasian. Vespasian was St. Paul who was also Saul and Pontius Pilate who was also the brother of Andrew. Andrew was the same person as St. Peter.
Tacitus mentions Drusus was poisoned ( but not crucified ), but if you read the Bible ... Christ was poisoned before he died on the cross ... which is why he cursed the fig tree ( the leaves are poisonous but look like onions when prepared by a follower of Medusa which rhymes with Boudica.)
Keep in mind, when you read Tacitus ... no one is following the Laws of Moses or obeying the concept of marriage as known today. As such, almost all male offspring during the times of Christ has not a clue as to who his biological father really was, and so the 'son of' listing given by all the documents is really 'unknown except to God.'
As for me, I'm Catholic ... and I thank Drusus Jesus Christ for his works ... because if he hadn't done what he did ... this world we know today wouldn't even be reading the Bible or any Hebrew written work as it was going to be destroyed in fire by the followers of Boudica.
Last note, Timothy in the Bible is also the same person as Demetrius who was also the Emperor Domitian.
There is no such thing as a parabowl.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Thank you! Christ almighty! The new guy scores for the win!
Why should scepticism and doubt be incompatible with acceptance on contentment?
What kind of theist? Deist, pantheist?
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Deist with strong roots in Mayahana/Tibetan Buddhism.
Why? Do you see compelling evidence in favour of that or are you just blindly picking what to belief like so many others on this forum? I proved that all of your contradictions are not contradictions. Feel free to quote my rebuttal, and show me where I am wrong....
Also, I don't know wth the new guy is talking about. I didn't read past Paul vs James. Not in this case. Paul specifically says works and another scripture by him says deeds, so he says both...
The word itself is not required, garbonzo. When it says in John "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" it leaves no room for misinterpretation. This passage means exactly what it says: Believe and live, believe not and die.
You can't simply say that because this contradicts other books that he must have meant something else.
In the same manner as salt isn't sweet ...
But salt isnt incompatible with sweet - like a salted cracker and sweet coffee - It can go together.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
You shouldn't judge someone without knowing them or their history.
And in short, the answer is because I see compelling evidence to believe in what I believe in.
I was once an Atheistic Buddhist, but have changed over the past few years becoming more of a Deist while still maintaining my Buddhist roots.
And what does it matter WHY I believe in what I do? Are you that daft that you don't understand that people do not pick and choose beliefs - that they are a product of our experience and perception? I couldn't give two craps why you believe in whatever it is that you believe. They're your beliefs, not mine. And I know that you've come to them on your own. And so long as they make you happy and don't harm others, why should I stand in the way of that?