So, the Bible wasn't written by god . as claimed earlier. It was written by men who claimed to have been inspired by god. So now we are playing in an entirely different ball park, one step removed from god, so to speak. Why believe these authors as opposes to authors of the Pali canon which never mentions god, or other books which mention many gods ?
why so much respect fr bible?
- Thread starter fusion4577
- Start date
So, the Bible wasn't written by god . as claimed earlier. It was written by men who claimed to have been inspired by god. So now we are playing in an entirely different ball park, one step removed from god, so to speak. Why believe these authors as opposes to authors of the Pali canon which never mentions god, or other books which mention many gods ?
But, if you have not read the Wizard of Oz maybe that is true. Do you judge a book by what you haven't read ?
I am comfortable with the Pali canon other than the references to re-incarnation. But don't take that to mean I am a Buddhist.
I did not say the hebrews were "unquestioning"...but it is what ultimately was demanded of them..whether they heeded it or not is a different matter.
Other scriptures do not..thus the contradiction within.
I knew exactly what you meant, Nova.
The comment remains the same.
Other scriptures do not -what?"
Does not continue to say to test
Or says the opposite?
If it is the scripture i believe you're talking aboutt. Matt. 4:7 which was quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 where Moses said: “The way you put him to the test at Massah.” Massah was a place so named because there the Israelites quarreled with Moses and complained because of lack of water. ‘If you’re in our midst, why don’t you give us water? This quarreling and dictation is disrepectful even to another human let alone to the sovereign creator of the universe. It was a contemptable behavior much like Pharoh's The Isrealites weren't dying of thirst.
When God directs us to test it is to take him at his word and see the result. Thus Mal. 3:10
My favorite scripture, I inquired of God and he answered me and out of all my frights, he delivered me. Psalms 34:4 One is a good way of testing the other is not. Just as there is a good way to ask for someone to pass the potatoes and a bad way. The bad way being..."Can't you pass the potatoes'?
When you are in distress you ask to recieve assistance you don't demand it.
Last edited:
Because there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Do you believe in it ?
Are all things real evident?
That's a complete miss, bunky. Do you fail to understand people like you have been trying to destroy the Bible and message for three thousand years and have failed completely? Or do you just not comprehend the meaning and import of your continuing communal failure?
Herodotus, Fifth Century B. C., or about the time the books of the Old Testament were being finished.
Plato, Fourth Century B. C., just after the Old Testament period.
Thucidides, Fifth Century B. C.
All of them were historians and or philosophers. None of them even claimed to be inspired by God or any god. What's to compare with the Bible? How many people today have their lives changed and problems solved and a renewed outlook on life by studying any of these good gentlemen? They have had a definite effect on the way we think in Western Civilization, but to suggest they have a greater or more important impact on mankind than the Bible is pretty silly.
You really have to explain to me Myles; how did these three men execute works that pre-dated their lives by some 6, 500 years? I just gotta know how they did that, okay?
Upanishads were written between the Seventh Century B. C. and modern times.
Bhagavad Ghitam was began to be written in the Fifth Century B. C.
These are the Hindu sacred texts and are similar to the Bible in that they are not a single book, but collections of writings from various times and authors. The dates shown are the dates of the earliest known written copies, and not unlike the Bible, some bits are the codification of oral tradition from earlier times.
Interestingly, the oldest stories dealing with the cosmology of the Hindu universe are not so far removed in some aspects from the Jewish Biblical account of the first several chapters of Genesis. (In some regards, they are very different.) The earliest mentions of Brahma suggest a similarity to the Creator God of the Jewish-Christian Bible. It could be argued originally the Hindu God was a single God with multiple 'persons' or facets; similar to the Hebrew God of Creation. However, as the works continue, additional 'gods' are added into the sacred texts showing absorbtion of other minor religions.
Pali Canon is the name given to the collection of works forming the Buddhist framework of belief. The earliest written form was done in the hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus. However, it is clear some portions of the collection of works are oral traditions from much earlier times. The core of beliefs are attributed (naturally enough) to the teachings of the Buddha, generally known as Siddhārtha Gautama or Siddhattha Gotama or more familarly Gautama Buddha who lived - as best as can be determined - in the Fifth Century B. C. Perhaps as early as the Sixth Century B. C. (To compare, that is about the time the nation of Israel was conquered by the Babylonian King Nebbuchadrezzer - or whatever way that name is being transliterated this week.)
Koran was compiled or written by the prophet Muhammad (and again, the name is spelled in various ways in English). Muhammad died around 632 A. D. and the book was not then in fully compiled form. According to the Koran, the parts recorded by Muhammad were given to him over a period of some twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel; in turn sent by God for that purpose. The Koran also is a collection of writings and oral traditions taken from the Jewish – Christian Bible, Arabian tradition and Arabian culture.
Again, to provide a bit of time comparison, Muhammad lived some six hundred years after Jesus. The Christian Bible was canonized in it's modern form about the last half of the Fourth Century. The Roman Emperor Constantine had accepted Christianity in 327 A. D. and 'the Church' in Western Civilization was in full swing. The Roman Empire sputtered and died out about 475 A. D. The Bible had been translated by this time into Latin (for commoner in Rome and Europe), Syriac, Coptic and Armenian.
Let's recap here. So far, none of your rival writings or authorities are older than the Bible. None.
In order to answer that question adequately, we need to examine how it is those other sacred texts '…tell a different story…' than the Bible. Since I've done a bit of research in this already, it's your turn, Myles.
Myles, how does the stories of the Hindu texts, the Buddhist texts and the Koran differ from that of the Bible? Please explain the essential difference in nature in the various sacred writings. Then I'll pitch back in with the argument for the Bible's greater credibility.
And don't forget to explain how the Greek philosophers wrote philosophy 6,500 years prior to their own births.
I'll be waiting for you.
Don't answer a question with a question.
Don't hold your breath
Why?
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
What surprises me is that there is so much respect for the Pauline Letters. Just from the overt evidence from the Bible itself, Paul never met Christ and made it a point to NOT teach what Christ had taught. And then there is much internal evidence that Paul was held as an enemy by the Real Apostles, and was even considered as a False Apostle.
He taught AGAINST the Law, and taught a doctrine that Sins could be automatically forgiven, that is, that sins could be ALLOWED as long as one held to a simplistic Religious Formula that depended on the most part in agreeing that the Pharisees were correct to crucify Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee.
So, why this Faith in Paul, as being the Very Mouthpiece of God Himself?
Easy. What an attractive doctrine for those who would wish to advance themselves by Corruption. Paul's forgiveness of Sin -- that is a Religious Authorization to Sin all one wants -- it was a Doctrine that Every Dishonest and Corrupt Person would KILL for.
Religion through self interest.
He taught AGAINST the Law, and taught a doctrine that Sins could be automatically forgiven, that is, that sins could be ALLOWED as long as one held to a simplistic Religious Formula that depended on the most part in agreeing that the Pharisees were correct to crucify Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee.
So, why this Faith in Paul, as being the Very Mouthpiece of God Himself?
Easy. What an attractive doctrine for those who would wish to advance themselves by Corruption. Paul's forgiveness of Sin -- that is a Religious Authorization to Sin all one wants -- it was a Doctrine that Every Dishonest and Corrupt Person would KILL for.
Religion through self interest.
Because I asked whether you believe in re-incarnation, having told you that I don't. So stop playing your little games and answer the question. You are not obliged to answer.
Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
That is a complicated question.
You see, paradoxically enough, Paulists have coopted to themselves the Title of "Christian".
"Christian" has come to mean a set of beliefs that the Mission of Mesianic Glory can be sacrificed, by killing the Messiah, so that everybody can sin as much as they like. "Christians" believe that it is a good thing that the Messiah was killed so that every crime and perversion could flourish.
But the Messiah himself would never subscribe to such a thing.
We need to wonder whether the Appelation "Christian" has not been coopted by the Forces of the Anti-christ.
If the appelation "Christian" had been coopted by the Antichrist, then any TRUE follower of Christ would certainly be appalled at being called a "Christian".
Perhaps any TRUE follower of Christ would rather be called.... hmmmm... I never though of it before.... but the word would be "Messianic". One who believes in a Religious, Social and Political Order that are built upon the supporting pillar of Righteousness.
I don't know how you define yourself. Do tell !
Paul provided the easy way to salvation.Expecting Jesus to bear our sins and do the dirty work for us. I also do not believe that was the original intent of Christs' message. I cannot find any logic at all in believing God would incarnate he/she self into human form to act as a sacrifice back to himself so that he/she can tolerate our non perfect selves in the afterlife..wtf??
