ForumsWEPRThe Religion Debate Thread

546 52650
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,869 posts
Viceroy

So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!

Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!

I'm going to start the ball rolling:

We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?

Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj

  • 546 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,756 posts
Grand Duke

We are talking about the Apocrypha here not the NT. Also who actually regards the gospel of Judas as canon?

I think what he means is that Jesus and his disciples were long dead by the time the 'collected edition' that is known today as the Bible was put together. So they could not have "ignored" the apocrypha, as you said, neither could they have selected the canon. This was done somewhere around the second century, if I'm not mistaken, when all authors had a nice big argument about who was right and who wasn't, and in the end the orthodox section (edit: or maybe I should say, those who nowadays are considered orthodox) shouted the loudest, won the argument and decided that their parts were canon and the rest heretical. History is written by the winners, as they say.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

The apocyrphal books were written before Jesus's time. Jesus could not have selected the NT canon but He knew the Old Testament canon and used those books in his teaching. He did not use the Apocrypha (He ignored it) because they were not inspired.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,756 posts
Grand Duke

You are mistaken. According to National Geographic, researchers date the Codex Tchacos, which contains the only known written copy of the gospel of Judas, to around A.D. 220-340. The oldest known reference of a gospel of Judas dates from the treatise Against Heresies by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, from A.D. 180. That treatise dates more or less from the time when all the various Christian denominations had their big hissy fits to find out who ought to be considered canon.

Edit: Ugh, I cannot link directly to this page due to a word in the link that gets censored. Just type in "National Geographic lost gospel" in your browser, you should find it.

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

Joseph Smith's teachings are inconsistent with the Bible even though he says he believes in it.

How do you measure consistency without referencing your subjective preconceived notions?

Are you suggesting that I take such a flawed book as truth?

You said the manuscripts are used to determine accuracy. He asked "Which manuscripts" you use to resolve contradictions. You said "All of them." The manuscripts include apocrypha among other inconsistencies. It's on you to differentiate which manuscripts are acceptable and which ones are flawed.

I was mainly talking about the end of Mark 16 that was added. This part actually adds no new information but because it was added by a scribe it shouldn't be considered canon.

How do you determine which sections were added, aside from parroting what you've been told?

First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged.

Even as a Christian, I didn't accept that combination. Acts specifies that he fell headfirst. Or are you saying he hanged himself by his feet?

Those were not divinely inspired.

How do you determine what was divinely inspired or not?

Nothing I can do can make God love me more or make Him love me less.

That's hotly disputed between denominations.

Who are you to say [the method by which God spreads His message is] not perfect?

Because denominations exist. If the message was perfectly clear, there would be no conflicting interpretations, and no need for apologetics.

The quotes they take from the books of the New Testament.

They were quoting copies which may have been altered. Some quoted Mark 16's ending.

No one fully understands God's word because God's word is God's will and we are always trying to add our own will into his which distorts it. Fortunately, we as his people are continuously learning his will through the Holy Spirit and proper reading of scripture.

That's entirely irrelevant to what Fish said.

learning his will through the Holy Spirit

Can you elaborate on what this means? Nearly every denomination defines "His will" and "Holy Spirit" differently.

and proper reading of scripture.

How do you determine what interpretation of scripture is proper? And which translations?

No He is certainly bound by logic.

What's your response to the logical problem of evil?

"God's people" are also responsible for discerning whether it belongs in the Bible or not after the discovery.

You still haven't revealed who "God's people" are and were, and how you made that determination. You've implied that it's Protestants, yourself included, but which ones and why? And which groups prior to the Reformation?

The process might be flawed

How? Is it not divinely guided?

The apocyrphal books were written before Jesus's time.

You're lumping OT Apocrypha with NT Apocrypha.

Jesus could not have selected the NT canon but He knew the Old Testament canon and used those books in his teaching.

Even the OT canon likely wasn't solidified until after his death.
Wiki Dead Sea Scrolls:
"In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100."

He did not use the Apocrypha (He ignored it) because they were not inspired.

He only quoted a few lines from what eventually became OT canon books. Even if you arbitrarily include the rest of those quoted books, what about Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah? They were "ignored." Are they uninspired as well? If not, this argument is irrelevant.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Are you suggesting that I take such a flawed book as truth?
Are you trying to imply that you don't?

We are talking about the Apocrypha here not the NT. Also who actually regards the gospel of Judas as canon?
[...]
I was mainly talking about the end of Mark 16 that was added. This part actually adds no new information but because it was added by a scribe it shouldn't be considered canon.
http://files.sharenator.com/Facepalm_Infinite_Picdump_22-s576x768-133073.jpg

1 The new testament HAS apocrypha. See for yourself.
2 People don't regard the gospel of Judas as canon specifically because the Vatican declared it apocryphal.
3 The ending of Mark was this:
16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke are mostly retellings of Mark (Matthew often repeating Mark word for word). The gospel of John is more of a fanfiction where the "disciple whom Jesus loved" inserts himself into the story, often changing it drastically. The gospel of Mark is the most important one and it ends on a scene that none of the apostles had witnessed.
4 The long ending wasn't known to be an addition until 1844, at which point people realized that their "sacred immutable word of God" was not faithful to the original script.

Well it can support it can it not?
Support what? Biblical stories? The best historical (i.e. non-biblical) support for any of the events of Jesus's life is that Pontius Pilate was probably the prefect of Judaea at the right time.

Plants, animals, then man/woman. The meaning seems to be lost in translation.
You're really grasping at straws here. This is what your source says:

"The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals."

Which is based on a blatant contextomy. This is what Genesis 2 actually says:

"18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air [...]
" King James Version

"18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air [...]" New Revised Standard Version

"18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air [...]" Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

"18 And Hashem Elohim said, It is not tov that the adam should be alone; I will make him an ezer (a helper) suitable for him.
19 And out of the adamah Hashem Elohim formed every beast of the sadeh, and every oph HaShomayim [...]
" Orthodox Jewish Bible

"18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air." New English Translation

"18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[e] him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[footnote: Or And out of the ground the Lord God formed] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens [...]" English Standard Version

"18 The Lord God said, “It isn’t good for the man to live alone. I need to make a suitable partner for him.” 19-20 So the Lord took some soil and made animals and birds." Contemporary English Version

The animals are clearly and unambiguously made specifically so Adam can have a helper after he was put in the garden.

Same mountain. Different names.
Okay. Why?

First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying. He indirectly bought the field through the chief priests.
Grasping at straws again.

"16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
" Acts 1 KJV
No mention of hanging, no mention of the priests.

"3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
" Matthew 27 KJV
No mention of where he died, no involvement in buying the field.

He says something. He goes silent on the insistence of the Jewish leaders.
He doesn't:

"33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
" John 18 KJV

There are actually 7 phrases that are considered his last words. They are in no particular order.
Right, so which of them was actually his last statement and why did at least two of the gospels fail to record it?

The list contains commentary by an author.
So? Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents of wanton cruelty are contained within the holy bible?

Those were not divinely inspired.
And why is that?

The quotes they take from the books of the New Testament.
So, what you're saying is that "[The testamonia] can reconstruct more than 99% of the New Testament written within 150 to 200 years after Jesus." and that this is based on quotes taken from the New Testament, thereby proving beyond any doubt that the New Testament contains information contained within the New Testament. Huzzah!

Fortunately, we as his people are continuously learning his will through the Holy Spirit and proper reading of scripture.
Who are these people of his, then, and how do they determine what a proper reading is?

It's wrong because He should be imposing his will on anything and everything to achieve what He wants?
What? It's wrong because He is imposing his will on everything to achieve what He wants, but he still isn't getting what He wants (unless he's a sadist, of course).

Don't bring up a god who sacrificed himself for humanity because those who worshipped that god still offered up their good works and/or own sacrifices in order to gain favor.
Fine; I'll leave Yaweh out of this, but you're still making a vacuous truth. Salvation through Jesus is no more radical than salvation through honorable death or through familial cannibalism.

Protestants for sure. Anglicans and Lutherans could be included I think.
Okay. And why is that?

Who are you to say it's not perfect?
I am me. I thought that was obvious.

Your version of what is perfect is probably selfish.
1 Nice Bulverism.
2 There is calamity and suffering.
A benevolent God does not want calamity and suffering.
A competent benevolent God will ensure that His plans do not involve calamity and suffering.
Therefore, there is not a competent benevolent God.

Wait no they told people. Mark 16 says they didn't tell anyone because they were afraid but we know that's only part of the story when we take into account the other gospels and that Mark probably lost its ending based on its abrupt ending. It could have been missing details that the other gospels covered.
So now you're saying it had a long ending, but lost it, and later got it back again, except it was wrong this time? For God's chosen people, those scribes can't have been very good at their jobs.

God's will for us is not logical for us sometimes because it means giving up something that is normally highly valued by people.
No. It isn't logical for us because it means everything is perfect while also royally screwed up and despite it all being His doing, it's somehow your own fault if you end up arbitrarily ****ed.

"God's people" are also responsible for discerning whether it belongs in the Bible or not after the discovery. The process might be flawed but the truth always prevails.
So, apparently, what you're saying is that God's people are doing God's will by assuming something is true, guessing that something else is true, forgetting they had no proof that it was true, and realizing centuries later that they were wrong the whole time.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

Same mountain. Different names.

Okay. Why?

It seems that Horeb was the original name, but Sinai later came colloquially, in reference to a Sumerian moon god. Different people called it different things. But this is quite problematic if one considers Moses to be the direct singular author of both books.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

He only quoted a few lines from what eventually became OT canon books.

Additionally, we have no way of knowing if these quotes weren't added simply for the message to be more compelling to Jewish dissenters.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

How do you measure consistency without referencing your subjective preconceived notions?
Just read the Bible and you can see that their teachings obviously contradict what it says. They believe that you can become a god because God was once like us. But God said "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.” -Isaiah 43:10. They also think you can earn salvation. In the Bible, it says God gives salvation as a free gift. Ephesians 2:4-10.

How do you determine which sections were added, aside from parroting what you've been told?
Haha you got me there.

Even as a Christian, I didn't accept that combination. Acts specifies that he fell headfirst. Or are you saying he hanged himself by his feet?
What do you think about this explanation?

How do you determine what was divinely inspired or not?
Remember when we talked about the process of determining the canon? That's how.

That's hotly disputed between denominations.
Which denominations?

Because denominations exist. If the message was perfectly clear, there would be no conflicting interpretations, and no need for apologetics.
The message isn't perfectly clear, but what should be clear is the gospel of Christ.

Can you elaborate on what this means? Nearly every denomination defines "His will" and "Holy Spirit" differently.
God's will used here is what God plans to do and the Holy Spirit is the one who works in us to become who He intends for us to be. What do other denominations say?

How do you determine what interpretation of scripture is proper? And which translations?
Exhortation and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure about translations.

What's your response to the logical problem of evil?
God is not omnibenevolent.

You still haven't revealed who "God's people" are and were, and how you made that determination. You've implied that it's Protestants, yourself included, but which ones and why? And which groups prior to the Reformation?
Anyone who believes in an unfiltered version of the gospel is a child of God. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

How? Is it not divinely guided?
It is, but it's evidently flawed.

You're lumping OT Apocrypha with NT Apocrypha.
Oh. Well, I mean the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Even the OT canon likely wasn't solidified until after his death.
Wiki Dead Sea Scrolls
The early churches determined the canon based in part on Jesus's teaching which is impotant because Jesus is God and God ultimately determines the canon.

He only quoted a few lines from what eventually became OT canon books. Even if you arbitrarily include the rest of those quoted books, what about Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah? They were "ignored." Are they uninspired as well? If not, this argument is irrelevant.
It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired.

The new testament HAS apocrypha.
Guys, I get it lol. I'm talking about the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Facepalm! I get it now. Lol

You're really grasping at straws here. This is what your source says:

"The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals."

Which is based on a blatant contextomy. This is what Genesis 2 actually says:

Like I said, the meaning seems to be lost in translation when it should have been translated to "had formed".

He doesn't:
He does.

The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
John 19:7‭-‬9 NIV

Right, so which of them was actually his last statement and why did at least two of the gospels fail to record it?
It doesn't say. Two of the gospels didn't find it necessary to include I guess.

So? Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents of wanton cruelty are contained within the holy bible?
Yes. It is not wanton lol.

And why is that?
The Holy Spirit did not superintend them.

So, what you're saying is that "[The testamonia] can reconstruct more than 99% of the New Testament written within 150 to 200 years after Jesus." and that this is based on quotes taken from the New Testament, thereby proving beyond any doubt that the New Testament contains information contained within the New Testament. Huzzah!
Ignore my argument haha.

What? It's wrong because He is imposing his will on everything to achieve what He wants, but he still isn't getting what He wants (unless he's a sadist, of course).
God has a decretive will and a perceptive will. He will impose his decretive will but not his perceptive will (his will that we follow the law). https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/wills_sproul.html

Fine; I'll leave Yaweh out of this, but you're still making a vacuous truth. Salvation through Jesus is no more radical than salvation through honorable death or through familial cannibalism.
The difference is that through Jesus's death we take his place as God's heir and Jesus took our place as God's enemy. It was definitely radical to the Jews. It turned all their legalism upside down.

Nice Bulverism.
You're right. I might have been too judgy. I apologize.

So now you're saying it had a long ending, but lost it, and later got it back again, except it was wrong this time? For God's chosen people, those scribes can't have been very good at their jobs.
God's people aren't perfect. That's what I've been trying to say.

No. It isn't logical for us because it means everything is perfect while also royally screwed up and despite it all being His doing, it's somehow your own fault if you end up arbitrarily ****ed.
I never said everything is perfect. No one said that. God's plan of restoration to fix the royally screwed up world is perfect.

So, apparently, what you're saying is that God's people are doing God's will by assuming something is true, guessing that something else is true, forgetting they had no proof that it was true, and realizing centuries later that they were wrong the whole time.
Not necessarily. But I mean the Catholic church was wrong for a while until Luther and others stood up.

It seems that Horeb was the original name, but Sinai later came colloquially, in reference to a Sumerian moon god. Different people called it different things. But this is quite problematic if one considers Moses to be the direct singular author of both books.
Interesting. Would it be wrong to compare it to how people can call someone by one name and then another name when talking to a different audience. For example, I call my uncle Uncle Reuel when I'm talking to family and then I call him Pastor Reuel when talking to my friends at church.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

Additionally, we have no way of knowing if these quotes weren't added simply for the message to be more compelling to Jewish dissenters.
Wouldn't they know it was added? They had the Old Testament writings before Jesus.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

Just read the Bible and you can see that their teachings obviously contradict what it says. They believe that you can become a god because God was once like us.
That is not what they believe at all.

They also think you can earn salvation. In the Bible, it says God gives salvation as a free gift.
Actually, it says a whole lot more than that. While not all of these are mutually exclusive and some are probably not meant in a literal sense, the bible makes it quite clear that salvation is, in most cases, not freely given.

What do you think about this explanation?
Which one?
- Polhill's claim that "becoming headlong" is a mistranslation of "becoming swollen" explains nothing of Luke's omission of any detail about being hanged.
- The "Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at all" explanation means that there was no hanging.

Exhortation and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure about translations.
In other words, you look for the meaning you want to find until you find it.

God is not omnibenevolent.
And why is that?

Anyone who believes in an unfiltered version of the gospel is a child of God. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
That explains nothing whatsoever. What version is "unfiltered"? It seems like you're just saying that God's people consist of anyone who agrees with your interpretation.

Like I said, the meaning seems to be lost in translation when it should have been translated to "had formed".
1 That's the problem. "Had [verb]ed" is a modern English pluperfect. You're trying to support your claim that modern translations of the ancient texts are the cause of these contradictions, yet your interpretation of the "original meaning" is based on a modern translation.
2 You're still sidestepping the fact that God, after making Adam, decides "I will make a helper for him", and then shows up with a bunch of creatures for Adam to have as his helper.

He does.
The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer.
John 19:7‭-‬9 NIV
Nice quotemine. You've cited a passage that gives no support to your claim. The Jewish leaders clearly did not insist that Jesus be quiet. Furthermore, in the very next line, Pilate asks another question, to which ...
11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Yes. It is not wanton lol.
Thank you for comically skirting the issue. Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents, wanton or otherwise, are contained within the holy bible?

The Holy Spirit did not superintend them.
How do you verify this?

God has a decretive will and a perceptive will. He will impose his decretive will but not his perceptive will (his will that we follow the law).
So? Was that supposed to counter my statement, or merely elaborate upon it?

The difference is that through Jesus's death we take his place as God's heir and Jesus took our place as God's enemy. It was definitely radical to the Jews. It turned all their legalism upside down
While I can't say that this is a mundane occurrence, I can't say that the scripture supports it either. Where does the notion that Jesus (and therefore God) is filling the role of God's enemy come from?

God's people aren't perfect. That's what I've been trying to say.
I get that. What I'm saying is that it isn't an efficient way of bringing His divine will to the people, and I'd really expect Him to do better if He intends to exact penalties on people for not complying with it.

I never said everything is perfect. No one said that. God's plan of restoration to fix the royally screwed up world is perfect.
If God's plan is perfect, and the world was engineered according to God's plan, why is the world screwed up?

Wouldn't they know it was added? They had the Old Testament writings before Jesus.
Who? Which writings? This could use more context.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

Just read the Bible

Which one? (KJV, NIV, NWT, ESV...) They're all framed in ways to reflect specific desired interpretations. Example.
and you can see that their teachings obviously contradict what it says.

Every other denomination says the exact same thing about your beliefs. If you presuppose their beliefs, there is no contradiction. I'd rather not get into bickering about the specific merits of one denomination over another, because they're all internally "true, from a certain point of view", but as examples, the next 3 quotes and responses:
They believe that you can become a god

(For argument's sake that it's not contradictory from within their perspective, much like things within yours) Becoming like "a god" is very different from becoming "God." Becoming heirs to God's kingdom and sharing in His divinity.
because God was once like us.

(For argument's sake that it's not contradictory from within their perspective, much like things within yours) This is supported by John 5:19. You're just not interpreting it correctly. As an example, in your misguided view, Jesus is God, and therefore walked the earth, as we do. It's a similar concept.
They also think you can earn salvation. In the Bible, it says God gives salvation as a free gift. Ephesians 2:4-10.

(For argument's sake that it's not contradictory from within their perspective, much like things within yours) Actually, they'd agree that it is a gift afforded to all, but actions can affect the quality of the gift. They guarantee a resurrection and immortality for literally everyone, but judgment afterward can be favorable or less favorable based on actions.
What do you think about this explanation?

It's stretching the text as much as other interpretations. The fact that the plain text requires an explanation, and there are multiple, equally unfalsifiable possibilities that can be asserted as truth, means that when you say "Just read the Bible," you're aware that it's disingenuous.
Which denominations?

As far as I know, all of them have differing views on which commandments need to be followed and to what degree, as well as disagreements over methods of worship, beliefs, church structure, scripture, etc. Infractions may enrage God to different degrees, which can lead to spiritual punishments, depending on who you ask. This is part of the reason different denominations exist.
but what should be clear is the gospel of Christ.

Should be. Isn't. Different denominations have wildly different views. Many even disagree on how divine he is.
What do other denominations say?

As an example, JWs consider the holy spirit to mean =ad52cca0-f05c-4039-b6c4-a047274ebd81&insight[search_result_index]=0]God's active force.
Wiki: Holy Spirit (Christian denominational variations)
Exhortation and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You "feel" like you're interpreting scripture properly? =3ea38500-0350-41fc-9068-df81bf6ab019&insight[search_result_index]=0]True religion is not just ‘the right religion for me’.
God is not omnibenevolent.

How do you determine morality if God is not morally perfect? Why follow Him if He's not?
Anyone who believes in an unfiltered version of the gospel is a child of God.

What is an "unfiltered version"?
Remember when we talked about the process of determining the canon? That's how.

It is, but it's evidently flawed.

God ultimately determines the canon.

How can a perfect being divinely guide and ultimately determine a flawed process? The only possibility is that God intended for mistakes and lies to be included in the official canon. Since He's not omnibenevolent, this is possible.
It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired.

Then why bother making a point of saying that Jesus didn't reference apocryphal works, if that doesn't immediately rule it out from being inspired?
The Holy Spirit did not superintend them.

How do you determine this?
Ignore my argument haha.

Your argument was your confidence that the scriptures were unaltered due to statements by members of the early church. The problem is, as I've said, some quoted errors like the end of Mark 16 as canonical. How do you determine which statements are reliable, without being circular?
But I mean the Catholic church was wrong for a while until Luther and others stood up.

And many groups would say that Luther wasn't right either. How do you determine who's right? Don't say "read the bible" because at the time, the Catholic Church was considered the officially "inspired" authority to ultimately interpret what it said, and to argue was heresy. How do you determine when a group is no longer "inspired"?
Would it be wrong to compare it to how people can call someone by one name and then another name when talking to a different audience.

It’s allegedly the same person telling the same audience about the same mountain. The mountain doesn’t care about its title.
Beyond that, it’s very strange because he switches between Horeb and Sinai even within Exodus. This implies that they are separate mountains, creating more confusion.

Wouldn't they know it was added?

I didn’t mean "added" as in "forged later," but that the NT writers simply inserted some pandering references from Jewish texts in order to give credence to the Messiah claims.
They had the Old Testament writings before Jesus.

No they didn’t. Jewish scriptures existed, and were later accepted into the Hebrew Bible canon, which was later generally adopted by Christians as OT. The Hebrew Bible canon may have been officially compiled in response to the NT canon.
-----------------------
- Polhill's claim that "becoming headlong" is a mistranslation of "becoming swollen"

Not merely a mistranslation, but that the source text was copied wrongly, which cast more doubt on the entire process.
Where does the notion that Jesus (and therefore God) is filling the role of God's enemy come from?

1 Cor 15:21-28, Rom 5:6-12
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

That is not what they believe at all.
That's what Joseph Smith believed, I think.

Actually, it says a whole lot more than that. While not all of these are mutually exclusive and some are probably not meant in a literal sense, the bible makes it quite clear that salvation is, in most cases, not freely given.
We are getting into a different territory here so I hope you don't mind if I skip this for now until we are finished with the credibility of the Bible. If you want to start thinking about refutations I would point you here

The "Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at all" explanation means that there was no hanging.
And I'm assuming you think that means his guts could not have spilled out after falling? The source explains that it doesn't need to explain how it spilled out so it shouldn't be a problem.

You're still sidestepping the fact that God, after making Adam, decides "I will make a helper for him", and then shows up with a bunch of creatures for Adam to have as his helper.
God said I will make a helper because He was going to make Eve.

Nice quotemine. You've cited a passage that gives no support to your claim. The Jewish leaders clearly did not insist that Jesus be quiet. Furthermore, in the very next line, Pilate asks another question, to which ...
11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
No I didn't mean that the Jewish leaders insisted that Jesus be silent, but rather that the Jewish leaders pushed him on to talk and so He went silent.

Thank you for comically skirting the issue. Do you deny that the quoted and cited passages numbering upwards of 1500 incidents, wanton or otherwise, are contained within the holy bible?
I don't deny that those quotes are in the Bible, but I disagree with the authors commentary about them.

How do you verify this?
How do you determine this?
The only scientific way I can think of is by looking at the lives affected by those scriptures. If those lives are truly changed then it is true. Other than that, other explanations involve divine revelation of some sort. A lot of the books in the Bible claim that they are inspired too so we have that little piece of evidence if it means anything.

So? Was that supposed to counter my statement, or merely elaborate upon it?
It means that you need to look at it through a different perspective. We aren't supposed to know all of God's decretive will. We just have to trust that it's good.

While I can't say that this is a mundane occurrence, I can't say that the scripture supports it either. Where does the notion that Jesus (and therefore God) is filling the role of God's enemy come from?
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4 NIV
When we sin, we choose the world in many cases. Therefore we are enemies of God. And on the cross, Jesus took the wrath we deserve for being sinners/enemies of God.

I get that. What I'm saying is that it isn't an efficient way of bringing His divine will to the people, and I'd really expect Him to do better if He intends to exact penalties on people for not complying with it.
I'm sure I worship the same God as those saved by missionary work. The people in Africa or in the Philippines who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible know God like the people with English translations. I would say that God's people have good access to his word. Also God's word is not about law and punishment anymore but rather grace and mercy so I would be more concerned if He intends to show people his love.

If God's plan is perfect, and the world was engineered according to God's plan, why is the world screwed up?
Because He gave us a choice and we chose wrong.

Which one? (KJV, NIV, NWT, ESV...) They're all framed in ways to reflect specific desired interpretations. Example.
Those differences in the examples you gave have no effect on the message of the Bible that God saves.

Every other denomination says the exact same thing about your beliefs. If you presuppose their beliefs, there is no contradiction. I'd rather not get into bickering about the specific merits of one denomination over another, because they're all internally "true, from a certain point of view"
Too bad Mormonism isn't a Christian denomination. It pulls from outside sources for their faith and denies one or more of the fundamental biblical truths.

It's stretching the text as much as other interpretations. The fact that the plain text requires an explanation, and there are multiple, equally unfalsifiable possibilities that can be asserted as truth, means that when you say "Just read the Bible," you're aware that it's disingenuous.
Not for the major doctrines in the Bible though.

Then why bother making a point of saying that Jesus didn't reference apocryphal works, if that doesn't immediately rule it out from being inspired?
Because it's a legitimate factor.

Your argument was your confidence that the scriptures were unaltered due to statements by members of the early church. The problem is, as I've said, some quoted errors like the end of Mark 16 as canonical. How do you determine which statements are reliable, without being circular?
Like in the case of Mark, archeological facts. The more knowledge we have, the more we can discern what is true.

And many groups would say that Luther wasn't right either. How do you determine who's right? Don't say "read the bible" because at the time, the Catholic Church was considered the officially "inspired" authority to ultimately interpret what it said, and to argue was heresy. How do you determine when a group is no longer "inspired"?
The Catholic Church was never really the "inspired" people.

It’s allegedly the same person telling the same audience about the same mountain. The mountain doesn’t care about its title.
Beyond that, it’s very strange because he switches between Horeb and Sinai even within Exodus. This implies that they are separate mountains, creating more confusion.
Maybe his audience already knew they were the same. There isn't much confusion when you read both Exodus and Deuteronomy.

I didn’t mean "added" as in "forged later," but that the NT writers simply inserted some pandering references from Jewish texts in order to give credence to the Messiah claims.
Oh I see. I have confidence it was added.

No they didn’t. Jewish scriptures existed, and were later accepted into the Hebrew Bible canon, which was later generally adopted by Christians as OT. The Hebrew Bible canon may have been officially compiled in response to the NT canon.
That's still the writings which are in the OT.

Not merely a mistranslation, but that the source text was copied wrongly, which cast more doubt on the entire process.
That's why the author opted for the other explanation. But as I've said before, the translation proccess was not inspired.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

And I'm assuming you think that means his guts could not have spilled out after falling? The source explains that it doesn't need to explain how it spilled out so it shouldn't be a problem.
?

You, from a week ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."
Clearly, then, you did not understand the passage, because the phrasing was archaic and the message unclear.

God said I will make a helper because He was going to make Eve.
Then there was no point to parading a bunch of animals around for him to reject and no point to including that line at all.

No I didn't mean that the Jewish leaders insisted that Jesus be silent, but rather that the Jewish leaders pushed him on to talk and so He went silent.
He still didn't go silent. Pilate ends the conversation at John 18:38.

I don't deny that those quotes are in the Bible, but I disagree with the authors commentary about them.
Fair enough. It really doesn't make for a very good message of peace and love, though.

The only scientific way I can think of is by looking at the lives affected by those scriptures. If those lives are truly changed then it is true.
1 That is not even remotely scientific.
2 How do you determine whether a change is caused by any specific thing?
3 What type and amount of change is needed to qualify as life-changing? Getting stoned to death by angry zealots is presumably more significant than understanding a movie reference, for example.
4 How do you even quantitatively define the change in a person's life?
5 In what sense does influence = veracity? Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the number of fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the people it indoctrinates?

Other than that, other explanations involve divine revelation of some sort.
Did you receive such a revelation?

A lot of the books in the Bible claim that they are inspired too so we have that little piece of evidence if it means anything.
Yes. We have evidence that a story author claims in his story that the story is a true story. So?

We just have to trust that it's good.
Really? Why?

When we sin, we choose the world in many cases. Therefore we are enemies of God. And on the cross, Jesus took the wrath we deserve for being sinners/enemies of God.
You did not support your assertion. You just took the opportunity to restate your assertion.

The people in Africa or in the Philippines who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible know God like the people with English translations.
Really?

Because He gave us a choice and we chose wrong.
We've been over this. Every time you bring the argument back to this, you refuse to acknowledge part of your claim because it's impossible to support in its entirety. How about you just pick any three and give up on the fourth because He cannot be all of these:
https://imgur.com/zX5UAmI.png

Too bad Mormonism isn't a Christian denomination. It pulls from outside sources for their faith and denies one or more of the fundamental biblical truths.
1 No true Scotsman. Mormonism is founded on a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is therefore Christian by definition.
2 There are no fundamental biblical truths.

Not for the major doctrines in the Bible though.
That doesn't really answer any part of his statement, so I'm just going to ask: In what way?

Because it's a legitimate factor.
Not if it's irrelevant, as you claim.

Like in the case of Mark, archeological facts. The more knowledge we have, the more we can discern what is true.
Meaning that, by your own admission, we have no sound reason to believe any of these stories to be true accounts.

The Catholic Church was never really the "inspired" people.
All catholics would have to disagree, there. What makes your claim more valid than theirs?

Maybe his audience already knew they were the same. There isn't much confusion when you read both Exodus and Deuteronomy.
Yes, there is. That's the whole point of bringing it up. You only managed to resolve that confusion by assuming that the name refers to the same mountain, just as you resolved confusion over the death of Judas by assuming that his hanged body fell onto the field.

That's still the writings which are in the OT.
Yeah, because someone (probably some uninspired Catholics in the Vatican) decided to pick out a bunch and call them canonical. The point is that your claim that Jesus and his disciples ignored, and therefore invalidated, the apocrypha is groundless and unsupportable.

But as I've said before, the translation proccess was not inspired.
Well, why the heck not? Shouldn't the Word of God be a bit more secure against tampering and general incompetence?
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

You, from a week ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."
Clearly, then, you did not understand the passage, because the phrasing was archaic and the message unclear.
Yeah that's what I thought at first. That's why I assumed that's what you thought. Does my change in perception affect the way I know God? Not much because all this story tells me or needs to tell me is that Judas died. I actually haven't listened to or read any sermons about this story so I might be wrong, but I'm sure that if Judas was hanged figuratively then the message would be the same. That's just the way each gospel decided to tell the story.

Then there was no point to parading a bunch of animals around for him to reject and no point to including that line at all.
He did so in order to give him a choice. You could argue that there was no point in God putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden also but an answer to that would be the same. God allows us to make a choice.

He still didn't go silent. Pilate ends the conversation at John 18:38.
"But Jesus gave him no answer" means he went silent.

Fair enough. It really doesn't make for a very good message of peace and love, though.
Give me a quote from the Bible that you think supports an unloving message or I can pick one out of the list.

That is not even remotely scientific.
Lol I mean it's the most "sensible" way if that makes sense.

How do you determine whether a change is caused by any specific thing?
Their testimony.

What type and amount of change is needed to qualify as life-changing? Getting stoned to death by angry zealots is presumably more significant than understanding a movie reference, for example.
I'm not sure I understand.

How do you even quantitatively define the change in a person's life?
I'm not sure. It's not our job to judge people like that anyway. If you notice someone who is just a better person in general because of their faith, that's a good sign. If you see positive changes, the Holy Spirit is working, but if the person proclaims to have faith and yet you don't see changes, maybe the work is taking some time or maybe thw Holy Spirit is not even working in that person. That's what I mean when I say we can't judge people in that way.

In what sense does influence = veracity? Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the number of fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the people it indoctrinates?
As I have said before, to God it's not about numbers. It's about his saving power.

Did you receive such a revelation?
God reached out to me first and I responded. That's what I consider divine revelation anyway. I might be getting my terminology wrong.

Yes. We have evidence that a story author claims in his story that the story is a true story. So?
A person's word is valuable to some degree. If the author said he was not inspired upfront then we can discard it. Just like when a defendent is asked if he or she is guilty or not. His or her word means something. But take it or leave it.

Really? Why?
Because God says so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXqwbU8z9aU
That's definitely no Christianity.

We've been over this. Every time you bring the argument back to this, you refuse to acknowledge part of your claim because it's impossible to support in its entirety. How about you just pick any three and give up on the fourth because He cannot be all of these:
Omnipotent, existent,competent, benevolent. Last time I excluded benevolent.

No true Scotsman. Mormonism is founded on a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is therefore Christian by definition.
But they reject that Jesus is God. More.

That doesn't really answer any part of his statement, so I'm just going to ask: In what way?
Sorry. I didn't understand his argument.

Not if it's irrelevant, as you claim.
I don't believe I called it irrelevant.

Meaning that, by your own admission, we have no sound reason to believe any of these stories to be true accounts.
Except we do. The Bible has the power to save for example.

All catholics would have to disagree, there. What makes your claim more valid than theirs?
I don't dilute God's grace through works.

Yes, there is. That's the whole point of bringing it up. You only managed to resolve that confusion by assuming that the name refers to the same mountain, just as you resolved confusion over the death of Judas by assuming that his hanged body fell onto the field.
No I said it was a figurative hanging.

Yeah, because someone (probably some uninspired Catholics in the Vatican) decided to pick out a bunch and call them canonical. The point is that your claim that Jesus and his disciples ignored, and therefore invalidated, the apocrypha is groundless and unsupportable.
What I meant originally, was that they ignored those writings according to the quotes and teaching we have from them.

Well, why the heck not? Shouldn't the Word of God be a bit more secure against tampering and general incompetence?
I don't know why it's not protected like that. I sometimes think the same about my morality. Like Christ lives through me and I am born again and yet I still sin. However, I sin less and less as I study God's word. I get mad less easily and I am careful where I look (if you know what I mean) because I know God more. You might be able to compare the proccesses like that... It doesn't look perfect when it should be, but there's something going on behind the scenes. In the case of the tampering of the Bible, even though it undergoes changes, God makes sure that his message is conveyed exactly how He wants it when He wants it. Sometimes there's a fluke like that "church" in Africa or like when I sin. But it's all under control.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

He did so in order to give him a choice. You could argue that there was no point in God putting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden also but an answer to that would be the same. God allows us to make a choice.
Why?

"But Jesus gave him no answer" means he went silent.
Oh, sorry. I was right the first time. Pilate ends the conversation at 9:12, right after Jesus answers again. Mark and Matthew don't mention any response except "Thou sayest it".

Give me a quote from the Bible that you think supports an unloving message or I can pick one out of the list.
Here's a few:
Genesis 3:16
Genesis 6:5-7
Genesis 9:21-25
Genesis 12:11-20
Genesis 19:26
Exodus 7 - Exodus 14
Exodus 20:5
Exodus 21:17-21
Exodus 22:16
Exodus 32
Leviticus 5:17
Leviticus 10:1-6
Leviticus 19:20-22
Leviticus 24:10-16

Their testimony.
No, I mean what criteria do you use to separate cause from other factors?

I'm not sure I understand.
When you say that their lives are changed, how changed are their lives?

If you notice someone who is just a better person in general because of their faith, that's a good sign.
Buddhists FTW.

If you see positive changes, the Holy Spirit is working [...]
So, if people are guided by the Holy Spirit ... they change for the better ... and this change proves that they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. Simply astounding! *drops monocle*

As I have said before, to God it's not about numbers. It's about his saving power.
Allow me to rephrase, then: Should we guage the truth of Star Wars by the fervor of the fans who flock to it? How about KKK literature by the extent to which it indoctrinates people?

God reached out to me first and I responded.
And how do you ascertain that this is God's doing.

Because God says so.
Not good enough. If He wants to be trusted more than that guy I described on page 13, he's going to need to do a lot better.

That's definitely no Christianity.
1 No true Scotsman.
2 These people in Africa who speak different languages and have their own translations of the Bible clearly do not know God in the same way.

Omnipotent, existent,competent, benevolent. Last time I excluded benevolent.
And this time you excluded competent.

But they reject that Jesus is God. More.
No, they don't. Strangely, even your extremely biased source makes no such claim.

I don't believe I called it irrelevant.
You from six days ago:
"It's also irrelevant because that's not the only requirement for us to discern what is inspired."

The Bible has the power to save for example.
That's a poor example, because it in fact doesn't.

I don't dilute God's grace through works.
1 That does not validate your claim in any way whatsoever.
2 In what sense is grace even capable of being diluted?

No I said it was a figurative hanging.
You from eight days ago:
"First of all, he didn't trip and fall. He fell after being hanged. His guts and everything fell out because he was decaying."

What I meant originally, was that they ignored those writings according to the quotes and teaching we have from them.
And as Emp pointed out, we can just as reasonably conclude that they ignored nigh all other writings that aren't directly or indirectly referenced by them; i.e., most of what is now the old testament.

In the case of the tampering of the Bible, even though it undergoes changes, God makes sure that his message is conveyed exactly how He wants it when He wants it. Sometimes there's a fluke like that "church" in Africa or like when I sin. But it's all under control.
Then we must logically conclude that God has little or no interest in the physical or spiritual wellbeing of most mortals.
Showing 526-540 of 546