Many people have tried to make the claim the bible is infallible and that it doesn't contradict itself. But is it true? Let's hear what you have to say about the following contradiction in these verses: do they contradict each-other?
1Sa 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign/RULE over them.
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Personally, I think only a fool will not admit that these verses contradict each-other. But let us hear those of you who believe the bible doesn't have contradictions, show how these verses don't do just that.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Well, I don't see the contradictions you are writing about. I suggest that the burden is on you to prove your point.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468210 wrote: Many people have tried to make the claim the bible is infallible and that it doesn't contradict itself. But is it true? Let's hear what you have to say about the following contradiction in these verses: do they contradict each-other?
Me Too
Really more interested in the answer than the question.
Me Too
Really more interested in the answer than the question.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468210 wrote: Many people have tried to make the claim the bible is infallible and that it doesn't contradict itself. I don't question that "many", whatever number or percentage that is, have tried to make that claim. Any serious Bible student knows that that is nonsense.
You can start with the first two chapters of Genesis, with man being created after the beasties in chapter one and before them in chapter two.
And there are probably scores if not hundreds of other examples in the OT alone.
And yer pernt is wha?
You can start with the first two chapters of Genesis, with man being created after the beasties in chapter one and before them in chapter two.
And there are probably scores if not hundreds of other examples in the OT alone.
And yer pernt is wha?
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
LarsMac;1468217 wrote: Well, I don't see the contradictions you are writing about. I suggest that the burden is on you to prove your point.
In 1st Samuel chapter 8 verse 7 Samuel states the kings of Israel will not be, and are not, God`s reign/rule over them: "they have rejected me, that I should not reign/RULE over them."
In Romans 13 verses 1-4 the picture is not only made that God ordains the governments, but that those who rule are ministers of God... by making such a claim it must be that Paul and therefore the bible teaches a contradiction to Samuels words in that Paul said God does actually Rule through governments as he claims they are God's ministers, thus God Rules/Reigns through governments: otherwise how are they God's ministers?
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Okay, balls in your court.
In 1st Samuel chapter 8 verse 7 Samuel states the kings of Israel will not be, and are not, God`s reign/rule over them: "they have rejected me, that I should not reign/RULE over them."
In Romans 13 verses 1-4 the picture is not only made that God ordains the governments, but that those who rule are ministers of God... by making such a claim it must be that Paul and therefore the bible teaches a contradiction to Samuels words in that Paul said God does actually Rule through governments as he claims they are God's ministers, thus God Rules/Reigns through governments: otherwise how are they God's ministers?
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Okay, balls in your court.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468267 wrote: In 1st Samuel chapter 8 verse 7 Samuel states the kings of Israel will not be, and are not, God`s reign/rule over them: "they have rejected me, that I should not reign/RULE over them."
In Romans 13 verses 1-4 the picture is not only made that God ordains the governments, but that those who rule are ministers of God... by making such a claim it must be that Paul and therefore the bible teaches a contradiction to Samuels words in that Paul said God does actually Rule through governments as he claims they are God's ministers, thus God Rules/Reigns through governments: otherwise how are they God's ministers?
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Okay, balls in your court.
Sorry, Net Ball.
You can quote Scripture, but you have not yet produced your argument.
In Romans 13 verses 1-4 the picture is not only made that God ordains the governments, but that those who rule are ministers of God... by making such a claim it must be that Paul and therefore the bible teaches a contradiction to Samuels words in that Paul said God does actually Rule through governments as he claims they are God's ministers, thus God Rules/Reigns through governments: otherwise how are they God's ministers?
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Okay, balls in your court.
Sorry, Net Ball.
You can quote Scripture, but you have not yet produced your argument.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
LarsMac;1468278 wrote: Sorry, Net Ball.
You can quote Scripture, but you have not yet produced your argument.
Reread my last post... clearly Romans 13 says that those in power are ministers of God and thus God rules trough them, while 1 Samuel 8 states that God would not be ruling through the rulers/kings that would be ruling over Israel.
Roman's says rulers are ministers (Attendant/servant) of God; if One is a servant of God they are acting on God's behalf: just as Samuel did. It appears clear that the text in Romans 13 is making this argument. The Prophets of God were also said to be ministers of God and God enacted His will through them. Again it appears clearly obvious that Paul is making this exact argument in Romans 13 and yet Samuel clearly states that God would not be ruling through those in power.
If you think I am misrepresenting Paul's argument I would be more than happy to hear your argument showing how, but I don't think I am.
You can quote Scripture, but you have not yet produced your argument.
Reread my last post... clearly Romans 13 says that those in power are ministers of God and thus God rules trough them, while 1 Samuel 8 states that God would not be ruling through the rulers/kings that would be ruling over Israel.
Roman's says rulers are ministers (Attendant/servant) of God; if One is a servant of God they are acting on God's behalf: just as Samuel did. It appears clear that the text in Romans 13 is making this argument. The Prophets of God were also said to be ministers of God and God enacted His will through them. Again it appears clearly obvious that Paul is making this exact argument in Romans 13 and yet Samuel clearly states that God would not be ruling through those in power.
If you think I am misrepresenting Paul's argument I would be more than happy to hear your argument showing how, but I don't think I am.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Clearly, your interpretation of I Samuel is incorrect.
But you must go back to how Samuel became Judge to get that.
But you must go back to how Samuel became Judge to get that.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
LarsMac;1468283 wrote: Clearly, your interpretation of I Samuel is incorrect.
But you must go back to how Samuel became Judge to get that.
First, I have made my argument, but saying I must have misinterpreted Samuel's words does not at all show the misinterpretation of them; show my misinterpretation of his words.
Second, what does going back to Samuel's institution in service to God have to do with this... the connection is not only not clear, but making that argument seems ignorant and of no reasonable value whatsoever, but I will let you explain your argument.
But you must go back to how Samuel became Judge to get that.
First, I have made my argument, but saying I must have misinterpreted Samuel's words does not at all show the misinterpretation of them; show my misinterpretation of his words.
Second, what does going back to Samuel's institution in service to God have to do with this... the connection is not only not clear, but making that argument seems ignorant and of no reasonable value whatsoever, but I will let you explain your argument.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Are you talking about all the contradictions in the bible or all the hypocrasy? You don't seem to know the difference.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468292 wrote: First, I have made my argument, but saying I must have misinterpreted Samuel's words does not at all show the misinterpretation of them; show my misinterpretation of his words.
Second, what does going back to Samuel's institution in service to God have to do with this... the connection is not only not clear, but making that argument seems ignorant and of no reasonable value whatsoever, but I will let you explain your argument.
Well, I confess that if you have made your argument, then I have completely missed whatever point you are trying to make, here.
I am guessing it is yet another of your attempts to portray Paul as some sort of Blasphemer, or somthing.
Short story, The people figured out that they couldn't really understand God, so the demanded a Judge to lead them, and God gave them a Judge, Then, When Samuel was getting old, they said they wanted a king, like all the other nations, so God gave them a King. Even then they were not really happy, but they managed to get along for a while, at least until the Babylonians came.
We have already discussed Paul's words, in a previous thread, and I really see no point in going there with you, again. I don't really care to help you grind your axe, and I am not sure anyone else here even cares THAT much.
Second, what does going back to Samuel's institution in service to God have to do with this... the connection is not only not clear, but making that argument seems ignorant and of no reasonable value whatsoever, but I will let you explain your argument.
Well, I confess that if you have made your argument, then I have completely missed whatever point you are trying to make, here.
I am guessing it is yet another of your attempts to portray Paul as some sort of Blasphemer, or somthing.
Short story, The people figured out that they couldn't really understand God, so the demanded a Judge to lead them, and God gave them a Judge, Then, When Samuel was getting old, they said they wanted a king, like all the other nations, so God gave them a King. Even then they were not really happy, but they managed to get along for a while, at least until the Babylonians came.
We have already discussed Paul's words, in a previous thread, and I really see no point in going there with you, again. I don't really care to help you grind your axe, and I am not sure anyone else here even cares THAT much.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
LarsMac;1468430 wrote: Well, I confess that if you have made your argument, then I have completely missed whatever point you are trying to make, here.
I am guessing it is yet another of your attempts to portray Paul as some sort of Blasphemer, or somthing.
Short story, The people figured out that they couldn't really understand God, so the demanded a Judge to lead them, and God gave them a Judge, Then, When Samuel was getting old, they said they wanted a king, like all the other nations, so God gave them a King. Even then they were not really happy, but they managed to get along for a while, at least until the Babylonians came.
We have already discussed Paul's words, in a previous thread, and I really see no point in going there with you, again. I don't really care to help you grind your axe, and I am not sure anyone else here even cares THAT much.
At least be honest and admit you cannot make a real argument against the evidence and you don't want to admit a contradiction exists because you hold to a belief (in ignorance) that the bible is without contradiction.
I am guessing it is yet another of your attempts to portray Paul as some sort of Blasphemer, or somthing.
Short story, The people figured out that they couldn't really understand God, so the demanded a Judge to lead them, and God gave them a Judge, Then, When Samuel was getting old, they said they wanted a king, like all the other nations, so God gave them a King. Even then they were not really happy, but they managed to get along for a while, at least until the Babylonians came.
We have already discussed Paul's words, in a previous thread, and I really see no point in going there with you, again. I don't really care to help you grind your axe, and I am not sure anyone else here even cares THAT much.
At least be honest and admit you cannot make a real argument against the evidence and you don't want to admit a contradiction exists because you hold to a belief (in ignorance) that the bible is without contradiction.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
gmc;1468423 wrote: Are you talking about all the contradictions in the bible or all the hypocrasy? You don't seem to know the difference.
Jesus taught not to judge (enact punishment against others) as the measure one enacts against others is what they will receive back. As well Jesus stated that his followers were to love their enemies and in the New Testament Paul teaches a contradicting ideology and claims that those who enact judgment against others are ministers of God. Yes it is a contradiction and when contradictions are practiced that is hypocrisy and so Paul condoned contradicting views and when a book holds 2 opposing views while it is a contradiction it condones hypocrisy.
Paul not only clearly contradicted Samuel, his teachings clearly contradict Jesus and until professed Christians understand that, they will embrace the contradictions of Paul and preach and live as hypocrites: as they profess to be followers of Christ while they don't.
Jesus taught not to judge (enact punishment against others) as the measure one enacts against others is what they will receive back. As well Jesus stated that his followers were to love their enemies and in the New Testament Paul teaches a contradicting ideology and claims that those who enact judgment against others are ministers of God. Yes it is a contradiction and when contradictions are practiced that is hypocrisy and so Paul condoned contradicting views and when a book holds 2 opposing views while it is a contradiction it condones hypocrisy.
Paul not only clearly contradicted Samuel, his teachings clearly contradict Jesus and until professed Christians understand that, they will embrace the contradictions of Paul and preach and live as hypocrites: as they profess to be followers of Christ while they don't.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468448 wrote: At least be honest and admit you cannot make a real argument against the evidence and you don't want to admit a contradiction exists because you hold to a belief (in ignorance) that the bible is without contradiction.
Sorry, Bubba, but you are wrong on every count, here. There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible. I've never said otherwise. You simply fail to make an argument as to how your example is one of them.
Oh, by the way, contradiction does not necessarily translate to hypocrisy.
Sorry, Bubba, but you are wrong on every count, here. There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible. I've never said otherwise. You simply fail to make an argument as to how your example is one of them.
Oh, by the way, contradiction does not necessarily translate to hypocrisy.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468449 wrote: Jesus taught not to judge (enact punishment against others) as the measure one enacts against others is what they will receive back. As well Jesus stated that his followers were to love their enemies and in the New Testament Paul teaches a contradicting ideology and claims that those who enact judgment against others are ministers of God. Yes it is a contradiction and when contradictions are practiced that is hypocrisy and so Paul condoned contradicting views and when a book holds 2 opposing views while it is a contradiction it condones hypocrisy.
Paul not only clearly contradicted Samuel, his teachings clearly contradict Jesus and until professed Christians understand that, they will embrace the contradictions of Paul and preach and live as hypocrites: as they profess to be followers of Christ while they don't.#
Paul practiced what he preached so he wasn't being hypocritical. If he had preached not to exact punishment on others and then gone on to do so that would be hypocrisy. Someone who embraces the teachings of paul and acts as they preach is not being hypocritical they are being true to their beliefs. You might not agree with them because they contradict yours but they are not hypocrites.
Paul not only clearly contradicted Samuel, his teachings clearly contradict Jesus and until professed Christians understand that, they will embrace the contradictions of Paul and preach and live as hypocrites: as they profess to be followers of Christ while they don't.#
Paul practiced what he preached so he wasn't being hypocritical. If he had preached not to exact punishment on others and then gone on to do so that would be hypocrisy. Someone who embraces the teachings of paul and acts as they preach is not being hypocritical they are being true to their beliefs. You might not agree with them because they contradict yours but they are not hypocrites.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
gmc;1468457 wrote: #
Paul practiced what he preached so he wasn't being hypocritical. If he had preached not to exact punishment on others and then gone on to do so that would be hypocrisy. Someone who embraces the teachings of paul and acts as they preach is not being hypocritical they are being true to their beliefs. You might not agree with them because they contradict yours but they are not hypocrites.
Romans 5:8
“God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.â€
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.â€
Nahum 1
2 "The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies".
3 "The LORD is very patient but great in power; the LORD punishes. His way is in whirlwind and storm; clouds are the dust of his feet".
Furthermore, isn't Jealousy one of the 7 Deadly Sins?
The Bible is full of contradictions, but as previously stated that doesn't equate to Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is preaching one thing whilost doing another, such preaching about how material posessions & wealth are sinful, yet the Church is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. They place themselves above & exempt from the 10 commandments. "Love Thy Neighbour" - "Though Shalt Not Kill". How many millions have killed & been killed in the name of God under them impetus of dogmatic hatred? This is hypocrisy, and the worst hypocrites in the world are to be found within the Church.
Paul practiced what he preached so he wasn't being hypocritical. If he had preached not to exact punishment on others and then gone on to do so that would be hypocrisy. Someone who embraces the teachings of paul and acts as they preach is not being hypocritical they are being true to their beliefs. You might not agree with them because they contradict yours but they are not hypocrites.
Romans 5:8
“God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.â€
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.â€
Nahum 1
2 "The LORD is a jealous and vengeful God; the LORD is vengeful and strong in wrath. The LORD is vengeful against his foes; he rages against his enemies".
3 "The LORD is very patient but great in power; the LORD punishes. His way is in whirlwind and storm; clouds are the dust of his feet".
Furthermore, isn't Jealousy one of the 7 Deadly Sins?
The Bible is full of contradictions, but as previously stated that doesn't equate to Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is preaching one thing whilost doing another, such preaching about how material posessions & wealth are sinful, yet the Church is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. They place themselves above & exempt from the 10 commandments. "Love Thy Neighbour" - "Though Shalt Not Kill". How many millions have killed & been killed in the name of God under them impetus of dogmatic hatred? This is hypocrisy, and the worst hypocrites in the world are to be found within the Church.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
gmc;1468423 wrote: Are you talking about all the contradictions in the bible or all the hypocrasy? You don't seem to know the difference.
BINGO
As was already pointed out there are obvious contradictions .
I see no hypocrisy. Bible preaches nothing, it stands alone.
BINGO
As was already pointed out there are obvious contradictions .
I see no hypocrisy. Bible preaches nothing, it stands alone.
What happened to Kamala Harris' campaign?
She had the black vote all locked up.
She had the black vote all locked up.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
My apologies for the bad spelling I hate it when I get the spelling wrong, it's usually bad typing to blame.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
gmc;1468484 wrote: My apologies for the bad spelling I hate it when I get the spelling wrong, it's usually bad typing to blame.
:yh_rotfl :wah: :yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl :wah: :yh_rotfl
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Sheep? What's your point? What does it mean to you if the bible contradicts itself, sometimes, or not?
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
AnneBoleyn;1468487 wrote: Sheep? What's your point? What does it mean to you if the bible contradicts itself, sometimes, or not?
Hey Anne, the point is that as long as people embrace a book of contradictions they will not be able to know what to believe and embrace. I believe Jesus teachings when practiced will lead people to love all men, but to much of what is contained in the New Testaments writings contradict Jesus teachings and as long as people cannot see past that they will not be able to embrace Christ, and his teachings, to end up practicing them and thus they will condone something Jesus condemned, namely doing harm to others as Paul and thus then the bible contradictorily taught. Those who enact judgment towards others stand against Christ and in this Paul and thus the bible clearly condones men doing what Jesus condemned. To embrace the whole bible will absolutely lead one to being a hypocrite: as you must hold to opposing views which the same book ignorantly promotes.
Hey Anne, the point is that as long as people embrace a book of contradictions they will not be able to know what to believe and embrace. I believe Jesus teachings when practiced will lead people to love all men, but to much of what is contained in the New Testaments writings contradict Jesus teachings and as long as people cannot see past that they will not be able to embrace Christ, and his teachings, to end up practicing them and thus they will condone something Jesus condemned, namely doing harm to others as Paul and thus then the bible contradictorily taught. Those who enact judgment towards others stand against Christ and in this Paul and thus the bible clearly condones men doing what Jesus condemned. To embrace the whole bible will absolutely lead one to being a hypocrite: as you must hold to opposing views which the same book ignorantly promotes.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
There's also the Cherry Picking that goes on. Christ was Jewish. We are all supposed to follow in the ways of Christ. Therefore why aren't we all Jewish? Why aren't all Christian boys circumcised? How come we're allowed to eat pork?
The favourite answer tends to be the phrase "Today the Scriptures are fulfilled", meaning that everything that has been declared before is no longer required, yet if that is so, then how come the 10 Commandments remain the fundamental basis of most modern law? When queried about such things Christians always tend to brush them aside claiming it to be "The Word Of God", yet if there is only one Word of God, how come there are so many different sects, all professing entirely different interpretations of the same things - not only that but rewriting the texts to suit their own version of things. This is the zenith of hypocrisy. If you don't like the rules, change the rules.
The favourite answer tends to be the phrase "Today the Scriptures are fulfilled", meaning that everything that has been declared before is no longer required, yet if that is so, then how come the 10 Commandments remain the fundamental basis of most modern law? When queried about such things Christians always tend to brush them aside claiming it to be "The Word Of God", yet if there is only one Word of God, how come there are so many different sects, all professing entirely different interpretations of the same things - not only that but rewriting the texts to suit their own version of things. This is the zenith of hypocrisy. If you don't like the rules, change the rules.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Through the law we have judgment and condemnation. Through Jesus we have teachings of forgiveness, mercy, compassion... If you want those things practice them. Jesus did not live by the law, but by a higher set of principles. The law was given because of the hardness of mens hearts, Jesus came to soften them. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE AND PERSECUTE YOU, FORGIVE AND YOU SHALL BE FORGIVEN, judge and you will be judged.
If you practice the teachings of Christ the law becomes redundant. But if you enforce punishment upon others you will face God and not see his mercy: according to the teachings of Christ.
Jesus taught against the law:
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Through the law we have judgment and condemnation. Through Jesus we have teachings of forgiveness, mercy, compassion... If you want those things practice them. Jesus did not live by the law, but by a higher set of principles. The law was given because of the hardness of mens hearts, Jesus came to soften them. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE AND PERSECUTE YOU, FORGIVE AND YOU SHALL BE FORGIVEN, judge and you will be judged.
If you practice the teachings of Christ the law becomes redundant. But if you enforce punishment upon others you will face God and not see his mercy: according to the teachings of Christ.
Jesus taught against the law:
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468491 wrote: Hey Anne, the point is that as long as people embrace a book of contradictions they will not be able to know what to believe and embrace. I believe Jesus teachings when practiced will lead people to love all men, but to much of what is contained in the New Testaments writings contradict Jesus teachings and as long as people cannot see past that they will not be able to embrace Christ, and his teachings, to end up practicing them and thus they will condone something Jesus condemned, namely doing harm to others as Paul and thus then the bible contradictorily taught. Those who enact judgment towards others stand against Christ and in this Paul and thus the bible clearly condones men doing what Jesus condemned. To embrace the whole bible will absolutely lead one to being a hypocrite: as you must hold to opposing views which the same book ignorantly promotes.
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wanted the New Testament to contain only the books of the apostles, the witnesses to Jesus himself, & to ignore what comes afterwards, including Revelations (well, including everything but the word of the apostles). I agree with that notion.
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wanted the New Testament to contain only the books of the apostles, the witnesses to Jesus himself, & to ignore what comes afterwards, including Revelations (well, including everything but the word of the apostles). I agree with that notion.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468500 wrote: Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Sheep chew the cud & have cloven hooves. Therefore according to this we are not allowed to eat meat from the sheep, be it mutton or lamb.
Sheep chew the cud & have cloven hooves. Therefore according to this we are not allowed to eat meat from the sheep, be it mutton or lamb.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
FourPart;1468514 wrote: Sheep chew the cud & have cloven hooves. Therefore according to this we are not allowed to eat meat from the sheep, be it mutton or lamb.
Actually, it is cloven hoofed Cud chewers that are considered edible. Camel is out because they don't have cloven hooves. Pig is out because they aren't cud chewers. Sheep and cattle are in.
AnneBoleyn;1468506 wrote: I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wanted the New Testament to contain only the books of the apostles, the witnesses to Jesus himself, & to ignore what comes afterwards, including Revelations (well, including everything but the word of the apostles). I agree with that notion.
Jefferson's Bible consists almost entirely of the actions and words of Jesus, taken from only the Gospels.
In case anyone is interested:
The Jefferson Bible (The Life & Morals of Jesus of Nazareth)
Actually, it is cloven hoofed Cud chewers that are considered edible. Camel is out because they don't have cloven hooves. Pig is out because they aren't cud chewers. Sheep and cattle are in.
AnneBoleyn;1468506 wrote: I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wanted the New Testament to contain only the books of the apostles, the witnesses to Jesus himself, & to ignore what comes afterwards, including Revelations (well, including everything but the word of the apostles). I agree with that notion.
Jefferson's Bible consists almost entirely of the actions and words of Jesus, taken from only the Gospels.
In case anyone is interested:
The Jefferson Bible (The Life & Morals of Jesus of Nazareth)
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468500 wrote: Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Through the law we have judgment and condemnation. Through Jesus we have teachings of forgiveness, mercy, compassion... If you want those things practice them. Jesus did not live by the law, but by a higher set of principles. The law was given because of the hardness of mens hearts, Jesus came to soften them. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE AND PERSECUTE YOU, FORGIVE AND YOU SHALL BE FORGIVEN, judge and you will be judged.
If you practice the teachings of Christ the law becomes redundant. But if you enforce punishment upon others you will face God and not see his mercy: according to the teachings of Christ.
Jesus taught against the law:
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Jesus did not teach against the Law.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Mat 5:17 KJV
And to find apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testament is like finding ducks in a pond. good hunting.
Through the law we have judgment and condemnation. Through Jesus we have teachings of forgiveness, mercy, compassion... If you want those things practice them. Jesus did not live by the law, but by a higher set of principles. The law was given because of the hardness of mens hearts, Jesus came to soften them. LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE AND PERSECUTE YOU, FORGIVE AND YOU SHALL BE FORGIVEN, judge and you will be judged.
If you practice the teachings of Christ the law becomes redundant. But if you enforce punishment upon others you will face God and not see his mercy: according to the teachings of Christ.
Jesus taught against the law:
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 11:4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Jesus did not teach against the Law.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Mat 5:17 KJV
And to find apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testament is like finding ducks in a pond. good hunting.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
LarsMac;1468519 wrote: Jesus did not teach against the Law.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Mat 5:17 KJV
And to find apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testament is like finding ducks in a pond. good hunting.
There is an old saying that often things get lost in translation and unfortunately Matthew 5:17 is a very good example of this.
Unfortunately I am in the middle of 2 long days of work, but I will give a detailed response expounding on this once my shift is done and I have some time to recuperate from my work.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Mat 5:17 KJV
And to find apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testament is like finding ducks in a pond. good hunting.
There is an old saying that often things get lost in translation and unfortunately Matthew 5:17 is a very good example of this.
Unfortunately I am in the middle of 2 long days of work, but I will give a detailed response expounding on this once my shift is done and I have some time to recuperate from my work.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
To Lars: thanks for the link to the Jefferson Bible.
To sheep: the idea of Jesus, a Jewish man from birth to death, teaching against or contrary to Jewish law was the birth of anti-semitism.
To sheep: the idea of Jesus, a Jewish man from birth to death, teaching against or contrary to Jewish law was the birth of anti-semitism.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
AnneBoleyn;1468532 wrote: To Lars: thanks for the link to the Jefferson Bible.
To sheep: the idea of Jesus, a Jewish man from birth to death, teaching against or contrary to Jewish law was the birth of anti-semitism.
All people are God's people. The Jews were only used as an example for us because of the faithfulness of a few (Abraham, David, etc.). Jesus while he happened to be born an Israelite and was the promise of the prophecy to Judah, Jesus is the King and it is his rule, not Moses', that is established as the Rules for His Kingdom. Any hatred towards Jews I see as coming not from followers of Christ, but rather from those who didn't.
To sheep: the idea of Jesus, a Jewish man from birth to death, teaching against or contrary to Jewish law was the birth of anti-semitism.
All people are God's people. The Jews were only used as an example for us because of the faithfulness of a few (Abraham, David, etc.). Jesus while he happened to be born an Israelite and was the promise of the prophecy to Judah, Jesus is the King and it is his rule, not Moses', that is established as the Rules for His Kingdom. Any hatred towards Jews I see as coming not from followers of Christ, but rather from those who didn't.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
LarsMac;1468519 wrote: Jesus did not teach against the Law.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Mat 5:17 KJV
And to find apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testament is like finding ducks in a pond. good hunting.
There is an old saying that often things get lost in translation and unfortunately Matthew 5:17 is a very good example of this.
Languages don't translate even close to word for word often times, but if you are not fluent in more than one language you probably don't know this. In order to properly translate something from one language to another you often have to explain the concepts behind the words you are trying to translate.
In Matthew 5:17 the word translated "Law" comes from a Greek primary word which means "to parcel out food for grazing" as oppose to the word commandment.
As I mentioned before, concepts don't properly translate from one language to another. To show you how difficult it can be to translate a word, the compound part of the word translated "destroy" is described as follows, by the Strong's:
kataluō
kat-al-oo'-o
"A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity"
If we look at the way the word described above has been used in the 475 times it has in the bible, we see that it has the concept of "something established": like a person that was fully asleep, or a person settled in an area.
The other part of the compound word just simply means "to loosen, or free", so what Jesus was expressing, in part of the verse, was: I am not come to free you fully from spiritually grazing how to live...
The word translated "fulfil", in Matthew 5:17, in the English means "complete". But this Greek word doesn't at all mean complete, but rather comes from a word that actually means to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram into or fully fill something. What Jesus was saying, in Matthew 5:17, was: I did not come to free you from law (spiritual grazing), but I came to raise the bar.
One aught to note that Jesus' audience, the multitude, are called his disciples in Chapter 5 verse 1 and 2. Jesus was teachings them his rules, otherwise known as "the gospel of the kingdom". The end of the previous chapter states:
Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Mat 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
Mat 4:25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
What we have in chapters 5-7, in the sermon on the mount, is what Jesus is reported to have taught to his disciples (not to be confused by his Apostles): the multitude.
Prior to Matthew 5:17 Jesus teaches his followers that they are blessed who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, are meek, are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, those who are pure in heart, are peacemakers, are persecuted for righteousness, are persecuted, and falsely accused, for embracing Jesus: for you shall be rewarded... You are to be the salt and light of the world and thus bring glory to God.
Now it is interesting to note that Jesus gained his followers from the above cities, as he was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and then said those who followed his teachings were blessed and now this verse comes in "I did not come to free you from law (spiritual grazing), but I came to raise the bar."
Jesus continues to say, not one iota of his raised standards will pass away and that whoever teaches others to break one of his commandments will be called least by those in heaven, but whoever shall do and teach others to follow his teachings shall be called greatest by those in heaven.
Then in verse 20 Jesus states: the rules the scribes and Pharisees live by are not sufficient and unless you live better you will not be a part of the kingdom of heaven.
Finally in verses 21 and 22 Jesus RAISES the standards of the spiritual grazing pasture by quoting one of the 10 Commandments: which is exactly what he said he came to do in verse 17 and he continues to do this throughout the continuation of the chapter.
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Mat 5:17 KJV
And to find apparent contradictions between the Old and New Testament is like finding ducks in a pond. good hunting.
There is an old saying that often things get lost in translation and unfortunately Matthew 5:17 is a very good example of this.
Languages don't translate even close to word for word often times, but if you are not fluent in more than one language you probably don't know this. In order to properly translate something from one language to another you often have to explain the concepts behind the words you are trying to translate.
In Matthew 5:17 the word translated "Law" comes from a Greek primary word which means "to parcel out food for grazing" as oppose to the word commandment.
As I mentioned before, concepts don't properly translate from one language to another. To show you how difficult it can be to translate a word, the compound part of the word translated "destroy" is described as follows, by the Strong's:
kataluō
kat-al-oo'-o
"A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity"
If we look at the way the word described above has been used in the 475 times it has in the bible, we see that it has the concept of "something established": like a person that was fully asleep, or a person settled in an area.
The other part of the compound word just simply means "to loosen, or free", so what Jesus was expressing, in part of the verse, was: I am not come to free you fully from spiritually grazing how to live...
The word translated "fulfil", in Matthew 5:17, in the English means "complete". But this Greek word doesn't at all mean complete, but rather comes from a word that actually means to make replete, that is, (literally) to cram into or fully fill something. What Jesus was saying, in Matthew 5:17, was: I did not come to free you from law (spiritual grazing), but I came to raise the bar.
One aught to note that Jesus' audience, the multitude, are called his disciples in Chapter 5 verse 1 and 2. Jesus was teachings them his rules, otherwise known as "the gospel of the kingdom". The end of the previous chapter states:
Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
Mat 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.
Mat 4:25 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.
What we have in chapters 5-7, in the sermon on the mount, is what Jesus is reported to have taught to his disciples (not to be confused by his Apostles): the multitude.
Prior to Matthew 5:17 Jesus teaches his followers that they are blessed who are poor in spirit, those who mourn, are meek, are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, those who are pure in heart, are peacemakers, are persecuted for righteousness, are persecuted, and falsely accused, for embracing Jesus: for you shall be rewarded... You are to be the salt and light of the world and thus bring glory to God.
Now it is interesting to note that Jesus gained his followers from the above cities, as he was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and then said those who followed his teachings were blessed and now this verse comes in "I did not come to free you from law (spiritual grazing), but I came to raise the bar."
Jesus continues to say, not one iota of his raised standards will pass away and that whoever teaches others to break one of his commandments will be called least by those in heaven, but whoever shall do and teach others to follow his teachings shall be called greatest by those in heaven.
Then in verse 20 Jesus states: the rules the scribes and Pharisees live by are not sufficient and unless you live better you will not be a part of the kingdom of heaven.
Finally in verses 21 and 22 Jesus RAISES the standards of the spiritual grazing pasture by quoting one of the 10 Commandments: which is exactly what he said he came to do in verse 17 and he continues to do this throughout the continuation of the chapter.
Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
The same old defence that demonstrates the hypocrisy of Religion. "It's because of the translation. What they REALLY meant to say was....". Then come the ficticious interpretations moulded to suit the individual's own agenda.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
FourPart;1468615 wrote: The same old defence that demonstrates the hypocrisy of Religion. "It's because of the translation. What they REALLY meant to say was....". Then come the ficticious interpretations moulded to suit the individual's own agenda.
Dear fourpart, I can't help but notice you seem to emotionally bothered by your experiences with people that have embraced religious views. You might consider the merits of forgiveness from purely its own intrinsic value. I once heard it said that unforgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting it to kill the other person.
Dear fourpart, I can't help but notice you seem to emotionally bothered by your experiences with people that have embraced religious views. You might consider the merits of forgiveness from purely its own intrinsic value. I once heard it said that unforgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting it to kill the other person.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
My personal experiences? Tell me when has there ever been a time throughout history when there hasn't been barbarity, torture, murder & genocide going on all in the name of Religion? And on top of that, 90% is Christian in origin.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
FourPart;1468673 wrote: My personal experiences? Tell me when has there ever been a time throughout history when there hasn't been barbarity, torture, murder & genocide going on all in the name of Religion? And on top of that, 90% is Christian in origin.
Sadly you are right: much evil has been done in the name of religion. But while religious views may have been used to justify harmful actions, there is a huge difference in professing to be a Christian and actually being one; If Jesus is the one who determines what classifies one as his follower, then the truth is no one has ever been a Christian and harmed another person and so none of it was actually Christian in origin, it was only that they professed their actions to be justifiable through their ignorant religious beliefs.
BTW, it is for the very reason that I post here: to change what people believe is actually Christian in origin.
Sadly you are right: much evil has been done in the name of religion. But while religious views may have been used to justify harmful actions, there is a huge difference in professing to be a Christian and actually being one; If Jesus is the one who determines what classifies one as his follower, then the truth is no one has ever been a Christian and harmed another person and so none of it was actually Christian in origin, it was only that they professed their actions to be justifiable through their ignorant religious beliefs.
BTW, it is for the very reason that I post here: to change what people believe is actually Christian in origin.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
How is your posting here going to change people (plural)? How many people do you think actually come here? Pissing in the ocean, or the wind, comes into my mind.
You post here, really, because you have an opinion you wish to express. If you think that will change people (plural)....................Naw. Just enjoy the debate. & btw, fourpart is expressing himself, same as you. He's not being hateful by having a different opinion.
You post here, really, because you have an opinion you wish to express. If you think that will change people (plural)....................Naw. Just enjoy the debate. & btw, fourpart is expressing himself, same as you. He's not being hateful by having a different opinion.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
I actually believe in the existence of Jesus, and that he was, in his time, a revolutionary Guru - an ancient time Hippy (or as Rigsby put it (at least I think it was Rigsby) "Of course he was a hippy. Long hair ... wore sandals ... didn't have a job"). On the whole I've got nothing against His pacifist teachings. I just denounce the claim that he was ever a divinity of any kind. He was just a man who had some radical ideas who built up a following, who went on to exaggerate everything & blow it all out of proportion. When he told His disciples not to say that he was the Messiah, it was because he knew he wasn't & never made any claims to be such. As I said - just like in The Life Of Brian. Indeed, even now there are people in abundance who have fans who make claim to them being the New Messiah. Elvis, for instance. There's no shortage of idiots who believe him to be the Son of God. The same goes for Hitler. It is the fanatics that makes the (false) claims. Not the Messiah figures themselves.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
FourPart;1468693 wrote: I actually believe in the existence of Jesus, and that he was, in his time, a revolutionary Guru - an ancient time Hippy (or as Rigsby put it (at least I think it was Rigsby) "Of course he was a hippy. Long hair ... wore sandals ... didn't have a job"). On the whole I've got nothing against His pacifist teachings. I just denounce the claim that he was ever a divinity of any kind. He was just a man who had some radical ideas who built up a following, who went on to exaggerate everything & blow it all out of proportion. When he told His disciples not to say that he was the Messiah, it was because he knew he wasn't & never made any claims to be such. As I said - just like in The Life Of Brian. Indeed, even now there are people in abundance who have fans who make claim to them being the New Messiah. Elvis, for instance. There's no shortage of idiots who believe him to be the Son of God. The same goes for Hitler. It is the fanatics that makes the (false) claims. Not the Messiah figures themselves.
I see a number of problems with your views about the Jesus person. I will totally agree that what you intellectually believe about whether Jesus was God's son or not matters little, but how you live and treat others I believe actually matters a great deal and for that reason I believe your acceptance of Jesus' teachings are essential: as his teachings are all about correcting how people live so that they live without doing harm to others.
If you want to deny him having any connection to God I have no problem, but if you live contrary to doing good (which is what Jesus was promoting) then you are evil/hurtful and you are the problem and not the solution.
I don't care if you believe in green Martians, or pink flying elephants, I don't see either affecting how one lives in a practical way and therefore I think it matters not at all. But if you justify harming others: then I think you are no better than Hitler and your thinking and actions are the cause of all the problems the world has faced and is facing today.
I see a number of problems with your views about the Jesus person. I will totally agree that what you intellectually believe about whether Jesus was God's son or not matters little, but how you live and treat others I believe actually matters a great deal and for that reason I believe your acceptance of Jesus' teachings are essential: as his teachings are all about correcting how people live so that they live without doing harm to others.
If you want to deny him having any connection to God I have no problem, but if you live contrary to doing good (which is what Jesus was promoting) then you are evil/hurtful and you are the problem and not the solution.
I don't care if you believe in green Martians, or pink flying elephants, I don't see either affecting how one lives in a practical way and therefore I think it matters not at all. But if you justify harming others: then I think you are no better than Hitler and your thinking and actions are the cause of all the problems the world has faced and is facing today.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
Crusades: Slaying the infidels for the Greater Glory of God.
Inquisition: Torture anyone & everyone into admitting they are Satanists, and then put them to death for being so - for the Greater Glory of God.
Dissolution of the Monasteries: Persecution of one set of Christians against another - for the Greater Glory of God.
The list goes on & on. The invention of a God is merely a scapegoat for a banner of evil & a fuel for hatred & sectarianism.
As for believing in Green Martians - that's just plain stupid. Everyone knows Martians are Red. As for my Pink Flying Elephants (or to be more precise, Invisible Pink Flying Elephants), as you know, just as I told Pahu, you can't disprove their existence.
Inquisition: Torture anyone & everyone into admitting they are Satanists, and then put them to death for being so - for the Greater Glory of God.
Dissolution of the Monasteries: Persecution of one set of Christians against another - for the Greater Glory of God.
The list goes on & on. The invention of a God is merely a scapegoat for a banner of evil & a fuel for hatred & sectarianism.
As for believing in Green Martians - that's just plain stupid. Everyone knows Martians are Red. As for my Pink Flying Elephants (or to be more precise, Invisible Pink Flying Elephants), as you know, just as I told Pahu, you can't disprove their existence.
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
FourPart;1468788 wrote: Crusades: Slaying the infidels for the Greater Glory of God.
Inquisition: Torture anyone & everyone into admitting they are Satanists, and then put them to death for being so - for the Greater Glory of God.
Dissolution of the Monasteries: Persecution of one set of Christians against another - for the Greater Glory of God.
The list goes on & on. The invention of a God is merely a scapegoat for a banner of evil & a fuel for hatred & sectarianism.
As for believing in Green Martians - that's just plain stupid. Everyone knows Martians are Red. As for my Pink Flying Elephants (or to be more precise, Invisible Pink Flying Elephants), as you know, just as I told Pahu, you can't disprove their existence.
You start off with facts and then lead on to assumptions. It is too bad you didn't just stick with the facts.
Inquisition: Torture anyone & everyone into admitting they are Satanists, and then put them to death for being so - for the Greater Glory of God.
Dissolution of the Monasteries: Persecution of one set of Christians against another - for the Greater Glory of God.
The list goes on & on. The invention of a God is merely a scapegoat for a banner of evil & a fuel for hatred & sectarianism.
As for believing in Green Martians - that's just plain stupid. Everyone knows Martians are Red. As for my Pink Flying Elephants (or to be more precise, Invisible Pink Flying Elephants), as you know, just as I told Pahu, you can't disprove their existence.
You start off with facts and then lead on to assumptions. It is too bad you didn't just stick with the facts.
Atheists have a belief system which is based upon not one shred of factual evidence.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Hypocrisy in the Bible.
sheep;1468707 wrote: I see a number of problems with your views about the Jesus person. I will totally agree that what you intellectually believe about whether Jesus was God's son or not matters little, but how you live and treat others I believe actually matters a great deal and for that reason I believe your acceptance of Jesus' teachings are essential: as his teachings are all about correcting how people live so that they live without doing harm to others.
If you want to deny him having any connection to God I have no problem, but if you live contrary to doing good (which is what Jesus was promoting) then you are evil/hurtful and you are the problem and not the solution.
I like what you said, very tolerant.
If you want to deny him having any connection to God I have no problem, but if you live contrary to doing good (which is what Jesus was promoting) then you are evil/hurtful and you are the problem and not the solution.
I like what you said, very tolerant.