...and let's not forget all the bits of the Bible that completely contradict themselves..... "Turn the other cheek"/"An eye for an eye" for obvious example..... Well, WHICH IS IT? Which one is the "word of God", and which one isn't? Hmmm? They can't be both the "word of God", being patently self-contradictory, can they? Therefore, at least one of them isn't be the "word of God", therefore the Bible contains at least some stuff which isn't the "word of God", therefore Quad Erat Demonstrandum! The Bible as a whole is filled with contradictory stuff all over the place
I just LOVE how people misquote the bible! It makes for such interesting debates.Next time, read the surrounding text.
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt ... neye.shtmlQuote:
you can find quotes in it to justify any argument you want to, no matter how heinous..... e.g. The Nazis in WWII could find passages supporting them, the Ku Klux Klan can find passages supporting them etc. etc. How can so much wildly varying and contradictory twaddle all be the "word of God", unless he's an absolutely massive schizophrenic? Answer: it can't. The end!
The bible IS open for interpretation, if I wanted to try hard enough I could quote you as a neo nazi KKK supporter from right there. Deliberate misinterpretation, what you are doing, is pretty common. Feel free to re-read the entire chapter in the bible so that you understand what you are saying.
Quote:
only real documentary evidence that exists for Jesus' life is in the New Testament –
Roman records of the creature on the stone, his rising, and his crucifixion.
Quote:
there are no other written accounts of his life at all worth mentioning.
And you say *I* am plugging my fingers in my ears?
Quote:
But natuirally, the New Testament was written from a very one-eyed, self-interested point of view
If that's selfish, the world has remarkably high standards.
Quote:
Treating it as a (pardon the expression) gospel account of his life would be somewhat like treating "Mein Kampf" as a gospel account of Hitler's life
Of course, if you assume that there is no divine inspiration behind the bible, that God isn't the guiding force behind it's creation, then you could say that. Of course, you could say that about almost any material then, couldn't you?
Quote:
The little documentary and archaeological evidence that does survive tends to suggest a very different Jesus – namely a member of and fighter in a Jewish resistance movement against the Roman occupation. Not a peace-loving old hippy at all....
When you make a claim like this, back it up. What you're saying is completely unfounded. I can make things up too, but I don't.Quote:
It is strongly suggested that there were several early churches, one lead by James, Jesus' brother (who gets nary a mention in the "literal transcription of events" Bible, but anyway) who wanted the Church to follow on from Jesus' mission and to be pro-Jew and to continue to fight the Romans...... Old Peter won out though, and the New Testament we see now got written instead.
There really wasn't a central church planned in the bible. Also, what you are suggesting needs EVIDENCE behind it. I'm getting really tired of hearing fabrications from the national inquirer.
Quote:
A Bible where the Romans are hardly mentioned at all (a bit like writing a book on 1940s France and not mentioning Germans by the way), are spoken of in glowing terms when they are mentioned (Pontius Pilate is portayed as a great guy, despite the considerable documentary evidence that does indeed exist about him that proves that he was a dictatorial monster who wouldn't have thought twice about doing in some peasant Jew like Jesus, "spiritual aura" or not, and anyone else for that matter),
Okay, considerable documentary evidence that exists that proves he's an ass. Sounds believable. I want to see it. =)
Quote:
and where the Jews are utterly demonized (they call for Jesus' crucifixion despite nice-guy Pilate's protestations – a bit like modern Jews asking for someone to be gassed as punishment, and the evil disciple who betrays Jesus is even called Judas "The Jew" for gawd's sake)...
I'm saying the exact opposite of what you believe, I'm pretty sure that out of this little spat you'd enjoy taking a shot at me. If we do this for a few years I'm sure you'd like to kill me.
He is called Judas in the bible, thus that is what his name is.
Quote:
In other words, it was written as a pure propoganda document to further Peter's aims – i.e. acceptance, wealth and power in the Roman world (which it eventually achieved spectacularly of course – hats off to the guy - he knew what he was doing.....).
Oh, by the way, about peter being the first pope...He was voted into that position INVOLUNTARILY and did NOT want a place of power.
Quote:
The true events were completely ignored in this version of the Bible, as all the available evidence testifies......
You aren't bringing this evidence to the table, I'm skimming the rest of your post lightly. Until you bring evidence from reliable sources, shut up.
If you read any of my previous posts, you would hear that I personally believe the pope is the antichrist. A pretty bold statement, wouldn't you think?
Quite frankly, I take major offense to what you have posted. You have not backed up anything you have said as I have. All you are doing is rabble rousing and I am requesting an administrator to remove you from this thread until you can bring book titles, links to top level domains and reputable sources, or other forms of proof before you post here again.
Quote:
Your attitude perfectly exemplifies why people do not fall all over themselves to become Christians. A belief system that spawns this sort of contempt for all others could hardly be less appealing.
There is a message of love in here, if you see it as contempt you're severly mistaken. If you want the lovey dovey fluffy message, don't come to a debate forum.
Quote:
then how in the heck can you in all good conscience support a president like Bush? I mean, he's going to go drill for oil in a National Wildlife Refuge, even though this will provide only a few months worth of the oil that the U.S. consumes. This guy is an environmental nightmare in almost every way. Some steward!! !
You mean up in alaska? Okay, it would have taken at most six square miles..
1/10th of a 1%, .001 not even recognizable on a map.
Quote:
See, I've heard a lot about stewardship, and it always boils down to:
"Make the earth the way we want it to be, and if a few species have been annihilated or something had been irreperably destroyed, oh well! It's ours, isn't it?? God gave it to us!"
Or we could blow things out of proportion to scare the general populace into bending down and giving all their money to a cause, just like the damnable charismatic movement.
Quote:
What can I say - that sucker was just begging for it...... In the immortal words of Yngwie J. Malmsteen, he unleashed the ****ing fury...... Errr.... that is to say, no actual, particular member of Wrong Planet was begging for it..... errrr..... I was talking strictly rhetorically...... * whistles nervously and looks around *
All you did was look like a complete idiot ranting without a source or cause. Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows the fool?
Quote:
By the way, the Jews did not create marriage either, the mating ritual goes way back to that of the father (or like) giving the daughter away, vary old, probably one of the vary first human rituals ever made, long before Adam and Eve yet after our ancestors stood up right from being apes, there is archaeological proof of this amongst the findings of some of the earliest cavemen, and if you say there was no caveman, then tell that to the bones found, unless you are saying Satan placed it all there along with dinosaur bones just to mess with our heads
No, to break it down for you, a worldwide flood, Noah and his family, all 'good' animals (paraphrased word) thus dinosaurs could be left behind...also, cavemen didn't exist. Every skeleton has been found to be a mixture of monkey with man bones. =\
Quote:
Actually, literary analysis of the 4 gospels demonstrates that Mark was almost certainly the first one written of the 4, and the other 3 were based on it. Mark is written in a very poor literary style and appears to have been a straight verbal dictation (possibly by one of the surviving disciples - no one knows one way or the other) to someone without any real writing ability. Interestingly, the last few chapters of Mark are written in a completely diffferent style to the rest of it, suggesting that the original ending (concerning all the post-crucifixion stuff) was lost somewhere along the line and then rewritten by a different author later.
VERY GOOD! Post your source or leave!
Quote:
didn't even bother to mention that in my "word of God - pfff!! ! as if...." post - that's how much ammunition and knowledge I have in reserve on this subject, you see folks ) It is interesting to speculate what the original ending actually contained, and we'll almost certainly never know, sadly...... Perhaps we'll get a "Bible: The Director's Cut" at some point.
Your knowledge comes from the public school system and the history channel. Bring in reliable sources or leave.
Quote:
Matthew and Luke are both basically no more than straight rewrites of Mark (including the events of its altered ending) in a much more flowing and pleasing prose style (and with various facts and events rearranged, deleted and added for reasons unknown). John of course is a very different kettle of fish to the other 3 gospels, being based on Mark also, but with a much more heavily interpretation and preachy based approach than the other 3 which are essentially just straight story books.
23 Apr 2005, 5:45 pm
Errr.... that is to say, no actual, particular member of Wrong Planet was begging for it..... errrr..... I was talking strictly rhetorically...... * whistles nervously and looks around *
) It is interesting to speculate what the original ending actually contained, and we'll almost certainly never know, sadly...... Perhaps we'll get a "Bible: The Director's Cut" at some point. 
