Jump to content

RHEMtron

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About RHEMtron

  • Rank
    Strong Minded

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    RHEMtron
  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    Neverland Ranch
  • Interests
    -Turntablism<br />-Naturism<br />-Familyism<br />-Knowledgism<br />-Truthism
  • More About Me
    i used to be conceited and aarogant back in my youth. im not like that anymore... cause now... im PERFECT!

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Mr. Furley

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Q: What kind of bee makes milk? A: A Boo-Bee!!
  2. Q: How do you make a female archaeologist mad? A: Give them a tampon and ask them what period it's from
  3. http://www.crosswalk.com/ Although a Christian site, the concordance and lexicon tools are very helpful
  4. welcome to the forums! no worries man. you have friends in us
  5. Welcome aboard! Looking forward to hearing from you.... nice title for your testies moany
  6. Welp... it's your choice, but be careful about looking down on them. You just end up becoming like a Christian who looks down on non-believers.... Isnt it amazing that youre happier and feel more free when you do away with Christianity ? Welcome to the forums. This is your new church now
  7. So basically it's what i initially said. You reject scripture that's older than the synoptic gospels and which were at one point, before the Council of Nicea, reguarded higher and taught more than the other gospels, because it doesnt line up with what youve been taught. Whew... that was the longest sentence in history . Since many of those gospels, especially the gnostics ones, precede the synoptic gospels youre familiar with, wouldnt it be more true to say youre synoptic sciptures dont line up with the older gospels that precede it? Of course... when a biased person researches biased claims that line up with their biased traditional teachings and beliefs, then one will believe them to the true.... especially when one wants it to be true. Study with a rabbi, and i bet youll learn something different. Refer back to Hans response for this. The only thing i want to add is that you mentioned "their accounts". How do you define accounts? The people you mentioned lived in the 2nd-3rd century. You yourself stated this. So could it be an account? The other thing i wanted to mention is that yes, they couldve gone to any lengths... but keep in mind it was the Christians who went into any lengths to make it seem Jesus, and their beliefs about him, existed in the first place. They added verses into the bible and into historical works of other people. i.e. Mark 16:9-20 and Josephus' Testimonium Flavum. Im still awaiting a response to my question about taking a book to be true because it contains errors: Im sorry. Im not understanding the logic. A book that has errors and contradictions does not add to it's reliability. If in med-school, my surgical books said to "never inject coccaine into a patient, but instead always give topically," but in another part of it it says "always inject coccaine into a patient," we would have a problem there. One, it's true to never inject coccaine. Two, I would lose my license for doing so. Three, i'd have to question everything the book had taught. Four, i'd have to reject that book and learn from a new one. *snip* All i know is, any book that misleads, contains errors, and contradicts i choose not to trust. Applying it to a person, it doesnt makes them more trustworthy either. Moreover, a person in a book that contradicts themeselves and the book, doesnt make them trustworthy either.
  8. granted... First off, which "inspired word" do you place your trust in? Catholic Bible, Any of the Reformation Bibles, etc. Im not trying to bait you into another discussion, or tear up your comments. I just want to be able to understand where youre coming from. Second, why do you believe it to be the most reliable and accurate? Im sorry. Im not understanding the logic. A book that has errors and contradictions does not add to it's reliability. If in med-school, my surgical books said to "never inject coccaine into a patient, but instead always give topically," but in another part of it it says "always inject coccaine into a patient," we would have a problem there. One, it's true to never inject coccaine. Two, I would lose my license for doing so. Three, i'd have to question everything the book had taught. Four, i'd have to reject that book and learn from a new one. Great. The issue of contradictions we can discuss in another thread then I still contend a book is more trustworthy for not having any errors. But again i ask, what makes the book you read more trustworthy from other "inspired words" of God? Is it because what the other scriptures say dont agree with what you were taught to believe? And also, what makes it more trustworthy than any other religious books? We can all contend here that it has been altered from it's original. In more ways than one i might add. Evidence shows, through comparisons of later discoveries of older manuscripts and linguistics, that the synoptic Gospels have been altered. The most famous one is in "the Great Commission". It is widely accepted by secular and non-secular scholars that Mark 16:9-20 were later added to try and coincide with the Epistles of Paul. Another way, though more of a technicality but still misleading, is how the New Testament quotes phrophecies in the Old Testament (I will not speak of how the prophecies are taken out of context because it's not relevant at this point. That we can discuss in a separate thread). In the verses they quote, the words are altered in a way to change the meaning of the prophecy. Changing the word Ephratha, which is the name of a person and a clan, with the land of Judah greatly changes the meaning of a verse. you can check out what i speak of here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry191922 All i know is, any book that misleads, contains errors, and contradicts i choose not to trust. Applying it to a person, it doesnt makes them more trustworthy either. Moreover, a person in a book that contradicts themeselves and the book, doesnt make them trustworthy either. -Rhem
  9. First, I just wanted to commend you for knowing when to concede and having a partially open mind. If you believe in God, that's fine with us. A lot of us here are deists and agnostics, so it doesnt bother us. Our problem now, well at least mine anyway, is that you choose to worship a book, which you admit contains inconsistencies and contradictions. How can you do that?
  10. Great... on the subject of lying and church fathers: http://www.angelfire.com/band/kissed/fraud.html Angustine of Hippo, the greatest figure in Christian antiquity, wrote: "It is lawful, then, to him that discusses, disputes and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates of things temporal pertaining to religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed." Augustine, On Lying, c. 19 Eusebius, a 4th century Bishop and ecclesiastical historian, wrote that he unscrupulously suppressed all that would be a disgrace to early Christianity. Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, c.21. Edward Gibbon confirms this. He writes: "The gravest of all the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that would tend to the disgrace, of religion. Such an acknowledgement will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict observation of the other." E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, c. 16 (1883). None other than Paul of Tarsus admits of trickery (2 Cor. 12.16), imposture (1 Cor. 9.19-20), and deception. He wrote: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" Romans 3.7 (King James Version) Funny how the word "published" is used... but anyhow, scholars widely accept that "Matthew's" work was written between 80-100 C.E. That means it was written somewhere 10-40 years after the death of Peter and Paul, and not while they were preaching. "Mark's" Gospel is accepted as being written between 65-80 C.E. So i guess i can agree that it was written after Peter and Paul's departure, if by departure you mean they died. There was no reason for "Mark" to write down what Peter preached considering there was a Gospel of Peter (70-160 C.E.), which was actually reguarded higher and used more than the other Gospels. Recorded the Gospel which Paul declared? I dont remember Paul writing, or declaring, any stories, parables, and accounts of Jesus' life.
  11. Another thing to do is type in anything Christian related into Wikipedia.
  12. yeeeeeup. i was just like you. i was raised catholic, but i read books on astronomy, biology, paleontology, philosophy, and world history as a kid. so pretty much i was always one of those "catholic (or christian) by name" people. because of that, i never even bothered to read the bible because it just seemed ridiculous from page one. welcome to the site
  13. of course not... we were all taught on bible subject matters with a bias. no one ever mentions negative stories, inconsistencies, contradictions, and etc. etc. etc. than you should be highly irritated by moses for doing this. but anyhow.... we shouldnt make assumptions, but why not simply assume he didnt write the scriptures attributed to him? rarely does anyone ever write in the 3rd person. nowhere in the bible does it ever have a person talking in 3rd person... especially where the authorship has been authenticated. agreed. nobody knows who wrote Pentateuch. the only reason why people believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch is because of references in the synoptic gospel that were taken out of context. again we shouldnt assume, but actually i once heard that it was actually Joshua who wrote the books, or at least was said to have finished it for Moses, all based on your logic. anywho... with that being said, ill drop the subject matter. we're deviating from the OP.
  14. welp... we're glad to have you here freeday. han said that there are christians on this site that we are friends with and actually enjoy having here... but a lot of us here are borderline deist/agnostic as well. some us still believe in god, just not in the bibilical sense. we are no longer indoctrinated thanks to really reading the bible. every point we make is historically and scripturally based. im glad to see you have an open mind to learning... now with that being said, you stated: Why would he write in the third person? Why didnt he ever write "I did this" instead of "Moses did this"? And how was he able to write about his own death?
  15. The dragon is listed several time in the canonical bible. Mostly in the Old Testament and in Revelations. We have a discussion about it in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...56entry188956 You cant disregard something just because it's inconsistent with your beliefs. If a racist said people who arent racist are wrong because it's inconsistent with their belief, does that it true, or him a better person? The only reason why these scriptures were voted out was because they said it was inconsistent with their beliefs. That right away violates what was commanded by God: And we must not forget what was said in the New Testament about ALL SCRIPTURE that was written.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.