Asimov Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Hey guys. All you Christians here who are trying to prove something....why are you using your bible to prove things? Even if the bible was beautiful, filled with bunnies and happiness and flowers and sunshine instead of death, violence, and irrational emotional responses, what makes you think that we should accept what it has to say? I'm sure you could find straw-grasping explanations for any contradictions, or unharmonized teachings...who cares? What makes you think I should accept it? Your proselytizing doesn't have an effect. You have no argument outside of the bible. So why should we care what you have to say? Hmmmm??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Because the church says the bible is God's Word, which is proven by a verse in John that says in the big inning the word=the bible and the word=God, so the bible=God. It doesn't actually say that Matthew is from God, or Jude, or Hebrews, or 2 Peter, but that ALL scripture is from God (including Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Enoch, and the Macabees), so therefore, since God's ways are higher than our ways, the bible must truly be God's word. In whatever form the church decides, since they are our authority here on earth. Oh, wait-- this was directed at current Christains. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Because...the bible is the word of god. We know it is the word of god because God said it's the word of god...in his word. Well no...god didn't speak to me personally, but I got this warm fuzzy feeling one time in church, so I just KNOW it's really really real. And...but I know it's real. it's true...god says so...what? you don't believe me? Well it IS true...because god said, and you are just living in rebellion, deep down you know it's true too...how could you not? and...and...you're going to hell anyway and I don't have to listen to you....la la lalalalalalalalala I"m not listennnnnninnnnggg...la la la la la "jesus loves me this i know...for the bible tells me so...." baaaaa I'm a sheep. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ha! Great mimes think alike... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Because...the bible is the word of god. We know it is the word of god because God said it's the word of god...in his word. Well no...god didn't speak to me personally, but I got this warm fuzzy feeling one time in church, so I just KNOW it's really really real. And...but I know it's real. it's true...god says so...what? you don't believe me? Well it IS true...because god said, and you are just living in rebellion, deep down you know it's true too...how could you not? and...and...you're going to hell anyway and I don't have to listen to you....la la lalalalalalalalala I"m not listennnnnninnnnggg...la la la la la "jesus loves me this i know...for the bible tells me so...." baaaaa I'm a sheep. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ha. ha. ha. Great post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Because the church says the bible is God's Word, which is proven by a verse in John that says in the big inning the word=the bible and the word=God, so the bible=God. It doesn't actually say that Matthew is from God, or Jude, or Hebrews, or 2 Peter, but that ALL scripture is from God (including Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Enoch, and the Macabees), so therefore, since God's ways are higher than our ways, the bible must truly be God's word. In whatever form the church decides, since they are our authority here on earth. Oh, wait-- this was directed at current Christains. Never mind. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "In the beginning was the Word." The word word used in this sentence refers to Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Following Totallyatpeace's advice. May I give it a try? Because the church says the bible is God's Jesus, which is proven by a verse in John that says in the big inning the Jesus=the bible and the Jesus=God, so the bible=God. It doesn't actually say that Matthew is from God, or Jude, or Hebrews, or 2 Peter, but that ALL scripture is from God (including Gospel of Mary, Thomas, Enoch, and the Macabees), so therefore, since God's ways are higher than our ways, the bible must truly be God's Jesus. In whatever form the church decides, since they are our authority here on earth. "In the beginning was the Jesus." The Jesus Jesus used in this sentence refers to Jesus. The Jesus Jesus used in this sentence refers to Jesus. Let us now take bible = Word, so bible = Jesus, and Gospel = Word, so Gospel = Jesus. Because the church says Jesus is God's Jesus, which is proven by a verse in John that says in the big inning Jesus=Jesus and Jesus=God, so Jesus=God. It doesn't actually say that Matthew is from God, or Jude, or Hebrews, or 2 Peter, but that ALL Jesus is from God (including Jesus of Mary, Thomas, Enoch, and the Macabees), so therefore, since God's ways are higher than our ways, Jesus must truly be God's Jesus. In whatever form the church decides, since they are our authority here on earth. Aha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Lacking understanding doesn’t make it any less true. Tap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Lacking understanding doesn’t make it any less true. True, but if an entire class fails a test, the fault lies w/the teacher, not the students... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 True, but if an entire class fails a test, the fault lies w/the teacher, not the students... And if its the word of God, you think he'd use better diction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Just to clarify....... I know that you don’t believe the Word of God is true. I am simply giving a proper understanding of what the *Word* refers to from a Christian perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Lacking understanding doesn’t make it any less true. Tap <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True... However, it's not that I don't understand the message-- it's that the message is dumb (no offense). I've heard that verse quoted many times as evidence that the bible (in whatever form) is the actual word of God! How does it say that?? Does it mean 2 Peter is God or from God?? Does it mean all books written AFTER John are from God or they ARE God? What does that say about those books who the catholic church decided didn't belong? What of the Christians who lived before the books were written and before the doctrine was settled?? What it really implies is that Christians SHOULD worship the bible, since it becomes just one more manifistation of God-- thus God the father; Jesus, who was God in the flesh; the holy spirit; and the word. That's now 4 gods in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Actually, it gets worse. Jude 1:4 references another Holy Scripture, the Book of Enoch. It gives a direct quote, which means the writer (God) thought that Enoch was His Word and true and good. But you probably don't have it in your bible because the church in power decided it contained something embarrasing or false (it was probably the references to "the watchers"). So how are we to use this revelation about "the word" being God? Or the one about "all scripture is from God"?? Or the end of Revelation "let no man add to this..."?? They have no practical application and are meaningless. There is no list from God that says which books are from him and which are not. If there is, then He changes His mind WAAY too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hey guys. All you Christians here who are trying to prove something....why are you using your bible to prove things? Even if the bible was beautiful, filled with bunnies and happiness and flowers and sunshine instead of death, violence, and irrational emotional responses, what makes you think that we should accept what it has to say? I'm sure you could find straw-grasping explanations for any contradictions, or unharmonized teachings...who cares? What makes you think I should accept it? Your proselytizing doesn't have an effect. You have no argument outside of the bible. So why should we care what you have to say? Hmmmm??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think its a good point that if the Bible was just full of bunnies and happiness you wouldn't believe it anyway ... it would still just be a book. I find it hard to understand the time spent debating contradictions or unharmonised teachings or asking 'where is the historic proof' because if some proof turned up - if an amazing authenticatable (word of my creation methinks!) manuscript turned up that ironed out the contradicitons - it wouldn't change how you feel would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 John1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. In the beginning was the word… This is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, Jesus, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world. Thank you, Kryten for your thoughts. TAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Defining afterwards Lacking understanding doesn’t make it any less true. Tap <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Most times if someone gives a word new meaning / additional sense, he/she defines that beforehand. God makes more often use of people that say afterwards how something has to be understood. That opens the possibility to misunderstanding, don't you agree? Logos = Law You did just assume that Logos = Jesus... why not Logos = Law? The holy Law of the Jews, and the latter Essenes. The Essenes of which John could have been a member, isn't it? Let the author speak! However, if someone doesn't define the words in a rather poetic text, I'm not so hasty to translate for him. I'm from the opinion that nobody knows to word him/herself that well, as the person itself. If you call yourself a christian I'll let you define the term christian. If you call my mental attitude regarding evolution theory faith and you define the term faith, that I wouldn't appreciate. Living authors By the way, John isn't dead, he lives. God isn't dead, he... - I don't know, what he is doing. However, you can ask them to clearify. I really can't imagine God as a living being, sorry. God is like a cigar. Nice flavour, but smoke and ash at the end. You can only suck him, but he'll not suck you. The Word contains leaves, and so does my cigar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 "In the beginning was the Word." The word word used in this sentence refers to Jesus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is actually true. For all I know, the gospel of John was written to people living in a Greek context. In the Greek text, the word used is logos, which in english is translated as word. But logos has a much broarder meaning, than the english translation suggests. Logos has to do with "word", "discussion" and "inquiry", but it also refers to the basic principle or law, that governes the universe. You will find the word logos in words like biology, sociology, theology etc. So the author of John says, that in the beginning was the basic principle of the universe. And this was exactly the way, Greek influenzed people looked at the world - so far, nothing new in John. The real message of John starts, when the author claims that the basic principle of the universe became flesh, ie. that truth wasn't found in abstract philosophical concepts, but in the person Jesus. Many christians (both pastors and lay people) think, that the bible tells, that the bible is true. But actually, the bible never says so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saviourmachine Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 ... He was with God in the beginning. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can you justify the word 'He' overhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Thank you, Kryten for your thoughts. TAP <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And thank you for not getting offended. (Or for hiding it...) I find it hard to understand the time spent debating contradictions or unharmonised teachings or asking 'where is the historic proof' because if some proof turned up - if an amazing authenticatable (word of my creation methinks!) manuscript turned up that ironed out the contradicitons - it wouldn't change how you feel would it? Since the bible is supposed to be the "word of God", then it is to be believed, trusted, and studied. The Christian's LIFE is based on it, including much of their time, money, thoughts, and actions. Thousands of denominations are based on it. If it can be shown to contain obvious errors and conradictions than cannot have come from an intelligent, good, or unchanging God, then the whole foundation crumbles. If the bible is not from God but written by fallible men, then its value as a reference is gone. It already can't hold its own against archeology, science, or astronomy, but to a Christian, the only evidence they will believe comes from inside the book itself. Sure, if all the "problems" could be explained away it WOULD make a difference to many people, but there are parts that directly eliminate the possibility that another part is true. For example, the totally different geneologies of Jesus in Luke and Matthew. They both very clearly say that they trace the lineage of Joseph, but they cannot both be true. It is not physically possible. Another example: Jeremiah says right in The Bible (Jeremiah 5:31) that the prophets prophecy falsely. Perhaps he referred to 2 Kings 10:10-30, where God instructs the slaughter by Jehu (of the royal family), but in Hosea 1:4, He turns around and says He wants revenge for those who carried out the prophecy, and did His Dirty Work. So Jeremiah was right. God's prophets don't always get it right. 2 Kings 10:30 is a polar opposite of Hosea 1:4, and one or both must be false. These are just two examples of obvious contradictions that cannot both be true, so there can never be any magic evidence that clears up the "problems"... <edit to correct the slaughter "of" Jehu to "by" Jehu... slight difference!> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 TAP...how can God be the head of Jesus, if he and Jesus are the same?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi, Thankful. God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus are all One, according to what I believe, though I know some disregard the Trinity. But when Jesus came in the flesh he was also man and was in submission to the Father. He even states that He does nothing without the father's permission. However, he was there from the beginning. Kryten~ What it really implies is that Christians SHOULD worship the bible, since it becomes just one more manifistation of God-- thus God the father; Jesus, who was God in the flesh; the holy spirit; and the word. That's now 4 gods in one. The Bible is paper with words on it and should never be worshiped. Christians believe it is the written word given to man, by the Holy Spirit. Anyone who worships the book itself has indeed, created an idol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quicksand Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Trinity Math.... If 1+1+1 = 1, Then 2+2 = Pie; Agnst; Crazy Monkey Logic; God exists! (That's a shout-out btw.) Which is fine by me, as you've ust removed all distinction between the aspects of whatever making it all one anyway. A wheel maybe a wheel without the bike, but the bike is certianitly not a wheel, or even usefull for what it was designed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Maybe the Trinity would make a little more sense if we say god is everywere therefore god is everything, and jesus is just a different frequency of god just like everything else is. We are just the wrong frequency of god that needs salvation to become a frequency that is acceptable to God. We are just gods body tissue. God is just giving itself a treatment that will change some of us/it to the acceptable frequency and those of us that do not respond to the treatment will stay a cancer and suffer. Or.... maybe this Trinity thing can never make sense and I should also consider cutting down on my candy/caffiene intake, because what I have written so far seems like the ramblings of a crackhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Actually, it gets worse. Jude 1:4 references another Holy Scripture, the Book of Enoch. It gives a direct quote, which means the writer (God) thought that Enoch was His Word and true and good. But you probably don't have it in your bible because the church in power decided it contained something embarrasing or false (it was probably the references to "the watchers"). So how are we to use this revelation about "the word" being God? Or the one about "all scripture is from God"?? Or the end of Revelation "let no man add to this..."?? They have no practical application and are meaningless. There is no list from God that says which books are from him and which are not. If there is, then He changes His mind WAAY too often. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's in mine... Merlin, owner of a Bible complete with Apocrypha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totallyatpeace Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Trinity Math.... If 1+1+1 = 1, Then 2+2 = Pie; Agnst; Crazy Monkey Logic; God exists! (That's a shout-out btw.) Which is fine by me, as you've ust removed all distinction between the aspects of whatever making it all one anyway. A wheel maybe a wheel without the bike, but the bike is certianitly not a wheel, or even usefull for what it was designed for. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quicksand~ The original post is regarding proving Christianity by using the Bible. I have never attempted to use the Bible to win over an Atheist. That method makes no sense at all to me. Other Christians would disagree with me on that but ............ oh, well. My Atheist friends all say the Bible doesn't mean one thing to them because they don't believe in God to begin with. If you don't believe in God why would you evangelize using God's Word? Then Zoe Grace responded with the part about The Word. I believe I answered her post by explaining that when the Bible refers to The Word.......it is talking about Christ. The Trinity has been discussed over and over on these boards. My opinion? Take it or leave it. That's a different thread. Tap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Um, actually TAP if I could make an adjustment to your statement: You answered Zoe Grace's post by explaining that according to your personal interpretation and your specific religious sect's interpretation of certain verses, when the Bible refers to The Word.......it is talking about Christ. Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Not only is TAP a nice xian she is a super smart one too. HEHEHE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts