Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[rayskidude]

You're on an ex-christian site. People here know the bible.... I'm sure many know it better than you.

 

In all honesty - many on this site do claim to know the Bible. But in my conversations, I have come across sheer lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, lousy hermeneutics, shockingly superficial & wooden literalistic interpretations, failure to trace doctrines throughout the Bible, inability to understand context, failure to take into account genre, etc.

 

Many were total 100% behind it till they totally rejected it.

 

Here, you are correct. But their misunderstanding of Scripture means their decision was based on faulty information - and the basis for their decision is, therefore, extremely suspect.

 

Arguing with anyone here by using the bible as a source is not going to win anyone over and will serve nothing other than polarize the readers against you and Christianity. Basically you are only making it harder to get someone to convert. If its not the aim then you are making your God's work harder by scaring off his flock into the wind. IOW, where is the point of doing it?

 

Jesus and His Apostles often polarized people >> some believed and some scoffed. The same holds true today.

[rayskidude]

In these verses, there is no one size fits all vicarious human sacrifice, which itself is illegal.

 

So how many and which type of animals did you sacrifice the last time you went to the Temple?

 

Each person will die for their own sin and the law would be reaffirmed under a new contract.

 

Where, O Where, O where do you get this idea? After our physical death - then a new contract is signed where? Based on what? What are the conditions of the two parties in this new contract?

 

Christians certainly do not carefully obey God’s law and they turn to a heretic called “Paul” for instructions on how to obtain easy salvation while ignoring the law.

 

This is a bogus assertion; are you saying that you are completely ignorant of all the moral imperatives in the New Testament? Calling out to AlphaToOmega; See what I mean?!

 

There is no new covenant based on a human blood sacrifice found in Jer 31 or Ezek 36.

 

How many covenants are there in Scripture between God & Man? How many are not confirmed by blood? What are those confirmed by?

[centauri]

In these verses, there is no one size fits all vicarious human sacrifice, which itself is illegal.

 

So how many and which type of animals did you sacrifice the last time you went to the Temple?

So you agree that there is no one size fits all vicarious human sacrifice in Jer 31 or Ezek 36, and that such a sacrifice is illegal according to God’s law.

 

Each person will die for their own sin and the law would be reaffirmed under a new contract.

 

Where, O Where, O where do you get this idea? After our physical death - then a new contract is signed where? Based on what? What are the conditions of the two parties in this new contract?

It’s not a mystery, the idea comes from reading Jer 31.

Each person will die for his own sin, there is no vicarious communal human sacrifice that dies for their sins.

In the new convenant the law would be infused directly into the hearts and minds of the people.

 

Christians certainly do not carefully obey God’s law and they turn to a heretic called “Paul” for instructions on how to obtain easy salvation while ignoring the law.

 

This is a bogus assertion; are you saying that you are completely ignorant of all the moral imperatives in the New Testament? Calling out to AlphaToOmega; See what I mean?!

No, it’s not a bogus assertion.

Christians routinely ignore the dietary restrictions, the observance of a Saturday Sabbath, and many other regulations, along with the sin of worshipping a false God.

They often go running to a heretic called “Paul” as proof that they don’t have to keep these laws.

 

There is no new covenant based on a human blood sacrifice found in Jer 31 or Ezek 36.

 

How many covenants are there in Scripture between God & Man? How many are not confirmed by blood? What are those confirmed by?

Where is the new covenant described in Jer 31 based on a vicarious human blood sacrifice?

Specifically, what verse establishes this?

That’s the claim of Christianity that you need to confirm from the passage.

[rayskidude]

So you agree that there is no one size fits all vicarious human sacrifice in Jer 31 or Ezek 36, and that such a sacrifice is illegal according to God’s law.

 

I agree to no such nonsense - but I do see that you don't have the intestinal fortitude to answer a simple question: tell me how many and which types of animals you sacrificed on your last sashay over to the Temple.

 

Each person will die for their own sin and the law would be reaffirmed under a new contract.

 

Rayskidude says; Where, O Where, O where do you get this idea? After our physical death - then a new contract is signed where? Based on what? What are the conditions of the two parties in this new contract?

 

centauri >> It’s not a mystery, the idea comes from reading Jer 31. Each person will die for his own sin, there is no vicarious communal human sacrifice that dies for their sins. In the new convenant the law would be infused directly into the hearts and minds of the people.

 

So after their death, the land of Israel and the land of Judah are restored? Where? And only Jews get the benefits of the New Covenant? If so, why does God promise Abraham;

 

Genesis 12:1–3 (ESV)

The Call of Abram

12 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

 

And say to His servant the Messiah, through Isaiah the prophet

 

Isaiah 49:5–7 (ESV)

 

5 And now the LORD says,

he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,

to bring Jacob back to him;

and that Israel might be gathered to him—

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD,

and my God has become my strength—

6 he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

 

7 Thus says the LORD,

the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,

to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation,

the servant of rulers:

“Kings shall see and arise;

princes, and they shall prostrate themselves;

because of the LORD, who is faithful,

the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

 

Oh yeah - I forgot; you said the servant in Isa 49 is Israel. So Israel is gonna return Jacob to the LORD and gather Israel to the LORD. Huh? And this servant Israel is abhorred by the nation Israel? Really?

 

Sorry centauri, you're bogus hermeneutic is exposed. Jesus the Messiah is the Servant who returns Jacob and Israel to the LORD, even though He is abhorred by the nation of Israel. It's called the grace of God to rebellious sinners.

 

But according to you; in this life, under the Old Covenant - people are only and always rebellious sinners against God with no deliverance from the devil's power and the effects of sin? They never experience God's grace & mercy in forgiveness? They never get to experience the benefits of the New Covenant? WOW!

 

Christians routinely ignore the dietary restrictions, the observance of a Saturday Sabbath, and many other regulations, along with the sin of worshipping a false God. They often go running to a heretic called “Paul” as proof that they don’t have to keep these laws.

 

AlphaToOmega! Check this out! Those lousy Christians aren't worshipping on the Sabbath - and ain't following the OT dietary restrictions - 'cuz we all know "You are what you eat." And it's all becuz of that apostate Pharisee Saul!

 

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

What Defiles a Person

14 And Jesus called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

 

Matthew 15:10–20 (ESV)

What Defiles a Person

10 And Jesus called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” 12 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” 13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

 

Acts 10:9–16 (ESV)

Peter’s Vision

9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

 

centauri - see any Saul the Pharisee here? Nope - Christians follow the teaching of Jesus. Capiche'? And Peter and Paul follow the teachings of Jesus, Son of God, God Incarnate.

 

How many covenants are there in Scripture between God & Man? How many are not confirmed by blood? What commitments are those covenants confirmed by?

 

Why can't you answer this simple question?

[centauri]

So you agree that there is no one size fits all vicarious human sacrifice in Jer 31 or Ezek 36, and that such a sacrifice is illegal according to God’s law.

 

I agree to no such nonsense - but I do see that you don't have the intestinal fortitude to answer a simple question: tell me how many and which types of animals you sacrificed on your last sashay over to the Temple.

Question dodging is your expertise.

Where does God’s law authorize humans to be used as sin sacrifices?

Where does Jer 31 state that a human sin sacrifice would be the foundation for the new covenant?

Can’t you answer these simple questions?

 

Each person will die for their own sin and the law would be reaffirmed under a new contract.

 

Rayskidude says; Where, O Where, O where do you get this idea? After our physical death - then a new contract is signed where? Based on what? What are the conditions of the two parties in this new contract?

 

centauri >> It’s not a mystery, the idea comes from reading Jer 31. Each person will die for his own sin, there is no vicarious communal human sacrifice that dies for their sins. In the new convenant the law would be infused directly into the hearts and minds of the people.

 

So after their death, the land of Israel and the land of Judah are restored?

You haven’t provided anything from Jer 31 that says a vicarious human sin sacrifice would be the basis for the new covenant.

That’s the issue before you, and Gen 12:1-3 doesn’t address that issue.

[centauri]

And say to His servant the Messiah, through Isaiah the prophet

 

Isaiah 49:5–7 (ESV)

 

5 And now the LORD says,

he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,

to bring Jacob back to him;

and that Israel might be gathered to him—

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD,

and my God has become my strength—

6 he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

 

7 Thus says the LORD,

the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,

to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation,

the servant of rulers:

“Kings shall see and arise;

princes, and they shall prostrate themselves;

because of the LORD, who is faithful,

the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

 

Oh yeah - I forgot; you said the servant in Isa 49 is Israel.

That’s what God’s word says, and you conveniently left it out of your quote.

It says nothing about “the messiah”.

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Sorry centauri, you're bogus hermeneutic is exposed.

You've exposed yourself.

Perhaps you can white out Isa 49:3 and pretend it was never written.

That won't fly here but it probably does in cult circles.

 

Jesus the Messiah is the Servant who returns Jacob and Israel to the LORD, even though He is abhorred by the nation of Israel.

Jesus didn't qualify to be a king messiah, and that renders the rest of your claim moot.

Then there's that annoying problem of Isaiah saying that Israel is the servant.

 

But according to you; in this life, under the Old Covenant - people are only and always rebellious sinners against God with no deliverance from the devil's power and the effects of sin?

There is no devil in the Old Testament.

If you'd bother to actually read Jer 31 it would tell you that God plans to infuse his law directly into people and will forgive their sin.

[AlphaToOmega]

This is a bogus assertion; are you saying that you are completely ignorant of all the moral imperatives in the New Testament? Calling out to AlphaToOmega; See what I mean?!

 

Nope.

I agree with Centauri.

 

The bible has errors of consistency as well as errors in reproduction. There are thousands of different versions.

Which one do you hold to be the true one and why is it true while the rest are not?

[centauri]

AlphaToOmega! Check this out! Those lousy Christians aren't worshipping on the Sabbath - and ain't following the OT dietary restrictions - 'cuz we all know "You are what you eat." And it's all becuz of that apostate Pharisee Saul!

It’s the very essence of hypocrisy to claim to worship the Hebrew God and revere him, while laughing in his face.

That’s what Christianity does.

Paul was the driving force behind the deconstruction of the law, with his no more law gospel.

It contradicts God's word.

 

Mark 7:14–23 (ESV)

What Defiles a Person

14 And Jesus called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Jesus wasn’t innocent of this sin either, as you’ve just demonstrated.

All foods are not clean according to God’s word.

That’s another contradiction ignored by Christians.

 

centauri - see any Saul the Pharisee here? Nope - Christians follow the teaching of Jesus. Capiche'? And Peter and Paul follow the teachings of Jesus, Son of God, God Incarnate.

Paul wrote far more about the law been ended than Peter or anyone else.

I don't recall Jesus revising the law on circumcision or the day of the Sabbath but Paul did.

Paul went further in deconstructing the law.

 

The teachings of Jesus contradict each other.

Jesus ends the dietary law in Mark 7, while claiming that the law was to be fully obeyed in Matt 5.

Jesus also wasn't God incarnate.

God is not a man according to the Hebrew scriptures.

Jesus claimed to have a God, which also undermines claims about him being God.

 

How many covenants are there in Scripture between God & Man? How many are not confirmed by blood? What commitments are those covenants confirmed by?

 

Why can't you answer this simple question?

Question dodging is your expertise.

Where does God’s law authorize humans to be used as sin sacrifices?

Where does Jer 31 state that a human sin sacrifice would be the foundation for the new covenant?

Can’t you answer these simple questions?

 

Where is the new covenant described in Jer 31 based on a vicarious human blood sacrifice?

Specifically, what verse establishes this?

That’s the claim of Christianity that you need to confirm from the passage.

[rayskidude]

Where does God’s law authorize humans to be used as sin sacrifices? Where does Jer 31 state that a human sin sacrifice would be the foundation for the new covenant? Can’t you answer these simple questions? Specifically, what verse establishes this? That’s the claim of Christianity that you need to confirm from the passage.

 

Isaiah 49:1–7 (ESV)

The Servant of the LORD

49 Listen to me, O coastlands,

and give attention, you peoples from afar.

The LORD called me from the womb,

from the body of my mother he named my name.

2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword;

in the shadow of his hand he hid me;

he made me a polished arrow;

in his quiver he hid me away.

3 And he said to me, “You are my servant,

Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;

I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;

yet surely my right is with the LORD,

and my recompense with my God.”

 

5 And now the LORD says,

he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,

to bring Jacob back to him;

and that Israel might be gathered to him—

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD,

and my God has become my strength—

6 he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

 

7 Thus says the LORD,

the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,

to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation,

the servant of rulers:

“Kings shall see and arise;

princes, and they shall prostrate themselves;

because of the LORD, who is faithful,

the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

 

Dude, according to your theology, the Servant was the nation of Israel - born from a womb? And Israel the nation will bring back the tribes of Jacob & bring back itself? And will be a light to the nations? And the nation Israel is despised by the nation?

 

And you think that this passes for Biblical insight?

 

But check this out >>

 

Isaiah 53:10–12 (ESV)

 

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;

he has put him to grief;

when his soul makes an offering for guilt,

he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;

the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

make many to be accounted righteous,

and he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,

because he poured out his soul to death

and was numbered with the transgressors;

yet he bore the sin of many,

and makes intercession for the transgressors.

 

You've also claimed the prophet Isaiah was the subject in Isa 52:13 - 53:12;

 

So - God crushed Isaiah; to what purpose? How was Isaiah's soul an offering for guilt? How does Isaiah from his anguish see and be satisfied - satisfied in what? When did Isaiah pour out his soul to death with transgressors >> and yet in his death Isaiah bore the sins of many????

 

Did Isaiah die for the sins of God's people, an offering for their guilt, and what was Isaiah satisfied in - his own death???

 

centauri - along with your Pharisee & Sadducee buddies, you have seriously flawed theology >> which does not square with Scripture.

[centauri]

Where does God’s law authorize humans to be used as sin sacrifices?

Where does Jer 31 state that a human sin sacrifice would be the foundation for the new covenant? Can’t you answer these simple questions?

Specifically, what verse establishes this? That’s the claim of Christianity that you need to confirm from the passage.

 

Isaiah 49:1–7 (ESV)

The Servant of the LORD

49 Listen to me, O coastlands,

and give attention, you peoples from afar.

The LORD called me from the womb,

from the body of my mother he named my name.

2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword;

in the shadow of his hand he hid me;

he made me a polished arrow;

in his quiver he hid me away.

3 And he said to me, “You are my servant,

Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;

I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;

yet surely my right is with the LORD,

and my recompense with my God.”

 

5 And now the LORD says,

he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,

to bring Jacob back to him;

and that Israel might be gathered to him—

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD,

and my God has become my strength—

6 he says:

“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant

to raise up the tribes of Jacob

and to bring back the preserved of Israel;

I will make you as a light for the nations,

that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

 

7 Thus says the LORD,

the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,

to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation,

the servant of rulers:

“Kings shall see and arise;

princes, and they shall prostrate themselves;

because of the LORD, who is faithful,

the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

 

Dude, according to your theology, the Servant was the nation of Israel - born from a womb? And Israel the nation will bring back the tribes of Jacob & bring back itself? And will be a light to the nations? And the nation Israel is despised by the nation?

 

And you think that this passes for Biblical insight?

The servant is defined as Israel, which is personified throughout Isaiah.

The restored Israel in the messianic era would lead the nations to the knowledge of God.

And as Isaiah proclaims in Isa 51, God's law and justice, through a restored Israel, will be the light for the nations, not Jesus.

God even defined the servant in Isa 49:3 but you don’t believe him.

[centauri]

But check this out >>

 

Isaiah 53:10–12 (ESV)

 

10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;

he has put him to grief;

when his soul makes an offering for guilt,

he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;

the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;

by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

make many to be accounted righteous,

and he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,

because he poured out his soul to death

and was numbered with the transgressors;

yet he bore the sin of many,

and makes intercession for the transgressors.

 

You've also claimed the prophet Isaiah was the subject in Isa 52:13 - 53:12;

The subject is the servant Israel.

 

Isaiah identified Israel as a servant many times prior to Chapter 53.

Some examples of this can be found in: (Isa 41:8-9)(Isa 43:1,10) and (Isa 44:1-2, 21).

The nation of Israel is personified throughout Isaiah and Israel would be a vehicle/servant that God would use to display himself and his power to the world. Part of this use would involve suffering(Isa 42) on the part of Israel through foreign conquests, occupation, and exile.

In Isa 49:3, which closely precedes Isa 53, the servant is identified as Israel.

Isa 49:3

And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

 

Israel, the servant, would be the light that shows the way to God and salvation.

Isa 49:6

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

 

Israel was wounded through foreign conquest and exile but in this wounding, the Gentile nations would be "healed" because when Israel was later uplifted, restored, and glorified, the nations would come to see that the God of Israel was the one true God.

The travail of Israel would eventually be finished and in the future messianic era, the servant Israel would be restored, would expand and prosper, and be glorified before the world.

(Isa 52:13-15, Ezek 36:37, Isa 65:22-23, Zeph 3:20)

The suffering of Israel would pave the way for the rest of the world to know and turn to the one true God(Zech 8:23).

People of the world will turn to Jews, not Christians for knowledge of God.

In the messianic era, a restored Israel would gather the wealth of the surrounding nations(Zech 14:14).

Through its displayed suffering and subsequent restoration, Israel would pave the way for the "heathen" of the world to be brought to knowledge of the one true God(Ezek 34:27-30).

Israel is the vehicle that God uses to bring other nations to knowledge of him(Isa 49:6).

In order to claim that Jesus, and not Israel, is the servant in Isa 53:11, the prior identifications of the servant by Isaiah must be discounted, ignored, or rationalized away.

 

centauri - along with your Pharisee & Sadducee buddies, you have seriously flawed theology >> which does not square with Scripture.

Unfortunately for you and other bulldozers for Jesus, the scripture doesn’t confirm Jesus as the servant.

And I fully realize that you couldn’t care less what it actually says.

The scripture identifies the servant, but you don’t believe it because it ruins your sermons.

 

We’re back to square one, with the burden of proof being on you to confirm the following from the Old Testament:

Where does God’s law authorize humans to be used as sin sacrifices?

Where does Jer 31 state that a human sin sacrifice would be the foundation for the new covenant?

Specifically, what verse establishes this?

 

Your sermons and talking points are based on revisionist theology, which grabs bits and pieces of Old Testament scripture, twists them into a pretzel, and then accuses others of having “flawed theology”.

[txnana]

Hello, I am new here. I have been reading posts all day long and they have raised alot of questions. However, I first must say, as a Christian, if we don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then doesn't that mean we don't fully believe in the inerrancy of our God the Father? That being said, that in itself would make all of Christianity a heresy. Correct? So, obviously, the answer would be yes, the Bible is infallible, and just because some archeologist cannot prove something that occurred 6,000 + years ago means nothing to me. I could care less that evidence cannot be found of the Ark, Jesus' tomb, the Garden of Eden, etc. If God says it existed, then I believe Him.

 

Now, my questions. Please do not take these as confrontational. They are as simple as they sound. First I need to give my background.

 

I was raised a Catholic. But I never quite understood the black and white of the Catholic "rules". That may have been due to the parish we were raised in. But the God I was introduced to at a young age was a God of wrath, not a God of love and He was quite fearful. I had a hard time understanding why I would go to hell for not going to church on certain Sundays, but not on other Sundays ~~~. How I was only allowed so many sins and then boom! boy howdy was I in trouble. Then there are the BIG sins. The ones that cause the sinner to wear the scarlet "A" and to be ostracized from the community - again I could not understand how a God who was supposed to be a loving Father - unless you did certain things - it was all very confusing. I finally left the church because I realized I could never be good enough. I would never be able to meet God's standards - just like the Old Testament - and I emphasize the OLD Testament - because the NEW Testament was the NEW COVENANT between God's chosen people (the Israelite s) and the LORD.

 

Then in 1980 I began going to my present church. After a couple years I went to my pastor and said I can do this if you just tell me the rules - his response was there are no rules. THAT was a lot to ponder and I must say very frustrating for this ex-Catholic girl. We ARE perfectionists you know. (All of you men married to one, say NO KIDDING :-) I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior in 1982. After almost 30 years I still consider myself a baby christian. I am sure many of you who are now ex-Christians know scripture far better than I do. Mine is a simple faith. The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus? What turned you away from Him? Were you wounded by a fellow Christian? Did God let you down? I am really trying to understand. Because truthfully, and please do not be offended, I wonder if the belief was really there from the beginning - or at least had a good foundation.

 

My other question is, why the need to ridicule? What if we are right? This is not an attempt to evangelize - we could be wrong - but what if we are right? And yet, why ridicule?

 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses

 

With kind regard,

 

txnana

[bornagainathiest]

Hello, I am new here. I have been reading posts all day long and they have raised alot of questions. However, I first must say, as a Christian, if we don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then doesn't that mean we don't fully believe in the inerrancy of our God the Father? That being said, that in itself would make all of Christianity a heresy. Correct? So, obviously, the answer would be yes, the Bible is infallible,and just because some archeologist cannot prove something that occurred 6,000 + years ago means nothing to me. I could care less that evidence cannot be found of the Ark, Jesus' tomb, the Garden of Eden, etc. If God says it existed, then I believe Him.

 

Now, my questions. Please do not take these as confrontational. They are as simple as they sound. First I need to give my background.

 

I was raised a Catholic. But I never quite understood the black and white of the Catholic "rules". That may have been due to the parish we were raised in. But the God I was introduced to at a young age was a God of wrath, not a God of love and He was quite fearful. I had a hard time understanding why I would go to hell for not going to church on certain Sundays, but not on other Sundays ~~~. How I was only allowed so many sins and then boom! boy howdy was I in trouble. Then there are the BIG sins. The ones that cause the sinner to wear the scarlet "A" and to be ostracized from the community - again I could not understand how a God who was supposed to be a loving Father - unless you did certain things - it was all very confusing. I finally left the church because I realized I could never be good enough. I would never be able to meet God's standards - just like the Old Testament - and I emphasize the OLD Testament - because the NEW Testament was the NEW COVENANT between God's chosen people (the Israelite s) and the LORD.

 

Then in 1980 I began going to my present church. After a couple years I went to my pastor and said I can do this if you just tell me the rules - his response was there are no rules. THAT was a lot to ponder and I must say very frustrating for this ex-Catholic girl. We ARE perfectionists you know. (All of you men married to one, say NO KIDDING :-) I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior in 1982. After almost 30 years I still consider myself a baby christian. I am sure many of you who are now ex-Christians know scripture far better than I do. Mine is a simple faith. The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus? What turned you away from Him? Were you wounded by a fellow Christian? Did God let you down? I am really trying to understand. Because truthfully, and please do not be offended, I wonder if the belief was really there from the beginning - or at least had a good foundation.

 

My other question is, why the need to ridicule? What if we are right? This is not an attempt to evangelize - we could be wrong - but what if we are right? And yet, why ridicule?

 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses

 

With kind regard,

 

txnana

 

So how can the infallible author of an infallible Bible let anyone down?

 

BAA.

[JadedAtheist]

You're on an ex-christian site. People here know the bible.... I'm sure many know it better than you.

 

In all honesty - many on this site do claim to know the Bible. But in my conversations, I have come across sheer lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, lousy hermeneutics, shockingly superficial & wooden literalistic interpretations, failure to trace doctrines throughout the Bible, inability to understand context, failure to take into account genre, etc.

 

I haven't had any real interactions with you but you have to understand a couple of things here. Tracing doctrine throughout the Bible, and understanding "context" are highly subjective things from a Christian point of view. I came from a very fundamentalist variety of churches that was big on "types" and saw meaning in everything, it was basically allegory nicely disguised. Come back a couple years later and I'm studying hermeneutics and types and allegory are a big no no. Even within Baptist churches of the same denomination, there were dramatic differences in interpretation in these two areas. Even understanding context was debatable. Fundamentalist Baptists tend to take a "dispensational" approach to understanding the Bible while I tended to lean to the whole Calvinistic leaning "covenant" approach.

 

In saying all that, what I'm trying to say is that it's merely your opinion that people are misunderstanding the Bible. In saying that though, not everyone on here was an avid theologian and probably at this point care very little for understanding things like the doctrine (forgot its proper name now) of "first occurrence". I mean, after all, that's why God had to kill that guy who tried stopping the arc from falling down, he had to make it known that his holiness was serious business!

[JadedAtheist]

Hello, I am new here. I have been reading posts all day long and they have raised alot of questions. However, I first must say, as a Christian, if we don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then doesn't that mean we don't fully believe in the inerrancy of our God the Father? That being said, that in itself would make all of Christianity a heresy. Correct? So, obviously, the answer would be yes, the Bible is infallible, and just because some archeologist cannot prove something that occurred 6,000 + years ago means nothing to me. I could care less that evidence cannot be found of the Ark, Jesus' tomb, the Garden of Eden, etc. If God says it existed, then I believe Him.

 

Does evidence mean anything to you? If I told you an invisible pink unicorn lived in my house that only I could see, would you believe me? I highly doubt you would. How about if I was your pastor and I suddenly told you that God was speaking to my vocally, and that he told me that I had to kill all the unbelievers to clear the land for the just and righteous, just like the Jews did with Israel? In both instances, without proof you would consider me either lying or crazy. Yet, you are willing to believe with no evidence whatsoever a story told in a series of books thousands of years old, that look like other books of their era mind you (book that you'd label as mythology) as something that is God's written word?

 

I think if you did a tiny bit of research, even research into how the the Bible as it currently sitting on your bookshelf came to be, it'd disturb you. This is information that you'd read even in Christian books promoting the Bible.

 

 

Then in 1980 I began going to my present church. After a couple years I went to my pastor and said I can do this if you just tell me the rules - his response was there are no rules. THAT was a lot to ponder and I must say very frustrating for this ex-Catholic girl. We ARE perfectionists you know. (All of you men married to one, say NO KIDDING :-) I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior in 1982. After almost 30 years I still consider myself a baby christian. I am sure many of you who are now ex-Christians know scripture far better than I do. Mine is a simple faith. The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus? What turned you away from Him? Were you wounded by a fellow Christian? Did God let you down? I am really trying to understand. Because truthfully, and please do not be offended, I wonder if the belief was really there from the beginning - or at least had a good foundation.

 

My other question is, why the need to ridicule? What if we are right? This is not an attempt to evangelize - we could be wrong - but what if we are right? And yet, why ridicule?

 

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your responses

 

With kind regard,

 

txnana

 

 

You know, the once saved always saved doctrine pisses me off so much. I don't think you realize how offensive it is to say "you can't exist according the the theology that I've been taught, therefore you are lying or were deceived into thinking that you were a "true believer". I hate to brag but I knew my Bible more than 99% of the congregation of any of the churches I attended, and I don't even think I know that much. I lived as best as I could according to the moral standards I believed were taught in the Bible. I turned down jobs, I quit jobs and I distanced myself from friends because of my faith. I made sacrifices, more than I've seen others do but no doubt others have sacrificed more elsewhere. I prayed, I cried upon my salvation, I witnessed, I went to church 3 times a week for years. I preached, I taught Sunday School and I went to Seminary to be a pastor.

 

During my studies and my time in contemplation, I came to realize it was all a sham. It wasn't relational, it was intellectual. As for the ridicule, I have no doubt you have issues ridiculing those silly atheists who are fools according to psalms. How did we get here, did we really evolve from animals? How blinded by sin must they be to not see that we're created in the image of God? I see it worthy of ridicule as much as you do of other issues. As for what if we're wrong? No chance. There is no doubt in my mind, not even in the slightest that Christianity may be real.

[JadedAtheist]

 

 

Dude, according to your theology, the Servant was the nation of Israel - born from a womb? And Israel the nation will bring back the tribes of Jacob & bring back itself? And will be a light to the nations? And the nation Israel is despised by the nation?

 

And you think that this passes for Biblical insight?

 

centauri - along with your Pharisee & Sadducee buddies, you have seriously flawed theology >> which does not square with Scripture.

 

Interesting how you choose to take literally a text whose genre is poetry. Are you choosing to be obtuse or do you have no understanding of hermeneutics yourself?

[agnosticator]

The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus?

 

It was a long process of learning truth from fiction. The quest for truth is important and never-ending, unless you are like most people who believe anything they are taught.

 

What turned you away from Him? Were you wounded by a fellow Christian? Did God let you down? I am really trying to understand. Because truthfully, and please do not be offended, I wonder if the belief was really there from the beginning - or at least had a good foundation.

 

You will never understand until you dig deep and find it is not a relationship, but a religion. If God is a mystery, then humanity won't know the nature of God unless they know what is outside the universe, and can unlock the mystery of life. How does energy/matter or the wave/particle cause life? How does it allow anything to be alive? We don't know.

 

Certainly, God is not a Superman who threatens humans with Hell while proclaiming unconditional love for a tiny segment of the population that will be saved. And saved from what? Human nature. The story of Sin, the Fall, and Salvation is a moral disaster. If you had the power of life and death over people, would you raise them from the dead, then torture them eternally (or to death if you believe Hell isn't eternal) because they were Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists? Would you blame all humanity because two people disobeyed your will?

 

God is not a perfect human with magical powers that intervenes to cause or prevent tragedy. Perfection doesn't exist, but diverse and related lifeforms do. I could understand believing God as the Force of Life, but not the biblegod. The Bible was written by people who not only believed they knew what God is like, but KNEW for certain! The stories aren't literally true.

 

I had a "good foundation" or faith in the whole Bible, so there is no excusing my Christian experience as never existing. How would you feel if I accused you of never being a True Christian? Maybe you aren't believing all the Truth of the Bible yourself?

 

My other question is, why the need to ridicule? What if we are right? This is not an attempt to evangelize - we could be wrong - but what if we are right? And yet, why ridicule?

 

The only time I would "ridicule" anything is if I were being treated as an object of ridicule. Oh, wait! The N.T. calls me a fool fit for burning! And many American Christians want to legislate what I believe and how I should live! How's that for Christian love! I treat Christians by applying the Silver Rule. I don't share my beliefs and my bible unbelief with anyone, unless they want to know. Christians who quiz me or proselytize me, reject me as an human equal when I answer their questions. Where's reciprocity and love? I see intolerance and hate. Not all Christians are like that, though. Some fear an apostate, while others believe in live-and-let-live.

[centauri]

Hello, I am new here. I have been reading posts all day long and they have raised alot of questions. However, I first must say, as a Christian, if we don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then doesn't that mean we don't fully believe in the inerrancy of our God the Father? That being said, that in itself would make all of Christianity a heresy. Correct? So, obviously, the answer would be yes, the Bible is infallible, and just because some archeologist cannot prove something that occurred 6,000 + years ago means nothing to me. I could care less that evidence cannot be found of the Ark, Jesus' tomb, the Garden of Eden, etc. If God says it existed, then I believe Him.

You're starting out by assuming your conclusion.

You assume the Bible was written by God.

Perhaps you could explain how you know this, other than it being information passed on to you by others.

 

The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus? What turned you away from Him?

The evidence no longer merited or justified belief.

The alleged "holy word" also contradicted itself in several areas.

[Franciscan Monkey]

The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus?

 

I stopped believing once I looked at the Bible as objectively as I could (although I was still wanting the Bible to be true). I could no longer be dishonest with myself. The Bible contained too many internal contradictions, historical inaccuracies, scientific errors, failed prophecies, logical flaws, and just plain non-sensical stories to be considered the words of a god. It was obviously written by men, and I could no longer see how it could authoratatively speak about things for which there is no evidence.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey

[Deva]

I finally left the church because I realized I could never be good enough. I would never be able to meet God's standards - just like the Old Testament - and I emphasize the OLD Testament - because the NEW Testament was the NEW COVENANT between God's chosen people (the Israelite s) and the LORD.

 

Well you asked for responses so you are going to get one. The so-called Old Testament is the Jewish scriptures. The Christians who wrote the "New Testament" took passages out of the Jewish Torah and other scriptures and adapted them to make them fit their religion. Passages are twisted to make them mean things that the Hebrew writers would never have guessed. You might start researching the books of Isaiah and Daniel from the Jewish point of view and you will soon see what I mean. Please do some research on church history and the origins of the books that presently make up the New Testament. The early Christians wanted to give their movement legitimacy with the Jewish people and their approach was to make this whole thing up. There is no such thing as an old and new covenant except in the minds of human beings.

 

Are you seriously maintaining that you have been in this church since 1980 and found no unwritten rules? Quite frankly, I find that difficult to believe.

 

Mine is a simple faith. The question I have for you is how do you go from believing in Jesus to NOT believe in Jesus? What turned you away from Him? Were you wounded by a fellow Christian? Did God let you down? I am really trying to understand. Because truthfully, and please do not be offended, I wonder if the belief was really there from the beginning - or at least had a good foundation.

 

You say "simple", but the type of thinking you are describing requires you to ignore facts about nature and science and/or pretend they are not important or don't exist, as you are doing when you say "just because some archeologist cannot prove something that occurred 6,000 + years ago means nothing to me." I don't find that simple. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics.

 

I became completely certain that the Bible is the work of the human mind and not God. Yes, fellow Christians have offended me, but that wasn't the reason I left. I believed in Jesus from age 4 and went to church until I was 17 and left for college. Then I went back as an adult for several more years. I am not sure that would have happened if I had not believed. One problem that Christians always refuse to face is that you have really no idea of how much faith is enough, do you? Doesn't that bother you?

 

"God let you down." Perhaps someone who doesn't know their Bible or understand Christianity could think this - but not me. It is simply impossible for me to believe in the God as depicted in the Bible as any sort of real entity, much less that he "let me down."

 

My other question is, why the need to ridicule? What if we are right? This is not an attempt to evangelize - we could be wrong - but what if we are right? And yet, why ridicule?

 

I don't approve of open public ridicule of any person's religion. However, this is a site for ex-christians with the express purpose of helping those who are deconverting. Within the context of this meaning, I don't have an issue with it here. Not all ideas are worthy of respect. It depends on the setting and context.

 

"What if we are right"? Well, I am a Buddhist, what if I am right? What if the Muslims are right? What if the Hindus are right? This question leads nowhere.

[AlphaToOmega]

I still want to know which NT is right. There are many versions of them and the conflict in descriptions so why does one choose any particular version over another?

[rayskidude]

The servant is defined as Israel, which is personified throughout Isaiah.

The restored Israel in the messianic era would lead the nations to the knowledge of God.

 

So 'the nations' includes the tribes of Jacob and Israel??? Is that how God's OT people referred to themselves - as clumped together with 'the nations?" Hmmm.... Actually, that's how they referred to the Gentile nations, as 'the nations;' (plural), while Israel would refer to themselves as 'the nation' (singular).

 

And as Isaiah proclaims in Isa 51, God's law and justice, through a restored Israel, will be the light for the nations, not Jesus.

 

Really, where in Isa 51?

 

God even defined the servant in Isa 49:3 but you don’t believe him.

 

Is this a joke - I asked eight (8) questions which you completely skated on - Why?

 

I know why - 'cuz Isaiah the prophet doesn't fit in 52:13 - chap 53

Face it, you're bereft of any rational salient hermeneutic is establishing Isaiah as a personified Israel. Only Jesus as God Incarnate can fulfill Isa 52:13ff.

 

Why you want to come out here and embarrass yourself is beyond me. Were you a JW???

[rayskidude]

I still want to know which NT is right. There are many versions of them and the conflict in descriptions so why does one choose any particular version over another?

 

That you would even ask this question reveals your ignorance of the current state of NT textual criticism.

[midniterider]

I have just one question for Christians to answer. Why must the bible be the 100% literally true and perfect, inerrant word of god for the bible to have any value to it?

 

Because the preacher God says so. It depends on value to whom. The bible does say some things like 'be nice to others' but most people already know how to conduct their own lives if they were raised by decent people. But for the minister to be able to issue fear, guilt and thus control his congregation the bible must be inerrant. If the bible was suspect in the eyes of the parishioners, why would they come to church? If a church member were well aware that parts of the bible were lies/fiction they would not put money in the collection plate. The minister's control would unravel and so would his income.

[JadedAtheist]

I still want to know which NT is right. There are many versions of them and the conflict in descriptions so why does one choose any particular version over another?

 

That you would even ask this question reveals your ignorance of the current state of NT textual criticism.

 

Hardly. There are more differences between manuscripts than there are words in the NT. I realize most of these differences are insignificant (misspellings and the word order being fumbled up) but there are significant differences that do alter one's theological interpretation/views.