Trinity, divinity of Jesus

[SkepticOfBible]

The respective divisions of Genesis can be recognized by the recurring phrase:  "these are the generations of..."  P.J. Wiseman a reknown archaeologist, has shown that these statements probably represent the "signatures" so to speak of the repective writers as they concluded their accounts of the events during their lifetimes.  It is interesting to note, as an indirect confirmation of the concept of Genesis authorship, that while Genesis is cited at least 200 times in the New Testament, Moses himself is never noted as the author in any of these citations.  On the other hand, he is listed at least 40 times in reference to citations from the other four books of the Pentateuch.  There are also frequent references to Moses in the later books of the Old Testament, but never in relation to the book of Genesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another point I forgot to add regarding Citation is that you mention here that since genesis is cited 200 times in the NT, hence it is valid.

 

Well the Book of Jude also cites the Deuterocanonical (sorry I can't spell it) book of Enoch Twice, so I would like to know why you don't consider the book of Enoch as canonical.

 

Also it is known fact amongst the Catholics that Jesus quotes quite a lot from the Deuterocanonical Books, so yet again I pose my question why you consider the Deuterocanonical Books as part of the inspired collection?

 

Regarding Deautrocanical Books

 

Regarding Canons(Catholic Viewpoint)

[scotter]

Pritish you are very knowledgeable in religions / Christianity!

 

You raised a lot of thinking points too.

 

 

For readers' information:

 

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

 

Further down readers can access the extra canons that Pritish talked about.

 

And the Book(s) of Enoch.

[SkepticOfBible]

so yet again I pose my question why you consider the Deuterocanonical Books as part of the inspired collection?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oops. That should read as

 

why don't you consider the Deuterocanonical Books as part of the inspired collection?

 

Pritish you are very knowledgeable in religions / Christianity!

 

You raised a lot of thinking points too.

 

Thanks. But the credit goes to internet, I am not the first one in the world to question the christian world view(especially the protestant christian one).

 

Second of all I do, what most christian won't do? Read the bible.

 

As I said before, I would have never bother about religion, but since my circumstances are such that I need to arm myself with knowledge

 

Coming from a land of many religion helps. India has all major religion in the world, and it is still a functioning democracy.

 

Hey I got a question, do Catholics evangelise?

[iprayican]

Thank you for writing such a long answer. I for one will not call you any names.  Some do, and my advice is to ignore them

First of all, why should Humanity find the original documents. Shouldn’t that be god’s job. That will be a big proof to a lot of skeptics.

 

God provided a universe as proof, but it is still rejected, God is written on the mind of man so that no man is with excuse, but it is still rejected, God communicated directly with man and man recorded the interaction by His inspiration, it is rejected.  God came in the form of a man, lived, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected, and still was rejected.  It is our job to have free will, to make a choice, to have faith, a faith supported by many proofs, but still faith.  Finding original doccuments would be a bonus that might change the heart of a skeptic, and for the reason that God wants everyone to come to him, I believe, and as history has shown, that within each block of time, more proofs are revealed for that reason.  We are not in the time of Christ walking the earth nor of the prophets before him, and while they were also rejected despite the evidence they produced in prophesy or miracle or knowledge, the creator of man knows that the nature of man requires proofs upon proof.   

 

Some of what was recorded was apparently lost, like those books of Enoch's you are asking about.  The copies we have that claim to be Enoch's were very apparently written much later that the patriarch lived, near to the time of Christ and for that reason, and others, are considered questionable as inspired.  Certainly the citations of Enoch within those books that are considered inspired give proof that somewhere there should be copies of greater antiquity that might prove how what we have should be considered.  I believe they will be found.               

 

Get real, most of the original copies are destroyed. Paper doesn’t last forever.

 

I wonder if any civilization has used another medium besides paper to record history?     

 

Is the Bible Perfect? (Interesting Article)

Second of all why should we believe that the bible that you hold is the word of god ie why should we choose your version of the bible over the catholics, mormons or the Syrian Orthodox version(since they all have different books)

 

Your bible did not fall from the sky, it was voted in by a  council of men(not god), and Martin Luther took out books from it. So my question is who gave them authority to decide what is the word of god? Let's see some credentials

Again it is a big speculation on your part, since authors of these book are not known.(and that is the case in most of the books).

 

Ah, another topic that could take pages and months.   

 

I can speculate that this book was written by Noah(one speculation is as good as another one)

Yet again this is a speculation on your part. Please show where it says that Adam and all the descendants knew how to write. 

 

Yes, one can speculate within the reason of logic or to defy it.  There are references to building a city that existed from the very first generation, the Cainite civilization, as recorded in Genesis, where there were instructers of every artificer in brass and iron, harp and organ, and in chapter 5, "This is the book of the generations of Adam" and then those references to those prophesies of Enoch that were apparently written not too distant from the time of Adam, especially considering that Adam would still have been alive for aproximately 300 years of Enoch's life.  Another book dated to the time just shortly after the flood, Job, and it speaks also of books.  It is not too difficult to take the leap that they were writing given the supporting references and technology historically recorded as present.       

 

There are no eyewitness since they never identify themselves. 

Since Jesus is cited many times in the NT, does that mean he wrote the NT

Again a big assetian on your part, show me from the bible which proves this point.

 

Being cited as the author of a book and being cited as existing by a book are not the same context of question.  They do identify themselves as I explained, "This is the book of the generations of Adam" is thought to be a signature of the author and is present  also with Noah's signature at Genesis 6:9.  As is true with the opening statements following other toledoth endings in Genesis, as well as similar phenomena in Babylonian tablets, each statement ties in to the previous division by keying in to relevant statements.   

 

It is big debate in the christian world whether these stories are allegories or actual eyewitnesses. Many christian will disagree with you on this point.

Are they like the borg?

 

No, they are my dear friends, brothers and sisters in Christ.  In fact, I have been in a study with a group of them across this nation for about a year debating this very topic. 

 

It seems you choose to ignore the following verse.

 

 

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

Do you really think I'm the type to ignore verses?  You might do me a favor and not quote 20 passages at a time, or do you want to feel I don't have the time to address all your questions and feel overwhelmed.  I had planned to only post once a week here and I'm breaking my rule.  I will try and come back and make sense of all your points but for now. 

 

God in my triangle is Father, Son, and Spirit.  To God the Son there is God the Father, to God the Father there is God the Son, both are Father and Son and still God.  You note in that verse did not say "Our Father" or "Our God" The relationship of the born-again children of God to the heavenly Father will always be different from that of the only begotten Son of God to the Father. 

 

Let's see if a visual representation might help you with this mysterious God of ours, mine.  Let's say you have a car called God.  The Car is made up of a battery, a motor and a body.  All contain an existance that is separate but also work together and can be thought of as one or separate.  The battery holds and supplies energy, the motor supplies the mechanics that converts the energy, and the body holds both the energy, the mechanics and contains and utilizes the movement.  If you are standing outside of the car, or in the car, or under the hood, you might get a different perspective as an observer.  Depending on your knowledge of cars you might have a different understanding of what you were observing.  If you could be addressed by one or the other element making up this car called God, you might find it spoke of itself separately or as a unit depending on the context of the experience from the point of the observer.                 

 

It says right there that jesus believed he had a god

The trinity is just a speculation made by a council of men which you have chosen to follow. The OT does not support the trinity concept

 

The following verse shows God as one singular being.

 

Gen 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

The "us" in Genesis 1:26 more appropriately would be referring to God's court of heavenly beings.

The OT God surrounds himself with beings who praise him and do his bidding:

 

 

Psa 148:2

Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

Isa 6:1-3

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

 

However you raised the point of the Jewish word Elohim in plural. I let a Jew address that point

 

Is the Trinity Found in the Torah?

So there you go regarding the plural wod “Elokim”

 

According to the Old Testament God is a singular being, not a 3 persons in 1 God composition. There is nothing to support a trinity in these verses unless you start creating qualifiers that make a special exception for the Trinity.

 

Isa 45:5-6

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

 

Isa 45:21-22

…and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

Isa 46:9

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

 

There are none like God.

There are no co-equal to God trinity "persons" that are included in God's makeup.

The Old Testament God also instructed his people not to be enticed by concepts of God that their fathers had not known.

Those who attempted to entice others away from God were to be killed.

 

Deut 13:6,9-10

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

 

In Greek mythology some of the Greek gods would assume human form if it suited their purpose.

The Jews certainly wouldn't accept a Greek god after God told them what he was and then warned them not to accept any other versions of God.

The Jews aren't enticed by the Christian triune version of God any more than they would be enticed by a Greek god, because their God clearly told them he was a singular being that did not change his composition.

The Old Testament God repeatedly declared that he is a sole being, not multiple persons or entities.

There are none other than him(singular).

 

Also, according to the New Testament, the ascended Jesus resides outside of God's body, and does not reside with him in a shared vessel.

 

Acts 7:55

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

 

If Jesus is supposed to be standing at the right hand of God, then he isn't God according to the Old Testament specifications.

As the scripture states, there is none besides me(singular) and apart from me(singular) there is no God.

Jesus sounds much more like a high level celestial being than God himself.

 

According to the Old Testament there would be no doctrinal surprises that would change God's singular nature into a triune deity.

 

Isa 43:10-11

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

 

God also declared in Mal 3:6 that he does not change.

 

The Old Testament God doesn't go by the name "Jesus" and will not give his glory to others.

 

Isa 42:8

I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

In Paul's doctrinal surprise, Jesus becomes an "image" of God.

 

1 Cor 1:15

(Jesus), who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

 

If Deut 13:6 is to be taken seriously, then this "image" of God is not to be worshipped.

The Jews didn't buy any of this doctrinal hocus pocus from Paul, but Paul did find converts among the Greeks.

The Greeks were used to having Gods who became men when it suited them to do so.

The man/god Jesus was something they were already used to.

 

In chapter 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden" This is not a crude anthropomorphism, but an actual theophany. The "word of God," Christ in His preincarnate state, appeared in the garden for fellowship and communication with Adam and Eve. Christ is the point in the triangle that reveals himself to us again in the physical state born as both man and God. He was, and is, God incarnate in human flesh, the living Word of God. Later in 6:3 we read "My Spirit shall not always strive with man" One of the ministries of God's Holy Spirit has always been to convict man's spirit of "sin and of righteousness and of judgement"

 

In reponse to all those, with my eyes crossed in my best Arnold voice....I'll be back.

 

Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the OT, and all the above are pure speculation.

 

I see you disagree with me.  Speculation, reason, interpretation and logic are brothers, it is often difficult for many to tell where one begins and the other ends.  He is mentioned time and time again in appearance and in prophesy throughout the OT.  I haven't the time now to break it down for you, but I'll return with references when my schedule allows.  I'm sure the "Jews" would disagree with me, they rejected Christ as the one prophesied but they would agree that there is a prophesy. 

 

As history unfolds, more and more of God is revealed to man, and the three points of the triangle, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly explained but the basic tenants of that understanding were there from the beginning, in the first of books as written by the first of men

 

The Mormon sect of christianity believes the Book of Mormon is the continutation of that revelation. So do you believe that? and I can assure you it goes even further and explain a bit more of god and this universe(like the Universe being a multiverse). Perhaps you need to get up to date with that book too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That wasn't a soft insult, was it? No, I don't believe the Mormans and I have studied the Morman sect. It is repeat with error and fraud by its prophets as is apparent with study and well doccumented by their own ex-followers (now where have I heard that phrase before?) no less. Another thread? I see you allow another to address the question for you. Remember, not every Jew is in agreement with your friend, no differently than every Christian is on many topics. There are Jews who are atheists, and there are Jews that agree with me. I find interpretation tends to support bias regardless of one's hopeful intent.

[iprayican]

That wasn't a soft insult, was it?  No, I don't believe the Mormans and I have studied the Morman sect.  It is repeat with error and fraud by its prophets as is apparent with study and well doccumented by their own ex-followers (now where have I heard that phrase before?) no less.  Another thread?  I see you allow another to address the question for you.  Remember, not every Jew is in agreement with your friend, no differently than every Christian is on many topics.  There are Jews who are atheists, and there are Jews that agree with me.  I find interpretation tends to support bias regardless of one's hopeful intent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

....I haven't figured out how to use your forum helps as yet, and so you will have to find all my responses embedded inbetween what should have been quotes in the blue. Sorry.

[scotter]

Hey I got a question, do Catholics evangelise?

 

Catholics do evangelize (z or s is cool?), not by talking about their faith but by striving to live and demonstrate it. The missionaries set up and provide social services. Citing India as an example, the Catholic schools, and of course the famous late Mother Teresa who served the poorest of the poor.

 

When local people approach them, then they will talk about it and share, same for lay Catholics.

[SkepticOfBible]

Hey I got a question, do Catholics evangelise?

 

Catholics do evangelize (z or s is cool?), not by talking about their faith but by striving to live and demonstrate it. The missionaries set up and provide social services. Citing India as an example, the Catholic schools, and of course the famous late Mother Teresa who served the poorest of the poor.

 

When local people approach them, then they will talk about it and share, same for lay Catholics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sounds like a better approach than what most protestant do

[SkepticOfBible]

....I haven't figured out how to use your forum helps as yet, and so you will have to find all my responses embedded inbetween what should have been quotes in the blue. Sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That ok. I am highlighted my original response in blue, so that i am able to anser in context

 

First of all, why should Humanity find the original documents. Shouldn’t that be god’s job. That will be a big proof to a lot of skeptics.

God provided a universe as proof, but it is still rejected, God is written on the mind of man so that no man is with excuse, but it is still rejected,

 

Well most religion in the world claim that the universe was created by their master. In that case the claim of christianity doesn’t sound so unique

 

God communicated directly with man and man recorded the interaction by His inspiration, it is rejected.

 

How does inspiration work? I mean what is difference between inspired by god and inspired of god?

 

God came in the form of a man, lived, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected, and still was rejected.

 

This claim produces a series of problems if the entire Bible is to be considered the accurate word of God.

According to the Old Testament, God is not a man.

 

Num 23:19

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

Also according to the Old Testament, God does not change.

 

Mal 3:6

For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

If God is not a man and does not change, the common Christian claim that God became a man called "Jesus" simply doesn't conform to the Old Testament scriptural word of God where he defines himself.

If the Old Testament is to be taken seriously, then Jesus, who called himself the Son of Man, simply wasn't God manifested in the flesh of a human.

 

Show me one verse in the OT where it says that god will take an incarnate form. Where does it say in the OT that the messiah would be worshipped?

 

And there are also lot of other verses and situations in the NT which indicate that Jesus was not god.

 

It is our job to have free will, to make a choice, to have faith, a faith supported by many proofs, but still faith. Finding original documents would be a bonus that might change the heart of a skeptic, and for the reason that God wants everyone to come to him, I believe, and as history has shown, that within each block of time, more proofs are revealed for that reason. We are not in the time of Christ walking the earth nor of the prophets before him, and while they were also rejected despite the evidence they produced in prophesy or miracle or knowledge, the creator of man knows that the nature of man requires proofs upon proof.

 

At this point as a skeptic I see no difference in the God potrayed in bible ,in the quran or in the Bhagwad Gita. All of them make the same claim ie the god described there created the universe

 

As far as prophecies Jesus did not fulfill half the prophecies that a King Messiah was supposed to fill.

 

Messiah Wanted

 

And many of the prophecies which Christians try to put forward(including the NT writers) are not even prophecies at all or many of them are not even found at all in the OT.

 

Some of what was recorded was apparently lost, like those books of Enoch's you are asking about. The copies we have that claim to be Enoch's were very apparently written much later that the patriarch lived, near to the time of Christ and for that reason, and others, are considered questionable as inspired. Certainly the citations of Enoch within those books that are considered inspired give proof that somewhere there should be copies of greater antiquity that might prove how what we have should be considered. I believe they will be found.

 

Well how do you know that the current copy of the book of enoch is questionable, when you don’t even have the original to compare it with. As I gave in that link, the early church followers used to follow those books, so why do you now reject it? Rather who gave you the authority to proclaim that certain books are the word of god while others are not.

 

Get real, most of the original copies are destroyed. Paper doesn’t last forever.

 

I wonder if any civilization has used another medium besides paper to record history?

 

Well, Egyptians did a better job of document history by embedding them into stone.

 

Second of all why should we believe that the bible that you hold is the word of god ie why should we choose your version of the bible over the catholics, mormons or the Syrian Orthodox version(since they all have different books)

 

Your bible did not fall from the sky, it was voted in by a council of men(not god), and Martin Luther took out books from it. So my question is who gave them authority to decide what is the word of god? Let's see some credentials

Again it is a big speculation on your part, since authors of these book are not known.(and that is the case in most of the books).

 

Ah, another topic that could take pages and months.

 

That’s ok, it’s been like 2000 years and this issue hasn’t been resolved amongst Christians

 

I can speculate that this book was written by Noah(one speculation is as good as another one)

Yet again this is a speculation on your part. Please show where it says that Adam and all the descendants knew how to write.

 

Yes, one can speculate within the reason of logic or to defy it. There are references to building a city that existed from the very first generation, the Cainite civilization, as recorded in Genesis, where there were instructers of every artificer in brass and iron, harp and organ, and in chapter 5, "This is the book of the generations of Adam" and then those references to those prophesies of Enoch that were apparently written not too distant from the time of Adam, especially considering that Adam would still have been alive for aproximately 300 years of Enoch's life. Another book dated to the time just shortly after the flood, Job, and it speaks also of books. It is not too difficult to take the leap that they were writing given the supporting references and technology historically recorded as present.

Just because it says “this is the book of generation of Adam” doesn’t mean this book is written by Adam himself. If the author doesn’t identify themselves then it is best to assume that it was written by unknown author (who could have lived in the generation of Adam). It doesn’t say “this is the book of generation of Adam by Adam”

 

Other books in the bible clearly identify their authors, whereas for others they are unknown. Genesis is just one of them

 

Another thing which you are assuming that I believe

 

a) Adam was the first man and earth was created in 6 days

That the biblical flood happened

 

I believe in neither of the above

 

Being cited as the author of a book and being cited as existing by a book are not the same context of question. They do identify themselves as I explained, "This is the book of the generations of Adam" is thought to be a signature of the author and is present also with Noah's signature at Genesis 6:9.

 

Thought by whom? Show me other instances in the bible that would work like this.

 

It seems you choose to ignore the following verse.

 

John 20:17

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

Do you really think I'm the type to ignore verses? You might do me a favor and not quote 20 passages at a time, or do you want to feel I don't have the time to address all your questions and feel overwhelmed. I had planned to only post once a week here and I'm breaking my rule. I will try and come back and make sense of all your points but for now.

 

I am sorry if you feel you are being bombarded by verses, but I was illustrating my point based on the bible. I can wait for week. Take your time in your research.

 

God in my triangle is Father, Son, and Spirit. To God the Son there is God the Father, to God the Father there is God the Son, both are Father and Son and still God. You note in that verse did not say "Our Father" or "Our God" The relationship of the born-again children of God to the heavenly Father will always be different from that of the only begotten Son of God to the Father.

 

So basically Jesus is his own daddy. Hmm, interesting.

 

If Jesus had a Father who was God, then he must have been begotten or created at some point in time.

In fact the New Testament, in a classic fear based verse, claims that Jesus was the begotten son of God.

 

John 3:18

He that believeth on him(Jesus) is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

The word begotten is derived from the word beget, which means to be the cause of something.

If the Father really beget Jesus, then Jesus is not eternal because a son by definition must be younger than his Father.

Jesus was also not the only son of God.

The Bible also declares that angels and Adam are sons of God too. They were also created by God and had no earthly mother.

 

Let's see if a visual representation might help you with this mysterious God of ours, mine. Let's say you have a car called God. The Car is made up of a battery, a motor and a body. All contain an existance that is separate but also work together and can be thought of as one or separate. The battery holds and supplies energy, the motor supplies the mechanics that converts the energy, and the body holds both the energy, the mechanics and contains and utilizes the movement. If you are standing outside of the car, or in the car, or under the hood, you might get a different perspective as an observer. Depending on your knowledge of cars you might have a different understanding of what you were observing. If you could be addressed by one or the other element making up this car called God, you might find it spoke of itself separately or as a unit depending on the context of the experience from the point of the observer.

 

Then what is the purpose of each of the parts of the trinity? That is the question which has not been answered by trinitarians for about 2000 years.

 

In reponse to all those, with my eyes crossed in my best Arnold voice....I'll be back.

 

And as the famous MLTR song goes I’ll be right here waiting for you

 

Speculation, reason, interpretation and logic are brothers, it is often difficult for many to tell where one begins and the other ends. He is mentioned time and time again in appearance and in prophesy throughout the OT. I haven't the time now to break it down for you, but I'll return with references when my schedule allows. I'm sure the "Jews" would disagree with me, they rejected Christ as the one prophesied but they would agree that there is a prophesy.

 

Speculation or hypotheses need to be supported by evidence before they can be accepted as fact.

 

As history unfolds, more and more of God is revealed to man, and the three points of the triangle, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are clearly explained but the basic tenants of that understanding were there from the beginning, in the first of books as written by the first of men

 

That wasn't a soft insult, was it? No, I don't believe the Mormans and I have studied the Morman sect. It is repeat with error and fraud by its prophets as is apparent with study and well doccumented by their own ex-followers (now where have I heard that phrase before?) no less.

 

And the bible is free from error and fraud? Well I would say that I would accuse the NT with same accusation of fraud and error.

 

Pretty much you are skeptical of the Book of Mormon, I am just skeptical of the bible that you hold in your hand

 

Another thread? I see you allow another to address the question for you. Remember, not every Jew is in agreement with your friend, no differently than every Christian is on many topics

.

 

Which one are you talking about? Are you referring to the Elohim debate. Well if you are, I included that because I don’t know Hebrew, and secondly his explanation sounded more reasonable and well based on the scriptures. Please address the question posed by him

 

I find interpretation tends to support bias regardless of one's hopeful intent.

 

Well then I guess you acknowledge that you have bias in your interpretation too.

[SkepticOfBible]

Doh the quote thing did not work 4 me

[scotter]

Pritish, when you use the quote function for more than 10 applications, it cracks.

 

For 10+ quotes, Han Solo the expert recommends copy-paste to quote others in your post and color the sentences.

 

'Hope that helps.

[Razor]

In the Spiritual experiences I have had, I did feel only one presence on each occasion.

 

The first was so vast and powerfull, my mind was expanding expotentialy trying to take in the single oneness of him and the scope of his power and Glory.

I could sense and feel the vastness of the Universe revolving around him at the time.

I had to shrink back into myself and accept, before my conciesness dissapated into nothing trying to expand that far.

My lasting impression of that experience was, this incedible vile hatred, of all the bad things man had done to himself to spite God spewing out at him from the Earth, that was overwhelmed and washed back by a Giant wave he emanated back across the Void.

I AM LOVE!

 

The second experience, was not as powerfull another single entity, but with great Authority when I called on him for help (Jesus)

 

On both occasions I was only aware of a single entity, but they both felt different, as in different individuals.

 

Peace

[iprayican]

Good Morning All!

 

Religions that have not incorporated some part of the Torah or NT or other books into their teachings begin with the space/time/matter universe already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have evolved into its present form. Pagan pantheism also begins with elementary matter in various forms evolving into complex systems by the forces of nature personifed as different gods and goddesses.

 

Follow me if you will on this, if the God of my religion exists then He would have the first author of all religions. The first of mankind would have at least heard part of the story and any religion that spun off of the original truths God shared with man could contain some of the same elements, concepts, themes and even truths. Job is dated to have been written prior to Jacob's fullness. It is considered one of the oldest books outside of Genesis. Job lived in the land of the East, Uz, which is thought to be built by Shem's grandson, Uz. There is great wisdom in this book, so that it is evident the truths of God were present going forward from Adam, through Noah, and on to Job in some form, and the book of Job itself refers to books.

 

Those books could have been written in clay, or stone, or on animal skins, or some other form; thus my question of wondering to you earlier in order to cause you to ponder that there was more than paper to write things on. Seeing as we have Job, and other evidences of writing occuring in this time, I think we can safely make that assumption. At the same time Job has this understanding of God, passed forward from the time of Noah, the restart of civilization, there would have been pagan offshoots of religion establishing themselves again as they did in the time of Adam. Such is the nature of man from the beginning. You just have to decide which "religion" came first and there are all sorts of opinions on that subject.

 

Inspiration is guidance from God through the Holy Spirit, the words written are God breathed through those writers whom He choose to be shared with all of mankind.

 

No, God is not man, Jesus was God in man, quite a bit different than you or I, the Son of God entered into the flesh, a conception of God and man by the Spirit of God.

 

In the verses you are using it is talking about the nature of God's relationship towards a set of people. Look at context.

 

Ok, about that request for one verse;

 

Isaiah 9:6

 

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called WOnderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his goverment and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this."

 

This is one of the most amazing prophecies ever given,, no doubt referring back to the promised virgin-born Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). The child born is the human Jesus, born as a babe, while the Son given is the eternally begotten Second Person of the Godhead united in glorious hypostatic union- God with us! How can the "everlasting Father" also be the "Son given?" Only by the unfathomable, yet glorious mystery of the Trinity. "I and my Father are one," said Jesus (John 10:30) "Prince of Peace" indicates He is the very first leaser who will bring true peace to the world. Melchizedek (who was either the preincarnate Christ or a type of Christ) is called "King of Salem," which means, "King of Peace" (Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 7:2). He is the great Peacemaker (Matthew 5:9) who "made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20)

 

I'm not sure what specific prophesies you are referring to, but last time I checked, the world was still turning and more are slated to be fulfilled.

 

Enoch is another topic and another thread. There were literally thousands of doccuments written at this time, some are clearly historic, some were used for that importance but were not considered inspired works by the early church or the Jewish establishment before them because of who, what they were written about, or when they were written. Others were written by those wanting to change doctrines more closely to what they wanted taught and have been indentified as frauds of the time, others have errors of historical or other errors that put them in question. You are right, the Bible as you or I may know it did not drop from the sky. Man is not perfect and no doubt in compiling the books of the Bible for one group or another may have left out a book that rightly deserves inclusion. Each of us needs to tackle that question as an individual and study to show yourself approved. The books and commentaries are there, you don't even have to reinvent the wheel. For me it is a lifetime pursuit for the truth and that will not be time enough. There are those that have little to go by and others that have a wealth of resources to search, both the little and the lot have the opportunity to have a relationship with God that is no less than the other. One cannot condemn the other for not having the wealth of all that is possible to know, especially if the little is enough.

 

I didn't assume anything, I thought you were a non-believer to begin with.

 

The point was lost on you, the point is that the style of writing and signing off in divisions is ancient, found in other clay tablets dated to the same time. There are many resources you could study regarding the toledoth concept of compilation in Genesis if you want to understand it better, even on the internet.

 

I did already address his, their, debate. Yes, Hebrew and Greek are very rich and wonderful languages with layers upon layers of meaning that are not possible to capture in translation and why I believe an honest student of the Bible should make the effort to learn the original languages. As I said, a little is enough, but having the wealth of understanding is better. Most people will never have a need to be so armored. Each has their own calling and responsibility.

 

Yes, all of us have a bias and arguing is actually the worst possible way to overcome it. There are dozens of internal mechanisms of defence the mind immediately puts up in a forum such as this. In fact, it does more to cement you further than to open your mind.

[crazy-tiger]

Good Morning All!

 

Religions that have not incorporated some part of the Torah or NT or other books into their teachings begin with the space/time/matter universe already existing in a primeval state of chaos, then attempt to speculate how it might have evolved into its present form.

Stop right there...

 

First, how do you know this?

Second, what evidence do you have?

Third, how do you know that the OT/Torah wasn't an attempt to speculate on how the universe evolved into it's present state?

Fouth, and possibly most important, why have you used your conclusion as your stating assumption?

[MQTA]

The Bible contains references to other people, like Cain found his wife in the Land of Nod. Where's the story from The Other People he found?

 

Judges seems to talk about many other Kings and names of places with people who were brutally destroyed by the Bible writer's version. Where's the stories from all these other people?

 

When people read and talk about the Bible, it seems like there was no other stories or people on the planet at the time. Where's all the other works from people?

 

How many people who believe in a JudeoChristian religion are actually bloodline to the people? You may be believing in someone else's roots.

 

How does it become the ONLY way?

 

If God is the Creator of ALL of Humanity, until we have One Way through an Update of the Real creator, then you're taking .0001% of human history and expanding it to 100%, then applying it to everyone else (and YOU may not even be included in THAT bloodline).

 

And so what if the Bible WERE a fully documented History of one group of people? How does any of it apply? Really. It's all hearsay and inconsequential to our lives that started because our parents had us.

 

How hard is it to realize we're all on our own, we have our own lives, and the influences should be those that Talk to us and are IN our lives, not from some imagination others would like you to believe.

[Ouroboros]

IPrayICan, you don't have to quote the whole post to reply. It takes unnessesary space and bandwidth. Only quote the parts that you are refuting or basing further arguments on.

[iprayican]

How? Just general knowledge accumulated over time and study of religions. There are many many books and on-line resources that list the varioius creation myths. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/creation_belief for a basic brief .

 

How do I know...from study of proofs. I also know within me that which I cannot prove is true beyond any doubt. Where is the source of this knowing? A Christian believes in an indwelling of the Holy Spirit that helps us when we believe and make the choice to follow God. You see, the Christian's relationship with God is not one-sided. One who rejects Him cannot have this or understand it. It is called faith.

 

You lost me on that fourth one but I'll make an attempt. If the God that is described in Genesis is true, then there are no other gods and He is as he says He is, the creator of the universe and all of mankind. If this is so and the book of Genesis is His, then He would be the author of the first "religion", no? That was not an attempt to prove anything, it was a premise as a believer. If I believe this, then when viewing the other "religions" I can determine that they started after the first true one, and look for authorship, truths, that might connect it to what I believe or reject it as error howbeit that there may or may not be commonalities that are traceable to the original source of truth or religion.

 

You might do the exact opposite, state that the one I believe is true came from the threads of other religions, and in fact, this is a common approach. I just turned the same reasoning my critics use around and used it on them. Turn-about is fair play, no?

[Ouroboros]

Doh the quote thing did not work 4 me

Max 10 quote sections per post.

 

Colors and bold text doesn't have the limit, so use those instead when answering more sections.

 

Click on [ BB Code Help ] on the right side, under the Clickable Smilies to get more info about quotes, bold etc.

[MQTA]

Suppose that all the Bibles in the world were suddenly destroyed and couldn't be reconstructed from memory. Would people still believe in Jesus? Would it be the same as the Bible today?

 

Suppose that all the science books in the world were wiped out and no one remembered science. If people started rediscovering science from scratch would Evolution still exist? Would gravity still exist? Would we come to the same conclusion if we started over a second time? Yep - we sure would!

 

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/hidden_agenda/

[iprayican]

You left out one part of the picture, a God in control of His creation. Granted, free will would still be an option, but history has shown, He shows Himself. By the way, God created evolution, micro-evolution that is, by special creation. Science already supports this. And most of those lovely scientists that explored gravity and the higher sciences that so many respect still today, were believers. They were quite intelligent men to have been fooled. Besides, Evolution's macro-icons are ridiculously outdated and proven wrong. So many threads, so little time.

[MQTA]

yeah, I see that Control all over

[crazy-tiger]

How?  Just general knowledge accumulated over time and study of religions.  There are many many books and on-line resources that list the varioius creation myths.  Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/creation_belief for a basic brief.

All that shows is that you know various creation myths... it doesn't show which ones, if any, have incorporated any part of the OT/Torah.

How do I know...from study of proofs.  I also know within me that which I cannot prove is true beyond any doubt.  Where is the source of this knowing?  A Christian believes in an indwelling of the Holy Spirit that helps us when we believe and make the choice to follow God.  You see, the Christian's relationship with God is not one-sided.  One who rejects Him cannot have this or understand it.  It is called faith.

So, you believe you are right...? You can't prove it, but you "know" that your belief is right?

See... that's common in every single belief system that's ever existed, and for it to be any form of valid proof, it requires that ALL belief systems are proven true.

 

Not such a good proof after all, is it?

You lost me on that fourth one but I'll make an attempt.  If the God that is described in Genesis is true, then there are no other gods and He is as he says He is, the creator of the universe and all of mankind.  If this is so and the book of Genesis is His, then He would be the author of the first "religion", no?  That was not an attempt to prove anything, it was a premise as a believer.  If I believe this, then when viewing the other "religions" I can determine that they started after the first true one, and look for authorship, truths, that might connect it to what I believe or reject it as error howbeit that there may or may not be commonalities that are traceable to the original source of truth or religion.

Well, since you've done it again, I'll try to clarify it for you.

 

When working out this kind of thing, there are the starting propositions. (in your case, if BibleGod is true)

Then you work through the chain of reasoning using an "if-then" system, until you come to a conclusion.

 

Nothing wrong with doing that, unless you end up with your conclusion being your starting proposition. When that happens, you end up with an argument that is totally circular. Example: If God is true, then the Bible is correct. If the Bible is correct, then God is true.

It proves NOTHING, except that it's a false argument.

 

You offered proof that your religion is correct, and the proof was that your religion is correct...

You might do the exact opposite, state that the one I believe is true came from the threads of other religions, and in fact, this is a common approach.  I just turned the same reasoning my critics use around and used it on them.

No, you haven't...

 

The reasoning that is used is "any religion that is younger than another cannot be an ancestor of that religion"

There are many religions that are much older than either Christianity or Judism, so those religions are not a "spin-off" from the Judaic religions.

 

Add to this that cross-pollination of ideologies is a proven fact, and all religions produce "spin-offs", and the conclusion is that Judism is either based on the ideology of at least one other religion or that it is a spin-off from another religion that has evolved into a different "species"

 

 

That's quite different to the reasoning you've been using...

Turn-about is fair play, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it is... but there's no sign of it here.

[crazy-tiger]

You left out one part of the picture, a God in control of His creation.  Granted, free will would still be an option, but history has shown, He shows Himself.  By the way, God created evolution, micro-evolution that is, by special creation.  Science already supports this.  And most of those lovely scientists that explored gravity and the higher sciences that so many respect still today, were believers.  They were quite intelligent men to have been fooled.  Besides, Evolution's macro-icons are ridiculously outdated and proven wrong.  So many threads, so little time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'll find that most of those respected scientists were alive at a time when it was a case of "believe or else"

 

You'll also find that science neither supports or disputes creation... what it does do is support evolution in full. (macro-evolution just being micro-evolution on a longer timescale)

 

 

 

Can I recommend that you avoid posting in The Lions Den? You would be very quickly be torn to shreds, and most likely in a very impolite fashion...

[SkepticOfBible]

Follow me if you will on this, if the God of my religion exists then He would have the first author of all religions. The first of mankind would have at least heard part of the story and any religion that spun off of the original truths God shared with man could contain some of the same elements, concepts, themes and even truths.

 

So maybe Christianity could have one of the religions that spun off the original truth of god.

 

Inspiration is guidance from God through the Holy Spirit, the words written are God breathed through those writers whom He choose to be shared with all of mankind.

 

And who gets to choose which books are inspired and which are not?

 

 

No, God is not man, Jesus was God in man, quite a bit different than you or I, the Son of God entered into the flesh, a conception of God and man by the Spirit of God.

 

Where does it say in the OT that the messiah would be God in Man. I specifically asked for verses which support your claim.

 

Second of all I asked you, show where does it say in the OT that the messiah would be worshipped

 

In the verses you are using it is talking about the nature of God's relationship towards a set of people. Look at context.

 

It is also talking about himself where he is talking about his nature

 

Ok, about that request for one verse;

 

Isaiah 9:6

 

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called WOnderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his goverment and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgement and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will perform this."

 

This is one of the most amazing prophecies ever given,, no doubt referring back to the promised virgin-born Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14). The child born is the human Jesus, born as a babe, while the Son given is the eternally begotten Second Person of the Godhead united in glorious hypostatic union- God with us! How can the "everlasting Father" also be the "Son given?" Only by the unfathomable, yet glorious mystery of the Trinity. "I and my Father are one," said Jesus (John 10:30) "Prince of Peace" indicates He is the very first leaser who will bring true peace to the world. Melchizedek (who was either the preincarnate Christ or a type of Christ) is called "King of Salem," which means, "King of Peace" (Genesis 14:18; Hebrews 7:2). He is the great Peacemaker (Matthew 5:9) who "made peace through the blood of His cross" (Colossians 1:20)

 

So this a prophecy about Jesus. When was Jesus ever called either of these during his lifetime?

 

As far Jewish Name goes. In 2 Kings 9:2 Jehu was prophet and a king of Israel.

 

2 Kings 9:2

2 When you get there, look for Jehu son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. Go to him, get him away from his companions and take him into an inner room.

 

The meaning of Jehu is "YAHWEH is he". So does that make him a god?

 

Jehu-Meaning

 

Most of the Jewish names just signify the status of the person and is meant to glorify singular god of OT. It doesn't mean you take names as literal, which the author of Matthew does. Even god told him that

 

There is also a bigger problem regarding this verse.

 

(Isaiah 9: Historical Event or Prophecy) (Isaiah 9: Historical Event or Prophecy)

 

Isaiah 9:5-6 is not a messianic prophecy. The correct context of this passage is that it describes events that had already taken place in Jewish history, namely, events concerning the birth of this child (believed to be Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz), and a prophecy concerning his future as King of Judah. Hezekiah's role was to lift Judah from the degenerate conditions into which it had sunk, and he would lead the indestructible faithful "Remnant of Israel". This passage speaks of the wonders performed by G-d for Hezekiah as King of Judah, and in it, the Prophet expresses his praise of G-d for sparing Hezekiah and his kingdom from demise at the hands of Sannheriv, who besieged Jerusalem.

 

The ninth chapter in the Book of Isaiah deals with the crisis that existed in the Kingdom of Judah during a time when the Assyrian king Sannheriv wanted to destroy it. Isaiah responds to the messenger sent by Hezekiah with a message in which he reaffirms the promise that G-d made to David, namely, that the kingdom would be preserved (see 2 Sam 7:12-16). The army of Sannheriv, the king who previously exiled the tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, lays siege to Jerusalem seeking to capture and exile the people of the Kingdom of Judah. The nation turned to G-d and obeyed Hezekiah's order not to respond and, as noted (see 2 Chron 32:21, above), a miracle occurred. An angel came and slaughtered the Assyrian army, and the king, Sannheriv, was assassinated by members of his own family upon his return in defeat. Thus, the Jewish nation that was on the brink of destruction, standing in the shadow of death, suddenly and miraculously was redeemed, and it stood in a great light.

 

The tenth chapter in the Book of Isaiah provides the epilogue to the events described in Chapter 9. In these two chapters, the Prophet recounts how G-d saved King Hezekiah and his Kingdom of Judah from Sannheriv’s massive military attack. Prior to the siege on Jerusalem, the Assyrian army successfully captured and exiled most of the population of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Now Assyria was poised to exile the people of the Kingdom of Judah, the helpless remnant of the Jewish people who so desperately needed divine intervention. By way of leading into a description of the events that lifted a nation from a state of despair to the ecstasy of a miraculous redemption; Isaiah opens up his ninth chapter with the following declaration:

 

As far as the virgin birth prophecy goes, that was already fulfilled way before Christ came along

 

Isaiah 7:14

Deception in the name of Isaiah

Regarding Virgin Birth

 

I'm not sure what specific prophesies you are referring to, but last time I checked, the world was still turning and more are slated to be fulfilled.

 

Jesus didn't even fulfill the major prophecies of the messiah such as

 

1)Building the Third Temple in Jerusalem

2)Sitting on the throne of David

3)Implementing the Torah

4)World Peace

5)Reunification of Judah and Israel into One People

6)Universal Knowledge of God

7)Resurrection of the Dead

 

There isn’t anything in the OT which states that the messiah would require two trips that would have needed to accomplish in one.

 

Could you also guide me to where can I find the following prophecies in the OT

 

John 7:38

"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."

 

Luke 24:46

"Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day."

 

1 Corinthians 15:3-4:

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures."

 

Matthew (27:9-10).

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me"

 

Matthew (2:23)

"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene"(2:23).

 

Enoch is another topic and another thread. There were literally thousands of documents written at this time, some are clearly historic, some were used for that importance but were not considered inspired works by the early church or the Jewish establishment before them because of who, what they were written about, or when they were written.

 

So pretty much at the whim of certain men, some books were deemed inspired and other were not. It is actually very interesting to know that the list of the books that were followed by the early church don’t come nowhere close to the list that Christians have today. Here is why

 

1. The “early church” had NO established scriptures/canon. What writings they did possess were NOT universally accepted, (Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.) nor were they available to each church. They depended almost entirely upon ORAL tradition, NOT writings.

 

2. Because of number 1, Emperor Constantine, in an effort to squash all the disparate “Christian” views, orchestrated the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. This Council of Bishops and Elders were to establish once and for all Christian doctrine and the canon of scripture.

 

3. This “Canon” (as well as church doctrine) has been in flux ever since and has NEVER been finalized between churches over the ages, even to this day! Catholics, Protestants, Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Baptists and so on, have their OWN “bibles” that they consider to be the “true” word of “god”. Some denominations accept the LXX (Septuagint/Greek OT), others do not. (BTW, the early church DID accept the LXX. So those who lay claim to believing as the early Christians did are LYING, IF they reject the LXX!) Even the so-called “perfect” 1611 Authorized King James bible underwent 7 or so revisions before it achieved it’s “perfection!” Including the elimination of the Apocrypha from its later revisions.

 

And speaking of the Apocrypha (“lost books” -- so misnamed by St. Jerome), these books were NOT fabricated by Catholics and ADDED to the bible. They were handed down from the "early church" as part of the LXX, PRESERVED by the Catholics, and subsequently REMOVED by the Protestants and Baptists.

 

The RCC claims Peter was the first pope, and the papacy is passed down from each successor to the next

 

The Book of Hebrews also tells believers to submit to authority figures and accept the intpretation of the church

 

Heb 13:17

Be obedient to those leading you, and be subject, for these do watch for your souls, as about to give account, that with joy they may do this, and not sighing, for this is unprofitable to you.

 

The authority of the Catholic Church is deemed by many believers to be the sole vehicle that guarantees that a believer has "proper" faith.

The Church embodies and carries on the teachings of Jesus and the original apostles, and with that comes the ability and authority to interpret scripture correctly. The context of scripture is to be interpreted by the Church Fathers and not left to the private interpretation of believers(ref: Council of Trent 1545-1563).

If a believer is reaching different conclusions than those put forth by the Church, then that believer needs to adjust their thinking. In other words, the traditions and teachings of the Church must be obeyed to be in good standing with God.

The Church, though its hierarchy, imparts wisdom to the masses and makes their lives easier because they are not burdened with the risk of being led astray by their own thoughts.

Of course, many fundamentalist Protestants differ with these claims and consider the Catholic Church to be a corrupted representation of Christianity. They view the Church as interfering with true "faith".

Some Catholics in turn proclaim that Protestants are actually "Protest_Ants", small-minded people who have fallen away from the Church and are biased and rebellious toward its authority, which was established by Jesus himself.

 

 

The “bible” is NOT the inspired, inerrant word of “god”. It is a collection of books CHOSEN by man for their political value. The bible you have in your hand today is the result of one of two separate manuscript sources. Either the Alexandrian texts, or the Masoretic texts. And of course, NO ONE can agree on which of THESE are correct!

 

IF the preceding generations of Christians had the “wrong” word of “god”, then they must also have had the “wrong” faith! Therefore ALL the doctrinal foundations of the earlier Christians is WRONG!

 

Nt Canon

NT Canon2

 

Others were written by those wanting to change doctrines more closely to what they wanted taught and have been indentified as frauds of the time, others have errors of historical or other errors that put them in question.

 

So how do you what they were taught were actually the correct doctrine? Maybe the the doctrines which were identified as fraud were actually the right one. Perhaps these people who declared them as heresy were following a agenda. So are you now following the will of the democracy?

 

There are numerous historical and scientific errors that are contained in your collection of book, yet you choose not to question them. Are we seeing a bit of a double standard here?

 

As far as doctrine changes Paul did a lot of that eg compliance of the law vs putting faith in a human sacrifice, but that doesn’t prevent christians from preaching these doctrines to the world to the whole world

 

You are right, the Bible as you or I may know it did not drop from the sky. Man is not perfect and no doubt in compiling the books of the Bible for one group or another may have left out a book that rightly deserves inclusion. Each of us needs to tackle that question as an individual and study to show yourself approved.

 

Well I have a series of question, which no Christian has been able to answer

 

Why did God not directly reveal the canon?

Is God content to let uninspired writings falsely be proclaimed as his Word?

Furthermore, how do we know the canon is complete?

Why has no one been able to describe a consistent objective basis for establishing the canon?

Why was the canon established by vote instead of on objective principles?

When a group of church clerics gets together, why is it automatically assumed that they have no personal agenda or that they are not being lobbied or pressured by outside influences to vote a particular writing as canon?

Christians would not trust Muslims when they say that they have word of god. So why should I trust these men to tell me what God said or what he didn't say?

 

If the collection of book that you have “wrong” then you must be also having the wrong “faith”. Therefore any doctrines that you derive from the collection of books could be wrong also. This is the exactly the thing that you accuse Mormons and Catholic of. I don’t see why you should not consider the same question for yourself?

 

The books and commentaries are there, you don't even have to reinvent the wheel. For me it is a lifetime pursuit for the truth and that will not be time enough. There are those that have little to go by and others that have a wealth of resources to search, both the little and the lot have the opportunity to have a relationship with God that is no less than the other. One cannot condemn the other for not having the wealth of all that is possible to know, especially if the little is enough

 

In all the books and commentaries that Christians put forward, I still haven’t found the answer to the above questions.

 

Christians would not stop at any time in condemning other people to eternal torture.

 

I did already address his, their, debate. Yes, Hebrew and Greek are very rich and wonderful languages with layers upon layers of meaning that are not possible to capture in translation and why I believe an honest student of the Bible should make the effort to learn the original languages. As I said, a little is enough, but having the wealth of understanding is better. Most people will never have a need to be so armored. Each has their own calling and responsibility.

 

Well it isn’t very difficult to change the above in a generic formula for other religion

 

Arabic/Sanskrit are very rich and wonderful languages with layers upon layers of meaning that are not possible to capture in translation and why I believe an honest student of the Quran/Bhagwad Gita should make the effort to learn the original language.

 

English Bible translations are supposed to be done by "experts" and are presented in the mainstream Bible that anyone can read. Many christians would proclaim that the KJV version is the divinely inspired translation of the bible. They’ll have tons of arguments as to why it is correct (ICR endorses the KJV) and then even go further and say that all other translations are Satanic

 

If the translations are not accurate, then you can toss out the English Bible and all the baggage that goes with it.

 

Apparently this God also needs lots of apologists/experts to explain to the masses what he means.

 

If experts are needed to properly understand it, then this "God" did a very poor job of communicating his message to humans.

 

There is virtually no end to the number of rationalizations that can be created to explain what the Bible really means

 

I have seen possibly about 4 different kind of explanation for a problem that a skeptic would put forward.

 

In the end, the Bible can and will mean whatever a believer wants it to mean. But also in the end, one can't prove that any of their theological assertions about God are facts. All they can do is make claims and then assert that if you don't agree with them, you'll be in big trouble with their invisible sky daddy.

[MQTA]

WOW! What a long post! Not going to quote any of it, but I was right there with ya each step of the way.

 

You said a mouthful!

 

"what he said"

[SkepticOfBible]

I also know within me that which I cannot prove is true beyond any doubt.  Where is the source of this knowing?  A Christian believes in an indwelling of the Holy Spirit that helps us when we believe and make the choice to follow God.  You see, the Christian's relationship with God is not one-sided.  One who rejects Him cannot have this or understand it.  It is called faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And yet again you demonstrate that christianity is a claim that is common across all religion. All religion demand faith.

 

It isn’t very difficult to convert the above in a generic formula

 

I also know within me that which I cannot prove is true beyond any doubt. Where is the source of this knowing? A (blank) believes in an indwelling of the (blank) that helps us when we believe and make the choice to follow (blank). You see, the (blank) relationship with (blank) is not one-sided. One who rejects (blank) cannot have this or understand it. It is called faith.

 

In your case rejection of the Christian god would result in eternal torture including the descendants of the orginal founders(Namely the jews). Christianity sounds more like a ultimatum to me.