Paul the Apostle

[Gramps]

How am I discrediting the bible? I am actually stating that it has a lot to offer to individuals who do not believe the Jesus is God or that the events in the bible ever actually occurred in history.

Also, where did I say that I do not believe in God? I do not believe in Christianity. There is a difference.

Post 112 in this thread you stated:

2. It is not the word of God. It is the words of men who wrote stories. Some of the stories are great; some are not. Were an omnipotent and omniscient being to write a book, it would not be so self-contradictory, and were such a being to take such an effort to convince persons of his system why not just make it absolutely clear? The closest thing humans have to any "word of God" are reason and conscience.

Is that not discrediting the Bible ?

Post 104 this thread TRUT writes:

2. I choose to interpret the bible as a philosophy book; as a book no more divinely inspired than any other work. I also choose to not believe in miracles; therefore, I either look at the Gospel writers as liars or as story/fable tellers. I choose the latter and, therefore, there must be an underlying allegory. The allegory that the trinity is Truth-Reason-Conscience makes perfect sense and serves to avoid the contradictions that are contained in single gospel books. This is important because contradictions point to untruths; if two things contradict, then at least one of them (if not both) must be untrue. So, either the gospel writers are lying (as their are internal contradictions in each of their accounts) or they are telling a tale with a deeper meaning.

That is pretty clear how you feel.

 

[therealUT]

Post 112 in this thread you stated:




Is that not discrediting the Bible ?

Not in the least; it is discrediting the claim that the bible is the word of God.

Post 104 this thread TRUT writes:



That is pretty clear how you feel.

I feel that the bible is not the word of God; I also feel that the bible is rich with moral instruction.

 

[Gramps]

Not in the least; it is discrediting the claim that the bible is the word of God.



I feel that the bible is not the word of God; I also feel that the bible is rich with moral instruction.

Ha Ha. That's funny right there.

You say the Bible is not the Word of God, that is discrediting it.

 

[therealUT]

Ha Ha. That's funny right there.

You say the Bible is not the Word of God, that is discrediting it.

If that is what counts as discrediting the bible, then, fine, I discredit it. I would never blaspheme an omnipotent and omniscient being in such a way as assigning a text that is internally contradictory to that being.

 

[volfanCLT]

If that is what counts as discrediting the bible, then, fine, I discredit it. I would never blaspheme an omnipotent and omniscient being in such a way as assigning a text that is internally contradictory to that being.

Just curious, what are some of its contradictions in your opinion?

 

[therealUT]

Just curious, what are some of its contradictions in your opinion?

Two contradictory creation stories.

Multiple sets of laws that do not completely reconcile in Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Leviticus.

The extremely brutal and horrifying God of the OT who preaches obedience, honor, and respect vs. the much less brutal and horrific God of the Gospels who teaches love and forgiveness (a perfect being cannot change).

The completely false history that Luke provides surrounding the birth of Jesus (while not a contradiction, not something I would expect of a direct and divinely inspired text).

Jesus repeatedly (across Matthew, Mark, and Luke) states both that those who are not against him are for him and that those who are not for him are against him (this is tough to reconcile even at the allegorical level).

Jesus's message that, in my opinion, focuses on deeds and love of others; Paul's message that focuses on faith and love of God (which is displayed through very legalistic practices).

James's rebuttal of Paul's sola fidelis foundation, with the assertion that faith without works is dead; further, James basis his epistles much less on the person of Jesus and much more on philosophical principles that are prevalent throughout Plato, the OT books of Wisdom and Sirach, and the underlying philosophy of the Gospel of John.

 

[volfanCLT]

Two contradictory creation stories.

Multiple sets of laws that do not completely reconcile in Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Leviticus.

The extremely brutal and horrifying God of the OT who preaches obedience, honor, and respect vs. the much less brutal and horrific God of the Gospels who teaches love and forgiveness (a perfect being cannot change).

The completely false history that Luke provides surrounding the birth of Jesus (while not a contradiction, not something I would expect of a direct and divinely inspired text).

Jesus repeatedly (across Matthew, Mark, and Luke) states both that those who are not against him are for him and that those who are not for him are against him (this is tough to reconcile even at the allegorical level).

Jesus's message that, in my opinion, focuses on deeds and love of others; Paul's message that focuses on faith and love of God (which is displayed through very legalistic practices).

James's rebuttal of Paul's sola fidelis foundation, with the assertion that faith without works is dead; further, James basis his epistles much less on the person of Jesus and much more on philosophical principles that are prevalent throughout Plato, the OT books of Wisdom and Sirach, and the underlying philosophy of the Gospel of John.

Not aware of the contradictory creation stories or laws, do you have any references?

Same God in OT as NT, difference is in the NT Jesus died and his blood covers the sins of believers. In turn, the relationship that was broken between God and man during The Fall was restored. God's wrath that you see poured out in the OT is placed on Jesus on the cross. Thus, Jesus was the sacrifice for sins.

I don't see a difference in Jesus birth between the Gospels? They are written from different perspectives so not sure if some things are being mixed or taken out of context, but any references would be great.

On the point of either for me or against me, that makes sense. Christianity is either all or nothing. You are either a Christian or you aren't. If your not a Christian, Jesus is saying you are against him. (obviously not in a violent way or anything, just against him)

Jesus' message is different than Paul's message but they do not contradict. They are both things that Christians should strive to do, just said at different times by different people.

Speaking on the James and Paul differences, they sound different but are actually supporting each other. He was correct in saying faith without works is dead (i.e.good tree bears good fruit, bad tree produces bad fruit, if you aren't showing that good fruit, are you really living Christ-like or is one aiming for the "get out of hell free card") On the other hand, we will not be judged on our good works or how good of a person we are, but on our relationship with Jesus. It can be confusing unless you study James and can be a confusing topic for believers.

Hope this helped a little, its great to hear other points of view and I don't expect you to agree with everything I wrote. Love to dialogue back and forth (in a civil way) and learn about these things.

 

[therealUT]

Not aware of the contradictory creation stories or laws, do you have any references?

Read the first two creation stories in Genesis. Write down what happens on each day in each story. Compare the sequence of creation. They are different. This contradiction, in the very first two chapters of the bible, I take to be a key that at least some, if not all, of the bible is open to allegorical interpretation.

Same God in OT as NT, difference is in the NT Jesus died and his blood covers the sins of believers. In turn, the relationship that was broken between God and man during The Fall was restored. God's wrath that you see poured out in the OT is placed on Jesus on the cross. Thus, Jesus was the sacrifice for sins.

I understand what is supposed to happen; I also understand that a perfect being does not change, and certainly would not change is such a drastic manner (the verb 'wrath' even denotes a change in disposition).

I don't see a difference in Jesus birth between the Gospels? They are written from different perspectives so not sure if some things are being mixed or taken out of context, but any references would be great.

Luke's actual history is incorrect; no census, no reason to be in Bethlehem, the astronomy does not line up, the patriarchs are different, etc. The Catholic Church even admits that Luke's nativity narrative is riddled with historical inaccuracies.

On the point of either for me or against me, that makes sense. Christianity is either all or nothing. You are either a Christian or you aren't. If your not a Christian, Jesus is saying you are against him. (obviously not in a violent way or anything, just against him)

Jesus says both:
"If you are not against me, you are for me", and
"If you are not for me, you are against me".

He also forgives the individuals who crucified him: this either means that his forgiveness is meaningless, or that those without faith can achieve salvation (which would mean that faith is not necessary for salvation). This leads us to the next point:

Jesus' message is different than Paul's message but they do not contradict. They are both things that Christians should strive to do, just said at different times by different people.

Jesus is much less focused on faith and much more focused on simply doing the deeds that your conscience (the Holy Spirit) instructs you to do. Jesus is a works guy (Jesus even admonishes his followers to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect": does God have Faith that He is God? What would that even mean? It certainly would not be analogous to our believing in God without actual proof, since God certainly has proof that He is God, right?)

Speaking on the James and Paul differences, they sound different but are actually supporting each other. He was correct in saying faith without works is dead (i.e.good tree bears good fruit, bad tree produces bad fruit, if you aren't showing that good fruit, are you really living Christ-like or is one aiming for the "get out of hell free card") On the other hand, we will not be judged on our good works or how good of a person we are, but on our relationship with Jesus. It can be confusing unless you study James and can be a confusing topic for believers.

I love James; the greatest truth in the bible comes from Wisdom, Sirach, and James (and, to an extent, Jeremiah).

Hope this helped a little, its great to hear other points of view and I don't expect you to agree with everything I wrote. Love to dialogue back and forth (in a civil way) and learn about these things.

I understand your views; I just think that the bible is a much richer, more fascinating, and more fantastic text if taken allegorically. I also cannot wrap my head around someone actually walking on water, turning water into wine, bringing individuals back from the dead, etc. and the Romans, who were very committed to records and history, not writing any of it down. Thus, I cannot honestly believe in the miracles of the Gospels and, well, I also do not know that the Gospel writers were just loons; thus, I think that they were writing a story with a much deeper allegorical thread running through it. Somewhere along the way, that was lost; but, there have been a handful of individuals who have pointed to what that thread is.

 

[volfanCLT]

Read the first two creation stories in Genesis. Write down what happens on each day in each story. Compare the sequence of creation. They are different. This contradiction, in the very first two chapters of the bible, I take to be a key that at least some, if not all, of the bible is open to allegorical interpretation.



I understand what is supposed to happen; I also understand that a perfect being does not change, and certainly would not change is such a drastic manner (the verb 'wrath' even denotes a change in disposition).



Luke's actual history is incorrect; no census, no reason to be in Bethlehem, the astronomy does not line up, the patriarchs are different, etc. The Catholic Church even admits that Luke's nativity narrative is riddled with historical inaccuracies.



Jesus says both:
"If you are not against me, you are for me", and
"If you are not for me, you are against me".

He also forgives the individuals who crucified him: this either means that his forgiveness is meaningless, or that those without faith can achieve salvation (which would mean that faith is not necessary for salvation). This leads us to the next point:



Jesus is much less focused on faith and much more focused on simply doing the deeds that your conscience (the Holy Spirit) instructs you to do. Jesus is a works guy (Jesus even admonishes his followers to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect": does God have Faith that He is God? What would that even mean? It certainly would not be analogous to our believing in God without actual proof, since God certainly has proof that He is God, right?)



I love James; the greatest truth in the bible comes from Wisdom, Sirach, and James (and, to an extent, Jeremiah).



I understand your views; I just think that the bible is a much richer, more fascinating, and more fantastic text if taken allegorically. I also cannot wrap my head around someone actually walking on water, turning water into wine, bringing individuals back from the dead, etc. and the Romans, who were very committed to records and history, not writing any of it down. Thus, I cannot honestly believe in the miracles of the Gospels and, well, I also do not know that the Gospel writers were just loons; thus, I think that they were writing a story with a much deeper allegorical thread running through it. Somewhere along the way, that was lost; but, there have been a handful of individuals who have pointed to what that thread is.

Look at that peeps, a discussion on here without calling each other morons. Appreciate your response.
It's been a while, but a few years ago I read a book called "The Case for Christ" (obviously written from a Christian perspective) that went over a lot of the historical credibility of the Bible and other very interesting facts. It's a great read for both believers and non-believers and would encourage you or anyone else give it a try. (Realizing its written from a perspective other than your own)

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Look at that peeps, a discussion on here without calling each other morons. Appreciate your response.
It's been a while, but a few years ago I read a book called "The Case for Christ" (obviously written from a Christian perspective) that went over a lot of the historical credibility of the Bible and other very interesting facts. It's a great read for both believers and non-believers and would encourage you or anyone else give it a try. (Realizing its written from a perspective other than your own)

I do not think you understand the methodology of the forum.

 

[therealUT]

Look at that peeps, a discussion on here without calling each other morons. Appreciate your response.
It's been a while, but a few years ago I read a book called "The Case for Christ" (obviously written from a Christian perspective) that went over a lot of the historical credibility of the Bible and other very interesting facts. It's a great read for both believers and non-believers and would encourage you or anyone else give it a try. (Realizing its written from a perspective other than your own)

I'll probably pick it up.

 

[cd12]

Can someone find where the three wise men are referenced in the bible?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Matt 2:1 thru 12

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I'll probably pick it up.

Not bad considering what it is, I prefer mere christianity.

 

[cd12]

Matt 2:1 thru 12

:hi:

 

[therealUT]

Not bad considering what it is, I prefer mere christianity.

I think C.S. Lewis is one of the more brilliant Christian apologists. You know that he was converted by reading the works of and talking with G.K. Chesterson, right? Chesterson is an intellectual powerhouse. I would suggest reading The Everlasting Man and Orthodoxy.

As for contemporary Christian apologists, we are stuck with some schmucks. Aside from Finnis and MacIntyre, I have yet to come across a contemporary apologist who provides a very good argument for Christianity in which one does not already have to place authority in the bible (Plantiga's attempts actually sealed the deal on my completely abandoning Christianity).

 

[Orange_Crush]

Read the first two creation stories in Genesis. Write down what happens on each day in each story. Compare the sequence of creation. They are different. This contradiction, in the very first two chapters of the bible...

Genesis 1 was a high level overview of creation. Genesis 2 paused for a more specified description. As with most of the supposed contradictions offered, this is a difference, not in substance, but in perspective. Another of the supposed difficulties is caused by translated tenses in the original Hebrew. See:

Contradictions: Two Creation Accounts? - Answers in Genesis

...I take to be a key that at least some, if not all, of the bible is open to allegorical interpretation.

Except for the Bible repeatedly stating that it is not to be taken as allegory. For someone seeking reason and truth, you are very prone to breaking the first rule of hermeneutic interpretation.

I understand what is supposed to happen; I also understand that a perfect being does not change, and certainly would not change is such a drastic manner (the verb 'wrath' even denotes a change in disposition).

There is no change. These are two equally valid sides of a perfect Being. He is both a God of justice that is too perfect to allow sin to go unjudged, and also a loving, gracious God that provided an avenue for grace through the perfect life of His Son's sacrifice. The debt has to be paid, so He paid it Himself.

Luke's actual history is incorrect; no census, no reason to be in Bethlehem, the astronomy does not line up, the patriarchs are different, etc. The Catholic Church even admits that Luke's nativity narrative is riddled with historical inaccuracies.

Provide definitive proof that there was no census. LOL at confining the possible sources of the star when the Creator is involved... Historians have long sought to discredit Luke as a historian, and archaeology always comes around to uphold his history. Hundreds of supposed inaccuracies in Luke and Acts have been ratified as the archaeological record unfolds. He was right about customs, leaders, names, places, etc... We should trust him based on what has been proven that he did know, as opposed to a lack of what you do.

Jesus says both:
"If you are not against me, you are for me", and
"If you are not for me, you are against me".

Please provide scriptural quotes. The best I can tell, you are once again misquoting out of context, whether purposefully, or out of genuine ignorance. Either way, you are proving yourself not as a scholar.

You refer to:

Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

This was said against people that claimed Jesus' miracles were being done by the power of Satan.

I take it you also refer to Jesus's reply to the disciples when they were seeking to shut up a group of people who were performing miracles in Jesus' name. He told them not to stop them because they were not against Him but for Him.

So... You claim that Jesus arguing against people claiming his miracles were of Satan, and arguing for a group of people performing miracles in His name... Is a contradiction?

You may want to rethink your position.

He also forgives the individuals who crucified him: this either means that his forgiveness is meaningless, or that those without faith can achieve salvation (which would mean that faith is not necessary for salvation).

You're making quite the leap of logic there for a person without basic skills in hermeteutics, and who obviously has not read the entirety of scripture in context.

If you had continued reading your referenced scripture above, Jesus said:

Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Mat 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

When people claimed that Jesus' miracles were by the power of Satan, when scripture actually assures us that they were given as a sign that He is the Son of God, Jesus states that ALL sins will be forgiven except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit-- i.e. refusing the testimony that He is the Son of God. I.e. The only thing that will ever send anyone to Hell is refusal to believe on Jesus as the Son of God.

Your contradiction is built upon a faulty understanding of salvation, not on anything Jesus ever did or said.

This leads us to the next point:



Jesus is much less focused on faith and much more focused on simply doing the deeds that your conscience (the Holy Spirit) instructs you to do. Jesus is a works guy (Jesus even admonishes his followers to "be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect": does God have Faith that He is God? What would that even mean? It certainly would not be analogous to our believing in God without actual proof, since God certainly has proof that He is God, right?)

Interesting...

Joh 6:28-29 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Not to mention the multiple quotes I've listed, which you have soundly ignored.

You show a profound (purposeful) ignorance of the subject you claim to understand.

I love James; the greatest truth in the bible comes from Wisdom, Sirach, and James (and, to an extent, Jeremiah).

After the amount of comprehension you've shown per the Bible, pardon me if I choose other sources to recommend the "greatest truths".

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you are most definitely a contradiction here. You claim to interpret as allegory, seeing Jesus as an allegory for reason and truth. However...

The very quotes you seek to decipher were explained by the author in three letters (John). The very author that you are seeking to exposit wrote his own exposition in great detail. Yet, your "reason" is to ignore him, reinterpret making yourself the expert as opposed to the man who spent time at Jesus' feet getting His explanations. Reason and truth-- I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

I understand your views; I just think that the bible is a much richer, more fascinating, and more fantastic text if taken allegorically.

I thought your end result was truth, not what makes the best story for you. How postmodern of you...

I also cannot wrap my head around someone actually walking on water, turning water into wine, bringing individuals back from the dead, etc.

The falacy of incredulity... How reasonable (logical) of you.

and the Romans, who were very committed to records and history, not writing any of it down.

There is a tremendous amount of extra-Biblical, historical evidence for Jesus' life and crucifixion, including those found in the Jewish religious writings of the time. I think using a lack of evidence as positive evidence that something didn't happen is a bit unfair-- especially considering you are expecting Pilate to document his greatest mishandling of a matter at a time he was politically weak, and then for it to survive over 2000 years... Well, you understand.

Thus, I cannot honestly believe in the miracles of the Gospels and, well, I also do not know that the Gospel writers were just loons; thus, I think that they were writing a story with a much deeper allegorical thread running through it. Somewhere along the way, that was lost; but, there have been a handful of individuals who have pointed to what that thread is.

Despite the reality that those very gospel writers left further letters explaining that they were not allegory and explaining to us exactly what Jesus meant... yet, due to the fact that you can't imagine that the creator of the Universe could or would be able to re-enter His creation, circumvent the laws of nature that He created, and then leave intelligent men to record it for our benefit...?

For someone professing to be in search of reason and truth, your methods of seeking it are highly questionable.

No offense meant, friend.... :hi:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Two flood accounts

Angels and humans cohabitating

Who is the father of Joseph

Who was at the empty tomb

The hydrological cycle

Genealogy of Jesus

How many beatitudes

How many times did the cock crow

To name a few

 

[joevol320]

Genesis 1 was a high level overview of creation. Genesis 2 paused for a more specified description. As with most of the supposed contradictions offered, this is a difference, not in substance, but in perspective. Another of the supposed difficulties is caused by translated tenses in the original Hebrew. See:

Contradictions: Two Creation Accounts? - Answers in Genesis



Except for the Bible repeatedly stating that it is not to be taken as allegory. For someone seeking reason and truth, you are very prone to breaking the first rule of hermeneutic interpretation.



There is no change. These are two equally valid sides of a perfect Being. He is both a God of justice that is too perfect to allow sin to go unjudged, and also a loving, gracious God that provided an avenue for grace through the perfect life of His Son's sacrifice. The debt has to be paid, so He paid it Himself.





Provide definitive proof that there was no census. LOL at confining the possible sources of the star when the Creator is involved... Historians have long sought to discredit Luke as a historian, and archaeology always comes around to uphold his history. Hundreds of supposed inaccuracies in Luke and Acts have been ratified as the archaeological record unfolds. He was right about customs, leaders, names, places, etc... We should trust him based on what has been proven that he did know, as opposed to a lack of what you do.




Please provide scriptural quotes. The best I can tell, you are once again misquoting out of context, whether purposefully, or out of genuine ignorance. Either way, you are proving yourself not as a scholar.

You refer to:

Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

This was said against people that claimed Jesus' miracles were being done by the power of Satan.

I take it you also refer to Jesus's reply to the disciples when they were seeking to shut up a group of people who were performing miracles in Jesus' name. He told them not to stop them because they were not against Him but for Him.

So... You claim that Jesus arguing against people claiming his miracles were of Satan, and arguing for a group of people performing miracles in His name... Is a contradiction?

You may want to rethink your position.



You're making quite the leap of logic there for a person without basic skills in hermeteutics, and who obviously has not read the entirety of scripture in context.

If you had continued reading your referenced scripture above, Jesus said:

Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Mat 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

When people claimed that Jesus' miracles were by the power of Satan, when scripture actually assures us that they were given as a sign that He is the Son of God, Jesus states that ALL sins will be forgiven except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit-- i.e. refusing the testimony that He is the Son of God. I.e. The only thing that will ever send anyone to Hell is refusal to believe on Jesus as the Son of God.

Your contradiction is built upon a faulty understanding of salvation, not on anything Jesus ever did or said.




Interesting...

Joh 6:28-29 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

Not to mention the multiple quotes I've listed, which you have soundly ignored.

You show a profound (purposeful) ignorance of the subject you claim to understand.



After the amount of comprehension you've shown per the Bible, pardon me if I choose other sources to recommend the "greatest truths".

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you are most definitely a contradiction here. You claim to interpret as allegory, seeing Jesus as an allegory for reason and truth. However...

The very quotes you seek to decipher were explained by the author in three letters (John). The very author that you are seeking to exposit wrote his own exposition in great detail. Yet, your "reason" is to ignore him, reinterpret making yourself the expert as opposed to the man who spent time at Jesus' feet getting His explanations. Reason and truth-- I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.




I thought your end result was truth, not what makes the best story for you. How postmodern of you...



The falacy of incredulity... How reasonable (logical) of you.



There is a tremendous amount of extra-Biblical, historical evidence for Jesus' life and crucifixion, including those found in the Jewish religious writings of the time. I think using a lack of evidence as positive evidence that something didn't happen is a bit unfair-- especially considering you are expecting Pilate to document his greatest mishandling of a matter at a time he was politically weak, and then for it to survive over 2000 years... Well, you understand.



Despite the reality that those very gospel writers left further letters explaining that they were not allegory and explaining to us exactly what Jesus meant... yet, due to the fact that you can't imagine that the creator of the Universe could or would be able to re-enter His creation, circumvent the laws of nature that He created, and then leave intelligent men to record it for our benefit...?

For someone professing to be in search of reason and truth, your methods of seeking it are highly questionable.

No offense meant, friend.... :hi:

orange, heck of post. you must have the day off. he's refuses to have an open mind about it. he's doing more to disprove it than anything.

 

[therealUT]

Genesis 1 was a high level overview of creation. Genesis 2 paused for a more specified description. As with most of the supposed contradictions offered, this is a difference, not in substance, but in perspective. Another of the supposed difficulties is caused by translated tenses in the original Hebrew. See:

Contradictions: Two Creation Accounts? - Answers in Genesis

I do not need to visit a website in order to take out pen and paper, note the sequence of the events, and realize that they contradict. At least one, if not both, of the first two creation stories cannot be taken as literal or historical fact. That opens the door up for interpretation as allegory. Moreover, there are plenty of allegorical texts in which the characters of the stories state that everything must be believed literally. That is the only way to draw someone into the story; it is a stylistic device that gets people to detach from the world that they are actually in and enter the world of the story.

Except for the Bible repeatedly stating that it is not to be taken as allegory. For someone seeking reason and truth, you are very prone to breaking the first rule of hermeneutic interpretation.

Negative.

There is no change. These are two equally valid sides of a perfect Being. He is both a God of justice that is too perfect to allow sin to go unjudged, and also a loving, gracious God that provided an avenue for grace through the perfect life of His Son's sacrifice. The debt has to be paid, so He paid it Himself.

There is a substantial change.

Provide definitive proof that there was no census. LOL at confining the possible sources of the star when the Creator is involved... Historians have long sought to discredit Luke as a historian, and archaeology always comes around to uphold his history. Hundreds of supposed inaccuracies in Luke and Acts have been ratified as the archaeological record unfolds. He was right about customs, leaders, names, places, etc... We should trust him based on what has been proven that he did know, as opposed to a lack of what you do.

I will trust the sources that are unbiased; e.g., the histories of the patriarchs in Rome, the histories of the census (do you think that records of a census that took place across the Roman Empire just magically disappeared).

Why don't you just say "prove to me that Jesus is not God"? Prove to me that Krishna is not God.

Please provide scriptural quotes. The best I can tell, you are once again misquoting out of context, whether purposefully, or out of genuine ignorance. Either way, you are proving yourself not as a scholar.

Why does context matter if we are taking the bible literally? If we are going to interpret, let us interpret the bible in the manner in which it makes the most sense and provides the most insight.

Again, Jesus makes both statements and added to the forgiveness he grants to non-believers (those that crucified him) as well as the forgiveness that Stephen requests for non-believers (those that stone him) (as well as the passages where Jesus clearly states that individuals will be judged by their deeds, and that one can be forgiven for blaspheming Jesus but not the Holy Spirit (which has been interpreted as conscience for the past two-thousand years)), and I am going to state that what Jesus says contradicts with what Paul says: faith is not necessary for salvation.

You're making quite the leap of logic there for a person without basic skills in hermeteutics, and who obviously has not read the entirety of scripture in context.

I have and the only way that I keep it from being both a contradiction with itself and with history is to interpret it allegorically (minus the epistles of Paul).

If you had continued reading your referenced scripture above, Jesus said:

Mat 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Mat 12:31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Yeah, I have read that. This is why faith in Jesus plays no part in salvation.

When people claimed that Jesus' miracles were by the power of Satan, when scripture actually assures us that they were given as a sign that He is the Son of God, Jesus states that ALL sins will be forgiven except blasphemy of the Holy Spirit-- i.e. refusing the testimony that He is the Son of God. I.e. The only thing that will ever send anyone to Hell is refusal to believe on Jesus as the Son of God.

The Holy Spirit is conscience; speaking against Jesus is forgivable. That much is quite explicit in the passage you are referring to.

Interesting...

Joh 6:28-29 Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (29) Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."

John is the easiest writer to take allegorically; he is steeped in Plato and by referring to Jesus as the Word, I take that to be reason from the beginning. You should read both the Republic and the Pheado and then compare those two texts with the gospel of John. John is using the same phrases as Plato is to speak of Truth and Reason.

After the amount of comprehension you've shown per the Bible, pardon me if I choose other sources to recommend the "greatest truths".

Not my problem since you deny Roman historical records and science.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you are most definitely a contradiction here. You claim to interpret as allegory, seeing Jesus as an allegory for reason and truth. However...

The very quotes you seek to decipher were explained by the author in three letters (John). The very author that you are seeking to exposit wrote his own exposition in great detail. Yet, your "reason" is to ignore him, reinterpret making yourself the expert as opposed to the man who spent time at Jesus' feet getting His explanations. Reason and truth-- I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

The author of the Gospel of John is not the author of the Epistles of John (heck, the First Letter of John is not even written by the same author as the latter two). Of course, you probably reject textual criticism, so you probably think that the same person was writing all three just with absolutely foreign writing styles and different grammar rules.

I thought your end result was truth, not what makes the best story for you. How postmodern of you...

I am not going to simply accept something as literal truth that obviously contradicts with historical records. Give me a reason why I should put more validity in the historical claims of Luke than in the historical records of the Roman Empire?

The falacy of incredulity... How reasonable (logical) of you.

And, I suppose you believe in all the miracles recorded in the Mahabharata? Can you tell me why you do not believe in them, or why you do not believe in Krishna? Those in the Mahabharata, and those who wrote the Mahabharata, claim that it is history; that it is literal fact. Many of the places are actual places in India; some of the battles line up with actual wars. So, why do you not believe in Vishnu, Krishna, Siva, etc.? Do you think there is anything of value that can be gleaned from the Mahabharata?

There is a tremendous amount of extra-Biblical, historical evidence for Jesus' life and crucifixion, including those found in the Jewish religious writings of the time.

Correction, Jewish writings 100 years later. There is an absolute dearth of contemporary writings regarding Jesus and/or his miracles. There were plenty of well-educated scribes in Jerusalem and the Roman Empire placed great value in recording history. Why didn't anyone write about these events? Thousands of people turn out to listen to a man preach on a hill and while he is preaching he feeds everyone with a handful of loaves and fish? Nobody recorded this? Then, it happened again. And...nobody recorded that. Then, this man is crucified by Pilate, a decision that he is obviously not completely happy about. He never writes about it?

There is not a lot of contemporary evidence supporting any of the stories in the Gospels.

I think using a lack of evidence as positive evidence that something didn't happen is a bit unfair-- especially considering you are expecting Pilate to document his greatest mishandling of a matter at a time he was politically weak, and then for it to survive over 2000 years... Well, you understand.

I am expecting either Pilate to write about it or anybody else. Using a lack of evidence to make such fantastic claims such as "God came down in the form of a Man, resurrected dead individuals, cured the blind, walked on water, turned water into wine, was crucified on the day that a solar eclipse and an earthquake occurred, etc" is absurd.

Jesus might have been God; but, it is going to take more than the bible to ever convince me of that. If it only takes one ghost story, then why not just believe in all-ghosts, all-gods, all-myths, etc.? Why should I simply give preference to one because I happen to have grown up in a culture in which most people give preference to that one story?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Two flood accounts

Name them... Please provide specific scriptural quotes so that I may respond.

Angels and humans cohabitating

(1) That is an inference to the actual story.
(2) Argument from incredulity, anyway...

Who is the father of Joseph

Again, provide specific scriptural references to the supposed contradiction... We'll discuss. It'll be fun!

Who was at the empty tomb

Multiple people. That's what makes it NOT a contradiction! Different perspectives to the same events do not make a contradiction.

The hydrological cycle

Please explain. Are you sure you're not conflating someone's interpretation of scripture as scripture itself...?

Genealogy of Jesus

(A) You didn't have two parents?
(B) Are you familiar with the adoption customs of the near east?
(C) Are you familiar with the genealogical practices of the near east?

How many beatitudes

Multiple. Again, different perspectives do not equate to contradictions. Since each of the gospel writers gave specific, different purposes for writing their books, it makes sense that each would accentuate subtly different parts of Jesus' life and teaching.

To illustrate the point on perspective:

I claim a, b, c and d...

One person says I said a.
Another says I said b.
Another say I said c and d...

Is that a contradiction?

Or:

There were people a, b, c, d, e and f at the store.

One person says a was there...
Another b...
Another e and f...

Is that a contradiction, or multiple perspectives to the same event? As a matter of fact, when police are investigating testimony, they are wary if the testimony is TOO alike! Subtle differences actually indicate truth that is not rehearsed.

How many times did the cock crow

Since early manuscripts differ from later, this is most likely a transcription error, which means that the later copies are not inerrant. It does not threaten the validity of the originals, not does it threaten any semblance of doctrinal issue, thus it is a minor nit picked up by those who either have an ax to grind or do not understand the actual claims of those that see the (original autographs) of scripture as inerrant.

To name a few

Keep going. This is fun. We may learn something. :hi:

 

[therealUT]

Keep going. This is fun. We may learn something. :hi:

There are a lot of "perspective" and "interpretation" errors in your divinely inspired, word of God.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

orange, heck of post. you must have the day off. he's refuses to have an open mind about it. he's doing more to disprove it than anything.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

 

[therealUT]

Oh, by the way, your link trying to say that Genesis 2:19 (which is not the only sequential error between the two accounts) can actually be read as "God had already formed" is absolutely incorrect.

The correct Hebrew translation is:
And he is forming Yahweh Elohim from the ground every animal of the field and every flyer of the heavens and he is bringing to the human to see of what he shall call to him.

It is definitely not past-tense nor pluperfect, which is why the Catholic Church even admits that there are two creation stories and that they are contradictory (and have held such a view at least since the Fifth Century when Augustine was writing about it).

 

[joevol320]

i've read some really interesting stuff about the Son's of God taking women on earth. The book of Enoch goes into very interesting detail and even names the fallen son's of God.

what's fascinating about this, in the new testiment, jesus gave a hint to some of his disciples about when he'll be coming back.

Real, i think deep down you hope there are errors in the Bible. because if you believed it was accurate, then you have to look at your life. that can be very scary for people to do that.