Don't let the Bible get in the way of your Christian beliefs

LOL! Unless you are reading the originals in their original language - you are reading a translation - translated and altered over time, and for political reasons.

You have no way of knowing if what you read is true!

 

Every time someone reads the bible s/he's reading it new - because of the changing personal exerpiences in this everchanging world - completly independent from any language. From time to time we have to produce new translations in Germany fro example because a living language is always floating in lots of new directions.

http://youtu.be/Mn7iFxvfn3A
http://youtu.be/D__kV5CrU4k

 

And you have already admitted that you don't speak that old ancient language, so if you don't speak that language, then you certainly don't read that language.

 

What i find interesting is, that some speak of the Church as an authority on doctrine. Which church is that exactly? The Catholic, one of the many different protestant churches, Born Again Christians, Orthodox Christians? Or the cults that existed before the catholic church consolidated most of them?
Christians can't even agree between them on what is the correct doctrine of their faith. How can you think that this is the true believe if many Christians do not believe the same? Either God was and is extremely bad at communicating therefor probably not omnipotent or he has a twisted sense of humor.

The trinity was never important for protestants in my area, Jesus was the son of God, divine in his own right but not the same as God.

the problem is if you see the bible as metaphors and stories to teach you something, then the books merits aren't higher then self help books of today. And if ther is common sense applied to some stories why not on the whole book? It seems that the Bible always agrees on the view of the person or group of persons reading it.

 

No, that is a lie. The translations we have are sound. They are not altered, and we have manuscripts to support.

The manuscripts we have do not support your translation which is yours alone. Which is why I said, go ahead and write your own bible if you like, but you can't change the Bible.

Yes I know that what I read in the Bible is true. I certainly know enough not to believe what you as a non-christian are saying the Bible says. Now that would be a laugh.

Quantrill

 

She is now throwing in a dead argument based on her own admission. See here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/4803912-post162.html

 

From what I understand about speaking in Tongues is it is a real thing, but A LOT of people fake it... like 99.999% of people fake it.

I've heard it in church when I used to go all the time. From how it works is God speaks to someone and through that person. The dialect is not known to the person speaking (like they are possessed by God Her/Himself). But, one person is supposed to be able to INTERPRET what has just been said. Others are suppose to understand what God's word was as if that person was speaking plain Anglish!!

In most cases, people just start flopping their arms around, falling over and acting ridiculous... I think they are trying to get attention that they should, but don't in their lives outside of church..

 

Have you studied the scripture? In particular 1 Corinthians, chapters 11 - 13?

Admittedly, in some churches, there is an extreme amount of abuse and probably a lot of fake activities taking place..I cannot cite you any percentage, as I have not attended all such congregations and am therefore not equipped with the necessary data to make such a precise prediction as you have. You must have been very busy visiting all of those congregations to attain such precise data. What instrumentation did you use in making a determination with regard to the validity of those activities? How many churches did you attend in order to obtain such accurate data?

In most cases where I have visited such congregations, there is numerous violations of scripture that do take place, and from such places where those violations take place, I tend to stay away.

 

Because Buddha didn't rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster. Muhammad didn't fulfill detailed prophecy.The fact that he came to the earth in a human form. Most other religious figures are in the grave now. Jesus says he seperates himself from religions and those who uses his NAME falsely and that was written in the Bible and I DO see this everday in the media.

 

I do not care what the Pope has to say either, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The Trinity was considered heresy until Constantine.

There is no Schism between protestants and Catholics in relation to the Trinity.

The evidence for the lack of belief in the Trinity prior to Constantine is better than evidence for doctrine by just using the Bible.

Not only does the Bible fail confirm the Trinity but a large number of outside sources (every valid one we have) confirm that the Trinity was not believed by the Church until Constantine.

Throw it all out if you wish .. but then you throw out Christianity as well.

 

You have not shown proof of any of your claims. Only opinions relating to the alleged heresy charge prior to Constantine. Show your proof... not opinions.

"Better than" is subjective. Show objective empirical evidence.

So now, you place your confidence in 'outside sources'? What happened to your confidence in the "Word of God"? Christianity (following the teachings of Jesus the Christ) is a matter of the Heart and Soul. It has nothing to do with the opinions of man.

 

I have given you proof, and provided links. If you do not belief the evidence that I have provided you then refute it.

I have given you many sources that show the Trinity was not believed.

You have failed to provide one valid source that it was.

There is no "word of God" that supports the Trinity doctrine. Quite to the contrary.

The OT does not support the Trinity Doctrine .. which is why the Jews do not believe it.

The NT never has Jesus claim to be the God of Abraham .. ever !

In fact the reverse is true. Jesus cries out to God on the cross " why have you forsaken me"

Do you think Jesus was calling out to himself ?

Jesus referes to God as "The Father", says the Father is greater than he .. and so on.

It is you that has no emperical evidence to support your claim that Jesus was the God of Abraham.

 

Consider it refuted on the basis that the evidence has not been PROVEN. It is merely opinion.

You have given many opinions only.

Centuries of 'custom and usage'. A Jurisprudential rule of law.

Prove your claim that there is no "Word of God".

The Jews also reject Jesus as the Messiah. So yours is still being based on opinion.

The disciples did... and what they did has survived centuries of "Custom and Usage" .... Rule of Law.

Exactly,,,, the flesh (Jesus) cried out... but not the Messiah (the Christ) which dwelt within him

Not Hardly.

You are starting to get the picture.

Then you fumble the ball. You could not stay the course so you had to divert to some hopeful shortcut ... Throwing in the ole straw man thinggie. I never said that I had any empirical evidence... but it was you that made the positive claim that "There is no "word of God" that supports the Trinity doctrine." Now prove that claim.

 

On what reason?

http://youtu.be/uKFmwDGaVL8
http://youtu.be/Y9fxDgd2lXs

 

Give me please the name of the Jew who said "I reject Jesus as the Messiah" - What could be the sense of such a statement for a Jew? Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ) - if Jews would believe so, then they would be Christians. But Jews are not Christians - they are Jews. They just simple don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. No one rejects anything only because s/he is what s/he is.

http://youtu.be/yE1OQAoSWAU

 

What does the word "reject" mean? Very simply this: a rejection is a non acceptance. Therefore those Jews who do not 'accept' Jesus as the Messiah, are 'rejecting' Jesus as being the "Messiah".
"re·ject (r-jkt)
tr.v. re·ject·ed, re·ject·ing, re·jects
1. To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.
2. To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
3. To refuse to recognize or give affection to (a person).
4. To discard as defective or useless; throw away. See Synonyms at refuse1.
5. To spit out or vomit.
6. Medicine To resist immunologically the introduction of (a transplanted organ or tissue); fail to accept as part of one's own body."


Get the point now?

 

I did not know that you reject Buddha or The Holy Francis of Assisi or Mahatma Ghandi or Mother Mary. Why do you do so? Oh - yes - you are [not] a Jew - that's why. As a german with jewish ancestors I'm tired about such forms of arguments. To reject is an active process - but Jews in most cases were only forced to change their own religion sometimes (or to die) because unbelievable agressive people were misusing the name of the most famous Jew the world ever had seen: Jesus Christ. No one of this very agressive people ever gave to Jews any argumetn that this people could be a result of the work of the Messiah.

 

I reject them, because they are not my Lord and Savior and the words that they declare are not always necessarily in accord with the teachings of Jesus.

Who is a 'jew'? Not speaking from a Legalistic stand point, but from a religious standpoint. Nice strawman though.

Then don't involve yourself with them.

To be more accurate, to reject is an active subjective process. Even before the process can be committed to the temporal, it must first be completed in the subjective.

You said all of that to say what?

And your point? We are not discusing the history of the Jews or their trials and tribulations.

 

The onus is on you to Prove the Trinity. The evidence is good enough for me that it is a sham.

You certainly can not Prove the Trinity.

It is you that has fumbled the ball.

1) you commit a logical fallacy .. asking that a negative "there is no word of God" be proven.

2) The onus is on you to prove the Trinity if you claim it to be true.

My claim is simply that you have presented no valid evidence for your claim.

 

You took 3 words without providing context so it is hard to respond.

 

The inquiry is not the existence of the Trinity, but rather the acceptance of the Trinity. It is you that have claimed that the Trinity was not accepted by the early Christians prior to Constantine. Therefore, the onus is on you.

You create a higher degree of logical fallacy by arguing against something that you claim does not exist, then attempt to use documents pertaining to that alleged non-existing thing to support your argument. You must have some degree of confidence in the documents you use which does proclaim the existence of the Trinity. Those after the time of Constantine. you are attempting to argue both ends to the middle. Not very logical.

No, go back to your original claim... the one where you said that the early Christians, prior to Constantine, did not believe in the Trinity. Stay focused instead of bouncing all over the globe.

 

The writing from the Church fathers of the time is the only evidence there is.

If you do not believe this evidence that is fine.

I did no such thing. There are no documents that I used that support the idea that the Trinity was believed by the Church at large.

To the contrary the documents claim that the Trinity doctrine was explicitly rejected as heresy by the Church.

I never claimed that the Trinity did not exist. The idea of a Trinity of various kinds is older than Christ. The Trinity doctrine as practiced today is unknown in any literature prior to Tertullian.

When Tertullian did spout this doctrine the Church claimed it was heresy.

What are these documents written by respected Church Leaders that support of the Trinity prior to the 4th Century?

I have presented many that support my case and you have presented nothing in support of yours.

I have given you much evidence in support of my claim.

You have presented none in support of yours.

 

Why should I believe it. It is not PROOF of anything.

Is the Trinity believed in during this day and age? Is this day and age after the days of Constantine? Did you use any scripture from the Bible? Did you use any documents from the "Church"?

Claim... but do not PROVE... Then your documents are a farcical piece of nothing, as they prove nothing.

Then why do you challenge me to prove the Trinity? We were not talking about the 'various kinds', we were talking about a specific Trinity. Your comments now are becoming disingenuous.

More of the opinions that you have previously used. No Proof.

What documents are you talking about?

But it is you that has made all the claims pertaining to the Trinity.. example... the heresy; that early Christians did not accept the Trinity.

Nothing that is empirical evidence... nothing that can stand scientific scrutiny... nothing that can support either a Trinity or a heresy regarding the Trinity. All you have provided is the opinions of others that you choose to believe in. As you pointed out... I don't believe the evidence you have submitted... why? It is merely opinion of other writers.

 

.

I presented evidence but perhaps you are on to something.

You should not believe the Trinity because not only is there no Proof for it, but not even any evidence that the Church accepted the Trinity as doctrine prior to Constantine.

I use scripture from the Bible and documents from the Church often but you dismiss those also.

Do you ever use anything other than what comes from the Church ?

Yes agreed .. Claims from the Bible do not prove anything.

There is nothing disingenuous about what I said. If you are going to claim something is disingenuous then state "HOW" and what it is disingenuous.

Prove the Christian Trinity doctrine.

Prove the Trinity Doctrine .. give some proof that the early Church believed this.

These are documents you were talking about not me. You said that I was using documents that supported the Trinity Doctrine.

Yes and I gave you plenty of evidence. That you are blind to the evidence is your perogative and you are welcome to it.

The Bible is merely the opinion of writers as well. So by your logic there is no proof for Jesus or the Trinity.

 

Learn to use a proper quote function and quit trying to obscure a persons ability to directly link back to the alleged quotation. Correct your error and I will respond.