Hey Christians, what about all those who lived and died before they ....

What do you mean that doesn't matter? You are claiming that the root word that we get religion from had a different meaning than the contemporary one. It didn't.

Yeah... obviously you don't know how Wikipedia works. Are you honestly trying to say that the etymological fallacy doesn't exist?

 

And nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus preached a religion or started a religion but that the scriptures in the Bible says Jesus went about preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

Since you insist then prove it. I clearly said and have been saying that the Bible is not about a religion but that it is about the kingdom of God. I have provided scriptures that use the word kingdom, kings and throne to prove my argument.

 

So now that you realize that a source you just mentioned actually supports what I said, you retreat back to the same old sad argument. Is that your really only defense, now? "Well, Jesus never called it a religion, therefore it cannot be one!" Is that really what you want to rely on? You want do declare right now that somebody has to say they are starting a religion for a system of beliefs to be a religion?

You clearly said that the Bible defined religion.

And once again, those words don't mean that Christianity isn't a religion. The intermingling of the state and religion has existed since states and religions have existed. You keep jumping around in arguments and it is getting very annoying. First you tried to rely on semantics and a well known logical fallacy, and then that failed because Strong's Concordance, which you cited, actually supports my argument. Then you tried to say that because these "secular" words exist in the Bible, this means that Christianity isn't a religion, even though you ignore that political terms were intermingled with religions for basically four millenia, so they aren't truly "secular" terms.

If Christianity isn't a religion, then do there exist any religions at all?

 

And I showed it to you a few post back.

You mean a site in which anybody can become a member and add whatever they want to it.

 

No, you showed me a possible etymology of the word of religio, which is the actual root word for religion. So, basically, you relied on the root of a root, which is just going deeper into the rabbit hole to support an erroneous and fallacious argument. Even the Concordance doesn't agree with you, which you cited in your defense.

Yes, I get it, you're using another fallacy called ad hominem. Are you saying that the etymological fallacy doesn't exist?

 

This paragraph is confusing. "Adulterous" people are the ones that obey what ? "Thou shalt not commit adultery ?"

 

My source was, is and has always been the Bible......so I don't know what you are talking about. When you can show me IN the Bible where the Bible speaks of Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords that it means a religion then you will have a point. When you can show me IN the Bible that when it says the saints will rule with Jesus and that rule means religion then you will have another point.

You believe what you believe because that is what you were taught to believe, not because it is Biblically based.

This is the statment you made >>>>>Well, since Christianity is a religion<<<<

And this was my replay to your statement >>>Not by the Bible's definition.<<

Now where your mind is at that you could conclude from my response that I was saying what you are accusing me of saying. You clearly said that Christianity is a religion and I said not by the Bible's definition. If I had said by the Bible's definition, then you could say what you claim that I said. So if you are unable to even understand plain modern English then how can you possibly understand the other things that I have been saying? You have just proved that if people cannot understand what the other is saying because of not understanding the meaning of word or misuse words it will lead to confusion.

You chose to arbitrarily decide that a secular word like king is a religious word when it applies to God or Jesus but not when it applies to none believer......that IS confusion.

I speak for what the Bible says......I don't speak for people who have a different belief......they can speak for themselves. In fact, if a Christian wants to believe that he or she is a religious person that is their business.....I know what the Bible teach and sadly not many Christians know much of what's in the Bible.

 

This is the behavior of an evil and an adulterous.

Matthew 12:39 (ASV)
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:

They don't obey out of love but a fear of punishment.

1 John 4:18 (YLT)
18 fear is not in the love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the fear hath punishment, and he who is fearing hath not been made perfect in the love;

 

No, I believe what I believe, that your religion is a religion, because it fits all the contemporary criteria for being one. Not only that, but you are now keep coming up with three very incredibly weak arguments and then ignore my rebuttals because even your own sources (Strong's Concordance) proves you wrong. Did you not just say that you use Strong's Concordance to figure out what the original Greek and Hebrew meaning of the words used are? Well, guess what kid, Strong's Concordance describes the Greek words, threskeia and deisidaimonia, which end up being translated into "religion" in English, as also being "superstition" and "worshipping", which completely refutes your statement that religion was used in a different way in the Bible.

...You did say "By the Bible's definition", you just added the word not in front of it to imply that Christianity isn't a religion by how the Bible defines religion. If you simply replied "By the Bible's definition", your answer wouldn't be a rebuttal, but rather a confirmation of what I had just said. You could have replied "By the Bible's definition, it is not" which would mean the exact same thing as your original rebuttal. I think you're being patently absurd to even attempt this game of semantics since it is obvious what you meant and have been trying to say: that religion is used differently in the Bible than contemporary usage.

No, you refuse to accept that those words weren't used in a secular way during the formation of the Tanakh or the New Testament, so I don't know why you keep trying to claim that those were purely secular words.

 

You missed the point of my question.An evil and adulterous generation doesn't "obey."

 

Au contraire mon ami they obey the letter but not the spirit of the law. Hence to God's law they added 600 of their own down to and including how far you could spit a seed on the Sabbath with out doing work.

 

You're right, my mistake.

 

Go back to #107 and you will see that what I told you is the truth.

Guess what? I'm done, I see no need to beat a dead horse......you will eventually see it for yourself with your own two eyes.

 

You sure about that? There are people who attend Church that can be considered evil and adulterous, because many are more focused on signs than they are in being a positive example. They are only a Christian when they go to Church but during the weak they live like unbelievers&#8230;&#8230;they lie, unmerciful, dishonest, disrespectful and unforgiving.

 

Yeah, okay, dude. I'm sure that I will eventually see how you misrepresented the root word of religion, misrepresented how it was used in the Bible (according to a source you yourself cited, Strong's Concordance, which you then refused to own up to), and claimed that terms that were never used in a secular fashion until around 250 years ago were actually secular terms in the Bible.

Oh wait, I already see that.

 

No worries, 'garyd' cleared up my confusion in post #137 with an acceptable answer.

I suppose the way they were living, mosaic law technically allowed for them to be "adulterous" in the eyes of the Lord.

 

And you are saying that people were not that way before?

 

No, I'm not saying that.

 

LOL. If magic is so easy and simple how come no one ever does any real magic like that these days? All long ago OR all far off in the future.

Never right now.

Because it ain't real. Never has been. Never will be.

 

Even if I were to show you of scriptures that have been fulfilled you would still find a reason not to believe......so I'm not going to waste time trying......been there and have done that.

 

Then what's the point?

 

What's the point of what ?

I already told you " 'garyd' cleared up my confusion in post #137 with an acceptable answer." But if you feel there is a need to continue then I will oblige.

If someone is "wicked and adulterous," that means that they aren't obeying God,one way or the other. So how can you call them obedient ?

 

Yes, I'm pretty certain that by the very definition of wicked and adulterous,implies disobedience to God.

 

And an evil and adulterous person can believe he or she is obeying God. When Jesus said those words He said it to the Pharisees who thought they were righteous.......so one does not have to be an unbeliever to be evil and adulterous.

 

Yes, an evil and adulterous person may 'believe' that they are obeying God but that doesn't say that they actually were obeying God as you wrote. I am aware he was talking to the Pharisees and I never said someone has to be an "unbeliever" to be evil and adulterous.