Part 37 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Speaking non-sense, is not making sense.

You standing on a soap box crying " infallible, infallible" does not make it so.

Heck some of the scripture attributed to Paul was not even written by Paul (Pseudepigrapha). Pious fraud was the rule rather than the exception back in the day.

It is a simple fact that the Bible has been changed, edited, interpolated - with numerous additions and extractions.

 

I don't believe that. I believe God is able to keep his Word intact. My God can do anything.

 

God may well be able to keep his Word intact. This assumes it was his word to begin with. What if the Bible is not God's word ? or not all of God's word ?

Your second assumption is that God would meddle in the affairs of men directly. Just because God may have inspired someone to write a few things does not mean God would intervene if someone added to these texts or changed the meaning.

The last point is that we know for a fact that the Bible has been changed over time. Whole books have been removed for goodness sake's. So, even if there were some inspired texts, we do not know which one's they were.

 

There's a reason some writings aren't in the Bible. All I need is Jesus. I'm in Jesus and He keeps me forever.

 

What writings are not in the Bible ? and why are they not there ? and what has this to do with the writings that are in the Bible being infallible ?

Why would Jesus want to keep you ? You do not know the teachings of Jesus very well - in fact you adhere to false doctrines which Jesus hated. Jesus had words for people such as yourself - and they were not very nice (unfortunately).

 

Yet you've never checked to see if you're sowing tares among the wheat.

Quote Oh, but I am making sense. The book of Acts and Paul's letters are Scripture, infallible. quote

How do you explain the story going round and used by Luke in Acts, of the events concerning Paul after his conversion over the next 14 years, and the fact that Paul has to give the correct, different, account to the Galatians to counteract the story. You really would have thought Luke would have got it right when writing his gospel later after so much time with Paul, assuming he did write the gospel.

 

Your done here. Bye.

 

Show me the contradictory scripture references in Acts and luke.

 

How do you know that political committee that decided on your Bible had the Holy Spirit in them?

After all, these were the same guys who hated and actively oppressed non-Trinitarians and you said no true Christian with the Holy Spirit in them would do those things, so they must not have had the Holy Spirit in them.

Or you are wrong about "true Christians" being incapable of hate and mistreatment of others.

I'm betting the latter.

 

So your God violated human free will?

 

I didn't say Acts and Luke. I said Luke's account in Acts and Pauls explanation to the Galatians. Acts 9. compare Galatians 1 and 2.

 

Tell me exactly what you're referring to. Thanks.

 

Look at the schedule.

Luke: Paul goes from Damascus to Jerusalem. The disciples were afraid of him till Barnabas convinced them. Then Paul preached in Jerusalem until opposition forced the brethren to send him to Syria.
Paul. Paul goes from Damascus to Syria (Arabia). Later he returns to Damascus. After 3 years he then goes to Jerusalem - but sees only Peter and James - for 15 days and saw no other apostles. Then he went back to Syria for 14 years. Barnabas sought him out and returned to Jerusalem with him, told the apostles all Paul had been doing in Syria, and then they accepted him.

The only thing they agree about is Pauls escape from Damascus. Paul says Aretas tried the capture him at the instigation of the Jews. That puts it around 38-39 CE.

 

Okay. This should help. Some good tips on scholarly articles and sources.
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...-of-galatians-116-17-and-acts-9-be-reconciled

 

Science has exposed the Bible as mythology. Everyone except Fundamentalist Christians like yourself accepts that the entire Genesis Flood story is myth. Millions of Christians accept evolution as fact. The claim that only "unbelievers" know the Bible is based on myths is hiding beyond dogma.

Even Biblical archaeologists admit there is no evidence for the Exodus.

Don't you ever tire of pretending to know what is in the minds of atheists? It's clear from your above comments that you don't even know what is in the minds of your fellow Christians. I am an atheist. I dismissed the notion of gods when I recognized the childish silliness of the whole concept.

The alternative to the nonsensical belief that a god is going to judge us, is the reality that man's laws are going to judge us. The only people who have ever suffered the punishment of your mythical god are the mythical people in your mythical bible. Just as the Joker and Penguin have suffered at the hands of Superman.

The reason some argue against the existence of any and all gods, is we know from history how dangerous religious belief can be.


We are in chapter 37 of your thread where you said you would answer tough questions regarding Christianity. I've seen little evidence of that. You occasionally pop in, condemn unbelievers, post a bible verse and disappear.

Here is a relatively simple question is line with what you posted above. You believe the Great Flood is an actual event. Science can find no evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, many different scientific disciplines prove that it is impossible that it occurred.

Question: Why should anyone believe the Great Flood ever occurred?

 

nope you assume that there is error in the bible that negates its validity. you also assume that all the years of scholars and the like who have grieved over these documents are dumber then you are. there are no other known documents in the world that have had the attention to detail for at least 5000 yr's for some of the documents and close to 2000 y'r or more much more for the rest. but we are supposed to be stupid enough to believe you know more then they do.

according to the documents in question that go back at the least, to the days of Moses God meddles in man's affairs because this is His creation not man's. therefore has the right and the power to do as He pleases with anything He has made. the flood comes to mind for an example.

removed from where? how can it be removed if its still in the world? therefore in the hands of the faithful. heck we're still talking about it and what it says, therefore it even still relevant.

 

What does that mean - god breathed? It was written by men. and all the dogma that has emerged has been created by MEN.

does this mean that the Quran is more accurate because Mo' claimed the Quran was directly dictated to him by Gabriel on god's orders? Could it be that Islam is the abrahamic god's mulligan?

 

So, you agree that the bible is written by man for man. IOW, its man telling other man what he thinks god expression was. That is what I have been saying all along. Forget the divine, its entirely human.

 

Science most definitely can disprove a lot of the mythology found in the bible. What it can't do as yet, is prove the existence or lack thereof of god.

For somebody who believes, you sure do seem to know the minds of those that don't. I have no fear of meeting god if your god exists. I have no fear of not being "forgiven" for not prostrating myself to its power and glory. If your god actually operates as you claim, then in my mind he is not worthy of adoration.

I do agree that we will never be able to see eye to eye on this subject. You believe faith supercedes fact, I believe fact supercedes faith, but that is only because I don't have that kind of faith.

 

It means men were under inspiration by the Holy Spirit in what they wrote. Read the link.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3:16-17&version=NIV&interface=amp

 

Been all through that before.You really should read the whole article carefully. Much of it is conjecture, If you study it carefully and know the times, there are many questions that could be asked.

And I love the :
Quote Paul's trip to Arabia could not have been the first thing Paul did after his conversion, as the book of Acts says he began to preach immediately (upon his conversion) in Damascus (Acts 9:20). Nor are we given any information in regards to the purpose of the trip to Arabia. I personally favour the idea that it was a preaching trip (but that is mere conjecture on my part, though F. F. Bruce supports it). quote

Paul, a fanatic Pharisee, has just been converted and now goes on a preaching trip - to Arabia. Even Paul, later in life, says 'novices' should not be given responsibility.

Arabia.
Quote. In other words, when Paul went to Arabia, he would have had opportunity to meet with Peter and the other disciples, but instead he by-passed Jerusalem (Gal 1:17), which would have been en route to Arabia. The Arabia here is the same Arabia mentioned later in the epistle: Quote

The commentator is suggesting that Paul went to Arabia as we know it today. At the time Syria can be included in the term 'Arabia'. There were small churches in Syria, but we know of nothing in the Arabia we think of, hundreds of miles to the south. So there was no reason to Bypass Jerusalem - far to the south. In fact Damascus was in Arabia (Syria).

 

Paul wasn't a novice, though. He was a top bible scholar.

 

What Museum are these documents of Moses in? I'd like to see them.

 

No he wasn't. He was a top class Rabbi who knew the Jewish scriptures. He was a novice to Christianity who would not formulated his teaching for years.