This is why real debates have moderators. Internet "debates" invariably degrade into mudslinging nonsense as anyone and everyone (like me) chimes in.
You do not read objectively. You have a pre-ordained conclusion and try to fit what you are reading into that conclusion. You cherry picked Hamilton and then took those words out of context. Then when corrected you went into denial and demonization mode ... often in some ad hom attack on the person (as is done above) rather than arguing your position rationally. A few times you stated something that was completely the opposite of what Hamilton stated directly. Just because humans wrote the Bible,and because of this the Bible contains many flaws and contradictions, does not negate God or religion. The problem with literal interpretation of the Bible (that it is inerrant and literal as opposed to allegory) is that this is a foundation built on sand. If one tiny pillar is removed (one thing is shown to be errant, contradictory an so on) the whole structure falls. Matt 7 If God wanted us to be automaton's .. doing nothing but worshiping him all day long and following his commands.. then he would have created automatons. The reason humans were given a brain and the ability to reason is so that one uses this ability. Not to stick one's head in the the sandbox of irrational self delusion and denial. The Bible has undergone many changes and revisions over the centuries. Most, if not all, of these changes, edits, interpolations and omissions was to make "the word" better conform to the dogma of the day. If one is then to say "I believe in the Bible" .. my first response is "which one/which version" ? Once one realizes this it is then up to the individual to discern for themselves, using the logic and rational ability that God gave them, what is good and what is evil. Even Paul (who I do not much care for and have little use for) says that the law is written onto the conscience of man and at the end of days we will be judged on the basis of our thoughts. Jesus answers many questions indirectly and with parables. Many want to make things black and white. The Bible is anything but, in many cases. Jesus - in the sermon on the mount talks about severity of sin. Almost any sin can be forgiven but not all is equal - as some modern dogma would suggest. This is why I put such emphasis on the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have done to you/treat others as you would be treated". The reason I emphasize this is because this is the rule that Jesus emphasized "the rule that sums up the law and the prophets" Matt 7:12 Further this is the rule that has stood the test of time .. from as far back as Hammurabi, cited by Confucius, Buddha and numerous others. This rule is very simple but at the same time very deep. Unfortunately it is a rule that Christians often do not follow - due to man made dogma. The one sin that can not be forgiven (according to Jesus) is a sin against the spirit. I puzzled long over this one. What does this mean ? Then I learned what the term "Logos" meant to first century Christian gentiles - most of whom were Greek - the language of the NT. The word Logos means "word" but, when used in a religious context this word meant the emissary between God and Man. "God's word". The term "word" in John, while technically not incorrect, is misleading and worse - ambiguous. The term obscures what the author meant and what this meant to the audience at the time. The author of Johns Gospel was trying to use terminology that the people of the day would understand.. and understand they did. Jesus was the "Logos" - the emissary between God and Man - God's Word. He spoke God's word through the holy spirit. A sin against the spirit is then a sin against the word of God. "Speaking for God". Putting oneself in the place of Jesus - the Logos. . Assuming the position of the Logos - emissary between God and Man - as Constantine and subsequent Popes did - Pontifex Maximus. This is the problem with "speaking in tongues" and why it is heresy according to much of Christianity .. Lutheran and other Protestant denominations, Catholic and Orthodox. This sheds light on Jesus summation of his Sermon on the Mount in Matt 7. The false prophets are those who put themselves in the position of the Logos. "Speaking for God" . One can not help but think of the Fundamentalist preachers ... "God says this... God says that" .. often reciting man made dogma. These are the bad fruit that gets thrown into the fire. One can not help but pause and reflect on verse 21 (in bold). Again Jesus is referring to those who go around chanting "Jesus Jesus". Jesus again describes those who usurp the position of "Logos. The will of the Father is abiding by the Golden Rule and the Commands (from the 10 commandments) given by Jesus. One can call "Jesus Jesus" and profess to have faith all one likes but, it is putting words into practice (deeds) that is what is important.
Ref. Post #702: You couldn't produce an authentic NT written in First Century Greek if your life depended on it. And the "Jesus" character didn't exist by that name until around 1630 A.D.
Over 700 posts now, and still no 'contradictions' yet. I guess it's just another false alarm yet again.
You're doing fine. The gimps trolling you just aren't up to real discussions, that's all. They're babbling mostly junk.
What you "guess" is just as wrong as your claim of no contradictions. Many have been posted, even the fact that your entire buybull is one big contradiction yet you refuse to even consider any thoughts but your own. Talk about the blind trying to lead the blind.
Of course there are contradictions. Crying "no no no" prior to running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial is not a refutation to those contradictions.
Are you sure it's silly? If the letter J wasn't invented until 1600, how did Jesus get his name 2013 years ago? https://www.quora.com/If-the-letter...600-how-did-Jesus-get-his-name-2013-years-ago "The short answer is the Name: "Jesus," was not given or received over 2000 years ago. The first time the name was spelled (as far as my research indicates) precisely this way was in the phrase: "JESUS’ psalter.” Which was noted in June of 1632 within a legal brief prepared from the Court of the High Commission in London England. A bit more detail: Ironically, the name was spelled this way in an official lawsuit filed against a pair of owners of an Amsterdam print shop who were printing Bibles for gain (profit) - their edition bears the date 1631 - 1632. The pair willfully engaged in dishonorable publishing and “made grievous errors.” The evidence was their production of a Bible without quality, a printing disgrace known commonly as ‘the wicked Bible.’ The pair were sued for printing subpar quality and lost - having to pay a large fine. But the spelling JESUS which was only written within the court’s document, and which occurred just once, remained to become the Western Brand Name for a very famous Jew." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J
Jesus .. Yeshua - Potato - Patato. Just because the name was changed .. does not mean the Jesus persona did not exist prior to the 1600's
I find it amusing that everybody wants to read that Jesus said this and Jesus said that - or he didn't say this and he didn't say that. The Gospels record just a minute amount of what Jesus - the preacher - said. And much of that is twisted to Christian teaching by the disciples. What exactly did Jesus claim, and what did the writers claim on his behalf. I very much doubt that he would have claimed 'gay is OK'. He had been bought up according to the Torah. Where did Jesus claim to be a self-claimed moral teacher? We only have what the disciples wrote. Perhaps it was their claim for Jesus
