How accurate is the bible?

And there is plenty to go around. I can't imagine why Jews would be bothered by the Gospel of Peter? LOL Agreed. If nothing else it wouold be interesting to examine some of the other early Christian Churces, for example, the Ethiopian Church.edited to add:there are actually quite a few of the heresies that might even be considered mainstream theology today.This message has been edited by jar, 07-12-2004 10:23 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

this was the topic i was thinking about, actually. certain stories seem far too familiar -- and they're not in the bible.

alrighty, a new thread in the proposed topics section. http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: Information moved to Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy
EvC Forum: apocryphal stories and mainstream theology - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-12-2004 11:33 AM

Prophecy Old Testament New Testament
Born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1
Born of a Virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-23
Of David's Lineage Jeremiah 23:5 Revelation 22:16
Attempted Murder by Herod Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16-18
Betrayal by a Friend Psalm 41:9 John 13:18, 19, 26
Sold for 30 Silver Coins Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:14-16
Crucified Zechariah 12:10 John 19:16-18,37
Lots Cast for His Clothes Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35
No Bones Broken Psalm 34:20;Ex:12:46 John 19:31-36
Buried in Rich Man's Tomb Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57-60
Year, Day, Hour of Death Daniel 9:26,27;Ex:12:6 Matthew 27:45-50
Raised the Third Day Hosea 6:2 Acts 10:38-40

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

You don't pay terribly close attention on these forums, do you, George? Have you noticed that the second of each of your pairs above is from a document written by someone 1) familiar with the first part of the pair and 2) with an interest in promoting the appearance of "prophecy fulfilled?" Have you noticed that in several different threads on "prophecy" - threads active since you came - that this has been discussed?

Lets see.We don't know where Jesus was born - the nativity accounts look quite contrived (not least beacues of the clear differences between them). Nor do we know that he was of the line of David (again differences in the Gospels)We don't know that Jesus was born of a virgin and the child of Iasiah 7 would have to have been born in the reign of Ahaz. For some reason nobody claims that a virgin birth happened then.The rest fare no better. Especially the use of Psalms. Come on ! The Psalms are NOT meant to be prophecies at all.In fact they make a good circumstantial case that the Bible is not accurate. After all it is in many ways a record of religious beleif - and you've just shown just how unreliable that is.

bible accuracy, not prophecy. Since accuracy is the subject.
Of course, subjects may be interchanged. You might try paying terribly close attention to that possibility.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 07-14-2004 09:17 AM

since I don't argue the existence of God nor the accuracy of the bible and only draw attention to what it says in it and the existence of God cannot be proved and will not be proved.
Therefore, please be happy with your thinking. It pleases me when people are happy within their own imaginings.

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

In that case it would make me much happier if you were to post accurate and on-topic posts. Do you think you could manage that ?

I will check with you the next time I consider a contribution to this forum to make sure it meets your criteria. I move as the Spirit moves me. That's just the way it is.
Don't bother to reply. Thank you.

This depends on the criteria and the context in which "theology" is defined as.
The early church Fathers were more than a bunch of white guys from Europe with ulterior motives to control an ignorant populace. It is true that a great deal of corruption, manipulation and racism did occur under power hungry Monarchs in league with corrupt Church officials throughout early European History. I am not suggesting that the institution of organized religion was in any way innocent of very base and fallible motives. Neither were the Jesus bashers who claim that He never existed or that His followeres somehow made every event that they partook in a manipulated attempt to "fit" scriptures and thus appear to fullfill scriptures so as to delude the masses. The fact is that there are many scholars with good credentials who believe in the Bible and its message. Just as far too many fundies believe everything preached to them by many unscrupulous individuals, many modern day scholars and otherwise enlightened intellectual freethinkers believe others like themselves who have also capitalized at debunking the entire story of Christianity for ulterior motives of their own. In conclusion, I maintain that the believers look to a source of wisdom which, if not provable from an unbelievers perspective, is certainly not so easily and casually dismissed either. Gnostics look to human wisdom as a gift from God, and are in a sense beleivers in the "God within" that many non Christian intellectuals embrace as wonderous human potential. Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, looks to a God who manifests Himself to us who have a love of His truth and who guides us when we surrender our ego and our right to deify humanity though our vain intellect.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 07-17-2004 04:39 AM

i started a discussion on apocyrphal literature and mainstream theology a little while aog, and it's not getting much attention. perhpas you'd be interested?

is not the Rock of Ages, Christ is. And for Christ to entrust something as important as his church to someone as unfinished as Peter was, would be taking great risks, for much depends on the the foundation on which rests that church. He is the Rock and Cornerstone, Almighty Adonai, King of Kings and El Shaddai.
Don't come back at me and quote Matthew 16:18, for the following reason."In secular Greek ptra denotes a large 'rock,' but also a 'cliff'; or 'rocky mountain chain.' Figuratively it suggests firmness, immovability, and hardness. ptros is more often used for smaller rocks, stones, or pebbles."
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Geoffrey W. Bromily. 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing CompanyPeter was a rolling stone.
And guess whose name is 'Petros'.Rome says that the reason Peter is called petros is because petros is the masculine form of the feminine noun petra (meaning 'rock'), and it was fitting that Peter's name should be masculine. However, I have never seen them offer an explanation for why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter. I believe it is because, by definition, petra more accurately typifies Christ, while petros more accurately typifies Peter. It is upon the petra that Christ is building his Church.
by J. Michael Gainor
Quoted from: Upon this Rock http://JMGainor.Homestead.com
Google UPON THIS ROCK, the http doesn't want to work for me.
Try it out, you will learn something.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 07-17-2004 03:04 PM

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

What does that have to do with anything?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You claim that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built. It needed to be addressed. And since I saw it, I addressed it.Aslan is the ONLY lion Arie gur Yehuda.