Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical contradictions.
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 329 (9427)
05-09-2002 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Jet
05-08-2002 4:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:

Science is a wonderful tool when used correctly. It has to be. It was designed by God, as were all things good and noble. Mans' misuse of that design in no way can negate the purity of Gods' design.***Jet
Shalom

Just an observation.. If all God's creations are good and noble, then there is a problem with the concept of original sin. Man, as created by god, in his image, would be unable to disobey god, would not able to be tempted, unless god set us up from the start to fall. The first sin was not eating from the tree of knowledge it was disobeying god, that ability to disobey was inborn apparantly, and there when god created us. So either he a: screwed up, or b: made us fallible. I would say the normal answer to that would be he made us fallible. Which leads to another question. Why did he make us fallible? We are made in his image, according to a creationist we are literaly in his image(I say that to show a point, regardless of how you would like to pick and choose what is literal and what isn't you can't) therefore god is fallible also. If God is fallible(which is further supported by his need to send his Christ then his word cannot be taken at face value and the the entire bible is suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Jet, posted 05-08-2002 4:44 PM Jet has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Philip, posted 05-11-2002 10:19 PM RedVento has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 329 (9593)
05-13-2002 4:00 PM


Then the Oddessy and the Illiad must be a historical documents also since the archeoligal evidence shows the existance of Troy. Therefore the the rest of it must be 100% accurate also.
I guess no one has heard of the saying "Based upon actual events."
Here's another wonderment... Pray to god and you will recieve enligntenment.. What if I don't? Or what if I do and God says the Bible is full of poop? Then what? Do I go back to the bible for further answers? I think I will write my own bible, proclaim myself God, tell everyone to to pray to me and I will send them the answers. Funny thing is, according the the Church(Vatican and Greek Orthodox, you know the founding church) your prayers aren't HEARD by god, hence the confessional. Unless the people who FOUNDED the 1st Church, you know the guys who now sit at the head of the church were wrong, and now the Protestants REALLY know the word of God. Funny how all these catholics have such different ideas about the Word of God and how its inturpreted...
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 05-13-2002]

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 329 (10755)
05-31-2002 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Jet
05-31-2002 12:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Considering that the only root of Christianity is Judaism, and considering that Judaism is most definitely monotheistic and not polytheistic, your question is bogus. Sorry Joe!
Shalom
Jet

Um the fact that the Trinity exists shows the polythiestic nature of Christianity. I believe it was the Nycean Council back in the 4th Century that addressed this very issue.
Also, pagans flocked to Christianity because early christians adobted pagan practices. Dec 25th as Christmas is a perfect example.. What a coincidence that the birth of Christ is celebrated on the exact day that the Roman Empire had its winter solstace festivities. Early Churches were placed in the same locations as pagan sites of worship. The christmas tree was taken from germanic religions, and on and on. Christians didn't convice converts they made it so converts would not have to change their ways, the early worshippers of Christianity were pagans who had to make no changes once they became christian. Please don't fool yourself into thinking that they saw the goodness of Christ and fell over themselves to become christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Jet, posted 05-31-2002 12:09 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Jet, posted 05-31-2002 3:33 PM RedVento has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 329 (10966)
06-04-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Jet
06-01-2002 12:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Originally posted by Percipient:
This is an odd tack to take given that you restated pretty much what RedVento had already said while at the same time claiming he was wrong.
***RedVento is wrong, and if you carefully read what I posted you will see that I stated as much.***Jet
Originally posted by Percipient:
You only differed about decorating the tree, and I think most people are familiar with the supposed Germanic origins of that tradition, while I've never heard of the tradition being coincident with early Christianity.
***Again, carefully read my post. I differed with RedVento on all of the erroneous statements that were made, which made up the bulk of RedVentos' post. Also, I stated that "this practice of decorating a tree was a well established pagan ritual ""long before Christ"" was even born."
"Before" Christ obviously means before Christianity.***Jet
Originally posted by Percipient:
I guess we all need a refresher course in "History according to Jet."
***No, just a refresher course in actual history would be all that is needed. No revisionist history allowed.***Jet
Shalom
Jet

Actually I'm not and you proved it, you restated every point saying that pagans brought them to christianity.. Pagans can't BRING their PAGAN BELIEFS to Christianity. Pagan beliefs and activities have to be ADOPTED INTO christianity, while the difference is subtle it is important. Outsiders can't bring anything, the church has to want it, and why in the world would they WANT pagan rituals??? Hmm.. let me take a stab.. to make it easier to get converts?? Now you already said the "christian rituals" are not christian at all, the birth, life, and ressurection of christ are said to be well documented in "literature and nature" yet the birth is not celebrated on its actual date, but another date already being used by the masses. Please tell me again how pagans forced their pagan rituals on a righteous church, who worshiped a god that forbade idology, and then explain the easter bunny and x-mas trees(fertility symbols) to me again..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Jet, posted 06-01-2002 12:33 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Jet, posted 06-04-2002 3:31 PM RedVento has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 329 (10972)
06-04-2002 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Jet
06-04-2002 3:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
Aside from your mind-numbing ramblings, you post pretty good. You post nonsense, but you do it very well!
Shalom
Jet

Regardless of the personal attack, please answer the question. How does Christianity rectify the Polythiestic nature of the Trinity?(Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Virgin Mary, Satan, Angels, Devils, ect...) How do you recitfy pagan rituals in christianity, use of secular dates for religious holidays. Answers to any of these questions would be nice.
In the mean time I will dig up what I can about the Nycean Council and the Nycean Creed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Jet, posted 06-04-2002 3:31 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Jet, posted 06-05-2002 1:37 PM RedVento has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 329 (11021)
06-05-2002 3:31 PM


The Church has the position that they are the final word on Christianity, the Pope sits on Peter's Throne, the papacy speaks to man for god. The Catholic Church is responsible for the rituals we have today, including christmas, and therefore as a practicing catholic you would be incorporating pagan rituals regardless of how they are percieved today. As to the father, son, and holy ghost, they are part of the catholic religion. Infact if you wish to say that there is only the father(Yaweh, Allah, God) and Christ was just his messanger then there is a new problem. The crusifix itself would be sacraligous since Christ would not be a god, nor is he THE god, then idols to him are forbidden as per Old Testament. Yet in every church, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, there it is, Christ on the Crucifix. Obviously Christ is godlike as he is worshipped as the son of god. That alone gives 2 god figures(Yaweh and Christ) the holy spirit makes three. I agree that it is not three in one, since three is three where I am from. Add in Satan, whom is a very real threat to your soul according to christians and you have a 4th god like diety. And while YOU may not wish to rectify why this happens, and can choose to rationalize it, you can only do so by proclaiming the papacy wrong. Or you can be protestant, which allows more freedom, and believe every other protestant is wrong, that they are interprating the gospel incorrectly, flip side is they can say the same of you since the gospel, the bible included, is interprated subjectivly.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Jet, posted 06-05-2002 5:28 PM RedVento has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 329 (11135)
06-07-2002 9:49 AM


I am curious as to what kind of Christian Jet is(ie, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, some form of Lutherin or Protestant) as his views on God and the gospel seem much different from those I've witnessed. My mother is Jewish, my father Roman Catholic, and I spent 3 years at a Lutheran Highschool where I was forced to study theology. I have a fairly good grasp of the differences between the catholic septs, and Jet seems to fit in none of them.
If Christ is really just God in flesh of men, why does Christ refer to God as his father? Again indicating two beings, not one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Jet, posted 06-09-2002 7:01 PM RedVento has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 329 (11261)
06-10-2002 11:02 AM


hmm.. thanks Jet, but the question still stands..
If you would rather not say what christian group you belong to that is fine, just say so.
And if Christ calls God father doesn't that imply two beings?

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:25 PM RedVento has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 329 (11406)
06-12-2002 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Jet
06-12-2002 1:25 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
If you would rather not say what christian group you belong to that is fine, just say so.
***Why must I "belong" to a "group"? The only group I need be associated with is the group known as "The Body and Bride of Christ".***
And if Christ calls God father doesn't that imply two beings?
***When attempting to understand the wonderous mystery of God, one must be willing to use the clues that God has given us throughout the entirety of scripture. I could list nearly endless verses to show you that Jesus was indeed God in the flesh. Rather than sermonize, which Percy does not appreciate, I will simply give you a few of the many verses that show Jesus was God in fleshly form.
[John 10:30, John 14:9-11, John 17:21]
Can one find verses that seem to indicate, (emphasis on "seem"), that Jesus and God are two rather than one? Sure, but not when they use the entirety of scripture. No matter what conclusion one may choose to arrive at, one of the most telling verses of scripture that show us conclusively that Jesus was indeed God in fleshly form is found in Isaiah 7:14 and again in Matthew 1:23. This is very simple to understand and the base of this teaching actually begins in Genesis and is carried throughout the scriptures.***
Shalom
Jet
[/b][/QUOTE]
I am not familiar with the "Body and Bride of Christ" but if indeed Christ was God in flesh form then why not be "Body and Bride of God?"
And what happens when I read the entirety of the bible, see that the prophet Christ was from the the line of Abraham and in fact a man, then reflect on the Old and New Testaments and feel that while he was a prophet, he was not THE prophet, that infact Mohammad was? That the Koran in fact has the true Gospel and the New Testament is nothing but a politcal document meant to further the Church's control of Europe during the dark and middle ages? Actually that is the conclusion that I came to. The New Testament contents were voted upon, as such the contents must be viewed with some skeptisism. Let us assume that indeed the original works in their entirety did contain the Gospel, man has "Screwed" with it by voting on which parts were allowed to be seen by the masses, and in effect lessened or nullified the true meanings. Without unedited, unabridged, unaltered versions of the original texts in their entirety(not the compilation that the Church felt fit to put forth) the "true meaning" of the New Testament, and Christs role, cannot be vied, it can only be assumed or infered, and is wholey subjective. Therefore while your views are right for you, as it is an opinion, it is not necessarily right for me. While you might find salvation in the opinion that the Bible is the inerrant Gospel, I am equally able to find salvation from my opinion that the Bible is nothing more than moral teachings and parables meant to guide. We are both right in our own minds, and I believe God's. And that whether God and Christ were one or two beings really doesn't make a lick of difference to me, since I dont think the bible was inerrant, or meant to be anything other than a really old book of fables.
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 06-12-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:25 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 2:51 PM RedVento has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 329 (11414)
06-12-2002 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Jeff
06-12-2002 3:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Free Moral Agency ?
This begs the question: Is the God of the Bible All knowing ? All Powerful .All Loving ?
The Bible implies He is NOT.
How can Yahweh be All knowing if he demands Abraham sacrifice his only sononly to give His reprieve when Abraham raises the knife for the killing blow ? Didn’t HE already know what the outcome was, before HE even asked Abraham to kill his son ? Even if this was a loyalty test of Abraham’s devotion to Yahweh, an all knowing Entity would NOT NEED this test. HE knew all along the loyalties and priorities in Abraham’s heart.
So why did HE do it ? is HE cruel ? ..sadistic ?
Then HE isn’t an All Loving God.
Could it be that this was just a morality tale, to instill piousness in the ancient Hebrews ? and had nothing to do with actual events ?
Why else would an Omniscient, Omnipotent being behave as if HE were thug from a primitive, neolithic hunter gatherer society ?
It makes one wonder why the Bible portrays God as less than Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omni-benevolent.
I suppose that, rather than reading the Bible LITERALLY, we could try INTERPRETTING the meaning into something other than what the Bible implies. However, many Christians would be offended by that.
jeff

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 3:19 PM Jeff has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024