Summations Only

How is that supposed to be persuasive? Every believer of every religious book says the same and then say totally different things to eachother. No one say "IMHO I believe I have a very inconsistent way of understanding the Scriptures." It's not even as though the book is really difficult to understand - it isn't it's simply written for simple peoples.You just believe your reading is correct the same way everyone else does. Your reading of it is different from those a few centuries ago, not because the words are different but because - and unlike Faith - you've allowed many of the ideas of the Enlightenment and the civilising effects our liberal democracy to colour it.In the end all the statement that you Phat and Faith make about belief can be countered by the statement "no it's not" or similar flat denial.That's only able to be the case because the original claim has nothing to support it other than your belief. Well 'no it's not'.

Absolutely. It is a belief. If it was knowledge we would all agree.

Yes it is belief. It isn't knowledge. I base my world view on it just as you have a world view based on something you believe. We can argue, as Percy did in a recent post, that not all beliefs have equal validity but once again that is based upon our beliefs.Certainly things that have been learned since the so-called enlightenment have affected my thinking in many areas, but the early Christians believed as I do that God is good and that Jesus was resurrected. Just read Paul's epistles. They are all based on that belief.Yes I accept things like evolution, modern science etc but that has nothing to do with my Christian faith.

But that isn't what the early Christians all believed. Example: There was two gods, one of OT and one of the NT. There were many gods. There was one god. There is no consistency at all in their beliefs and they fought about them ( disagreed) routinely.
The consistency of one god came later, and history is written by the side that comes out on top. So all early Christians most certainly didn't believe as you do. Some no doubt did, but this was not consistent as you sort of imply. It evolved for lack of a better word.Edited by Golffly, : Spelling

Also the resurrection was also not universally accepted. It was not part of all early Christians. When you read Paul's epistles he talks about those who preach another Jesus. He gets all wound up about it actually.
The Gospel of Thomas makes no mention of a crucifixion either. Or dying for our sins at all.
What you are suggesting here is just a repeating Christian dogma, without actually checking if it is correct.So both your contention that early Christians believed as you do that God is good and Jesus was resurrected are wrong. Some did and some did not.

Exactly, and I put your message into a wider context by comparing the "billions" of people who dwarf those you count as being your kind of Christian. Jar's impression of the conflict in the verses is certainly not lone wolf. Most people here read just fine, Faith. You seem unable to read the Bible. The inconsistency between the two counts of fowls is not mere generalization of clean and unclean animals. Fowls are specifically called out and given two different, and inconsistent counts, in each instances being enumerates distinctly from all of the other animals, clean or unclean.

GDR,
I had promised to show Herod's historian, as evidence the magi never visited him, as suggested in the bible.
Nicolaus of Damascus.
This fellow was a prolific writer. He wrote 144 books. Josephus uses him as a source when describing Herod's reign.
He would have been there when the wise men purported visited Herod. ( Matt 2:3)
He would be an eye witness. The event was so important Herod summoned priests and scribes for an emergency type meeting to discuss this messiah.
He would have been on hand when Herod got mad and decided to kill infant boys ( Matt 2:16)
The one thing he doesn't do is record any of this. At minimum you think the guy might talk about the infanticide to maybe try and maybe defend it. One might not unreasonably think the magi visiting, talking about the arrival of a Jewish messiah would warrant a note, given the ramifications of the big event.
I would consider this a bit of a shot to the gut of the story Matthew tells.

'Things have been learned since the so-called enlightenment' You think? Pretty much everything modern Western society and all the good things that have come from it owe it to the enlightenment. Without it, you'd be burnt for your blasphemous beliefs by people like Faith who wouldn't just be minority armchair evangelists, they'd be mainstream zealots.Their God was not good - it was the god of the Old Testament with all the nastiness that comes with him. Enjoy your freedom to believe just the bits that you prefer and to ignore the rest - it was brought to you by rational men who wanted to replace superstition with sanity and human progress.

Insanely false history. What can one do when people think such crazy things.

Jar's views are certainly not shared by the billions either.

That's very likely Faith but it is clear that my views were shared by the authors of the Bible stories.Have you ever read the Bible Faith?

Yep, jar and only jar knows how to read the Bible. Forget the millions, forget the billions. Amazing.

Please try to abstain from the sniping, whining, ect., or whatever it is in your no real content messages.Adminnemooseus

Now that is just plain silly Faith, a down right stupid comment.It is not a matter of my reading but rather what the authors actually wrote.I cannot be responsible for the dishonesty, delusion or inability of you and others to actually read what is written.

Nor all those billions, since absolutely nobody but jar knows how to "actually read what is written." You've made that clear over and over again.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.