Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

I don't like the "New Improved Version". I usually use the KJV, not because it's "better" but because I'm familiar with it - i.e. I can remember a turn of phrase and Google it easily.The Jewish versions tend to say "give life for life" instead of "take". And yet if you look at the whole whole passage - i.e the next verse," 30 If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him," it's clear that he can give compensation instead of his life. Again, it's not a correction of the text; it's a correction of the interpretation.

False.

So where do we draw the line between "interpreting the text" and "making stuff up"?And why cant we use our imaginations? You claim that only the basic message is important...but its based on your own interpretations of right and wrong anyway. When I do it, I'm told I'm guilty of ignoring the plain text message.If the message clearly shows a God who kills people at His own whim, of course I'm going to attempt to reinterpret the understanding.

Oh? Explain what you mean. Before, you used to refer to the messenger as a needless envelope. Now you have something new to say?

Interpreting the text is trying to figure out what the text actually says, in context. For example, the text says plainly that the snake told the truth.Making stuff up would be finding excuses for the imaginary idea that the snake lied. If you're just going to use your imagination, what do you need the text for at all? You might as well call your saviour George. No it isn't. It's based on what works, social necessity. Why "of course"? Why not just accept the truth?

Well we can go on like this but it really is clear that it is about taking a life.

quote:

---

16 Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. 17 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

---

I suppose but it was obviously correcting what it was that they believed the text said.Another example again from Matthew 19.

quote:

---

6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

---

Jesus not only corrects what was written but confirms that it was Moses, not God, who gave them this law.Here is another major correction.

quote:

---

43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

---

This is very clear that Jesus is saying that God is about loving enemies, so if we accept that Jesus perfectly imaged the true nature of God we can be confident that things like the Ananias account, genocide, public stonings etc are from the hearts and minds of men and not of God but contrary to His nature.

Everything that can be known about Jesus is in that one simple book. No-one knows any more than that. There are no more sources of information, no special knowledge and no secret messages. I don't care how much respect you and Faith give to apologists, they're just people making stuff up. It's even a formal fallacy.

This is from Tacitus.

quote:

---

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Juda, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

---

Josephus also wrote about Jesus although I agree that one of the quotes may well have been expanded upon later. Josephus on Jesus

Yeh, and that's it. How does that help with your biblical apologetics?

The point was that your statement was wrong. Josephus also confirms the execution of John the Baptist. Tacitus confirms the crucifixion. Both historically validate major aspects of the Gospels.

Tacitus provides much needed independent evidence for your guy's existence and death. Personally, I think it more likely than not he did actually exist.But everything you know about him and his teachings are in the bible, so if there's stuff in their that you can't accept because it contradicts your beliefs you're simply rationalising.

A good example of cognitive dissonance. That actually isn't correct. I accept that the bible is written by fallible humans. I agree that they were inspired to write down what they did, but that does not mean that they were infallible. Mozart was inspired to write great music. I have said that the only absolutely essential element, IMHO, is the resurrection of Jesus and that is my starting point in understanding what is consistent with what we have from Jesus and what isn't.I don't have to rationalize anything. An inerrantist has to rationalize a loving god who performs and commands atrocities.

Yes, religion IS mankind's attempt at understanding deity, more or less, sort of, in any case it originates with mankind, yes, EXCEPT Biblical religion, which was given to us by God. He mercifully gave it to us in order to straighten us out since all those other religions are distorted by our fallen minds and often contaminated by demonic influence, some even simply invented by devils. Well yeah, that's what the Fall did to us. Besides subjecting the world and ourselves to disease, death and destruction it put us under the tyranny of Satan and his demons. Yup. I dpn't have to "try" at all, I have no problem whatever reconciling the complexities of God's personality. You can't have any mercy and love worthy of the name without justice.Cheers. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well written post Faith. I understand your position but how is it justice for anybody in the example of the Canaanites or the Amelkites, where we are told that God commands the Israelites to slaughter men, women, children, infants, beasts etc. How is that justice? How can killing a new born be justice? How is that justice for the Israelites with what we know that slaughter will do to their hearts and minds. The same goes for public stoning. Look what recent wars have done to our own people. This way of life is not from God in spite of what The Bible says. These actions are simply evil, and about as evil as men can get.Jesus talks about forgiveness and repentance. Where is the opportunity for either Ananias or Sapphira to repent? The account is in total contradiction to Jesus' teaching.

You either don't understand what CD is or you misread my post (your own CD?); I said that I think it more likely than not that a man called Jesus did exist. And yet again I'm agreeing with you. The bible was written by fallible men; and is fallible. Actually, it's only falible if you believe it to be actual reported history. If you see it for what it is - politically motivated fiction - it's just propoganda. Sure, you can say whatever you like, and you do. Your problem is that the only thing we know about the alleged resurection is written in your very fallible book by very fallable men. As you agree. You just did! Yes they do have to do that and they do do that. You see it here being done.And you do the same but in a different way. You say that the bible can't be taken literally and that it is full of flaws but you believe it literally about the resurection. And even when it's not just contradictory on stuff but just plain wrong - like Jesus's return with a generation - you rationalise it away.And here you go again in another thread in a flight of non-biblical total fantasy supported by another fantacist making up stuff to suit his own beliefs

quote:

---

I however don't believe that God does know the future in the way that we think of it as I believe that the future is unknowable. One of my Christian influences is John Polkinghorne who was a renowned physicist and changed his career path in his late 40's to theology. Here is a portion of an interview he gave a few years ago.

---

This is totally unbiblical and you can't know that this is true, you're both just making it up. Your only knowledge of your faith is contained in the bible, everything else you invent to suit. Your belief about god is so far away from the only source of the original belief that you'd be burnt at the stake as a heretic if you ever met historic believers.It's totally understandable, you have to maintain a primitive belief in a modern age. This has been happening for 250 years, through the age of earth and evolution discoveries and a growth of real knowledge. The fight of belief versus science can only result in either the loss of belief or an adaptation of the belief to fit real knowledge. Religion is a master of adaptation and rationalisation.