Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tripe may have been too strong a word; I apologize. There are a few good things in it such as love your neighbor as yourself. But even when the Bible says "neighbor" we know the passage is only referring to fellow Jews and maybe sympathizers, not the world at large. In fact the Bible explicitly says, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." Now you can rationalize that Jesus came to change all that but that only proves my point--the Bible trips all over itself. It says one thing one moment and then it says something totally contradictory. By one estimate there are over 5,000 glaring errors in doctrine in the Bible.
False statements. The scripture does not say, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy", but since you say that it does please quote the passage. And since I know you are speaking of Matthew 5:43 please allow me to warn you ahead of time that you have misread the text and apparently cannot discern the difference between what was "said" by many teachers in those times and what was actually "written" in the scripture. As for your interpretation of "love thy neighbor" again you defy what Yeshua actually taught about who "thy neighbor" really concerns:
Luke 10:25-37
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Do you not therefore understand the teaching of the Master in the above? THE SAMARITAN is the neighbor who loved his neighbor even though he was not from Jerusalem and the man he helped was from Jerusalem. Like I already said; you are using faulty interpretations of the scripture as a straw man argument so that you may feel justified in rejecting the same. It is truly you who does not know the scripture.
This is not a "Holy Book"; it was NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit
The above is a fraction--a mere FRACTION of all the errors found in the Bible. It could not have been written by the Holy Spirit guiding men because the Holy Spirit would NOT have allowed so many contradictions to be written. Instead, it is a collection of small volumes outlining a little history, a LOT of myth and some philosophy cherry-picked out of thousands of manuscripts in the 2-3rd centuries by leaders of this new religion who were carefully assembling a definitive book that would best suit Emperor Constantine's needs and wants for the new Holy Roman empire he was trying to form. History tells us Constantine needed a uniform doctrine that agreed with itself to stop all the infighting going on between these conflicting religions warring with each other. This was all political expediency, not God trying to spread a message. God had nothing to do with any of this.
I'm sorry but this is all historical fact. I was as as shocked as the next Christian to find out all this, but unlike Christian apologists like yourself I didn't refuse to accept it. I acknowledged it to be the inconvenient truth and gave up Christianity because I found it to be not a genuine religion but a jimmy-rigged one unworthy of following. I pick a few things out the Bible that are good and ignore stuff like
and this
And this is the book you call holy and perfect and inerrant, daqq?
Disgusting.
The remainder of what you have posted would take way too much space to answer because every one of them must be answered individually with some actual depth of explanation and, no doubt, you already know that. However all of it is based on your ignorance of what those things are actually speaking about. Throwing up a list of objections only shows you have no actual knowledge of what you are rejecting and that is your problem to deal with. If you want to go through them all we can do so but one at a time:
Quote:
LE 19:18, MT 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself. 1CO 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself.
1 Corinthians 10:24 T/R
24 μηδεις το εαυτου ζητειτω αλλα το του ετερου εκαστος
The above uses hetero which is not neighbor and as we see it with ekastes that is, "each other", and it speaks of denying oneself and seeking the edification of others or each other. You trying to say it is a contradiction with the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is nothing more than a phony made up reason for you to reject the scripture. As for the rest of that commandment, and what you have said about it, it has already been addressed in the upper portion of this post except to add this:
Luke 10:29 T/R
29 ο δε θελων δικαιουν εαυτον ειπε προς τον ιησουν και τις εστι μου πλησιον;
πλησιον (plesion) = neighbor
Quote:
LE 21:10 The chief priest is not to rend his clothes. MT 26:65, MK 14:63 He does so during the trial of Jesus.
You neglected another critical passage:
Leviticus 10:6 KJV
6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.
So, yes, the chief Kohen was ceremonially DEAD from the moment he rent his garment in the trial of Yeshua. But at that point he does not care because he saw that the Sanhedrin would not be able to convict Yeshua because they could not find at least two credible witnesses whose testimony agreed. That is exactly why he says, "What need have we of witnesses!? At that point in the trial the charges would change from "mesith", which is one who intentionally misleads a city, town, village, or the people; and the new charges would become "claiming to be a king" so that the trial could be handed over to Pilate and the Romans. Yeshua knew this would be the outcome too because he foretold what death he would die. The penalty for conviction in the charges of mesith was stoning, (not crucifixion or hanging). So what does any of this have to do with what you have suggested? It is not a contradiction whatsoever. The chief Kohen utterly disqualified himself and the Sanhedrin: the question is, WHO as Kohen Gadol is going to officiate what remained of the Pesach in that year?
Thrill, i understand your sentiment and use of words, an unrepentant fundamentalist could never understand how any ex fundy feels(especially those that have been one for years), i think we all come out of fundamentalism in different ways, for me it was probably more of a bigger burden lifted off of me, than the burden of sin from being a worshipper had put on me . I sometimes feel though, that you have thrown the baby out with the bath water, or you was so consumed with the bath water you never saw the baby in the bath water.
Thank you for that response daqq. The appearance of serious has worked, , but I can already hear my children's footsteps upstairs as I write so I need to get on with this, and just right now, one appeared round the corner asking for breakfast.
I like what you have written, because it underlies the importance of what happened at Yeshua's baptism. I'd have to take longer to study it for myself - systematic theology has not up to this point in my life been my strong point - there's no saying that couldn't change, but I find it dry. ....and I've just had another 15 minute interlude brewing up for my wife and watching a short excerpt from Graham Norton (he's an English show host) who was interviewing Benedict Cumberbatch about the new movie Dr Strange. Apologies, but even these events illustrate how Abba (Omnipresent Unconditional Love) works, even in the smallest details - how it can it not, it is OMNIPRESENT. ...I will get to it...
So, in short, Yeshua was the Anointed one during his early life, and then something more happened at His baptism. I interpret the 'somatiko-corporeal-bodily' form of a Dove that made the Anointed Yeshua into the Son of Elohim, as you are saying it was an actual real bird that was observed. I think that's ok - God can make matter appear and disappear, or He can also make it apparent on everyone's retina's that there IS a bird in the sky. I've had one open vision in my life, but I fully accept others would not have seen it - . So there's two ways of looking at this (pun not intended). What I saw was either not there but it was printed onto my perception that it was there! Or it was there but masked off from others perception. That is to say, when a man of God (it was Bob Jones) is saying "just as you can see THIS" (and I saw it), is he talking about true REALITY of the incorporeal realm, or is it just a clever trick of something being manifested and 'added into' this corporeal realm. I'm moving toward the spiritual realm being reality, and this physical world and what we normally see, as unreality.
I don't think the broad Christian understanding of adoption would have the special aspects of Yeshua as a man, but they do generally have adoption as a principle of God's view of us. ...my view has changed on that - I have used the analogy of a dormant Christ seed in us, until the new birth (by revelation)happens - it works for me, ...but where 'Christians' just take the original sin view and say 'no, kid, you were born a sinner and belonged to the Devil'. I've moved to the Prodigal son analogy which I feel is the Truth of our ownership - Who owns us - Who we belong to, and Who we are. In brief, the Christian church only focuses on the son who 'was lost but now is found', i.e. his 'salvation'. But the point is that that errant son BELONGED TO THE FATHER ALL ALONG - Praise the God and Father of Yeshua Hamashiach. (...I have literally just had to go and wipe my son's bottom - I gave him a lesson on how to do it properly - he's getting there, thank God). But the Truth of our belonging is the key. ...I appreciate if this is too simplistic, and not a correct theological view, but it's where I've come to just now in my walk - we can talk about that.
The reason I've interjected with elements of life that have happened whilst writing this is because, when we realise that we are only individual expressions of Omnipresent Unconditional Love, we realise that we are Him - we are that I AM, and my self, ego, mortal mind is put to death by that higher power. I have no power of myself. And the interjections of life happening are why we must 'Take no thought', but be guided by what comes to us - everything that comes to us is for Us - the One Whole expression. In the teachings I have been listening to, Mike Nevins said that when you start behaving (cognitively) like there is nothing you need to do or want (ignore desire) - tell yourself you have All things - Love other people as if they are righteous - THEY ARE in Abba's sight, ...you will start to be guided, "and it will take you over". ....I'm starting to experience that taking over, and it is glorious.
So, I have a slightly more empirical view of life.
Well said, for the most part, and what I do not fully agree with is not worth mentioning. Indeed Paul teaches that Messiah must be formed in us, (and he no doubt gets this from the parables of Yeshua concerning the Seed of the Word which is sown into the soil of the heart). But as for the Dove there is much to be said about it which begins even from the very opening lines of Genesis, ("Ruach Elohim brooded-fluttered upon the face of the waters", [like a dove] and the same Ruach Elohim [without the article] is found in the Matthew immersion account only). Yohanan did not "see" this in the typical way but rather employs a word that can and often does mean "perceive", (τεθεαμαι, John 1:32), and then proceeds to explain that he had "envisioned" it, (εωρακα, John 1:34). All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds, (i.e. doves). There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differs from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead: it is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a soma-psuchikon natural body; it is raised a soma-pneumatikon ethereal-spiritual body: if there is a soma-psuchikon natural body, there is a pneumatikon-spiritual (soma-body). And this too as you know is Paul, (for those who don't know it is 1Corinthians 15:39-44). So what then does Luke 3:22 mean by somatiko-corporeal-bodily form? The text clearly informs us that this concerns either the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of the Holy One, (depending on how one reads αγιον in that statement), so it is clear enough that it speaks of something spiritual and supernal: the somatiko-corporeal pneumatiko-ethereal spiritual body of Messiah which was not capable of "seeing" corruption, (Psalm 16:8-11, Acts 2:24-31).
And this is the book you call holy and perfect and inerrant, daqq?
Disgusting.
hmm. It seems to reflect us quite well, doesn't It, then. You get to drink Wormwood, and take it literally, i get to drink...prolly new wine, is where i'm at with that passage, right now; seeing that It is describing something completely different, a spiritual aspect, cloaked in a story from the "Time of Death." Pretty inspiring, to me. Book is Word plus atmosphere, i guess, same as wine is grape juice + 3 days of atmosphere.
False statements. The scripture does not say, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy", but since you say that it does please quote the passage. And since I know you are speaking of Matthew 5:43 please allow me to warn you ahead of time that you have misread the text and apparently cannot discern the difference between what was "said" by many teachers in those times and what was actually "written" in the scripture. As for your interpretation of "love thy neighbor" again you defy what Yeshua actually taught about who "thy neighbor" really concerns:
Luke 10:25-37
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Do you not therefore understand the teaching of the Master in the above? THE SAMARITAN is the neighbor who loved his neighbor even though he was not from Jerusalem and the man he helped was from Jerusalem. Like I already said; you are using faulty interpretations of the scripture as a straw man argument so that you may feel justified in rejecting the same. It is truly you who does not know the scripture.
So Jesus came to change the Torah by making the Samaritan representative of people of all nations, right? So we should help anyone be they African, Middle Eastern, Asian, European---doesn't make a bit of difference in Jesus' eyes. So far so good. But let's have a quick look at what the Torah is actually referring to when it uses the Hebrew word for neighbor:
Quote:
First let us observe the context in which the above phrase appears in the Torah: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart?You shall not take revenge or feel resentment against the children of your people, you shall love your companion [reyacha] as yourself.†From this it is clear that “your companion†refers to the same category as “your brother†and “the children of your people,†all explicitly referring to one’s fellow Jew. Thus we see that in the Torah, the Hebrew word reyacha explicitly means “your fellow Jew.†It does not refer to anyone outside the Jewish faith. “Neighbor†is not an accurate translation for the word reyacha. The Hebrew word for “neighbor†is shachen. The Hebrew word reyah means “a very close companionâ€
Now are you getting this, daqq? If Jesus wants to change the Torah's meaning that's perfectly fine. But please let us not have a gospel writers come along and put words into Jesus' mouth like:
Quote:
For verily I say unto you, Till. heaven and earth pass, one jot or one. tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Now if you want to have your cake and eat it too then just say, "Jesus changed the Torah without explicitly changing the Torah." It's one big fat contradiction but that's what we're dealing with here, a contradiction. Either Jesus kept the meaning of the Law or he changed the meaning of the Law but you can't have it both ways and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daqq
The remainder of what you have posted would take way too much space to answer because every one of them must be answered individually with some actual depth of explanation and, no doubt, you already know that. However all of it is based on your ignorance of what those things are actually speaking about. Throwing up a list of objections only shows you have no actual knowledge of what you are rejecting and that is your problem to deal with. If you want to go through them all we can do so but one at a time:
1 Corinthians 10:24 T/R
24 μηδεις το εαυτου ζητειτω αλλα το του ετερου εκαστος
The above uses hetero which is not neighbor and as we see it with ekastes that is, "each other", and it speaks of denying oneself and seeking the edification of others or each other. You trying to say it is a contradiction with the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is nothing more than a phony made up reason for you to reject the scripture. As for the rest of that commandment, and what you have said about it, it has already been addressed in the upper portion of this post except to add this:
Luke 10:29 T/R
29 ο δε θελων δικαιουν εαυτον ειπε προς τον ιησουν και τις εστι μου πλησιον;
πλησιον (plesion) = neighbor
You neglected another critical passage:
Leviticus 10:6 KJV
6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.
So, yes, the chief Kohen was ceremonially DEAD from the moment he rent his garment in the trial of Yeshua. But at that point he does not care because he saw that the Sanhedrin would not be able to convict Yeshua because they could not find at least two credible witnesses whose testimony agreed. That is exactly why he says, "What need have we of witnesses!? At that point in the trial the charges would change from "mesith", which is one who intentionally misleads a city, town, village, or the people; and the new charges would become "claiming to be a king" so that the trial could be handed over to Pilate and the Romans. Yeshua knew this would be the outcome too because he foretold what death he would die. The penalty for conviction in the charges of mesith was stoning, (not crucifixion or hanging). So what does any of this have to do with what you have suggested? It is not a contradiction whatsoever. The chief Kohen utterly disqualified himself and the Sanhedrin: the question is, WHO as Kohen Gadol is going to officiate what remained of the Pesach in that year?
You're throwing an awful lot of Greek at us and trust me when I say there's not a Christian in America who could understand everything you have written, outside of Greek scholars or at least down in the deep South where most people haven't finished 9th grade. So you actually believe these people can dissect the Bible, get into Greek meanings and correctly decipher Hebrew to Greek to English?? I just wonder what is the point of reading an English Bible if the meanings have been mistranslated all to hell. I won't say anymore than that.
So then, perhaps most of that was for someone else. It is worth noting that we don't even have the Hebrew NT--also for someone else, likely--and the point is likely to provide water where it is needed, and wine for the festivals
So Jesus came to change the Torah by making the Samaritan representative of people of all nations, right? So we should help anyone be they African, Middle Eastern, Asian, European---doesn't make a bit of difference in Jesus' eyes. So far so good. But let's have a quick look at what the Torah is actually referring to when it uses the Hebrew word for neighor:
Now are you getting this, daqq? If Jesus wants to change the Torah's meaning that's perfectly fine. But please let us not have a gospel writers come along and put words into Jesus' mouth like:
Now if you want to have your cake and eat it too then just say, "Jesus changed the Torah without explicitly changing the Torah." It's one big fat contradiction but that's what we're dealing with here, a contradiction. Either Jesus kept the meaning of the Law or he changed the meaning of the Law but you can't have it both ways and expect anyone to take you seriously.
I know your agenda requires that you point out contradictions to the literalist beliefs, Thrill. But the Jews misconstrued the Old Covenant and the Law, period. Jesus came not to get rid of it or change the meaning of the Law, but to correct their misinterpretation of it by revealing the actual principle (Spirit) behind it - agape love.
So Jesus came to change the Torah by making the Samaritan representative of people of all nations, right? So we should help anyone be they African, Middle Eastern, Asian, European---doesn't make a bit of difference in Jesus' eyes. So far so good. But let's have a quick look at what the Torah is actually referring to when it uses the Hebrew word for neighbor:
Now are you getting this, daqq? If Jesus wants to change the Torah's meaning that's perfectly fine. But please let us not have a gospel writers come along and put words into Jesus' mouth like:
Now if you want to have your cake and eat it too then just say, "Jesus changed the Torah without explicitly changing the Torah." It's one big fat contradiction but that's what we're dealing with here, a contradiction. Either Jesus kept the meaning of the Law or he changed the meaning of the Law but you can't have it both ways and expect anyone to take you seriously.
You're throwing an awful lot of Greek at us and trust me when I say there's not a Christian in America who could understand everything you have written, outside of Greek scholars or at least down in the deep South where most people haven't finished 9th grade. So you actually believe these people can dissect the Bible, get into Greek meanings and correctly decipher Hebrew to Greek to English?? I just wonder what is the point of reading an English Bible if the meanings have been mistranslated all to hell. I won't say anymore than that.
Won't say anything more?
Or rather are you unable. Being caught in a lie is not matter of linguistics but how you tempt someone to transgress the Law.
Out of the very sponge you call a heart you soak up vinager to purse the lips of the children of Christ.
You know full well there are many in this forum who have embraced the Torah. No lesson goes unheard by the living dilegence when approaching wholeheartedly in love for one another.
Maybe it's time to plow around the appropriate tree in hopes that the bees make their home and produce a sweet honey you truly seek.
But what I know being some dumb brute with a 5th grade education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but I can already hear my children's footsteps upstairs as I write so I need to get on with this, and just right now, one appeared round the corner asking for breakfast.
I just wonder what is the point of reading an English Bible if the meanings have been mistranslated all to hell. I won't say anymore than that.
