The Biggest Contradiction Of The Bible (imo) (genesis, mythology, church)
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.
I am not calling her a terrorist, but someone who covers up for one. When you have a character in a book murdering people based on their religious beliefs, which Moses and others did, and claiming it was God who gives them authority to commit 40 or so genocides, it's not a good idea to cover up for them. For all the good she did, it was done on behalf of YHWH and Moses. YHWH and Moses's influence will grow because of people like her. It's funny how passionate she was against Bush, who was fighting to liberate people from terrorist dictators who murder people based on their religious beliefs. That puts in perspective.
Then you are calling many religions as supporting terrorism. But here is a Muslim view of YOUR view:
Quote:
The New Testament attributes the following statements to Jesus:
"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27).
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35).
There are dozens of other verses that, if taken out from their historical context, seem to favor violence. Various violent Jewish and Christian groups have used them to justify their causes. The Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. The Nazis used them against Jews. Christian Serbians used them against Muslim Bosnians, and Zionists regularly use them against Palestinians. David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Baruch Goldstein all relied on religious texts to justify their violence.
In recent times some have quoted, out of context similar verses from the Holy Quraan, the last revelation to humanity from God to try and make the point that Islaam advocates terrorism and violence. Muslims do not condemn all Christians and Jews on the bases of the above quotation and from the old and new Testament or at the acts of the Crusaders, the Nazis, the Christian Serbians, David Koresh, Jim Jones and Baruch Goldstein, nor do Muslims interpret Christianity or Judaism as religions of terrorists!
Without exception such verses from the Old and New Testament and the Holy Quraan promulgate defensive action AGAINST acts of terrorism.
Islaam has been and always will be a way of life which promotes unassailable peace and harmony with all creation of Allaah.
So basically, not even most Muslims would agree with your view of the Bible.
You're in left field---of some field far afield from where the rest of us are.
P.S. Moses was much like George Bush--fighting to see a people liberated (shame on Mother Theresa for criticizing him for starting a war with Iraqis when Saudis had attacked our country!). Anytime anyone goes to war--it is with a high and mighty purpose.
The Bible teaches terrorism. The Bible was used to condemn Jesus, along with many countless innocent victims. It is the most evil, unholy perversion of God there ever was. The Bible makes it so you can use Moses's authority to rule over people by using terrorism. The Bible makes it ok to use terrorism. Muhammad and Islam is an example and a result of this. Muhammad uses the Bible exactly as the Bible teaches to do. Muhammad was a slave owning, genocidal, terrorist, dictator. He was using the examples of Moses and used his techniques of terrorism for his own purposes. He stood in Moses's shoes, and ruled EXACTLY as Moses did. He ruled through the use of terrorism. That is what the Bible teaches.
The story of Moses is as a liberator. A similitude of Moses is Jesus as a liberator.
It is important for understanding the works of God in His work of salvation of mankind.
Quote:
Moses: At the time of Moses, Israel suffered under foreign domination, it was a nation of slaves under the power of Egypt, with Pharaoh at the head, which despotic decrees promulgated: heavy forced labor (Ex. 1:11, 14; 5:6-9).
Jesus: At the time of Christ, Israel again suffered under foreign domination, it was a nation of slaves (Cf. Neh. 9:36 v) under the power of the Romans, the emperor at the head (emphasized by Luke), and the Edomite King Herod (emphasized by Matthew). Israel was subject to the despotic decrees of August: the "registration" was a public statement and resulted in heavy taxes (Luke 2:1).
Moses: Jochebed put her child in a very special 'cradle': an ark of bulrushes, because the child didn't have a place in society, a young woman stayed close to the basket: Miriam (Greek: Maria) (Ex. 2:3 v).
Jesus: Mary put her child in a very special "cradle": a crib, ie a manger for animals, because there was no room in the inn for the child, the young Mary (Hebrew Miriam) was in the manger (Luke 2:7, 16). >>>Discovering Jesus
Those were but a few. For more Google "Discovering Jesus".
The point of all of it is not so much as natural but spiritual.
Pointing to Jesus is the similarities of Moses as Liberator.
Try to look at the spiritual significance of Jesus in the story of Moses rather than focusing on the perceived
unholy view of the bible.
Understanding the creation story's spiritual conditions would give you a better insight into the conditions in which Moses' story pointed to in Jesus.
The story of Moses was the liberation of the flesh, while the story of Jesus is the liberation of our spirit.
Any one trying to understand the bible without the help of the Holy Spirit will not see the spiritual truths in all the stories, but rather, see those thing by which to use to accuse God of being unholy and a terrorist.
Jesus had to overcome everything, every accusation, every action, every temptation in order to secure liberty for all of us.
Moses, reluctantly, accepted the call as did Jesus at His prayer in the Garden. "Not my will but thine".
The power of evil had to be conquered in its prevention from our attaining heavenly status.
Can't convince anybody by long winded explanations. Either one believes or one does not.
Either way, does not take away the works of God. After all, we were the condemned, but now.......can be liberated.
Moses, the character in the book, had innocent people stoned to death, torchured, and run through. The reasons he had them MURDERED is because they chose to worship God in their own peaceful, holy ways, and to strike terror in the hearts to anyone who did the same as them. That makes Moses, the character, a murdering, terrorist dictator. The Bible is a terrorist manifesto. It teaches terrorism. People who follow the Bible assume the characters in the Bible are real, and that Moses wrote the Torah. And that is my approach. I am not arguing weather they are real or not. Weather they are real or not doesn't matter. Moses, the character, is STILL a terrorist dictator. Try to keep up.
Like I said - you're not really reading what I or anyone else is writing, so there's no point in continuing with you. Don't worry - I've kept up with your rather weak criticism of the Bible and Moses, and it is exactly what I've previously pointed out: weak, unconvincing and very uninformed. I've kept up with your argument, especially since it's the same exact argument you've been making since the beginning of the thread like a broken record. Start taking seriously what other people say, convincingly back up your assertions and we might be able to have a conversation. That hasn't happened yet. Eusebius and yourself would get along well!
I really don't see any sense in arguing with a Fundamentalist (yes, there are more than one type of Fundamentalists!) - it's the least appealing venture to engage in on this forum as they have no desire to consider a more informed and critical view but rigidly stick to their very uninformed opinions slavishly. So... good luck with this!
Like I said - you're not really reading what I or anyone else is writing, so there's no point in continuing with you. Don't worry - I've kept up with your rather weak criticism of the Bible and Moses, and it is exactly what I've previously pointed out: weak, unconvincing and very uninformed. I've kept up with your argument, especially since it's the same exact argument you've been making since the beginning of the thread like a broken record. Start taking seriously what other people say, convincingly back up your assertions and we might be able to have a conversation. That hasn't happened yet. Eusebius and yourself would get along well!
I really don't see any sense in arguing with a Fundamentalist (yes, there are more than one type of Fundamentalists!) - it's the least appealing venture to engage in on this forum as they have no desire to consider a more informed and critical view but rigidly stick to their very uninformed opinions slavishly. So... good luck with this!
An accurate assessment and a wise choice, whoppers.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Then he scolds the Pharisees for following and teaching the laws in matt23
13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
The way I see it, the Pharisees and Scribes would be evil if they were killing innocent people. But it is very clear that they were only following the laws of Moses when they condemned them to die. The doctrine of the OT sanctions the death of anybody. No one is innocent in the eyes of YHWH. NO ONE! Not even Jesus! He healed on the Sabbath, and taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. According to the OT he is guilty, and should die. It seems to me, if Jesus was the savior of the Jews, he would have scolded Moses and YHWH for murdering innocent people, and sanctioning the executions of innocent people, himself included. Does Jesus lack the wisdom? It seems he hated the sinners and loved the sin here. Anyone?
Rider
You have a la-git concern.
If you can see it another way, you might change your mind about it.
First, the Law was established to add degree to sin. To such a degree that made it impossible for any human being to fulfill its requirements and expect to find favor with God for the salvation of the soul.
Yes, an impossibility. But what if, God in human form would fulfill His own laws? Yes! That is exactly what He did.
For God would have no trouble meeting His own requirements and thus by Him
and in Him, we could also be reckoned with Him to be spotless, pure and acceptable unto God.
The Pharisees, were expected to follow the letter of the law in order for Jesus to be condemned by them for breaking the law.
Blind by God, the Pharisees were in Gods hand the instrument by which God would carry out the salvation of mankind.
The Pharisees, being human, of course abused their position to the point where some worked evil instead of good when dealing with people.
So when Jesus was ready to be offered up, they stepped in and provided the vehicle by which Jesus would be condemned and put to death.
Jesus, as God could break no laws, but was accused of such by the Pharisees which were ordained...or for better word, chosen to carry out their work.
Jesus criticizes them, infuriating them, all in demonstrating that righteousness by even them could in no way reach the righteousness of God Himself.
In Summary......that was the plan of Gods workings in behalf of mankind in saving all of human creation.
I hope that explanation helps. Seeking Gods help in understanding these things will not be rejected but willingly and freely, He will give you understanding.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Then he scolds the Pharisees for following and teaching the laws in matt23
13 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 15 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
The way I see it, the Pharisees and Scribes would be evil if they were killing innocent people. But it is very clear that they were only following the laws of Moses when they condemned them to die. The doctrine of the OT sanctions the death of anybody. No one is innocent in the eyes of YHWH. NO ONE! Not even Jesus! He healed on the Sabbath, and taught of God in a way that contradicted Moses. According to the OT he is guilty, and should die. It seems to me, if Jesus was the savior of the Jews, he would have scolded Moses and YHWH for murdering innocent people, and sanctioning the executions of innocent people, himself included. Does Jesus lack the wisdom? It seems he hated the sinners and loved the sin here. Anyone?
The point Jesus was making was that the Pharisees and scribes were not following the Law as laid down in scriptures but were inventing a myriad of rules and regulations that were in fact violating the Law.
A good example is found in Mark 7 where Pharisees and teachers of the law criticized the people listening to Jesus for not following the hand washing ritual before eating. This is not the same thing as washing one’s hands. It is a specific ritual that is a scriptural requirement for priests in the Temple but is not required for anyone else. The rule obsessive Shammai Pharisees that Jesus was dealing with had invented all sorts of elaborations of the scriptural mitzvot and insisted everyone obey them.
Jesus then moves on to the even worse example of Corban, the practice of promising all of one’s possessions to the Temple after one dies, and interpreted by the Pharisees as forbidding their use for anyone else. This even included helping one’s parents when they needed it, a violation of the Decalogue commandment to honor one’s parents.
This is what Jesus meant when he said that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:20) They were not truly righteous because they were more concerned with man-made rules than God-given ones.
Immediately following that statement, Jesus shows that it is not sufficient to follow even God-given law in a legalistic manner. (This is the “you have heard” section of the Sermon on the Mount.) One must also live the spirit of the Law. If there is a conflict, then one follows the spirit. If one is hungry and must eat, picking grain on the Sabbath is allowed. To forbid eating would be the worse sin, a violation of loving one's neighbor.
I think that must depend on what one means by 'The law'. The letter and literature of the law is what the Pharisee and Sadducees did follow. The Gospel accusation (even if justified) do not alter that. If the police or lawyers break the law or behave if contradiction to it, does that mean they have invalidated it? surely that argument doesn't work.
The law that you may have in mind is what Paul refers to as 'written on our hearts' and is innate righteousness that existed on righteous Jews before the Law was even given. Jesus is sent with a message based on this innate law of righteousness, rather than one based on the Mosaic laws. They do not 'destroy' the Old law, but fulfill it.
That verbal sleight of hand still means that the practice of the mosaic law becomes not only unnecessary but a positive barrier to salvation.
I think that must depend on what one means by 'The law'. The letter and literature of the law is what the Pharisee and Sadducees did follow. The Gospel accusation (even if justified) do not alter that. If the police or lawyers break the law or behave if contradiction to it, does that mean they have invalidated it? surely that argument doesn't work.
The law that you may have in mind is what Paul refers to as 'written on our hearts' and is innate righteousness that existed on righteous Jews before the Law was even given. Jesus is sent with a message based on this innate law of righteousness, rather than one based on the Mosaic laws. They do not 'destroy' the Old law, but fulfill it.
That verbal sleight of hand still means that the practice of the mosaic law becomes not only unnecessary but a positive barrier to salvation.
Who were you replying to? Who is the 'you' that "may have in mind'?
If it is me, it is very clear from the Sermon on the Mount and Mark 7 that Jesus meant that genuine scriptural law must be obeyed but not the man-made rules that might even violate the scriptural ones. Remember also that Jesus is a Jew talking to a Jewish audience. Mosaic Law was never intended for Gentiles to follow.
Who were you replying to? Who is the 'you' that "may have in mind'?
If it is me, it is very clear from the Sermon on the Mount and Mark 7 that Jesus meant that genuine scriptural law must be obeyed but not the man-made rules that might even violate the scriptural ones. Remember also that Jesus is a Jew talking to a Jewish audience. Mosaic Law was never intended for Gentiles to follow.
Yep, the post above mine. The one from you about the law.
To me it is very clear that, while Matthew 5.17 looks as though it is propping up the Mosaic law, the rest of the gospels make it clear that this is gobbledefusc cover -up jargon where 'fulfilled' means 'render obsolete'.
For me, Jesus as a Jew is talking for gentiles (as written entirely by Gentiles) to tell them exactly what they want to hear - that Jesus himself endorsed Paul's view that faith in Jesus was all the 'law' you needed and observance of the law was not only not necessary but a positive barrier to faith.
Yep, the post above mine. The one from you about the law.
To me it is very clear that, while Matthew 5.17 looks as though it is propping up the Mosaic law, the rest of the gospels make it clear that this is gobbledefusc cover -up jargon where 'fulfilled' means 'render obsolete'.
For me, Jesus as a Jew is talking for gentiles (as written entirely by Gentiles) to tell them exactly what they want to hear - that Jesus himself endorsed Paul's view that faith in Jesus was all the 'law' you needed and observance of the law was not only not necessary but a positive barrier to faith.
Where in the Gospels does it say that Mosaic Law is obsolete?
Quote:
Matthew 5
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The last time I looked heaven and earth have not disappeared. (Well, earth anyway.) There are those who claim that the crucifixion and/or resurrection are all that need to be accomplished. What about the Son of Man returning and the judgment and all that?
Isaiah, whom Matthew loved to quote, has the Lord say:
“See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
Isaiah 65:17
Revelation picks up this theme.
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away
Revelation 21:1
Revelation has that happen after the White Throne Judgment at the end of days.
Jesus connects everything being accomplished to heaven and earth disappearing. He is saying that “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law” until the end of days. We may note that in Revelation the New Jerusalem that follows the end of days has no temple. There is no impurity or sin. There is now no longer any need for the Law. (See Rev 21.)
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.
