another reason why the Christian bible is false

Hey, visitor, instead of just saying crap, why don't you post some REAL proof of your BS? Photographs, eyewitness reports, articles in national geographic, documentaries, historians and biologists opinions and findings, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another skeptic......that doesn't "get it"
With an attitude like yours, you never will.....
Didn't you understand anything I just said?
Of course not.

Jesus didn't clown for skeptics when they asked for proof the first time He was here.
He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

we wont laugh at you, visitor indulge us, if your so sure would'nt you wish to convert, us skeptic, jesus would like that would'nt he.
all it would take is one tiny instant, of proof. one tiny grain of sand in the evidence stakes, this would be nothing for a man such as yourself surely.
or are you just full of it.
I would be come a flag waving christian, in the wink of a eye, for the wont of a grain of sand.
you would be our new messiah.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The burden of proof lies on you. So say the skeptics. If you have that information, then why not sharing with us? I, myself, would love to take a look at that...

 

Can't add or subtract? You are, I assume, referring to the closing passage of the Book of Revelations? That part was in there before it was part of the official canon of scripture.
The Greek word that is here translated as "book" is a diminutive form of the more common word for book, "biblos". Thus, it denotes something like a small book, or very likely a scroll or other written document. Why are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also called books, when they are generally found more as chapters in a larger book called the Bible?

Matthew begins with the phrase

Record is a translation from the same word found in Revelations "biblion". It clearly is not referring to a book. The genealogy given for Jesus takes less than a page. Do you really think a half-page of writing is the same as a whole book?
Because the Revelation was a separate work from the rest of the Bible, the warning not to add or subtract from the work was referring only to Revelations. There was no book called the Bible at that time, as I'm sure you know.

The Apocalypse of John (Revelations) narrowly missed being excluded from the canon.
The Apocalypse of Peter was considered by Clement of Alexandria, one of the major figures in the early church, to be divinely inspired, hence worthy of canonization. And Clement lived well before the Nicean council, closer to the source of Christianity than the people who formed the book we have today.

Is he now burning in hell for this heresy? Just wondering...

 

it is said that he who only reads the words of the torah is like a man that never takes the wedding dress off of his wife.

 

um, didnt you just criticize me for saying pretty much the exact same thing (read between the lines into the actual meaning of the scriptures)?

i bet. well, just make sure you have plenty of brains for him to eat. as far as i know, when someone rises from the dead in such a manner...they have an insatiable hunger for them.

 

Martin Luther considered several books in the canon to be questionable, and the Revelations of John is one of them.
He says of it :

He was also primarily responsible for the removal of the "apocrypha" from the Biblical canon, which most Protestant churches do not consider inspired, and many modern Christians know very little of them. This despite the fact of having been considered holy scripture for centuries before.

Looks like people have already added or subtracted from the Biblion (however you interpret it), so people with the incomplete Bible apparently are being misled by Satan. Do you agree? I guess if you're Catholic, you don't have anything to worry about.

 

actually, christians have added a HUGE section to scripture.
so, by their own argument THEY are the ones being misled by "satan" (whom i do not believe in)

 

Surprising as it may seem to you, I'm pretty sure that Visitor would precisely agree with you.

It's evident to me that TheVisitor is some kind of Gnostic. Gnosticism was originally one of the very earliest sects of Christianity (and one of the first to be ruled heretical) in which, taking their cue from current pagan cults, everything is wrapped up in "mysteries" which are only to be revealed to the initiated. (Gnosticism comes from gnosis which of course means "knowledge"). However, it's some new century form, I should think, rather than original Gnosticism. The original Gnostics believed that Yaweh was an evil God, and that Jesus was not the son of YHWH of scripture, but of El Elyon, translated as "God Most High", in the Bible.

Tut, of course not. The Protestant belief is that the Apocrypha are the words of the Devil having insinuated themselves into the old Bibles, but being uninspired. Actually, although the Protestant Churches relegated them to a separate section, there was originally no consideration of removing them from the Bible, and they were considered in the Anglican church to be good guidance for morals, but not to be relied on to determine the Doctrine of the Church. It wasn't until the 19th Century that the Apocrypha began to be omitted altogether.

I've looked and looked, but in bookshops with Bible shelves (not devotional bookshops, I don't generally frequent those) you can search high and low and you'll never see a Protestant "Bible with Apocrypha" (where the Apocrypha are put as a separate section in between the Old and New Testaments). However, I like to visit churches here in England, and I've noticed that in Anglican Churches, the lecturn bible does in fact generally have it. So they do exist and are still being printed (I've seen KJVs, NEBs and NRSVs), but you can hardly find them in the shops to buy.

(Edited because I thought some of Giam's quotes were from TheVisitor and not, as it turned out, Martin Luther himself!)

 

I don't know how many Bibles included the Apocrypha as part of their main body, or even within the book itself.
Another thing Martin Luther differed with Catholics about is Purgatory:

No mention of Purgatory in the Bible? Certainly.
But, while we're on the topic of omittance and inclusion (and confusion) one must also ask:where does the confusing notion of hell come from? From at least 3 different words and concepts: gehenna, sheol, and hades/tartaros. Gehenna, some kind of valley where refuse is thrown into pits of fire; sheol, which is a more or less neutral underworld, roughly equivalent to the Greek Hades; and Hades, again, basically neutral, for MOST dead persons, and Tartaros, a lower level of Hades reserved for the truly wicked or those deserving of punishment.

Sheol was basically all the pre-Christian Hebrews knew. If you went ANYWHERE after death, it was to Sheol. There was no differentiation between good and evil.
In fact, it can be gathered from the curious argument between the Pharisees and Sadducees, recorded in the Gospels, that the concept of life after death or the spirit/soul was hotly disputed. But the Old Testament gives very little information about either souls, or the afterlife. It raises an interesting question about where such ideas originated from. Certainly, it was something the Pharisees believed in, but not the Sadducees. If it were clear from the Jewish scriptures, then they probably wouldn't have been fighting about it.

In the same way, this concept of hell seems to have been spawned out of "nowhere". It certainly isn't based on the Jewish concept of the afterlife. I'm positive there were TRADITIONS and sectarian ideas, much like the apocrypha, which were accepted by certain groups, and rejected of course by others. There seems little other way that such strong concepts could have evolved from what the Bible considers Old Testament.

 

Sorry to get this so off-topic! The paragraph I quoted jumped out at me and beggened me to say things...