Are you a liar?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

If He doesn’t exist to you, than He doesn’t exist. He is offering every human a “gift” The gift, so it’s free. You can choose to accept the gift or reject it. So, if you reject it, you don’t still get the gift. You can’t say, “God I reject you, but please take me to Heaven when I die” Rejecting Christ is rejecting unforgivable and the only unforgivable sin. You basically damned yourself.

This doesn’t work because it either happened or it didn’t. Jesus can’t say that he died for our sins and then say it doesn’t count when he is in a bad mood.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

1) The Devil/Satan is the Totally Devoted Adversary of Elohim/God. You will find this to be Fact through experience when you See and/or practice the Truth.

2) The struggle between Good and Evil is an Internal and External Struggle/War/Battle.





@F1fan Can you see that you are being Hypocritical and Contradicting yourself? You are being Dogmatic about being Liberal. Everyone is dogmatic when they stick to a position.

The Literalist Interpretation is for the Earthly Church that most of 2.2 Billions of Christians in Christendom are members. The Christian Earthly Church has Domination over the Whole World.

So Christians dominate despite being less than half of the population?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

2 Timothy 3:16

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All Scripture is Inspired and Written by Elohim/God. Empty vessels were used as vehicles for spreading Elohim's/God's Word.

And the author is a man so he’s lying.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Devil/Satan either makes Failed Christians in the Churches or Atheists such as yourself.

What I love about this type of response is that it makes God incompetent.

 

[F1fan]

So, you've given up on what really matters, which is understanding the message of the scriptures, so you can focus attention on unfruitful debate about the 'construction' of the Gospels!

There you go again making a judgmental assumption that you are correct and I am wrong. And you do this without demonstrating you are correct. Are you a God, or a flawed human?

The questions you raise have been trawled over by thousands of scholars, yet, despite all the arguments, there has been no significant alteration to the scriptures. This should tell you something about true beauty of the Bible.

So you admit the bible has undergone changes. That’s a start. But its also the history of how the bible was constructed that is troubling for your absolutist claims, and that the concepts are inconsistent with reality. They aren’t believable or rational. You make no effort to defend your beliefs with evidence and a coherent explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's an unfair criticism of James Ussher. He was an historian, as well as being a theologian. Maybe you should check out the 'Annals' a bit more thoroughily. He quotes his sources, and uses over 14000 quotes from various historians to support his case.

And why have you not mentioned Acts 5:37, which demonstrates that the second taxing ordered by Quirinius was known to Luke?

I think that you got the wrong verse:

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

I checked on Ussher. He does not appear to be respected as a historian at all. He ruined almost all of his credibility with his dating of the Earth where he unwittingly called his own God a liar.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I think that you got the wrong verse:

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

I checked on Ussher. He does not appear to be respected as a historian at all. He ruined almost all of his credibility with his dating of the Earth where he unwittingly called his own God a liar.

Even if you reject Ussher, it's his sources that tell the story. Do you reject the histories of such writers as Tacitus, Seutonius and Josephus?

The verse l mentioned is Acts 5:37. It tells of an uprising in Galilee at the time of the 6CE taxing. How could Luke have written about this event without knowing that there were two different taxations under Quirinius?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if you reject Ussher, it's his sources that tell the story. Do you reject the histories of such writers as Tacitus, Seutonius and Josephus?

The verse l mentioned is Acts 5:37. It tells of an uprising in Galilee at the time of the 6CE taxing. How could Luke have written about this event without knowing that there were two different taxations under Quirinius?

Josephus is one of the sources that refutes Luke, probably the others do to.

You are now just grabbing names hoping that they support you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There you go again making a judgmental assumption that you are correct and I am wrong. And you do this without demonstrating you are correct. Are you a God, or a flawed human?


So you admit the bible has undergone changes. That’s a start. But its also the history of how the bible was constructed that is troubling for your absolutist claims, and that the concepts are inconsistent with reality. They aren’t believable or rational. You make no effort to defend your beliefs with evidence and a coherent explanation.

The changes in the Bible that l refer to are changes in translation, usually minor and intended to clarify meaning.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Josephus is one of the sources that refutes Luke, probably the others do to.

You are now just grabbing names hoping that they support you.

I'd like you to start providing chapter and verse when you make a case against scripture. So far your attempt to show error has fallen flat.

Where does Josephus refute Luke? I have a copy of Josephus' works and will check it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The changes in the Bible that l refer to are changes in translation, usually minor and intended to clarify meaning.

Then I take it that you have never heard of the parable of the adulterous woman.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like you to start providing chapter and verse when you make a case against scripture. So far your attempt to show error has fallen flat.

Where does Josephus refute Luke? I have a copy of Josephus' works and will check it out.

Seriously? Do you need the chapter and verse of Luke's failed Nativity myth? I can provide them for you. And Josephus refutes Luke because he was one of the sources for the dating of the Census of Quirinius. This is basic stuff. There is nothing news breaking in these facts. You really need to study your own Bible more thoroughly. I don't mean just read the Bible. Read about the Bible by people that have really looked into it.

 

[2ndpillar]

The two genealogies, Matthew's and Luke's, work in harmony to provide an accurate explanation of how it is possible for Jesus to be both a descendant of David, and the Son of God. I can't imagine any Jew would accept a Messiah whose genealogy to David was not beyond doubt

It is doubtful that many Jews give any credence to either Matthew or Luke. They are looking for a king (anointed), who will lord over the nations/Gentiles (Zechariah 14:16) and shepherd Israel, the combined tribes of Ephraim (the 10 northern tribes) and Judah (the 3 southern tribes, including Levi (Ezekiel 34:22-24 & 37:22-24)). That hasn't happened, and will not happen until the "end of the age", when the "tares", including the Gentile church, those who "commit lawlessness", are gathered and thrown into the furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:39-42)
Matthew list 42 generations from Abraham to the time of Christ, yet there aren't 42 named. As for the message of Yeshua, to be a "son of God", one must do the will of God. The god of Christianity is Paul, and he is a son of Benjamin, according to Paul. Another son of Benjamin, was king Saul, Paul's predecessor, who tried to kill David. Paul tried to kill Yeshua's followers, but as with king Saul, he failed. Those who claim killers of saints as their fathers, such as Paul, will wind up having the blood of the saints on their heads. (Matthew 23:29-35).

 

[F1fan]

The changes in the Bible that l refer to are changes in translation, usually minor and intended to clarify meaning.

You have a bad habit of trying to ignore evidence that goes against your beliefs about the Bible. You can't ask us to follow your bad habit and be credible and honest in debate. You need to address the serious problems about the Bible that others bring up. You ignoring these problems only points to bad faith.

You have to be somewhat aware that your beliefs are taking a huge hit in this debate. No one is saying you can't believe in your dogma. What you cannot do is post what you believe and imply others are wrong to not agree with you, and then offer no explanation why.

I'm reminded of the title of this thread: Are you a liar?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Then I take it that you have never heard of the parable of the adulterous woman.

The received text in Greek, used in the KJV, includes the disputed passages, and allows the reader to determine whether the passages are truly inspired and consistent.

Seriously? Do you need the chapter and verse of Luke's failed Nativity myth? I can provide them for you. And Josephus refutes Luke because he was one of the sources for the dating of the Census of Quirinius. This is basic stuff. There is nothing news breaking in these facts. You really need to study your own Bible more thoroughly. I don't mean just read the Bible. Read about the Bible by people that have really looked into it.

Yes, l want to hear exactly where you think the errors in Luke exist, and then l'll give a detailed response.

So far, you have claimed that Luke was confused by the 6CE census conducted by the Romans; but it's clear from the book of Acts that he wasn't.

You also wish to claim that the nativity was a myth. I intend to show that it was not.

Do you have any other doubts about the authenticity of Luke's two books? I'd like to deal with them all in one go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The received text in Greek, used in the KJV, includes the disputed passages, and allows the reader to determine whether the passages are truly inspired and consistent.

Yes, l want to hear exactly where you think the errors in Luke exist, and then l'll give a detailed response.

So far, you have claimed that Luke was confused by the 6CE census conducted by the Romans; but it's clear from the book of Acts that he wasn't.

You also wish to claim that the nativity was a myth. I intend to show that it was not.

Do you have any other doubts about the authenticity of Luke's two books? I'd like to deal with them all in one go.

When the KJV was first written they did not have that correction.

I already explained to you how the author of Luke screwed the pooch. How are you going to refute a well known fact? That was not the only ignorant error that the author of Luke msde.

 

[Redemptionsong]

You have a bad habit of trying to ignore evidence that goes against your beliefs about the Bible. You can't ask us to follow your bad habit and be credible and honest in debate. You need to address the serious problems about the Bible that others bring up. You ignoring these problems only points to bad faith.

You have to be somewhat aware that your beliefs are taking a huge hit in this debate. No one is saying you can't believe in your dogma. What you cannot do is post what you believe and imply others are wrong to not agree with you, and then offer no explanation why.

I'm reminded of the title of this thread: Are you a liar?

I'm not ignoring evidence, l'm demonstrating from the Bible itself that your accusations are without foundation!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not ignoring evidence, l'm demonstrating from the Bible itself that your accusations are without foundation!

Sorry, the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

When the KJV was first written they did not have that correction.

I already explained to you how the author of Luke screwed the pooch. How are you going to refute a well known fact? That was not the only ignorant error that the author of Luke msde.

I am asking you to list the 'errors' in Luke. All the errors you believe exist.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry, the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

To me, the Bible is evidence of God. I do not believe that the Bible could have written by men without the inspiration of God.