The Bible says a lot of stupid things. Like if a woman gets caught getting raped the man is punished by having to marry her and pay her dad some money. Talk about the holiness of marriage! That's how sacred God thinks marriage is. Marriage never had anything to do with love back then, women could hardly choose because they were men's slaves. But let's hear conservatives talk about traditional marriage. After they do ask how much they are selling their daughters for.
Then we have people who write new Bibles for themselves to suit their own agenda. Like Romney's folks with their magic underwear and multiple child brides...
AND other cultures and religions don't have arranged marriages???
Matthew !0:6 - 9 answering the Pharisees, Jesus said
verse 6 From the beginning of the creationGod made them male and female
7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife
8) and they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain but one flesh
9) What therefore God hath joined together let no man put assunder..
It should be noted that the Bible is a complete history of man's relationship with God including MAN'S FAILURES, which is exactly why Jesus came to forgive man of his sins for those who believe.
Once again from out of nowhere Larry takes on the Christian Faith..
Larry chill that hate will eat you up inside.
Since you hate God's word so much here is more..
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19) if ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen youout of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
PS; verse 24
If I had not done among them works that no other man did, they would not have had sin, BUT now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father.
25) this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated Me without cause...
I knew that would bring Native out of the bushes...quoting his particular Bible as if it was based on reality...
And who said I was taking on the Christian faith....in my view, all Organized religions are a farce meant to use scare tactics on those without the sense to know what is real and what is fantasy.
You can quote all the verses you want, I don't think anyone actually reads them or cares what they say, at least I don't. The second I see something like "John15-whatever" I know it is just more BS.
Is the Mormon faith considered Christian, I mean it has magic underwear and a star or planet named Kolob where I believe their God lives and where they will go when they die. Something weird like that. Kind of like going to Heaven only with dirt and regular planet things, not just soft white clouds to sit on waiting for the rest of Mankind to die so they can sit around on clouds too... Sounds pretty boring to me. Wonder if the Raiders play the 49ers there? Naw, that would be asking way too much of God, even though a lot of players, like Tim Tebow, thank him for every play that goes their way. Wonder if Tim ever thinks God is betting on the other team?
I guess you take on all religions by quoting the BIBLE but maybe you didn't realize it was the Bible.
evolution is just a farce to have an excuse to delete God ..
Just a lot like, I don't believe your unsubstantiated "science" texts.
Other cultures do have arranged marriages, but I'm specifically talking of Christianity right now. The Bible does document the supposed history of man and god's relationship and the many errors people made in said religion. But this wasn't some mistake by man but specific laws God put out to his people. So it's not error it's divine will.
all of the qouote in the above post were from the Old Testament including CN little story..there is a distinct difference between the two "Covenants" and the people each was directed to.
"The Distinction: The Imperfect Covenant
"So what's the difference? Why have an Old and New Covenant?" Both covenants were ushered in by - blood of animal sacrifices for the Old, and the blood of Christ for the New. But, Christ's blood of the New Covenant does what could not be done in the Old - forgive sins. The Old Testament prophets hundreds of years before, foretold the coming of a second covenant. Moreover, the New Testament also teaches that Old Testament was imperfect because it could not offer forgiveness of sins. Instead, each year the sins were "rolled back" until Christ's ultimate sacrifice. The entire book of Hebrews is devoted to showing that the Old Covenant is inferior to the New, and that New Testament Christians should not abide by this inferior covenant when they have something so superior. In fact, the writer of Hebrews actually quotes the a passage from Jeremiah to make this point (Hebrews 8:6-13).
Another significant difference is who God gave the covenant to. The Old Testament was a covenant given strictly for the Jews, or Israelites. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, could adopt the Jewish covenant and become "prostelytes", but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews. However, the New Testament made no distinction. One of the great things about the New Testament is that God's message and special covenant relationship is extended to all races and peoples. Consequently, the writings of the Old Testament generally track the story of the Israelites with a few exceptions, and the New Testament writings contain the gospel of Jesus and of the spread of the gospel all over the world, as well as directions for the new Christians."
Yeah in other words disregard most of your text because it's embarrassing. The fact is I don't remember Jesus saying disregard those OT laws(there were a few that he changed, like changing the dietary laws) but he said that he did not come to change the old laws when he was confronted about it. He never disavowed the laws concerning marriage and rape, or changed them at all.
No one expects you to understand... The explanation is adequate for those to whom a free mind is given..
To those who know the words in the Bible but do not know the author OR WORSE denounce him, understanding will never happen../
I don't understand because Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish the old laws. That's what Jesus said, I'm not just making this up.
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
That's Jesus' words, which means that these laws(except for the few that he specifically stated were changed, which actually contradicts what he says right here) are still in effect canative. He says not one letter of the laws will change until the apocalypse.
If Muslim men who are martyred get a bunch of virgins when they get to their version of Heaven, what do women get?
What is this obsession with virgins in Religions anyway? The Christians have their "Virgin Mary" the Aztecs and others had their virgin sacrifices. Muslims with their many virgins.
Guess that pretty much proves who made up this crap in the first place. Horny old men...
The thing is people used to get married when they were virgins. Well at least women did, you know getting sold by their fathers at 14 to older men. Today we consider it rape and molestation, but it's the norm back in those days.
I believe it is still a practice among certain groups around the world including here, some Mormon groups come to mind.
Here is my comments (you know I would have one) on Larry's blog here. He is pointing out that we should not be using religious law as means to base our laws, in this case, the right of two people to marry each other in the state of California, and to a greater extent, in the land of Liberty, the United States, by pointing to the many biblical laws that are ignored, and in someways seem silly in today's world.
Now, when these biblical laws were written, I am pretty sure they were for good reason. I can imagine that Ol' Levi ate some bad oysters and died, so to be on the safe side, a law was implemented to keep other Jews from eating bad shell fish. It's not too far off the mark ( the word "sin" translated means "to miss the mark") in that the so called "flesh eating" bacteria has been found to come from eating tainted oysters, but we as a society have the FDA to help minimize the risk and avoid the need to implement this old jewish law in our society. The same can be said for the example of bacon, which through modern farming technics and the use of science, pork is a safe food source and is widely accepted in our diets (Mmmmm, ribs!).
As Larry is attempting to point out, there is a high level of hypocrisy in using biblical law as the basis to eliminate the right of same sex couples from marrying in this great land of Liberty, and the fact that those who use this line of reasoning are cherry picking their bible to support their fears. After all, we hear from people like Canative, and Friendo that phrase from their beloved St Ronnie, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'." To which I ask, why is it not more terrifying to hear the words "I am from the government and I am here to restrict and limit your Liberties"? When you read the other biblical laws in the posting that Larry gave us, we only see more limits on our liberties.
I am not presenting an opinion that there needs to be a limit on religion or the freedom for individuals to practice their religion, and to live by these biblical laws. I am presenting the opinion that those who reason that any acts of personal liberty should be limited because of some religious foundation should first lead by example, and to live these laws to their fullest in their own personal lives before requiring the same from others.
I profess to being an open minded individual who seeks knowledge, and I have belonged to an organized Christian faith in the past. I have also found wisdom in other religions, one of my favorites being Buddhism, more specifically, Zen Buddhism. One of the teachings that I learned from this religion is that the mind is a defense mechanism. From the day you are born your mind starts to collect and store occurrences that have threatened or harmed you, and that it uses this collection to provide you with reason to protect yourself. One of my favorite sayings that come from Buddhism that I like to post in my blogs is:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
This is why I don't participate in a religion, or a Political Party, it is reliant on "group think" and is based on someone else's desires and fears. They don't agree with my own reason and my own common sense. You can see where Native goes immediately into defense mode in order to protect his belief system. Even when he argues for the teaching of Creationism, which requires one to suspend both reason and common sense in order to make his faith somehow fit reality.
The reasoning that people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry each other because of something that was said in the Old Testament, and there for is the "Word of God" is easy to shoot down. One of the practices of the Christian Church that I belonged to, was to look beyond the implied reasoning, and to look into the politics, and customs of the time Jesus lived so as to see the relevance of what he was teaching, and why he was teaching it. The Romans played a significant part in many of the things he taught, but he also belonged to a different sect of the Jewish religion than what was ruling Jerusalem, and spent a good deal of time shooting down the Biblical laws that the Pharisees and the Scribes were implementing according to their sect in his time. The Pharisees were maintaining their power over others by using Biblical laws as they interpreted them. Jesus stood up to this power base, and because of this… well, we know how it ended.
Here is one of my biggest arguments towards the Conservatives glorifying St Ronnie's quote above is that they want our government to not help those in need, which is what Jesus taught us to do, and to fight the powerful and help the powerless, as he did. These teachings of Jesus are opposite of what the Conservatives are claiming, and yet they invoke the bible as a reason to keep two loving people from conjoining their lives in a legal manner. In the readings that I have done on Jesus, he was a man of action, and not just a man of words, and it was through these actions that he met his ultimate demise. I suggest that we follow these examples of action, and stand up to the modern day Pharisees who are trying to implement Old Testament biblical law, as they view it, to keep two loving people from conjoining their lives in a legal manner. These restrictive actions go against my own reason, and my own common sense.
There are more reasons to not allow biblical law from being used to in our laws. There are so many sects of just the Christian religion, with many different views of what is the correct way of understanding the bible. Whose is the correct way, and who should determine this? This was also the views of the founders of this country, who added to the Constitution, freedom for and against religion. It should be for the individual to decide for themselves which religion is right for them.
Martin Luther stood up to the Pope and formed the Protestant Church in one part because he believed that the congregations should be able to read the bible themselves and to make their own judgements to what they would believe. The Pope and the Catholic Church enjoyed the power and control that came with having a limit on what was taught. This view point of control is as much a need now from those who wish to control people using the teachings of their faith.
We are told that we need to uphold the "traditional view" of marriage, and we are told that this is between one man and one women. Yet, in the bible, we read where men were allowed to have many wives, which leads one to believe that the traditional biblical marriage can be between a man and multiple women. So maybe we limit this "traditional view" to the times of this nation. Yet, again, there needed to be laws passed in the late 1860s, and again in the late 1880s to outlaw polygamy. One man and one woman couldn't have been that traditional that this bridge had to be crossed twice in one century. There were obviously a large enough subset of the American people with multiple spouses that the law was implemented.
To make this reasoning even more interesting is that these laws were written in good part to the practice of polygamy by the Mormon Church, which Larry mentions in one of his comments. The last time the law outlawing this "tradition" being practiced by this church, and which has been fully accepted by the Mormon Church, was so the state of Utah could be admitted to the Union. Now, the establishment in the Mormon Church in the United States are adamant that polygamy is NOT a part of their religion, but it should be noted that Mitt Romney's Grandfather had multiple wives while he lived at a Mormon Colony in Mexico. So again, this would have been a "traditional marriage" as practiced by people of a particular faith. I saw recently where the wife of Joseph Smith, the person who started the Mormon religion, believed that she should be able to have multiple husbands, so the one man, one woman claim is again challenged by a religious faith of this country, in a time that wasn't so long ago. So which religion should be the one dictating the "traditional view" and how far back should that "tradition" go?
Canative is looking to point out that there are different Covenants between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and I have heard that as well. The Old Testament is the Readers Digest version of the Jewish Torah. Its main reason for being in the bible is to show that Jesus is the messiah that was prophesied in the Torah. It is to show the lineage of David to Jesus, only the linage ties to Joseph and not Mary. This New Covenant hasn't stopped Christian preachers from using the Old Testament as reinforcement of their beliefs and also control. Getting back to the Mormons, Joseph Smith was teaching a New Covenant for the American people. Has it come to a time when we as Americans need to look to that religion's traditions as our own?
We have a Constitution in this country that allows it's citizens liberties, and all citizens are equal under the law. No where in the Constitution does it say that these liberties are contingent on religious beliefs or laws, and it does not state that our liberties are bound by some peoples view of what "tradition" is.
I would still like to know why is it not more terrifying to hear the words "I am from the government and I am here to restrict and limit your Liberties"?
The law and the prophets were until John(the Baptist) since that time the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it
Remember the OLd Covenant was for the JEWS even as the chosen people they could not keep the law
For the law was given by Moses but grace and truth come from Jesus Christ.
So much confusion from those who only know the words of the Bible which they pick and chose.. Parts of the Bible were for the JEWS and parts for the Gentiles who become part of the body of Christ through believing in the death and resurection of Jesus as the Son of God..
IN FACT the Bible says of Jesus "He came unto His own and His own recieved Him NOT... Therefore it would be logical that unless the Bible specifies that Jesus was talking to others than JEWS His words were for JEWS. The majority of the New Testament, the New Covenant was a covenant of Grace because even the chosen people could not keep it...WAS WRITTEN BY the Apostle Paul chosen by Jesus (to bright light at noon time) to preach the message of Grace to the rest of the world...
so let it be written so let it be done..
Again with the Bible quotes.. If your boy Jesus really wanted to start his own thing, why was he a Rabbi until the end?
Which is what the Jews still think of him, simply another Rabbi. Are they still not waiting for the Savior.
If I'm not mistaken what I quoted was part of the Sermon on the Mount, which I'm pretty sure isn't something just for the Jews. And what kind of mumbo jumbo is that? If you're Jewish you still need to follow all of these laws but if you're saved and not Jewish you don't? Doesn't really surprise me though the Bible is full of contradictions.
When people quote things Jesus supposedly said, like ".this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written..blah..blah..blah." one has to put that into perspective, after all, Jesus didn't speak English, in fact nobody did during the 1st Century A.D. Jesus more likely spoke Aramaic or Hebrew or maybe Greek, certainly not Latin and for sure not English. Now since the Old Testament was written, and logically so, in Hebrew, then translated to several other languages such as Latin and Greek and the New Testament was translated to Greek, then Latin, then English, it is safe to say that there were some gaps between the translations and has more to do with the translators opinion of what Jesus meant, not what he actually said.
Everyone is familiar with the game where one person will whisper something to someone next to him and he in turn whispers what he was told to the next person in the circle, by the time it gets back to the originator, it hardly resembles what the originator actually said. Well that applies here as well.
Anyone who speaks more than one language knows this first hand. I watch lots of foreign films, some in Spanish, my second language, and a lot of the captions do not follow what was actually said in the film.
A real life example: I was brought up among Navajos in NM. Where I worked back then included many Navajos. My boss asked me to put a sign up at the entrance in both English and Navajo. The English version was "Please wipe shoes upon entry". I asked a Navajo friend to write the same sign in Navajo. The Navajo translation actually said "Please clean your foots before you came in".
So you see when someone claims Jesus said something like:
..this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written..blah..blah..blah." What he really said was "Please clean your foots before you came in"
That is the dumbest most arogant thing I have ever heard you say..
Men of old couldn't lean more than one laguage??? Only men of modern times could accurately translate??? I guess only the men of science know anything?
Using that logic all ancient texts are just guesses of modern man as far as the wording???
Do you honestly believe the Sermon on the Mount delivered in Galailee was NOT delivered to Jews who were the people who occupied the region???
Time to get over your arogance and take time to actually learn the facts..
Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is now considered a dead language. At his time Greek was used as a "common language" much like Spanish and English are now. The word Jesus is a Greek translation of Joshua, or Yeshua which is what we are told was Jesus' name.
I think the point that Larry was making is that things get lost in translation, and that to claim our modern day bible is somehow the actual word of god leaves a lot on the table. Then there is the point that I made earlier that the Catholic Church was the keeper of the bible, and were at liberty to make alterations, as well as did the many who translated the documents and added embellishments to fit their view. The alteration to Mary Magdalene as a disciple to prostitute comes to mind as an example.
It is a faith based document, and there is wisdom as well as embellishments throughout. It doesn't need to be factual to be an inspiration to a person's life, it only needs to be factual if a person's intent is to hold others to it.
"Time to get over your arogance and take time to actually learn the facts." - Native, its time you get over your arrogance and quit looking for facts. Promote the teachings of Jesus through your actions, and if they are good, people will want to emulate them. There are too many things that were magical when the bible was written that can be duplicated by modern technology and in turn aren't enough to draw people to it. There is however, great acts by individuals who should inspire people to join in a community and recreate this great acts.
I am less impressed with someone walking on water and more so if he fed the starving. Actions speak louder than words.
Aramaic maybe a dead language but not when the Bible was written and certainly the disciples knew the language...who you you think wrote the New Tesstament? Matthew, Mark, Luke; A DOCTOR, JOhn, Peter , James, Jude and the Apostle Paul who was at one time a leading Rabbi. I don't believe they HAD TOO MANY PROBLEMS UNDERSTANDING WHAT JESUS SAID..
Sounds like by using mary Magdalene you do not believe in God forgiving sinners???
I am spending the next three days with a world wide evangelist who was once the Gang Leader of one of the worst gangs in New York in the 50s. He has been preaching to gangs all over the world for 50 years and written 16 books that present God's love....A sinner saved by the Grace of God through his belief in Jesus.
It sounds like your time in the Christian Faith was not very impressed on you..
the Bible was written in Greek by the eye witnesses who were inspired by the Holy Spirit anything short of that is questionable... Yes the Catholic church did some things wrong and even added some books and rules that are questionable. Your problem appears to be not one of lack of faith because you have faith in many thigs you have not seen or actually experienced, BUT you chose to reject God who can only be recieved by faith.. that is on you..
The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy his beloved son in the faith.
II Timothy 3:16
All Scriptur is insppired by Godand profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;17) that the man oof God may be adequate, equiped for every good work.
John wrote in the Book of Revelation from a revelation from God
I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book 19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
You see since the Original Author has insoired the words there is no problem with translations that have been proven to be accurate.
Other "scripture" is not from God therefore not part of Scripture and naturally questionable..
The very fact that a NEw Covenant was written as prophecied in the Old Testament showed that God forknew that the Chosen People would reject Him and He provided a Second Covenant AS PROPHECIED; in Jesus.
Only the hardened of heart would be unable to understand...
Matthew, Mark, Luke - These were disciples of disciples, and not first hand witnesses
"Sounds like by using mary Magdalene you do not believe in God forgiving sinners??? " Nope, I also don't believe in embellishment in order to "put women in their place"
You are debating minutia from a fable. Its like debating Harry Potter, its not relevant to anyone but you and those who can't see the forest for all of the trees. It all means nothing without action behind it.
There is no debate with me, I don't care, I live for today and not on a promise of some after life. I don't want to waste the time I have hoping for something that someone else made up to keep the masses in line. I find wisdom in many religions and more morality in Aesop's Fables then I do from any one religion.
Try living all of the rules that are in your book to the fullest. If you did, you would be too busy to be here quoting them to us. Yours is no more special than any other religion, only to you, as it should be.
As I said before, your bible story has a missing link, and that is the physical being know as god. Enjoy your faith and I hope it serves YOU well! Peace be with you...
OH just one more word read the story of Moses and Pharoah and note that the first 5 plagues Pharoah "hardened his heart". Then note that with the last 5 plagues GOD HARDENED Pharoah's heart..
Live for the day you do not know what tomorrow holds. When your time here on earth is over there is no going back..
....and who wrote the "Story" of Moses and Pharaoh? And how many times was that translated?
"Please clean your foots before you came in"...
"When your time here on earth is over there is no going back.." Buddhist believe you are reincarnated, so I can always fall back on that.
In my church (The Holy Church of the Check-out Counter). If you don't have enough money to pay for your sins, you just have to go back in another life....This is like my 200dreth time. And yes Native, I was there when Jesus said, in a language he had just invented, "Please clean your foots before you came in"...
How did the Hebrews end up in Egypt anyway? Did the Egyptians go out to the desert and round them all up?
I think it had more to do with the employment situation in the desert. I imagine unemployment was pretty high out there with just sand and a few goats. The wife situation was OK but it must have been hard to feed them all, you know how kids like to eat. Some Mormons have that problem today..
I think some Coyotes (Most likely Philistines from what is now Iraq), heard there were lots of good construction jobs in Egypt and put two and two together. It was well known back then that the Egyptians had lots of gold and had gotten pretty lazy, not wanting to do the hard dirty work anymore and leaned more toward the easy jobs, like Temple Priests and such. Of course once the Egyptians had a bunch of Hebrews who would do the work, the Egyptians, knowing the Hebrews were desperate to work, paid them next to nothing. Soon the Hebrews were doing all the hard labor, working as housekeepers, Restaurants and field work, and building Pyramids and Temples and such. Some of them even joined the Egyptian army taking advantage of the Egyptian Dream Act, which meant they could become full fledged Egyptians, able to go into business for themselves. Realizing the Egyptians took a liking to Hebrew food, some Hebrews started up Hebrew Food Carts, parking them on busy street corners where they were a big hit. Of course the Egyptians didn't like the idea that Hebrews were making money at this new venture, so they passed laws, making it illegal for Hebrew Food Carts to park in one place for more than ten minutes.
Meanwhile, the Coyotes took their gold back to Iraq and started working on WMDs only none of them knew what WMDs were, never catching on, as we all found out.
Well I guess that everything before Jesus died was directed at the Jews considering all of what he said was said in Israel. Just more stuff to disregard in your holy text isn't it?
The Plagues Of Egypt can be explained by science.
Parting of the Red sea explained
I call it the reed sea since The Naked Archaeologist stated in one of his programs the translation was wrong and found that they more likely crossed over in a area with a large reed growth and low area with a tide linked to it.
Sodom and Gomorrah was more likely taken out by a meter or that since they claim to have found it and it sits on a fault line it was taken out by a earthquake.
Makes more sense to me.
And why did God harden Pharoahs heart, it doesn't make sense. He was trying to free his people, Pharoah was like "okay" after a while, then God was like "actually I want to kill Egypts first born kids first, your heart is hardened." why? That seems like a jerk move on God's part.
canative you wrote: "the Bible was written in Greek by the eye witnesses who were inspired by the Holy Spirit anything short of that is questionable... Yes the Catholic church did some things wrong and even added some books and rules that are questionable."
The Catholic Church (1st mention in a letter from Ignatius in 107-110 AD) was and still is the keeper of the Bible. The bible came from the Catholic Church. The Church did not add any books to what the Jews in Jesus' time were using. The Septuagint (Koine Greek)came about in about 250 B.C. and was in common use outside of and inside of Palistine. In 2/3 of the 300 or so references to the O.T. in the N.T. are from the Septuagint. That in cluded the 7 books and some chapeters that Luther and others removed. Luther also wanted to remove the epistle of James, the book of the Apocalypse and Esther. He also tried to add the word "alone" to Romans. Funny how these same 7 books were in the 1611 KJV.
Jesus said one the cross that "it is finished". He was talking about the old Covenant. Christians as well as others have to read to O.T. through the lense of Jesus the Christ. B.T.W. the chapters were added in about 1200 by a Cathoilc bishop and the verses were added by a French printer in the 1400's to make type setting easier. To pick and chose verses and ignore other parts of Scripture is why there are 20,000-30,000 offshoots. Thank you reformation!(sacasim)
Leo you pretty much have it nailed as far as the Old Testament is concerned .
The books that were removed were "questioable by the Council
As for Matthhew being a disciple of a disciple Matthew is in fact the Tax Collector called by Jesus to be a disciple.
AS for Luke it would be wise to read Luke 1: 2- 3
"jUST AS THOSE WHO FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES AND SERVANTS OF THE WORD HAVE HANDED DOWN TO US
IT SEEMED FITTING FOR ME AS WELL, HAVING INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING CAREFULLY FROM THE BEGINNING TO WRITE IT OUT FOR YOOU IN CONSECTUTIVE ORDER MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS "
as fopr Mark he was an attendant to St. Pater.and wrote his bok in the first century or early in the second.
Then in the low water the entire Egyptian Army was drowned???
Either way a pretty good miracle by God.
Maybe the second 5 plagues were to SHOW the power of God... After all did not Pharoah still back out of the promise to let them go? Wiitihoout the last 5 plagues Pharoah probably woould never have let them go.
Then the Lord said to Moses "go to Pharoah, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may perform these signs of Mine among them
and you may tell in the hearing of your son and your grandson, how mockery of the Egyptians, and how I performed My signs among them; that you ay know that I am the LORD"
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.." Genesis 19:24, 25 KJV)
Biblical archaeologist, Ron Wyatt discovered the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah southeast of the Dead Sea in 1989. These devastated Mesopotamian style cities were covered with millions of partially incinerated sulfur balls and tons of ash. Clearly defined walls, some thirty to forty feet high can be found among the ruins.
Evidence of heat exceeding 4000 degrees Fahrenheit can be seen in the rock strata and ruins throughout the cities. Comparable destruction can also be found at the epicenters of nuclear detonations.
Such evidence validates the accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures, and again shatters secular attempts to "mythologize" this ancient catastrophe.
While some archaeologists consider Ron Wyatt's accomplishments to be nothing but fraud and sensationalism, many have examined the evidence and perceive the truth beyond the personalities and politics of the profession.
"While some archaeologists consider Ron Wyatt's accomplishments to be nothing but fraud and sensationalism, many have examined the evidence and perceive the truth beyond the personalities and politics of the profession." - Here lies part of the problem, you ignore the many archaeologists because they don't agree with your view and the view of one archaeologists. Seek and you shall find the answer, but if you stop where it fits your story, you have not proved anything. Your fear in finding the answer lessens the credibility of what you are selling.
There are other pieces of evidence that show the possibility of a meteor hitting this region at the same time which would coincide with "Evidence of heat exceeding 4000 degrees Fahrenheit can be seen in the rock strata and ruins throughout the cities." Ignoring all evidence, even that which counters your faith is closed minded. We don't know the answer, and to ignore some pieces of evidence that disputes an ancient text and except only one example as proof is weak at best.
"Then in the low water the entire Egyptian Army was drowned???" - here again, since you can't answer the question, and refuse to look to evidence that is continually being collected, your automatic default answer is it was divine intervention. If you are impressed by magic, then this default answer should suffice, but if you are trying to convince a free thinker that this is the only answer, then the cheese stands alone.
This is no different than relying on David Barton as an expert in American history and ignoring the plethora of studies by a multitude of experts and scholars who present evidence contrary to Mr Barton's opinions. People are welcome to their opinion, but in most cases, it is an individuals opinion. The cheese stands alone.
There seems to be an avoidance in stating the origin of the formation of the bible. The books that are present in it was compiled not by the original followers of Jesus, but by people who were looking to form a church at the commission of a Roman Emperor. There was a litmus test as to what story was to be told, and there is an absence of books by the original disciples because their story did not fit the story that the early church, and a Roman Emperor who was looking to control the masses wanted to present. There is just as much politics involved in the organization of the books as was the supposed divine intervention.
"Leo you pretty much have it nailed as far as the Old Testament is concerned .
The books that were removed were "questioable by the Council' - This statement is laughable. The comedian Louis Black (who is jewish) has a great skit that he does questioning how all of these Christian experts can answer questions concerning the Jewish scriptures. His repeated line is, if you want to know what it means "Ask a Jew!"
A statement that Native made earlier puts in a nut shell, and shows that the only quest here is to present superiority over others and to force his narrow minded view on all of us, he said,"Old Covenant is inferior to the New, and that New Testament Christians should not abide by this inferior covenant when they have something so superior" So the people who invented your god, and the way that they believe in him, and the way they wrote down their history was "inferior."
Here is the middle child syndrome being played out right in front of us for all to see.
I guess Sov missed the point that the Old Testament points directly to the New Testamnt and the coming and role of Jesus the Son of God. which in fact makes both "covenant very much tied together...there is nothing inferior in the Old Testament
By the way "control of the masses" is that not what big government as the Democratic Party strives for???
Actions verses words, your party always claims it's for small government, and then grows it when it gets in. They say they are fiscally resposible and then piles on the debt. Actions verses words, they never seem to go together when talking about the Conservatives. They are just hypocrites, stands to reason why you belong to "The Propaganda Party"!
So what you are saying is that the "old testament" provides previews to the sequel like in Star wars did? That was clever! As I said before, the old testament is just the readers digest version of the Jewish Torah with all the parts that don't fit your story removed.
May the force be with you!
So tell us more of this inferiority complex that you have, and this underlying need to enforce your beliefs on others so you can feel superior.
See how this stuff comes out eventually.....
I wonder just when God decided he needed a Son? Was it during the time of the Hebrews in Egypt when he had to work overtime tossing out plagues and such? Was it then that he decided he needed some help? But didn't he already have a partner (The Holy Spirit previously known as the Holy G*host) Note: the name change came about because the whole G*host thing scared the kids, my opinion anyway. Spirit sounds more like Casper the Friendly G*host than "The HOLY G*HOST" Booooooo!!!
Apparently the guy had other things to attend to, with Halloween coming up and pagans running around building things like Stone Henge and statues on Easter Island and such. I've never seen a photo of the holy spirit guy but I imagine he wears a mask of some type, with maybe a cape. Wonder if he keeps a cool car hidden in a cave somewhere?
Apparently God liked the idea of a Son but wasn't too keen on having a wife who would probably cut into his Football nights with Tim Tebow and hanging with the holy spirit guy cruising around Heaven. I wonder how Joseph took the news when his wife told him she was having a baby when Joseph knew it couldn't be him having had a vasectomy years earlier. Then Mary telling him she was still a Virgin and the real father was God, or maybe the Holy Spirit guy. Yeah, right! Would you believe that story today guys?
I saw something recently that stated "Jesus had two fathers, and he turned out alright!"
Always with the double standards. It's ok for me, just not for you.....
the above comments are really from misinformation.
Fist that Believer feel superior... If they were actually thinking straight they would KNOW, God so loved the WORLD, so anyone can be the same relationship with God. Second as far as trying to FORCE our faith on anyone, that is also wrong thinking, much like the idea of telling people you care about to quit smoking as we know smoking causes cancer... Its only from being concerned that we desire for people to stop smoking but the choice is theirs..If Christians did not see it that way they would not really be living their FAith.
Sorry if that offends anyone ...
Finaly all have two fathers.. one an earthly father and ONE a HEavenly Father OR the other the wannabe father of the world.
Only in your faith based paradigm.
Enjoy your faith, live it, love it, hold in your heart. Actions speak louder than words, Jesus' message was to love one another, so don't take on your god's stated responsibility and judge others, but rather get out of the way of two loving people from getting married.
There isn't enough love or commitment in this world to stand in the way of those who do love each other and want to make a commitment to each other.
"Going to church and constantly quoting some old Bible doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car...." Read that somewhere or something like it...
So what of what Jesus said do you guys believe? Because you guys don't even follow what Jesus said at the Mount, the stuff which includes looking at a woman lust fully being a sin, any of the old testament. So what is the point of quoting Leviticus so much if you don't adhere to any of the other laws laid out in it and most of what Jesus says in the NT?