Bible is word of God ...

[PetriFB]

Cwes99_03: It is entirely futile attempting to communicate with people if those people dont read what is written and respond to it. I have pointed out to you, several times, where you are misrepresenting me, I have also asked you to read up on logical fallacies, please do so, NOW!

Making assumptions of unexpressed meanings and continuing as if those assumptions are correct is a further case of trivially fallacious reasoning and it is a complete waste of my time.

I have continually stressed that belief is not a factor in this thread's question, and for that reason I have had no reason to express a belief of my own concerning existence or non-existence of god. Either show where, on this thread, I have expressed a belief that god doesn't exist or acknowledge in writing that I have not.

You have also attributed to me a belief "that God could not have inspired the writings", again, either show where I have expressed this or publicly withdraw it.

I will take your word that you still cant understand my use of "absurd" and I will explain, please make an effort to read and understand, because this is very simple and it wastes my time to keep repeating it:

1) the claim is that the Bible is the word of god

2) this requires that god transmit word either directly or indirectly to paper

3) there are two possibilities a) god exists :shrug: god does not exist

4) in case :naughty: sentence 2) is logically absurd

5) it is therefore necessary to establish case a)

Note, "establish" (sentence 5) does not require physical evidence but it requires logically consistent reasoning based on real things, that is things common to all people regardless of belief.

I really hope that you can now understand this and will save me the inconvenience of having to deal with facile accusations concerning the use of the word "absurd".

 

 

You are locked to your beliefs and woun't change your mind unless you repent before God.....

 

I have deep experiences with God and have not any reason doubt Him ....

[PetriFB]

By the way.. I have informed that I can't fill your rules in this forum.. it is very same if I'm carpenter and you take out my tools and urged me to work...

 

So I have send to admin a post requesting to ban me ......because I can't discuss under your rules ......because sometimes I need to put a link, where is information what Im' talking and that linking has denied to me ......

 

So once again I request that admin bans me .......or I do it myself or then I can freely post and stay otherwise I leave .......

[ughaibu]

What beliefs? Read the post you've quoted again, you have completely missed it's points.

[ughaibu]

I second PetriFB's request, please ban him, he is correct when he says "I can't discuss".

[PetriFB]

I second PetriFB's request, please ban him, he is correct when he says "I can't discuss".

 

The whole context says:

So I have send to admin a post requesting to ban me ......because I can't discuss under your rules ......because sometimes I need to put a link, where is information what Im' talking and that linking has denied to me ......

[Pyrotex]

I'm sure that you are conscious about fakes of evolutionists ..

There was only ONE real bonafide fake: the Piltdown Man, in 1909 or thereabouts, perpetrated (probably) by the administrator of the London Museum. It was a "practical joke" gone bad, and to save face, the administrator locked the Piltdown Man fossils in the museum vault and they were not seen or examined for half a century. The Piltdown Man had almost NO affect on science. That's the only significant fake in nearly two centuries of evolutionary thinking.

 

All the other "fakes" you think you know about are just invented stories.

[InfiniteNow]

Buh bye.

[cwes99_03]

Perhaps Petri, you could have befriended a mod and saved yourself (and the rest of us who have to read your posts) the headache and your heartache. This mod then could have checked your sources and told you whether or not they would allow them and why.

 

Now I have to admit sometimes they may seem cruel and out of line because they become prejudiced against you from your earlier posts, but opening up a dialogue would have been good.

 

Now the links that you have posted and were later removed were not links to verifiable information. They were links to a evangelist website where a person who you yourself professed to follow as your spiritual leader posted his musings on things. His musings are very far from mainstream. This in and of itself is not bad, if his musings can be supported by other material. You however have never posted any supporting material except to go back to those websites, or to regurgitate them as if you yourself wrote them, here in your posts.

Thus the mods lost patience with you and took away your linking rights.

[Pyrotex]

Jesus was born during a census by king Herod, that is well documented. ...

The census of king Herod is indeed documented. The birth of Jesus is NOT documented.

[Freddy]

The census of king Herod is indeed documented. The birth of Jesus is NOT documented.

 

Where is this documented?

[Pyrotex]

Where is this documented?

The census of king Herod? I do not know for sure. I suspect it appears in Josephus' History of the Jews. I have read in college history books that many of the Roman bureacracy letters that went to Rome are still preserved, largely in the Vatican, and this allows us to date many events such as reigns of even minor rulers, wars, censuses, that sort of thing. Letters written by Roman Senators often contained chatty news of local governmental affairs. Sorry I cannot be more helpful--and in fact, my knowledge of this specific thing is second hand.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

A question for everyone that believes that the Bible is "gods word" from a former Baptist pastor.

 

If the Bible is god's word why do christians feel that the old testament no longer applies?

 

I've yet to see where god said that it doesn't anywhere in it.

 

That's right Hypographers Ol' D.D. used to be a Baptist minister!

Went to seminary school an everything! Even gave a few sermons!!!:)

The reason I gave it up was this very question...After lengthy discusions of this matter with no answers and not one person being able to show in the bible where God said the old testament is no longer of any real relavence I gave up organised religion.

 

I still believe in god though just not in the whole biblical sence.

[CerebralEcstasy]

A question for everyone that believes that the Bible is "gods word" from a former Baptist pastor.

 

If the Bible is gods word why do christians feel that the old testament no longer applies?

 

I've yet to see where the god said that it doesn't.

 

 

This is why we are cautioned to not teach doctrines of man. 2 Tim 3:16 states quite clearly that All Scripture, is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Do you believe humans aren't perfect?

 

If so, then you can understand where people took the truth (Gods Word), and interpreted it as best they could in their setting. People are continually changing, therefore the interpretation of the truth continually changes.

 

The truth does not change, people do. The OT is completely relevant in its setting, and as all we can do is interpret the truth, we can try to interpret what the OT was supposed to do for humans, and didn't. Therefore, Jesus was born, to bring new truth. I believe he brought some of the greatest truths, but again, humans can only interpret. And we see now how they interpreted his word.

 

We shouldn't throw out old representations of the truth because of how humans interpreted them in the past. We should learn from it, and integrate it into new interpretations. We should always move towards the truth.

[Pyrotex]

A question for everyone that believes that the Bible is "gods word" from a former Baptist pastor.

If the Bible is god's word why do christians feel that the old testament no longer applies?....

I'll try to track down the verses later, but in summary, this is why the OT is (or at least used to be 40 years ago) considered not applicable to Christians.

 

Jesus defied the OT on at least two occasions. He taught that the OT edict that a man should do no work on the Sabbath didn't apply to him, and by extension, no longer applied to anybody. He forgave the woman guilty of adultery and prevented her from being stoned, again in violation of OT law.

 

Then St. Paul said that if any Christian take on any burden from the Law, then he was obligated to the whole Law, and made the sacrifice of Jesus of no effect.

 

That's all I can remember for now. But I think there was more.

Pyro

[HydrogenBond]

I think the NT referred to the OT as the shadow of things to come. The old testament was based on law, whereas the NT was based on faith. A good analogy is Newtonian versus Einstein's relativity. Both are still used, with the Newtonian more practical, but relativity is closer to reality.

 

The OT testament was based on written and learned knowledge. It is sort of analogous to the school of life where the teachers want you to learn the best knowledge. Once one is out of school, they apply this knowledge, with more creative liberty, using their own wit and intelligence to extrapolate it into the flow and flux of life. That is analogous to the promise of the spirit of truth. If all we had was learned knowledge, progression would stop. What keeps it going are minds looking beyond. People do this because they have faith that eventually what is inside them will crystalize out into reality.

 

The NT contrasts this; the OT being the children of the bond woman, who are bonded to the knowledge. While the children of the promise, who are like the children of God, who are more engaged in the flux of change. With the children of the promise, it is no longer yes or no, but yes. The OT is the wisdom needed to prime the pump.

 

An analogy is a child can't drive an auto until age 16. He is bonded by the law not to drive. As he approaches the legal age, he learns the skills needed to be a safe and skilled driver. Suddenly at 16.5, he gets his license and is counted to use what he learned, to do right, as an independent driver.

 

The laws of the OT were created for the criminals and not the righteous. But everyone was required to be treated as a criminal, under the OT law even if they were righteous. There were no exceptions to the rules. The NT, cut the righteous more slack, since they had proved themselves. The OT is still in affect, but only for those associated with original intent, which were the criminals. The criminals still need more schooling with the hope they will finish this school and be able to function, with an inner voice.

[Pyrotex]

I think the NT referred to the OT as the shadow of things to come. The old testament was based on law, whereas the NT was based on faith. ...The OT is still in affect, but only for those associated with original intent, which were the criminals.....

Well, it all comes down to "interpretation" or "spin", doesn't it?

 

The NT DID refer to the OT as the "shadow of things to come", but that's a metaphor and wide open to interpretation. [The OT is not LITERALLY a shadow. duh!!]

 

The OT was based on Rituals, Laws and Retribution. The NT is based on Faith, Forgiveness and a general sense of "justice" rather than punitive laws.

 

If you will research the history of christianity, especially protestantism, you will find that the focus was purely on JC and St.Paul. St.Paul's edict to leave the OT behind held absolute sway since the Reformation. My old church, founded in Scotland around 1830 and spread to the US around 1870, taught ONLY from the NT, except for the history in Genesis. Very similar to Baptist history.

 

It was the Millerites, around 1840 up in New England, that got the brilliant ( ) idea of assuming that BOTH the OT and NT applied. Of course, they cherry-picked the books of the OT that they wanted: the first 5 ("Pentateuch"), I and II Samuel, Psalms, and others. This led to their prediction of the 2nd coming (which didn't) and their evolution to the 7th Day Adventists today, possibly the strictest and most conservative Christian sect around. And also one of the most secretive.

 

In mainstream Christianity, this move to include more and more of the OT didn't really get started until the 1960's, when the so-called Jesus movement began roughly in parallel with the drug counter-culture. Especially among Pentacostals. My very strict and orthodox Church of Christ drew a hard line between OT and NT until well after I left it in 1972. I've "visited" a few times in the last decade to find that they also are now on the "the OT applies" bandwagon. :hyper:

 

So, in summary, YOU may think the OT still applies in some ecumenical sense to christians today, but that was not always the case. Your interpretation can be traced back to the mid-1800's, when that point of view was first coined. It is today, always was, and will forever be a personal and ad-hoc interpretation given one's personal religious upbringing, feelings and biblical interests.

 

In no way can one show that the OT "is still God's applicable law" today in the sense that you have a clear, concise, unambiguous communication from The Lord God Almighty, signed in His hand and stamped with His celestial wax seal.

 

But if you want to believe it anyway, knock yourself out.

 

PS: I have a Church of Christ friend who insists on "saying grace" out loud whenever we have lunch together. I have pointed out that Jesus, his own sweet self, forbade this practice in Mat. 6:5-6, and I quoted it to him. He just smiled and said grace anyway, loud enough to be heard 2 tables away. So you see, the essence of Christianity has very little to do with what "god" said, wants, expects, commands or instructs. :) You can always put whatever "spin" you want on it.