Bible is word of God ...

[IDMclean]

And no man shall pass judgement lest he be judged.

 

I long ago found that should I be judged by the dogma's of man, here on earth I surely would be damned to eternal pit of hell. This nearly broke me. How could I live my life with the full knowledge that I would be sent to a pit of fire and Ice, of pain and mortification, sent to eternally suffer for my sins, at the ripe old age of 10.

 

I could not speak to god, face to face, so to speak, or if the one spoke, I could not hear it. Can not hear it. So how would I know that I was on the right path, that I was Righteous? If I could not trust the judgement of my fellow man, how then could I know that my path was right?

 

The truth, to me, is that God will judge me all the same, weather the one exists or not. Weather I believe in the one or not. So. With that in Mind I know what I could say in my defense, before the eyes of god, when comes time for the judgement of my eternal soul.

 

"I come before you, now thee who is the one that I am. I lived. Make what judgement you may, but know that whatever the outcome, I shall be content with my life, in that I lived it.

 

Your judgement does not touch the truth of this in my soul. I lived such that I had an impact, both joyous and sad upon those around me. That I remember those moments, is enough for me, and my eternal soul can extiguish, for all that I care. For I know, despite all, I have lived just."

 

So now I live my life, without a half wit what this or that scripture says, or this or that expert says. I have no control over the one who is I am. Nothing i could say would sway the final judgement, nothing that I do will put off my death, nothing that I do will guarantee reward in life or life-there-after. Therefore all that I do, must be done so that I may sleep easier at night, knowing that I am Just, Righteous, Moral.

 

That I did the right thing, even when no one else would.

 

Anyway, The bible is the word of man, inspired by god.

[sebbysteiny]

Your argument seemed to indicate that you felt there were knowledgeable christians, and jewish peoples who were to be considered more learned in the scriptures.

 

I sought scripture that talked about both of these groups of people, and their errors according to interpreting the scriptures and so forth.

 

The answers as to the correct way to interpret the scriptures are found in the intellectual analysis of the old testiment not in which race makes that analysis.

 

My point is that most Christians I have met do not interpret the old testiment in the way that it should be. I have spoken to many Christians about this, and even vicars do not understand the old testiment interpretational structure and instead rely on the interpretive rules of the new testiment for taking insight from the old. Rabbis, on the other hand use exactly that structure. Now at first I thought this was just a difference of approach; 2 relgious reading the same document differently. However, later, after investigation, I realised that at the higher echelons of the church agree with the Jewish approach. This isn't surprising because Christianity believes that old testiment as interpretted by the Jewish rabbis is correct but outdated (if I remember right). However, since the overwhelming emphasis of Christianity is on the new testiment, most members of the Church and their followers do not require a detalied analysis of the old testment and instead opt for an easy to understand simplified version. Thus, only the intellectual Christian heavyweights understand the interpretational differences between the new and old testiment, and their beliefs are the same as that of Jewish rabbis who dedicate their whole religion to it.

 

The difference in interpretation arises from the manner in which the various books were written with the new testiment being 'inspired' by god whist the old being an exact dictation by god. Big difference.

 

What the scriptures say about one or other tribe or race will not change the logical conclusions that must be infurred from this fact. If you like, the idea is independant of the thinker. Where one religion has dedicated enormous energy analysing the same texts as another religion, those analyses will be very valuable to both religions.

[CerebralEcstasy]

The fact is, it was one "tribe" of Jews that decided to kill Jesus, based on the opinions of a few.

 

Agreed. The sadduccees and the pharisees were those that conspired to put Jesus to death. However, there were some among them who accepted Christ as the Messiah.

 

As stated in another post, the scripture cited was to point out why I was leery of the reasonings of supposedly knowledgeable people.

 

Rationally speaking I would be at odds with my faith if I were anti-semitic, as Jesus was a Jew.

[CerebralEcstasy]

The answers as to the correct way to interpret the scriptures are found in the intellectual analysis of the old testiment not in which race makes that analysis.

 

If you look up the definition of Jew/Jewish in the dictionary, you will see that it has three meanings. I was referring to the group of people who were adhering to Judaism at the time.

 

This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with religion. After all, anthropologists differentiate main racial groups as the following:

Caucasoid (European or "white"),3 the Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo, and Native Americans), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines).

So it would be incorrect to refer to the Jewish people's as a race, any more than it would be to refer to Christians, and Muslims as a race.

In case you're wondering where I was going with this, I included this, so you don't make the same mistake in thinking that I have anti-semitic leanings!!!!! (I'm still miffed about that by the way)

 

Anyhow back on topic:

 

I disagree that the correct way to interpret the scriptures is solely based on intellectual analysis. Please consider 1 Corinthians 1: 20-27.

 

For ease of reference, as well as space conservation, I've left the majority of reading up to you - I'd encourage you to read it in it's entirety.

 

To paraphrase a bit, God is said to have chosen simple things to confound the wise with, and that God's foolishness, is wiser than man's most wise.

 

Verse 24, specifically talks about those who have been called, and that these would be the ones who were capable of understanding.

 

This indicates to me, that there is more than an intellectual intepretation and analysis happening with respect to biblical understanding.

 

My point is that most Christians I have met do not interpret the old testiment in the way that it should be.

I agree.

 

However, since the overwhelming emphasis of Christianity is on the new testiment, most members of the Church and their followers do not require a detalied analysis of the old testment and instead opt for an easy to understand simplified version.

 

There are many in Christianity today who are opting for a designer religion. They modify it to suit themselves, rather than what God wants.

 

The difference in interpretation arises from the manner in which the various books were written with the new testiment being 'inspired' by god whist the old being an exact dictation by god. Big difference.

 

I do understand what you're saying about dictation. As Moses was told directly by God to write scripture down. However, since ALL scripture was from God - whether it be told directly, or was caused to be written by the men faithfully being borne along from Holy Spirit - I do not think this is where the differences in interpretation arise.

 

The gift of understanding the interpretation itself was something that was God-given, or required the teaching of a qualified individual. We see that in many cases.

 

1 Kings 4:29 speaks of how God gave Solomon wisdom, insight and understanding.

 

We also have the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch, found in Acts 8:30 that talks about how could we truly understand it, unless it were explained.

 

What the scriptures say about one or other tribe or race will not change the logical conclusions that must be infurred from this fact. If you like, the idea is independant of the thinker.

You missed the mark entirely on what I was trying to convey. I was simply stating that I was leery of other people's supposedly learned interpretations, and that I wanted to check them out for myself. This too is in line with scripture, and for once I cannot recall the chapter and verse. :doh:

 

Where one religion has dedicated enormous energy analysing the same texts as another religion, those analyses will be very valuable to both religions

I agree in the sense that those who gather together to examine the scriptures can sharpen each others wits, as well as their understanding.

 

With that being said I thank you for the opportunity to discuss your thoughts, and to examine some of the scriptures I might have glossed over otherwise.

[sebbysteiny]

was simply stating that I was leery of other people's supposedly learned interpretations, and that I wanted to check them out for myself. This too is in line with scripture, and for once I cannot recall the chapter and verse.

 

If you want to see what I'm getting at so that you can check it out for yourself, I believe the easiest way to do it is to join a rabbi and his group and see how they read into the scriptures. One thing you will be suprised about is how simple questions (such as mine) can lead to profound answers. You could go to Rome and try and study with the pope's monk for the old testiment or something, but I think you'll find it much easier to simply join a rabbi in his semi-privite study.

[cwes99_03]

Ok, first let me point out to Sebby.

 

You keep repeating that the entire Old Testament is written not by the hand of men but directly by God. What have you to support this? In fact, the OT was penned by many different men including Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah,etc. The OT includes all books from Genesis to Malachi.

 

The NT was also penned by various men including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. 2 Tim. 3:16, All scripture (not some but ALL) was inspired (not written but Inspired) by God. This to most reasoning people means that while men wrote the actual words on paper, God inspired that writing and corrected any wrong notions or thoughts that the writer may have included of their own. Similarly, it might reasonably be believed that God intended for mankind down to Armageddon to have this writing, and therefore he would have protected it even from alteration by scribes in some form. Now there are many many theologians and archaeologists who have studied many different scrolls and other texts that are copies of the original. From these they have determined many different things, and have decided on which ones they feel are most likely to be the most accurate. If you want further discussion on this we can, probalby under a new thread.

 

As for who is responsible for the death of Jesus. Many different races of men are responsible. Ultimately you could say that Adam and Satan are responsible. However let's not forget the actual recorded events of that night.

 

It was a portion of the Pharisees that sought Jesus' arrest and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate turned him back over because he was afraid of having him killed and wanted nothing to do with it. Jesus got sent back and forth one more time and finally Pilate sighed and brought Jesus and a known murderer before a crowd outside. He then asked the crowd.

Quite possibly this crowd was incited to have Jesus killed by the Pharisees. There are many different reasons why they asked to have a murder freed and Jesus killed. The point is that it was not just the Pharisees, but a crowd of people and the Roman soldiers who had him put to death.

 

Now there is a prophecy in Psalms about how the people of Israel would effectively spit in his face and say that if he really was the messiah then God would surely save him (Psalms 22 particularly verse 8.)

 

I guess my point is Sebby, that not only a Rabbi can understand these words or the purpose or the whole of the Bible. You are however right in that many christian denominations have foresaken the OT all together and decided it is of no value. However, a true Christian (follower of Christ) realizes that Jesus himself often used the OT scriptures in rebuking the Pharisees and refering to prophecy, including the prophecies of Daniel about the end times which he said were still to come.

 

You also have to realize that the Bible fortells that religious leaders would turn away from the teachings of the Bible for the teachings of men. Thus it is no surprise to me when you say

 

Where one religion has dedicated enormous energy analysing the same texts as another religion, those analyses will be very valuable to both religions.

But they will be different and why would we not believe one to be right and one to be wrong. The only determination in the end of which is right and wrong is by doing your own research and examination of the original scripture and the teachings of that religion.

 

Now as to the thoughts on the Wager: It is obviously discussing the God of Christ. Other religions don't discuss hell and heaven. Whoever above said that one should play all sides to come out the winner, 1) you obviously don't understand gambling 2) gambling goes against Biblical teaching 3) as stated before on this forum website, God is a jealous God demanding exclusive devotion (another words there is no riding the fence with Him) Exodus 20:5.

[IDMclean]

The greatest evil is not that of the murder intent on the death of his next victim. Nor the brutality of that murder in carrying out the deed.

 

The greatest evil is that of indifference of good people.

 

Attack

 

Genovese had driven home in the early morning of March 13, 1964. Arriving home at about 3:15 a.m. and parking about 100 feet (30 m) from her apartment's door, she was approached by a man named Winston Moseley. Moseley ran after her and quickly overtook her, stabbing her twice in the back. When Genovese screamed out, her cries were heard by several neighbors; but on a cold night with the windows closed only a few of them recognized the sound as a cry for help. When one of the neighbors shouted at the attacker, "Let that girl alone!", Moseley ran away and Genovese slowly made her way towards her own apartment around the end of the building. She was seriously injured but now out of view of those few who may have had reason to believe she was in need of help.

 

Records of the earliest calls to police are unclear and were certainly not given a high priority by the police. One witness said his father called police after the initial attack and reported that a woman was "beat up, but got up and was staggering around."

 

Other witnesses observed Moseley enter his car and drive away, only to return ten minutes later. He systematically searched the parking lot, train station, and small apartment complex, ultimately finding Genovese, who was lying, barely conscious, in a hallway at the back of the building. Out of view of the street and of those who may have heard or seen any sign of the original attack, he proceeded to further attack her, stabbing her several more times. Knife wounds in her hands suggested that she attempted to defend herself from him. While she lay dying he attempted to rape her. He stole about $49.00 from her and left her dying in the hallway. The attacks spanned approximately half an hour.

 

A few minutes after the final attack a witness, Karl Ross, called the police. Police and medical personnel arrived within minutes of Ross's call; Genovese was taken away by ambulance and died en route to the hospital. Later investigation revealed that 38 individuals nearby had heard or observed portions of the attack, though none could have seen or been aware of the entire incident. Only one witness (Joseph Fink) was aware she was stabbed in the first attack, and only Karl Ross was aware of it in the second attack. Many were entirely unaware that an assault or homicide was in progress; some thought that what they saw or heard was a lover's quarrel or a drunken brawl or a group of friends leaving the bar outside which Moseley first approached Genovese.

 

Genovese's body was identified by her lover, Mary Ann Zielonko, a woman whose suffering and loss went without comment for many years. Press accounts omitted the fact of Genovese's lesbianism, which is not surprising given the times and Zielonko has stated that she doubts any of the neighbors knew those facts. However, as the 40th anniversary of her death resulted in major media coverage of the case and her life, Zielonko chose to speak publically about their life togther. Since then Genovese has been embraced by GLBT scholars as a fallen member of their community and part of Lesbian herstory.

[sebbysteiny]

You keep repeating that the entire Old Testament is written not by the hand of men but directly by God. What have you to support this? In fact, the OT was penned by many different men including Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah,etc. The OT includes all books from Genesis to Malachi.

 

Perhaps I haven't repeated it enough :). What I said is that ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF ALL THOSE WHO STUDY THE OLD TESTIMENT, it is the exact word of god as dictated to Moses at mount Sini.

 

I, however, am an atheist and think that the entire concept of religion is B**L S***. Nevetheless, a lot of fine intellect has gone into interpreting those two books.

 

But they will be different and why would we not believe one to be right and one to be wrong. The only determination in the end of which is right and wrong is by doing your own research and examination of the original scripture and the teachings of that religion.

 

One could say that the only determination of science is to do your own research. However, instead of starting from scratch, it is probably best to try to understand Newton and Einstein and then decide if they are accurate. By analogy, if hundreds of great minds have dedicated their lives to finding new insight into the scriptures, it is best to read what they say and then accept or reject bits you like or do not like. Ignoring them altogether will just set you back a thousand years of human understanding.

[CerebralEcstasy]

If you want to see what I'm getting at so that you can check it out for yourself, I believe the easiest way to do it is to join a rabbi and his group and see how they read into the scriptures. One thing you will be suprised about is how simple questions (such as mine) can lead to profound answers. You could go to Rome and try and study with the pope's monk for the old testiment or something, but I think you'll find it much easier to simply join a rabbi in his semi-privite study.

 

I'm quite comfortable increasing my biblical knowledge the way I have for the past five years, but thanks for the suggestion.

 

On a side note:

 

Who'd have ever thought an atheist would suggest examining the scriptures further LOL!!!!!!!

[Edella]

Who'd have ever thought an atheist would suggest examining the scriptures further LOL!!!!!!!

C,mon CerebralEcstasy,some of us are atheists because we've examined scripture!:)

[IDMclean]

Hear hear!

[Mercedes Benzene]

Hear hear!

 

...Oh wait. I'm Catholic.:rolleyes:

[Guest jamongo]

I am wondering if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, (and I most certainly am not stating that as a fact) then shouldn't all of the Christians thank the Jews for it, because if Jesus had not died, to what religion would the Christians subscribe to now?

[ughaibu]

If one is going to subscribe to a religion, does it matter which?

[InfiniteNow]

If one is going to subscribe to a religion, does it matter which?

It seems that it does to the individual doing the subscribing, which is interesting in and of itself.

[ughaibu]

I would expect that, in most cases, there is no decision, any more than there is in choice of language, and that the content of the religion subscribed to is usually a matter of chance, arising from nativity. It would be odd to claim that one's language is the only true language, I find it equally odd that religious people consider any particular religion to be true.

[Freddy]

Quote:

"The fact is, it was one "tribe" of Jews that decided to kill Jesus, based on the opinions of a few."

 

First, Jews refer to one of the twelve tribes of Hebrews or Isrealites. Jews in the above quote should be replaced with either term. The other ten tribes were lost to history when the Assyrians carried them off in 721 BCE never to be heard from again. The tribe of Judah (Jews) was also made up of the many from the tribes of the Levites and Benjaminites.

 

Quote:

"It was a portion of the Pharisees that sought Jesus' arrest and handed him over to Pilate. Pilate turned him back over because he was afraid of having him killed and wanted nothing to do with it. Jesus got sent back and forth one more time and finally Pilate sighed and brought Jesus and a known murderer before a crowd outside. He then asked the crowd. Quite possibly this crowd was incited to have Jesus killed by the Pharisees. There are many different reasons why they asked to have a murder freed and Jesus killed. The point is that it was not just the Pharisees, but a crowd of people and the Roman soldiers who had him put to death."

 

In Judea of the first century the Roman Governor held complete power and only he (Pilate) had the authority to condemn someone to death. Many Jews wanted Jesus dead, however, the Romans alone put him to death. Read the classical historian, Michael Grant.