Why do Atheists hold up the Bible as true in their arguments against it? You would think they know it's merely man's understanding of the human predicament.
(Here, the understanding would be that God is the Highest of all supernatural powers; that he allowed sub-deities (Satan, demons, worldly things) to tempt man themselves, and humans--understanding all supernatural things as 'God'--choose the wrong gods sometimes).
E.g. If you see a man waving a stick in front of an orchestra, MUST HE be..?.
But of course the Bible God is shown as tempting people. Look at Adam and Eve. God also invents very ingenious ways to sin. Since sin it is what God says it is, isn't so?. I mean, sin is not what hurts your brother, as it would seem logical. That too simple...
You trouble yourself over the most obvious questions. Well, of course, everybody knows God tempts you everyday. Is God not the Devil?. Because, if He is not, why torture Job?.
@FinflazodeTurroai no, i'm an ex-christian atheist. Non of this religious stuff bothers me anymore because I believe it's all fiction. If you are still trying to somehow salvage a god concept, I kind of feel sorry for you as you'll never have any real evidence to support the notion. I abandoned them all to the realm of myth and have never been more happy and content.
@TruthSurge As you know I am an ex-Catholic, but it makes me feel better to believe there is a Creator God. Since I accept facts He musta acted before and out of time, we can not understand Him, and He doesn't interact or care about us. But that is only my bias showing, LOL... IMO, if one follows one's evolved tendency to love one's brothers, one is happier on this life, the only one we have. Religion is .. poison. I tried to use a softer word but none comes to mind...
@FinflazodeTurroai then why hold to ANY kind of belief in a god? it makes no sense. If this god you think exists has no interaction with us, then for all practical purposes, he doesn't exist anyway. ?
@FinflazodeTurroai Why?. I'll tell ya. Because it is deeply unimportant, one way or the other and, because of my rearing, it makes me feel better. So, since it doesn't go against facts, it is allright. Hey, maybe there's one, even if it is wildly improbable !. I can't phatom why there's any need for a Creator God, you know. It rather complicates things. But... Heck, maybe tomorrow I'll change. One can change beliefs, but not facts.
@billygundum Heck, supposedly, God tests (tempts) Christians even today. Christians always say that god is testing people by putting them in situations so they can build "character". What a horrible god. Life is hard enough without an all-powerful being pushing bad things upon you.
Ok this will be my last. If youre wife sends you to the store to get a gallon of milk. While there you stop and buy a porno mag and toss off to it. Was it your wife tempting you? Of course not like all sin your lust to satisfy the flesh. With regards to Yah not in control and Satan is I say no. Yah allows Satan to tempt but as Im sure you have read not above what we can not handle. There is always a way out. You have a way out just call out and repent. Peace out...
@TeesByTruthSurge You still have not answered the question on who tempted Yahuwshua. Just answer me and put this to rest. We both know the answer. Its evident you are well trained in scripture to bad you use it to deny the Father and try to put doubt in weak minded believers. I pray that some day the Set Apart Spirit will reveal the true meaning of the words you have read so many times. Have a great Sabbath. Peace out...
Well your whole problem is you are reading from the KJV. Check out the Hebrew bible kind of from the horses own mouth on the Abrahm account. Your Adam and Eve comparison is weak to say the least and I know you know you are reaching with that. Lead us not into temptation from the prayer is stating that we trust him to keep us from temptation. Finally led to the wilderness to be taught but was tempted by Satan on the way because as you see the angels taught him after being tempted from Satan.
@JoeCoolRoxYou Your whole problem is that you have a bias that doesn't allow you to use the clear interpretation. The text of the wilderness temptation states explicitly that the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness TO BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL. You fail. come back again sometime when you've actually got something of substance.
Matt 4:1 ALL translations are the same on this verse.
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
@TruthSurge No not all of them state that but to amuse you we will use the KJV. Well Yah leads me to many places and at times there are temptations and at times none at all. I think you need to read again who is doing the tempting is it Yah? Of course not its Satan. So in all actuality Yah is tempting no one. I hope you actually see this as what it really is Yah tempting no one but just like in our lives temptation comes at every corner it seems sometimes. Have a great day. Peace out...
Yes, they do. Now, if you have no idea how to go read all the main translations for that verse, I really have no time for someone like you. So you are either lying or you are ignorant of how to even look at that verse in the main translations. Can't be bothered responding to you if you are that bad off.
@TruthSurge Since you do not care to learn I will take that as you have been defeated. Thanks for the victory. Have a great day. Learn Greek read what is in the bible and then talk to me until then Ill take the victory. Peace out...
Okay, well then I need to go see what I got wrong.....that's why I talk to people. ( and enjoy it on rare occasions) sometimes they have insights I miss, or am misinformed on. and I am not too proud to admit when I mess up.
@wbnc66 Yep, you see, if you will seek truth first (not god or religion etc) you will find what is true. simple. if god exists, you'll STILL find him by seeking truth first. But by seeking TRUTH first (not trying to prop up your current beliefs against facts) then you will also discover if he does NOT exist or if CHristianity is NOT true. Horse b4 cart. It works a lot better. So, if Jesus himself proclaimed explicitly in Matthew that the OT laws were still in effect AFTER his death...
@wbnc66 Then you, my friend, are in trouble. :) you'd better not wear a shirt with cotton and polyester in it. You are breaking god's command. And that pork chop? HAHAHAH you get the idea. Most Christians ignore Jesus' saying on the law and just flop out Paul's anti-law views. good luck with your studies.
DISCLAIMER:I''m not brilliant or a theologian.....I'm not even that good of a Christian. But I don't think god "tempts" anyone. He gave up (for the most part)his direct control of humanity when "Adam and Eve" chose to go their own way and live by their own wisdom and desires.
space is a little limited so I will take it point by point.
lead me us not into temptation.... = give me the good common sense to stay out of trouble., and if I do help me out. Not "oh lord don't tempt me yourself"
@wbnc66 My take... you are more moral than the god of the bible and because of this, you HAVE to reinterpret the bad parts to make them fit our modern ideas of morality. If you followed the Bible to the letter, you'd be in prison. So, keep being good and use that common sense and forget those silly commands God gives like stoning children when they become unruly. You and I are far better than that.
without getting into some very complicated issues....too late......A lot of the old biblical laws are null and void after Jesus, Who replaced the with the golden rule. As it's been explained to me the period of "The Law" was doomed from the beginning,and served to illustrate that humans by their very nature can not live by Laws and Rituals.Our animal instincts and habit of looking for loop holes..."Okay I stole from Joshua but I'll sacrifice a goat and make it better. won't work.
@TeesByTruthSurge well, that's why it's called Faith and not Fact. I would say I don't need Evidence to believe in God. The logic of God is something I can't understand FOR NOW...and I know (or believe to be precise) one day God will help me to understand.
@TeesByTruthSurge Well, although I'm not a Christian Istill believe in God...and it took me a LONG time to accept (slash believe) that humans cannot understand God's logic or God's motives or what God does. But you ask, does God tempt people....in the Bible yes...the first one I thought of was EVE, and you mentioned the other well-known ones. But I would not say that I judge* God, as you said in the last comment, for I cannot judge what I cannot understand (in this respect)
Q: Does God desire that people not sin? A: Beyond any passage, God's desires cannot be understood by man.
Q: Regarding God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one? Pre A: I could say "Omnipotence: God's abilities defy human logic i.e. God wins no human answer." Like I said, I'm not a Christian ;)
@knowthelight oh my. We are going down a slippery slope.
Let me ask you this: if god commanded Abraham to kill his son, does it really matter whether we call it tempting or testing? God commanded a man to do something immoral to find out if he was faithful enough to be "god's man". At least that's what the story tells us. So, let's throw out tempted and use tested since you seem to like that. God tested Abraham by putting him in a situation where he could disobey. am I right?
@TruthSurge It does indeed make a difference if he was tested instead of tempted.This is the subject that you raised.Immorality is in the eye of the beholder.What i find immoral.you may not.... The test was as to Abrahams faith.He showed his faith and was rewarded .Abraham could have disobeyed if he wanted to,but he didn't.He used his free will to do as he had been commanded.You use your free will to do what is right in your eyes.The men of faith used theirs to do what was right in God' eyes.
@TruthSurge It is a good idea for you to change the subject.Yet again.If you want to stay with the subject you raised,i will be happy to respond.Otherwise we can leave it there.Take care.
@knowthelight My question was like a dart hitting a bullseye. You seem to think that if we call it testing, the story is okay and makes sense ( a man being commanded to kill his son). But if we call it tempting, why, that's a totally different story ( a man being commanded to kill his son).
I think if you don't understand that much, we really should stop. thanks.
@TruthSurge The fact that Abraham was tested has been agreed.This hasn't changed the fact that he was commanded to kill his son.We agree on this too.Why God would want him to is now the question.Have i got this right.If so we can proceed with my answer.
@knowthelight Yes, I already know your answer. God wasn't trying to find out whether he'd be "faithful" and kill his son but God was using it to STRENGTHEN Abraham so he'd be able to do great things. etc etc.
But what if Abraham had told god no. I will not kill my son. Then Abraham would be a bad person for not wanting to murder an innocent person? Is that what you're saying? It's just very weary to go through all of these apologetics over and over.
@knowthelight I'm an atheist ex-Christian. I believe no gods exist. I worship none. I know the Bible is unreliable on practically every level and this is from years of studying it on my own as well as reading the opinions of scholars who are not afraid to admit facts (like Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, etc).
So, if you have not discovered what I have, then dig into some good books. Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms, Bart Ehrman's stuff. We are not working from the same data, I'm afraid.
@TruthSurge I realize you don't believe in a god etc. Thank you for the ref to these authors.I will check them out.I would not want to believe in something that is not real.My need to understand how none living becomes living is at the root of it all.Science doesn't have an answer.Evolution is full of gaps.i try to keep an open mind on these subjects,but find them lacking somewhat.Thanks for your time,and i hope we can talk again.Regards,Steve
@knowthelight "My need to understand how none living becomes living is at the root of it all." I had similar questions when I was a Christian. How could life arise from no life? Why would it want to? What impetus was there to cause molecules to cling together in that way? How could molecules come together and STAY together long enough to form anything that could replicate? Was the earth orbiting the sun long enough to even allow that process? those were some of my questions.
@knowthelight As for science being full of gaps, there are more gaps in the Bible. Science now knows that the sun does NOT orbit the earth (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that rabbits don't chew cud and bats are not birds (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that the earth is spherical, not flat (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that putting striped branches in front of sheep as they eat doesn't make their offspring...
@TruthSurge Please re-read what i said.Evolution is full of gaps...Where does the bible say the sun revolves around the earth.That KJV is causing problems again. It was wrongly translated i said. I seem to be repeating myself on that one.Most translations say in LEV 11 flying creature... Isa .40:22 the circle of the earth...The original hebrew does not mean chew the cud. These are the usual supposed contradictions or misunderstandings that are banded about by atheists etc that turn out wrong.
@knowthelight "Where does the bible say the sun revolves around the earth."
Do you recall the story of Joshua? Do you recall what god did to the sun? He supposedly made it "stand still" in the sky. The story is written that way because the authors believed that the sun orbited the earth. It certainly looks that way when you watch it. They simply had no way of knowing otherwise.
Your "KJV causing problems" doesn't explain this case of a heliocentric belief.
@knowthelight That the sun revolved around the earth was belief that was ubiquitous in ancient times. It was common. So there's no reason to believe the authors would not believe what everyone believed about cosmology such as the sun orbiting the earth.
When 50 other translations translate a passage the SAME as the KJV, what do you think about that? Thousands of scholars who actually CAN read the Hebrew and Greek all got it wrong?
Your KJV excuse cannot be blanketly thrown about as some get out of jail free card.
@knowthelight another is Matt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
The sun does not rise. It is stationary. It SEEMS to rise because the earth is a sphere which rotates on an axis.
blueletterbible (d o t) org. you can find anything in the bible in 20 or so translations along with definitions of the actual Greek and Hebrew words. Once you go there, you have no more excuses. :)
@knowthelight ...doesn't make their offspring spotted or striped (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that lightning isn't caused by an angry god ((as the writers of the Bible believed). Neither are tornadoes, typhoons, earthquakes, eclipses, etc. I could go on and on for the remainder of this day but maybe this will suffice for now. Science knows 10000 % more than the authors of the Bible ever dreamed of knowing. Same if we compare those people to cavemen.
@knowthelight As we learn more about how the universe really works, we know the authors of the Bible did the best they could, but had no way of knowing what we now do. I wish I could put what I now know into your head but the only way is bit at a time. I may do a vid on probability and how I didn't quite understand how the improbability of life was not equal to impossibility. thanks.
@TruthSurge I am not completely ignorant about what science has found out either. We are told however that none living at some point became living without any cause. This has not been replicated in any experiment .It is a big issue that is passed over .The more that is understood about even simple cells(they are very complex)the greater the odds are against life appearing by blind chance and luck. All the amino acids are left handed. The mechanism is not understod or explainable.Maybe you know.
@knowthelight Don't bother, I already went around and around with this guy, he is full of it, and does not know what he's talking about and in the end (if he hasn't already) will only resort to name calling. Only more proof of what Jesus said "They have hated me before they hated you" Don't take it personal. He is not attacking you, he is attacking God. I learned this the hard way. I have had countless debates, there is a spiritual wall there we cannot penetrate. Only God can. God bless.
@disprovinU i understood this from the beginning.Like ex-smokers,ex-christians(if he really is one) are the worst kind of people.I thought he was worth some of my time.I know it is God who will prove his word is true.
The fact he is fulfilling prophecy seems to have escaped his notice.He is only repeating the usual criticisms of scripture.Not one new thing has been said by him.Thanks for your warning bro/sis.
@knowthelight Exactly. Too true. If he knew what he was talking about, he would not debate Christians proactively. That only proves what Jesus said. Kind of like killing Christians thinking it ends their belief, in fact martyrdom brings us to God. Thinking they are doing us wrong, in fact they are doing us good. You're welcome. We are meant to defend the word of God with the full armor of God, not stand by idly. Keep up the good work and be strong. =)
@disprovinU This world will pass away.All the realists in the world will not change the will of the few.Earth is in big trouble.The lunatic has taken over the asylum.We the few do what is right,not what is popular with the many.
Thank our God for giving understanding.Love to all that walk in his light.
I feel like we are good friends now or something with all this back & forth. I said claim knowing that they might not be true. But of course if I believe God would pause the sun so 1 "bronze age tribe" could defeat another, I dont have a hard time accepting other accounts. For now I will refrain from commenting on God's priorities, but for me its not what I havent seen but what I have. But the bigger the miracle the less of it I would expect to see. But to me blindness is up there.
@humbletom I feel that once you are in the position of defending the Bible, you're stuck. It's not a good place to be for now, you have to defend killing a child if he/she becomes unruly because the law commanded it and Jesus himself upheld the Mosaic law AND said it would not become void until heaven and earth passed away.
So, you are in a hard spot. Do you A) disagree with Jesus and say Christians are not bound by the laws? or B) agree with him and put to death a child who hits parent?
@TruthSurge I dont believe He ever says uphold. But I know that He says He fulfills the law. Meaning that the Law wasn't fulfilled, meaning that it had a purpose or aim that it wasnt meeting. At transfiguration, Jesus was with Moses & Elijah representing law & prophets & God says "This is My Son Listen to Him" meaning now Jesus had authority over Law & Prophets, and Jesus said, "he that is without sin cast the first stone."... but now that I think about it we have an epidemic of unruly kids.joke
@humbletom He certainly claimed to fulfill it but that is not the same as nullifying it. if it was, he certainly wouldn't have said:
mark 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
so, as you can plainly see, the earth hasn't passed away, therefore, the law is still in place per J.
@humbletom so, will you now just ignore jesus' explicit statement that the law is NOT nullified by his sacrificial act? or will you rather believe Paul over Jesus? I'm just the apostle (messenger). so don't shoot me. I didn't write your contradictory holy book. :) But I do know it very well. :)
@TruthSurge I wouldn't shoot someone who knows my holy book so well. Some people get converted reading it so I'm told.
So Jesus said it is NOT nullified....
Not only is it NOT nullified but it is now written on the hearts of men, which is part of what having the law fullfilled means. The Law on paper said no adultery. The Law on the heart says dont look at a women lustfully. Jesus didnt exactly strive to communicate everything so all could intellectually grasp. Sort of what He meant ...
@humbletom "Not only is it NOT nullified but it is now written on the hearts of men, which is part of what having the law fullfilled means."
That's an apologist's copout. If the law is not nullified, it is still in force, in effect and you cannot simply wipe the laws away by saying something like we don't need them now that we have Jesus' sacrifice and he said the law is boiled down to 2 commandments. He said the law HANGS on 2. You are still bound by all of the law.
@TruthSurge If we are still bound by the Law why would God have split the temple in two when Jesus was on the cross. The Law was a type and shadow of things to come. As far as things dealing with morality in the Law, that wasnt really a type and shadow. We are always sopposed to be Holy. Now, though, instead of getting stoned for not being Holy you plead the BLOOD of Jesus.
@humbletom "If we are still bound by the Law why would God have split the temple in two when Jesus was on the cross. "
Because Christianity was written by MANY authors who often had very divergent views of just what it was all about. It's why James could say faith w/o works is dead faith and Paul could sweep away the law altogether and his later pseudonymic forgers could say that it was by grace ALONE people are saved. Who ya gonna believe? Most people believe the Pauline version.
@TruthSurge I'm not sure that addresses the quoted statement but it gets down to the meat of your position without you having to pretend you even believe matthew recorded Jesus's sayings accurately. Divergent views? more like differing emphasis or issues addressed. Paul was addressing judaizers and saying animal sacrifices dont do anything anymore. James was saying your faith manifests itself in actions, actions that dont save you but show you have the faith.
@humbletom Do you realize that many of the books now in the NT were hotly debated before they were accepted as authoritative? Even the earliest church "fathers" disagreed on basic doctrines. Paul explicitly chastised the Galatians for turning to another gospel (a variant gospel of Christianity). The authors wrote at diff times with diff views and these writings contradict on many levels. You may think you have answers but it's mostly a tapdance. For example, why didn't God forgive Adam?
@TruthSurge If I was aware of "theories" regarding pauline forgeries, I am probably aware a little of the NT development. The only "hotly debated" books were hebrews, 2pet, 2john, 3john, and revelation. Even though I am fond of most of these books and believe the Holy Spirit aided the writers in much of what was written, I would still have all of the tenets of my faith without those ones.
@humbletom "I would still have all of the tenets of my faith without those ones. "
I dare say, you'd have all the tenets of your faith if you merely kept a couple of verses from Paul talking about Jesus being resurrected and paying for the sins of mankind. You could lose all the NT but for even one letter because none of what you yourself deem non-essential matters. It doesn't matter whether the tomb was already open when the women got there or not.
@humbletom Whether you are in the know or not, it seems that the wiki article on the NT canonization process includes JAMES as one of the disputed books.
"By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation"
Instead of fighting truth at every turn, why not just accept everything that is true?
@TruthSurge I meant to say James. oops. After reading the summary and skimming the rest, I dont see anything that wasnt already covered. The aforementioned books and james were argued and there was a whole bunch of other writings that didnt make it in. Then it gives a list of various opinions on the aformentioned books and the ones that didnt make it in.
@TruthSurge Why did God allow the mess? Idk. But Christianity was originally an oral tradition that got converts from them seeing miracles, not based on their judging the attempts of the followers who wrote down the basics of the religion. Before I experienced miracles I was concerned with the 'mess'. And when you have been in environments where God's Spirit was THICK in the atmosphere, that feeling is worth it all.
@humbletom "But Christianity was originally an oral tradition that got converts from them seeing miracles,"
That's not a conclusion you can really draw confidently. NONE of the non-gospel/Acts books of the NT mention any miracle done by Jesus NOR any teachings of Jesus. Matthew, Luke and John rely on the WRITTEN gospel of Mark and as such, you have merely ONE "witness" to any life of Jesus. You are basing your entire belief on one man's fictional tale (Mark's). Anyway, later.
@TruthSurge The origin of the theory that Mark was the only witness was based on the a priori assumption that Christianity evolved from treating Jesus as a man to God & the assumption that Jesus could not have prophesied the destruction of the temple. Even in that theory, John is not considered to be based off Mark. So modern scholar's opinion is now considered more true than the knowledge of the church fathers who say that Matthew wrote 1st.
@humbletom No, I'm not saying Mark was a witness at all. I'm saying that the AUTHORS (anonymous authors) of Matthew, Luke and John based their works IN PART (Matthew in HUGE part) on the gospel of Mark. I believe the author of Mark was no eye witness of ANY life of Jesus and wrote his work as an allegory of the heavenly Jesus (he placed the heavenly Jesus on earth and as such it was a brilliant piece of fiction) which was an explanation as to why the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
@TruthSurge The only books that had the intent of sharing Jesus's teachings actions or miracles of his followers for that matter were the gospels/acts. The others were letters to churches who already knew Jesus's teachings. They were not meant to convert anybody but were dealing with specific issues. BTW Paul mentions a teaching of Jesus in 1 Cor 7:10. And a pretty big miracle is mentioned in romans 6:4 and 1 peter 1:3. And Paul mentions his own miracles in rom 15:18-19
@humbletom "BTW Paul mentions a teaching of Jesus in 1 Cor 7:10. "
Paul never QUOTES a saying of Jesus and attributes it to Jesus. You are merely trying to link something in Paul to something in the gospels. That's the whole point. Paul apparently never KNEW any of Jesus' sayings (sans the puzzling lord's supper passage in 1 cor 15) or any of his miracles or anything that would link jesus to the gospel stories. Jesus was turned into a human by the author of Mark.
@humbletom I've got over 5 hrs of vids I personally made covering the historicity of Jesus. If you haven't watched them, you might find them interesting. But they are incomplete. I have not yet covered the absences in the epistles of the gospel Jesus, the pagan influences and still have more to do on the problem verses where it seems the gospel Jesus is making appearances in the non-gospel/acts works. search jesus myth and you'll find my vids.
@TruthSurge I am currently at a computer that cannot play vids, but I will check out your vid, probably though not all 5 hours worth of material. I couldnt find a lords supper in 1 cor 15. there is a confusing one in ch11v23, which is probably saying supper originated with the Lord which Paul found out thru the apostles. But saying Jesus was fictional doesnt explain why so many would leave Judaism and be martyred for Him before the temple was destroyed, meaning before a sopposed work ...cont....
@humbletom Sorry, you're right. chapter 11. It's really the only time Paul says anything about a saying that Jesus supposedly uttered.
What is your source for any martyrdom? Surely, not the book of Acts? It is a 2nd century work of pure fiction. The places are real. The people are real. The events...
So, 1, there is no corroboration that any of the apostles or leaders were martyred and 2, even IF they were, that explains nothing. 9/11 ? People die for lies all the time.
@TruthSurge ...cont....before a sopposed fictional work of Mark to explain the destruction of the temple. BTW most scholars put the writing of Mark a couple years before its destruction and Mathew at its destruction, which I dont believe eather of those dates anyway though. Speaking of the martyrs, Luke/Acts seems to celebrate them, but for some reason doesnt mention Pauls or Peters execution, leading some to believe it was written before the 60s
@humbletom You really should read earlychristianwritings (d o t) com and see some good arguments for some of the dates. I did a 4 part vid on the dating of Mark if you're interested. It's on my channel. The likeliest date (IMO) is about 72 CE. I put Matthew about 10 years later and then John roughly 90 - 100 and then Luke roughly 100 to 120 and acts 110 to 130 and obviously acts would follow luke's date. Mark, Matthew, John and Luke then Acts.
@humbletom There are many pieces of evidence to consider in dating the NT writings. Ref the "before 60" idea, first, CHristians WANT the documents to be written shortly after the death of Jesus. That would support their belief that it actually happened. Unfortunately, most of the NT is quite late regarding that. Paul, the earliest of Christian authors we have, dates no earlier than the mid fifties, some 20 years after the alleged events of the gospels.
@TruthSurge marcion? Wiki doesnt tell me how I can use him to date anything. checked out earlychristianwritings. Lot of good arguments i guess except that they conflict with each other showing how the opiniions of smart men are still opinions. They also mostly conflict with your smart opinion date ranges, and they conflict with the position argued for in a bart erman textbook. Erman, an agnostic or something who wrote Misquoting Jesus, has marc at 66-70, mat 70-80, luke 80-90 & john 90-100
@humbletom Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater ref knowing something about the dates. YES, lots of people have various dates but it isn't the people you need to look at, it's their arguments. Being a Christian makes it harder for you to do this. I'm out so I have no vested interest except for clarity of mind and understanding of how things really went down.
As for Marcion, what he did NOT have in his canon of scripture is quite telling.
@humbletom You can find millions of scholars who date everything different than me or other liberal "scholars" or people interested in the issues. I have no degree. I just enjoy researching early Christianity.
I couldn't give a rat's arse who disagrees with me. It's not the people - it's the arguments.
Did you watch my 4 parter on dating Mark? that might give you some insight as to why I give it a 72 CE date.
@humbletom I have reasons for what I believe and if you should be so inclined to know a particular one, just ask. I'm sure you wonder why I date Luke after John. But there isn't any hardcore concensus among scholars because for one, most scholars are Christians. This alone skews the stats. I'm sure you'd agree that Muslim scholars would never admit to errors in the Quran, right? anyway, watch my Mark vid. Should give you an idea of how I see the most likely date for it.
@TruthSurge also after viewing your Jesus myth & mark date vids it appears to be the same smart opinion type stuff that can be conflicted by other smart opinions. But now I think I have a firm grasp of your position. So you would say someone else created all those genius sayings of Jesus & was humble enough to not take credit, & that this movement got started centered around someone who didnt even exist? Why does mathew reference what the contemporary pharisees were saying about the missing body
@humbletom So many questions... But in order to answer, I must ask you a question first. Genius sayings? You can't be serious. Tell me one saying of Jesus that you consider to be genius. That's all I want for now. Just reply and type in or paste in the saying (JUST ONE) that you consider to be genius. Then I can proceed to answer.
@TruthSurge luke 10:29-37. The (JUST ONE) is a pretty clever rule. And I dont understand why you need JUST ONE saying of Jesus before proceeding to the other 2 questions.& it is a lot of questions for this forum. But proclaiming Jesus never existed brings up alot of questions. Though I am sure you will be happy to answer in the future as it seems this might be your favorite topic with your own original research. So... just warning you... even more questions are probably on the way
@humbletom I am a transparent person. I hold nothing back. I do not lie or mislead intentionally. I have no time for BS or those who spew it. This is why a more focused back and forth is going to work rather than you sending a sort of scattershot back with lots of tangents. I can deal with one or two questions at a time but beyond that, why? One question from you will almost certainly lead into a week of discussion anyway. Now, let me look at Luke 10:29-37.
@humbletom as for "just one", it should be obvious. If I can show you ONE as an example, surely many of the others would take the same form. Once you know how to add, you don't need to add all numbers to be sure they will add correctly. But you may need to see lots of evidence that I've already seen in order to be swayed on any particular pt. I understand that. I just can't spend all day on this discussion between us, that's all, and I'm sure you can't either.
@humbletom So, the story of the good Samaritan... the issue as to whether the story was uttered by any Jesus seems to beg for an audience. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus is saying that one must keep the commandments to have eternal life but this scene in Luke contains extra data (the Samaritan story). This seems a bit odd considering that both Mark and Matthew apparently did not know about this parable of Jesus. Is it possible Luke invented it as an embellishment? more...
@humbletom Remember, Luke copied both Mark AND Matthew's written gospels and wrote decades after both, likely in the first part of the 2nd century (i know, more questions). So, how is it that someone writing decades LATER, knows more details than Mark and Matthew both?
Also, the synoptics are written by Greeks (not Jews) and they contain anti-Jewish sentiments (hence the Pharisee bashing found in all 3). The story of the Samaritan is in effect a Pharisee bashing tale. more...
@humbletom The Samaritans were generally hated by the Jews (well, who did the Jews NOT hate?) and as such, a parable showing a Samaritan being BETTER than the Jewish religious leaders would be an ultimate INSULT to those leaders. This is a theme that permeates ALL three synoptics. For the synoptics were written by Greek Christians who generally disliked the Jewish religious leaders for one reason: their rejection of their Jesus cult. The parable is more of an insult to them than anything.
@humbletom And further, would you say that the parable could not have been written by Luke himself? There are tons of stories added to the gospels (adulteress story, 21st chap of John, resurrection accts of mark, etc).
So, this parable is not so much saying the person who does a good work is the neighbor as it is an intentional slap in the face to the Jewish leaders by a Gentile Christian author (Luke). This is why all 3 have Jesus abusing the Jewish leaders verbally. it is what they would
@humbletom have personally said to them IF they could. But living in Rome and Greece and such, they simply attacked via words on the page. The parable has irony which you wouldn't catch if you didn't know the Jews despised the Samaritans. Notice that the ones who ignore the man are not just Jews but Jewish religious leaders.
Anyway, find me even one saying of Jesus that could not have been written by the author himself. Else, you have nothing strong to offer via a historical Jesus.
@humbletom Also, the "just one" wasn't a "rule". It was a request. I'll be glad to answer any questions but I know for a fact that too many topics at once will accomplish nothing. You end up throwing your hands up and walking off saying "ah, whatever" and nothing is learned either way. that's a waste, IMO.
@humbletom "Why does mathew reference what the contemporary pharisees were saying about the missing body"
What evidence do you have to show that Matthew did not simply recognize the problem inherent in Mark's story and simply create a solution to it (by inventing the guards at the tomb and the rest of the issue)?
Matthew edited (deliberately) Mark's version to IMPROVE Mark's story and Mark's Jesus.
@humbletom If the author of Matthew wrote his work around 80 CE, and that work could only be copied by HAND and propagated, it is likely that the readers who got the work first would be other gentile Christians and besides, 80 CE is about 50 years AFTER the events. How on earth could anyone verify what Jews who were by then long dead were saying? It's fiction. All of it. Matthew was improving Mark. Luke was improving both of them. As fiction. That's why they had no hesitation to edit.
@humbletom Why don't we pick a topic that I can basically prove? Something that maybe you haven't heard or disagree with. Like.... maybe you have but here's one I can prove. The adulteress story in John was added long after the gospel was written. Have you heard of that? Do you agree or disagree? I'm assuming or guessing if you read Ehrman's "misquoting Jesus" you have already heard that. But did you agree with it or dismiss it? I'm saying you need to back up and kick the tires.
@TruthSurge You are right, there is no way to prove 1 way or other, but speaking of the adulteress and of proving things: Just because it isnt in the earliest manuscripts that we have, doesnt prove that it wasnt in the original. Those early manuscripts could have been bad versions and they used better versions to copy from. Anyway, I'm not arguing for that passage, even though I love that passage, bc I want to stay on this topic of the existance of Jesus.
@humbletom Well, the adulteress story is not only missing from the earliest and best mss but is magically skipped over in Origen's commentary on John. He skips from the verse just BEFORE that story to the verse just AFTER that story. sort of makes you go hmmmmmmm, doesn't it?
Some people love truth. Real truth. And some people seem to hate it in favor of their pet beliefs. I cannot sleep at night believing anything that goes against the preponderance of evidence.
@TruthSurge I think it would help if you told me exactly what you feel the original thinking on Jesus was. Paul didnt think he was a physical man but all the salvation stuff happened in the spirit world?"Crucified" didnt mean a roman execution of hanging on a cross. Deviating from the standard "Jesus was just a man whose story was embellished" seems like would need a compelling reason. Alot of atheists have looked into this.
@humbletom That's it. Paul believed in a Jesus who had not yet arrived on Earth but had performed his salvific act in the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands (Hebrews 9). The information about Jesus (the gospel) had been hidden from mankind since the beginning of time (that included the crucifixion and resurrection). This can ONLY make sense if you posit a heavenly Jesus who had been killed when the world was made (the lamb slain from the foundation of the world - Rev 13:8).
@humbletom That Paul believed the demons killed Jesus is another pointer to a heavenly Jesus. The Ascension of Isaiah describes Jesus as descending from heaven and taking on the LIKENESS of man (not becoming a man, but merely transforming his morphological structure to LOOK like a man in appearance so as to trick the demons into killing him which was god's plan). For if the demons knew they were killing jesus, they would not do it for it would seal their doom (1 Cor 2:8).
@humbletom Even Origen believed that 1 Cor 2:8 referred to demons, not Romans or Jewish leaders.
All of this is in my Jesus Myth vids. I thought you watched them. Your problem is that you view the NT as one unit. But it was written by diff men at diff times with diff agendas and later shoehorned together and even to this day I still can't break the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John chronology. This was never the right order. it's mark, matt, john then luke.
@TruthSurge Maybe u had more videos than what I saw. I watched 2 about occurence disciple/apostle & 1 about judas betrayal. So you think Revelation was written earlier like around the time of Nero, sopposedly b4 they said Jesus came to earth? In Hebrews 9 about high priest going into heavenly holy place, the shedding of blood took place outside the the temple. Google tells me the ascension of isaiah was written way too late to support any points from eather side, but it does say He came to earth
I tried to put em all in a playlist but not sure if they'll all play.
Also, I'm going to be busy on some paying stuff for a while so prob need to hold off our back n forth. At least for say 2 or 3 weeks. that'll give ya time to view those vids too.
@humbletom "So you think Revelation was written earlier like around the time of Nero, sopposedly b4 they said Jesus came to earth?"
Not necessarily. See, the timelines do not have to coincide like that because remember, when a work was written in say 72 CE, it would take many years to propagate around and become known because each copy had to be done by hand. So it is not necessary for Revelation to have been written in say 65 CE or before the first gospel. Not necessary at all.
@humbletom the ascension of isaiah is like other works. there isn't really ONE work but the hand of several authors and yes, some of it is later but SOME of it must be at LEAST earlier than the general time where the gospels were the norm (roughly 150 CE). It says he descended through the 7 levels of heaven and became increasingly like humans in FORM (shape, appearance, LIKENESS). Paul says the exact same thing about Jesus. He looked LIKE a man. odd thing to say if he WAS a man.
@humbletom I answer a lot of this in those jesus myth vids. if you watch them, they should make perfect sense after you get through most of them (even if you don't agree with them). I try to make them very clear and not confusing.
@humbletom Where do you find in Heb 9 that Jesus offered himself outside of a temple? It clearly says that Jesus offered himself in the holy of holies in a tabernacle in heaven (ie, NOT on earth).
Hebrews 9:11-12 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all...
@TruthSurge It will probably take me those 2-3 (or 4-5) weeks to get through that playlist so enjoy your break. But about Hebrew 9: "with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place." In the pararallel of earthly temple, the regular priest shed the animals blood outside of the Most Holy Place & then entered in with the blood. Anyway it also looks like you have other discussions going on so I will be back in a couple weeks and wont even respond to your response to this unless u make it urgent
@humbletom Nothing urgent. that Hebrews has a middle-platonic view of cosmology and such really is important to understand. Paul uses it as well. I go into this a little bit in a later vid in that series. basically, heaven is pure, perfect, eternal, incorrupt, sinless, spiritual bodies, and earth is basically an imperfect copy of that. This is why Jesus (the perfect sacrifice) would have had to have made his offering in the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands. Make notes and see ya
@humbletom Lastly, the Jesus as man who got embellished doesn't answer all of the problems that the Jesus Myth theory does. It doesn't explain why Paul and the author of Ephesians believed demons killed Jesus. Doesn't explain why all but one verse in the NT non-gospels/acts writings talk of a coming jesus but not returning jesus. it doesn't explain the absence of any link by Paul to the 1st century. doesn't explain the absence of miracles and sayings. and I could go on and on and on.
@humbletom Okay, I will. It doesn't explain why the author of Hebrews would claim Jesus was crucified in heaven or the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands. It doesn't explain why Philo of Alexandria would be writing contemporary with Jesus and talking about the Logos in almost identical terms that we find in the gospel of John. It doesn't explain why the earliest writers view Jesus in an exalted deified way only to have the gospels decades later depict him on earth. etc.
@humbletom If Jesus did anything and sent his disciples out, we'd have a more unified ground zero blast effect. what the docs show is nothing like that. we have a scattered disjointed effect. Many gospels, many ideas that conflicted and contradicted the next. There were no disciples of Jesus. The early Christians were called apostles but never disciples (outside the gospels and acts). coincidence? shall I go on? no, it's 1am. I've done my homework. I'm sure you'll do yours. :)
@TruthSurge Having only 1 epistle mentioning of a returning Jesus instead coming seems like it is all you need to show the idea was there. I assume you are referring to Hebrews 9. Also why if it was a heavenly death would they choose the word "crucifixion." Ground zero blast: I really dont think we have enough information to tell if there was or wasnt, but Acts says they stayed in Jerusalem until persecution dispersed them. Saying there WOULD HAVE BEEN a blast effect is an opinion.
You didn't watch the vid where I explain that Hebrews is not talking about a return. It only looks that way because of the parallels between the gospel story and the epistles. watch the vids. it'll all make sense.
@humbletom "Also why if it was a heavenly death would they choose the word "crucifixion.""
Answering this could take a whole 10 min vid but remember, these people were basing most of their beliefs on OT passages they felt were revealing Jesus and what he HAD done in the far past. When they read Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53, along with the knowledge that hanging on a tree meant you were cursed, it didn't take much to conclude Jesus MUST have been crucified by the demons. etc.
@TruthSurge I dont know what you mean an absence of link by Paul to the first century. Does this mean Paul didnt have any language to show that when he referred to Jesus he wasnt referring to beginning of time? It seems like saying His body was descended from David at Romans 1:3 would be a link.
@humbletom Paul does not link Jesus to the 1st century and no, saying that Jesus was of the seed of David is not linking him to the 1st century or even calling Jesus a man. Remember, Paul himself uses the word "seed" to mean not genetically related (Abraham) but in spirit. ALL of the seed (genetic descendents) of Abraham are NOT of the "seed". :)
@humbletom so, just watch those vids, read Earl Doherty's book if you can find a copy (newest edition) and it should make sense. But i got to get on some stuff. good luck!
@humbletom "And a pretty big miracle is mentioned in romans 6:4 " The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned NUMEROUS times by Paul. That is not a miracle Jesus performed. If you remember, it was god who raised Jesus, not himself. But also, Paul never places that resurrection on earth or even in the recent 20 or 30 years from Paul's writings. Anyway, watch my jesus myth vids if you are inclined. if not, no biggie.
@humbletom Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon just the very length of this SUMMARY article, should call the entire process of "inspiration" into question. Why would a god allow such a mess? I'm sure you have an answer.
@humbletom 100 years after the first gospel (Mark), St. Irenaeus of Lyons was arguing that there could be no more than 4 authoritative gospels. This is because by his day, there were many other written gospels floating about besides the 4 that actually made it. Christianity evolved from day one and has not stopped. Even a cursory look at a history of Christianity tells you that.
@humbletom Why did God punish Adam and kick him from the garden when he could have forgiven him? IOW, why did god not PLAN to forgive Adam and Eve ESPECIALLY since they didn't even know good and evil yet? ESPECIALLY, since it was their first "transgression"? You have no good answer for that except "we cannot question god's motives". That's what Paul believed (Romans 9) about god hardening pharaoh's heart. why would god do that and hold him accountable? Paul had no other answer.
@TruthSurge Why did God let his chosen people get enslaved by Egypt when He could have just kept their land from getting a famine? The list of "why's" is as big as the Bible itself. I think I can come up with good answers, but you are correct in that all presumed tapdance answers would indeed just be guessing. Fortunately, I have not put the stipulation on my faith of being able to read the Great Deity's mind and answer all the why's.
@humbletom I have one answer that answers ALL of the "whys" in one simple, elegant, fell swoop.
Religion is the product of imaginative men.
When the Jews wrote their stories, they were writing with hindsight. retrofitting history to make themselves seem important as well as their god. Daniel. Rewrite of the Babylonian captivity including many historical inaccuracies. Creation and flood accounts. Copies of earlier written accounts. El was chosen as their god FROM the Canaanites. etc.
@humbletom anyway, I've got to get working since you aren't interested in how the religions really came to be and why they are not true. I pity you because you must carry such a heavy burden of defending a god who drown little babies for their parents' crimes. A god who endorsed slavery and punished innocent people for other people's offenses. A god who felt murder was an appropriate punishment for unruly children. See ya.
@humbletom "Now, though, instead of getting stoned for not being Holy you plead the BLOOD of Jesus."
That's because we now know that it is immoral to kill a child for hitting their parent. Modern knowledge and moral growth through the centuries has taught us that, not any holy book.
@TruthSurge Pseudonymic forgers? That theory is not universally accepted among biblical scholars, and the reasons behind the theory are very opinionated. Regardless the grace alone view is in letters that are universally recognized to be paul. Some of your points (not the pseudonimc forgers but other ones) I think you could answer yourself if you wanted to
@humbletom It is accepted by many scholars but whether any scholar accepts it, it is accepted by me and I can tell you WHY it's true, not just THAT it's true. And therein, I feel, lies the difference between me and many Christians. They rely on Christian scholars and apologists to tell them what to believe. I rely on my own ability to sift the data and come to the best conclusion given all that I know.
Tons of scholars agree that Paul did not write the pastorals, for example.
@humbletom I don't think I have time to teach you WHY the pastorals were not authored by Paul, especially since you can teach yourself by simply going to the wiki article on the pastorals or 1 Tim, etc as well as other sources. But trust me, any pointed discussion you'd like to chance, I'm game. But just be sure you teach yourself because I wouldn't want you to take my word for anything w/o verifying it on your own.
@humbletom Jesus even upheld the murder of unruly children in Matt 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
If the specific laws of the OT didn't matter anymore, why would Jesus accuse the Pharisees of breaking that particular law? Wouldn't they be just fine by loving god and their neighbors as Jesus said?
Clearly, the best explanation is that Jesus meant what he said.
@TruthSurge If this was "clearly" the best explanation not only would we not be discussing it, but every person who followed Jesus during His ministry, including the ones that wrote His quotes that you are now analyzing would not have left following the Jewish Law as you say we are sopposed to follow it. In Mat 15, Jesus was pointing out the Pharisees hypocracy, not saying we should stone unruly children.
@humbletom Once you step out of your defend your religion at all costs mode of operation, you THEN can see much more clearly how the various Christian strands of religion came to be and came to clash over the centuries. Have you happened to read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"? It's a good book that shows how the Bible was pieced together over time and how the various theologies were overlaid onto previous ones over time.
As for the law, it gets no clearer than Jesus' own words.
@humbletom When Jesus was asked what one must do to enter eternal life he told the guy he must keep the commandments (that would be ALL of the Mosaic law).
@TruthSurge ....when he said thank said thank You Father for hiding these things from the wise and revealing them to the children. It takes a spiritual eye to read Jesus. Paul on the other hand did his intellectual best to ensure his audience understood him. He knew Jesus's sayings and had that spiritual eye to understand them. It wasn't easy for them to see though. The vision Peter had in Acts might have given the first understanding; only say that to acknowledge your questioning is legitimate
Yes! God wants us to be tested. Yes He initiatied Jesus's testing. Set up for failure? In the Bible, God typically tests those who are not prone to failure. Most people never get tested by God because they fail to their own flesh so often, which is the people James was talking to. Every loving parent "thrusts" their children into testing situations: little league sports, beauty pageants, learning to swim. Parents love to see their children overcome.
@humbletom Okay, so now you're redefined the word to mean only learning challenges or sports and things like that. Does god lead anyone or did he lead anyone into a situation where they weren't just challenged to learn but tempted to sin? Of course, JESUS! Of course, ABRAHAM! Of course, ADAM AND EVE! Jesus passed his tests. Abraham passed his test (although what a horrible person to believe that killing his child was a good thing) but unfortunatley for mankind, Adam failed his test.
@humbletom So, god put adam and eve into a situation (the tree that was a no no) where they not only MIGHT fail, but HAD to fail. They did not know right from wrong. Shame on god. Then, he punishes them for doing something they could not understand morally. tsk tsk. what a horrible and unjust god. THEN, god punishes ME for adam's sin? What an unjust god that is. Punishing someone for someone ELSE'S crime.
@TruthSurge I wasnt trying to redefine a term, but when you try to draw parallels between God and parents I just showed how parents test their children. Some even throw them in the deep end for them to learn to swim. As far as adam goes, dont feel sorry for adam. He had paradise. And not having "knowledge" of good and evil is not the same as knowing you shouldn't eat the fruit.
@humbletom if you don't know right from wrong, you cannot know you were disobeying. I'm done, bro. Best of luck to ya. I can see you're pretty deep off into trying to justify a horribly immoral bronze-age myth. Next you'll be justifying slavery and killing unruly children. later.
@TruthSurge Best of luck to you as well.. You are right I am pretty deep into this thing. But not deep into justifying God; I just happened to spend more time on utube than usual and I guess this type of conversation can just suck someone right in. Bc when you have experienced the things I have justifying God is like justifying drinking water
@TruthSurge I understand completely. If I was in different circumstances, I dont know what decisions/beliefs i would have made/held. I am just thankful to have experienced all the things I have in the last two years of being in a "swinging from the chandelier" pentecostal environment. like, among other things, shaking hands with the man my pastor healed of blindness
@humbletom Wow. Do you have any documentation showing this healing in a way that can be verified as really happening? That would go a long way toward supporting the idea of your god but it also brings up a troubling question. Why would god let that man heal another person of blindness but not let your pastor drive to LeBohneur Children's hospital and cure one or more children of their diseases? Lastly, have you ever seen any amputee get their lost limb regenerated via prayer?
@TruthSurge I dont know about documents. Im sure the blind guy has it. As far as driving to hospitals, she isnt really a healer, just occasionally if the Spirit is moving. & to get the Spirit moving in a room alot of worship takes place 1st. And if I had ever saw an amputee healed I would've mentioned that before the blind guy. I was merely relating my experience, which has confirmed my faith for me. I'm not going to go investigate but a quick utube search has people claiming amputee healings
I think you've summed it all up here. Claims. That's all they are. Why would god be pleased to heal a random person of blindness and not thousands of cancer children? Sounds to me like god has his priorities a little bit off.
@TruthSurge As far as you being punished for Adams sin, thats off the topic that you asked Christians to respond to in the video, but I guess if I am going to discuss things with an atheist I should be prepared to discuss everything. (I'm not using the term atheist as a derogatory name) Obviously the "God tempting people" topic isnt really the main hamper to your beiliving in Him. Maybe one day I will watch you other videos. So you being punished for adam:
@TruthSurge Idk if these posts are appearing in the right order but anyway, you can say you are being punished for adams sin bc of all the bad things happening to you in this world. But that would be 'redefining' the word punishment. If a bully punches you, God is not punishing you; you are experiencing the consequences of the bully's sin. This world has repeatedly told God we dont want Your presence or holy ways, so He is less likely to give us His presence to stop the bully's fist.
When I first learned the Lords Prayer when I was 5, I understood that to mean "lead us away from temptation." In gen 22:1 that word translated to tempt in KJV (strongs 5254) mostly means to test. The point james was trying to make is that God himself doesnt do the tempting so quit making excuses. If God did the tempting everyone would fail. But He does allow us to go through temptation to test us.
@humbletom Does god want us to be tested? And does that set many of us up for failure? And why would any loving parent want their child to be thrust into a testing situation?
And further, trying to explain James doesn't explain the many times god most certainly initiated the "testing". Who initiated the testing of Jesus during his 40 day wilderness sojourn? If you will just kindly answer this one question for me, I'd appreciate it.
Hi, I'm shane. I just turned 13 and I want to stay christian, but whenever I try to tell myself I am I get a feeling that I don't really believe. Please reply with support! I dont know what else to do.
@DrinktheLatte My advice: read the Bible. It's the best way to become a non-believer or prove to yourself that it's a bunch of BS that should be relegated to the horribly barbaric past of mankind. Do you think a loving god would drown newborn babies in a flood for something their parents did? If so, go ahead and be a Christian. If not, keep reading and you'll find more of the same. Horrible stories about a jealous and hateful god. then there's the new testament. fiction on fiction.
@DrinktheLatte look into buddhism ,cause christianity is evil and immoral 1SAM 15:1-3 jesus(god) tells men to stab infants to death,DUET 13:6-10 murder ur mother if she is an unbeleiver,EX 21:7 sell ur daughter into slavery,lev 25:44-46 u can own slaves,and i have many more evil christian verses,i left christianity and on my spiritual search i found buddhism please send me a message i would love to talk to u about buddhas love.
You make some very good points. People always say it's the devil who tempts us, yet God is supposed to have put the tree of temptation there. Very confusing.
Why do Atheists hold up the Bible as true in their arguments against it? You would think they know it's merely man's understanding of the human predicament.
(Here, the understanding would be that God is the Highest of all supernatural powers; that he allowed sub-deities (Satan, demons, worldly things) to tempt man themselves, and humans--understanding all supernatural things as 'God'--choose the wrong gods sometimes).
E.g. If you see a man waving a stick in front of an orchestra, MUST HE be..?.
mythmanjay 1 week ago in playlist Watch Later
@mythmanjay answered on your blog page.
TruthSurge 1 week ago
But of course the Bible God is shown as tempting people. Look at Adam and Eve. God also invents very ingenious ways to sin. Since sin it is what God says it is, isn't so?. I mean, sin is not what hurts your brother, as it would seem logical. That too simple...
You trouble yourself over the most obvious questions. Well, of course, everybody knows God tempts you everyday. Is God not the Devil?. Because, if He is not, why torture Job?.
FinflazodeTurroai 2 weeks ago
@FinflazodeTurroai no, i'm an ex-christian atheist. Non of this religious stuff bothers me anymore because I believe it's all fiction. If you are still trying to somehow salvage a god concept, I kind of feel sorry for you as you'll never have any real evidence to support the notion. I abandoned them all to the realm of myth and have never been more happy and content.
TruthSurge 2 weeks ago
@TruthSurge As you know I am an ex-Catholic, but it makes me feel better to believe there is a Creator God. Since I accept facts He musta acted before and out of time, we can not understand Him, and He doesn't interact or care about us. But that is only my bias showing, LOL... IMO, if one follows one's evolved tendency to love one's brothers, one is happier on this life, the only one we have. Religion is .. poison. I tried to use a softer word but none comes to mind...
FinflazodeTurroai 2 weeks ago
@FinflazodeTurroai then why hold to ANY kind of belief in a god? it makes no sense. If this god you think exists has no interaction with us, then for all practical purposes, he doesn't exist anyway. ?
TruthSurge 1 week ago
@FinflazodeTurroai Why?. I'll tell ya. Because it is deeply unimportant, one way or the other and, because of my rearing, it makes me feel better. So, since it doesn't go against facts, it is allright. Hey, maybe there's one, even if it is wildly improbable !. I can't phatom why there's any need for a Creator God, you know. It rather complicates things. But... Heck, maybe tomorrow I'll change. One can change beliefs, but not facts.
FinflazodeTurroai 1 week ago
We need a comprehensive/ referential list of these temptations
billygundum 1 month ago
@billygundum Heck, supposedly, God tests (tempts) Christians even today. Christians always say that god is testing people by putting them in situations so they can build "character". What a horrible god. Life is hard enough without an all-powerful being pushing bad things upon you.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
@billygundum Mmmmm.... easy : Food, sex, rock and roll, motorcycles... all that makes life worth living...
FinflazodeTurroai 1 week ago
Ok this will be my last. If youre wife sends you to the store to get a gallon of milk. While there you stop and buy a porno mag and toss off to it. Was it your wife tempting you? Of course not like all sin your lust to satisfy the flesh. With regards to Yah not in control and Satan is I say no. Yah allows Satan to tempt but as Im sure you have read not above what we can not handle. There is always a way out. You have a way out just call out and repent. Peace out...
JoeCoolRoxYou 3 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge You still have not answered the question on who tempted Yahuwshua. Just answer me and put this to rest. We both know the answer. Its evident you are well trained in scripture to bad you use it to deny the Father and try to put doubt in weak minded believers. I pray that some day the Set Apart Spirit will reveal the true meaning of the words you have read so many times. Have a great Sabbath. Peace out...
JoeCoolRoxYou 3 months ago
Well your whole problem is you are reading from the KJV. Check out the Hebrew bible kind of from the horses own mouth on the Abrahm account. Your Adam and Eve comparison is weak to say the least and I know you know you are reaching with that. Lead us not into temptation from the prayer is stating that we trust him to keep us from temptation. Finally led to the wilderness to be taught but was tempted by Satan on the way because as you see the angels taught him after being tempted from Satan.
JoeCoolRoxYou 3 months ago
@JoeCoolRoxYou Your whole problem is that you have a bias that doesn't allow you to use the clear interpretation. The text of the wilderness temptation states explicitly that the Holy Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness TO BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL. You fail. come back again sometime when you've actually got something of substance.
Matt 4:1 ALL translations are the same on this verse.
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
oops.
TruthSurge 3 months ago
@TruthSurge No not all of them state that but to amuse you we will use the KJV. Well Yah leads me to many places and at times there are temptations and at times none at all. I think you need to read again who is doing the tempting is it Yah? Of course not its Satan. So in all actuality Yah is tempting no one. I hope you actually see this as what it really is Yah tempting no one but just like in our lives temptation comes at every corner it seems sometimes. Have a great day. Peace out...
JoeCoolRoxYou 3 months ago
@JoeCoolRoxYou "No not all of them state that"
Yes, they do. Now, if you have no idea how to go read all the main translations for that verse, I really have no time for someone like you. So you are either lying or you are ignorant of how to even look at that verse in the main translations. Can't be bothered responding to you if you are that bad off.
TruthSurge 3 months ago
@TruthSurge Since you do not care to learn I will take that as you have been defeated. Thanks for the victory. Have a great day. Learn Greek read what is in the bible and then talk to me until then Ill take the victory. Peace out...
JoeCoolRoxYou 3 months ago
Okay, well then I need to go see what I got wrong.....that's why I talk to people. ( and enjoy it on rare occasions) sometimes they have insights I miss, or am misinformed on. and I am not too proud to admit when I mess up.
wbnc66 4 months ago
@wbnc66 Yep, you see, if you will seek truth first (not god or religion etc) you will find what is true. simple. if god exists, you'll STILL find him by seeking truth first. But by seeking TRUTH first (not trying to prop up your current beliefs against facts) then you will also discover if he does NOT exist or if CHristianity is NOT true. Horse b4 cart. It works a lot better. So, if Jesus himself proclaimed explicitly in Matthew that the OT laws were still in effect AFTER his death...
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@wbnc66 Then you, my friend, are in trouble. :) you'd better not wear a shirt with cotton and polyester in it. You are breaking god's command. And that pork chop? HAHAHAH you get the idea. Most Christians ignore Jesus' saying on the law and just flop out Paul's anti-law views. good luck with your studies.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
DISCLAIMER:I''m not brilliant or a theologian.....I'm not even that good of a Christian. But I don't think god "tempts" anyone. He gave up (for the most part)his direct control of humanity when "Adam and Eve" chose to go their own way and live by their own wisdom and desires.
space is a little limited so I will take it point by point.
lead me us not into temptation.... = give me the good common sense to stay out of trouble., and if I do help me out. Not "oh lord don't tempt me yourself"
wbnc66 4 months ago
@wbnc66 My take... you are more moral than the god of the bible and because of this, you HAVE to reinterpret the bad parts to make them fit our modern ideas of morality. If you followed the Bible to the letter, you'd be in prison. So, keep being good and use that common sense and forget those silly commands God gives like stoning children when they become unruly. You and I are far better than that.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TruthSurge
without getting into some very complicated issues....too late......A lot of the old biblical laws are null and void after Jesus, Who replaced the with the golden rule. As it's been explained to me the period of "The Law" was doomed from the beginning,and served to illustrate that humans by their very nature can not live by Laws and Rituals.Our animal instincts and habit of looking for loop holes..."Okay I stole from Joshua but I'll sacrifice a goat and make it better. won't work.
wbnc66 4 months ago
@wbnc66 "without getting into some very complicated issues....too late......A lot of the old biblical laws are null and void after Jesus"
nope. Jesus explicitly stated in Matthew that until both heaven and earth PASS AWAY, the law would STILL be in effect.
TruthSurge 4 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge well, that's why it's called Faith and not Fact. I would say I don't need Evidence to believe in God. The logic of God is something I can't understand FOR NOW...and I know (or believe to be precise) one day God will help me to understand.
TheUselessCritic 5 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Well, although I'm not a Christian Istill believe in God...and it took me a LONG time to accept (slash believe) that humans cannot understand God's logic or God's motives or what God does. But you ask, does God tempt people....in the Bible yes...the first one I thought of was EVE, and you mentioned the other well-known ones. But I would not say that I judge* God, as you said in the last comment, for I cannot judge what I cannot understand (in this respect)
TheUselessCritic 5 months ago
I'll take a chance at this one.
Q: Does God tempt people? A: Yes.
Q: Does God desire that people not sin? A: Beyond any passage, God's desires cannot be understood by man.
Q: Regarding God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one? Pre A: I could say "Omnipotence: God's abilities defy human logic i.e. God wins no human answer." Like I said, I'm not a Christian ;)
TheUselessCritic 5 months ago
The KJV that you quote from has many issues.The hebrew word in Gen.22:1 translated tempted is nacah.
Strong's-nacah.To test,prove,tempt,assay,put to the proof.
The KJV uses nacah 36 times.20x prove,12x tempt,2x assay,1x adventure,1x try.
The following translate it in Gen. as test-NIV,BBE. Tested-RSV,ESV,GNT,CJB. Prove-ASV.
The KJV stands much on it's own in it's use of tempted.To test someone is very different from to tempt.
The bible as revealed in hebrew is fine.Translations are not.
knowthelight 11 months ago
@knowthelight oh my. We are going down a slippery slope.
Let me ask you this: if god commanded Abraham to kill his son, does it really matter whether we call it tempting or testing? God commanded a man to do something immoral to find out if he was faithful enough to be "god's man". At least that's what the story tells us. So, let's throw out tempted and use tested since you seem to like that. God tested Abraham by putting him in a situation where he could disobey. am I right?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge It does indeed make a difference if he was tested instead of tempted.This is the subject that you raised.Immorality is in the eye of the beholder.What i find immoral.you may not.... The test was as to Abrahams faith.He showed his faith and was rewarded .Abraham could have disobeyed if he wanted to,but he didn't.He used his free will to do as he had been commanded.You use your free will to do what is right in your eyes.The men of faith used theirs to do what was right in God' eyes.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight "It does indeed make a difference if he was tested instead of tempted."
Would a rose smell different if we called it a petunia?
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge It is a good idea for you to change the subject.Yet again.If you want to stay with the subject you raised,i will be happy to respond.Otherwise we can leave it there.Take care.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight My question was like a dart hitting a bullseye. You seem to think that if we call it testing, the story is okay and makes sense ( a man being commanded to kill his son). But if we call it tempting, why, that's a totally different story ( a man being commanded to kill his son).
I think if you don't understand that much, we really should stop. thanks.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge The fact that Abraham was tested has been agreed.This hasn't changed the fact that he was commanded to kill his son.We agree on this too.Why God would want him to is now the question.Have i got this right.If so we can proceed with my answer.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight Yes, I already know your answer. God wasn't trying to find out whether he'd be "faithful" and kill his son but God was using it to STRENGTHEN Abraham so he'd be able to do great things. etc etc.
But what if Abraham had told god no. I will not kill my son. Then Abraham would be a bad person for not wanting to murder an innocent person? Is that what you're saying? It's just very weary to go through all of these apologetics over and over.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge You already know my answer?Abraham could have said no,but that didn't happen.
As it is so weary to for you,just give me the short version.God does't exist or something.Or is it the bible can't be his word.Or both.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight I'm an atheist ex-Christian. I believe no gods exist. I worship none. I know the Bible is unreliable on practically every level and this is from years of studying it on my own as well as reading the opinions of scholars who are not afraid to admit facts (like Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman, etc).
So, if you have not discovered what I have, then dig into some good books. Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms, Bart Ehrman's stuff. We are not working from the same data, I'm afraid.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge I realize you don't believe in a god etc. Thank you for the ref to these authors.I will check them out.I would not want to believe in something that is not real.My need to understand how none living becomes living is at the root of it all.Science doesn't have an answer.Evolution is full of gaps.i try to keep an open mind on these subjects,but find them lacking somewhat.Thanks for your time,and i hope we can talk again.Regards,Steve
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight "My need to understand how none living becomes living is at the root of it all." I had similar questions when I was a Christian. How could life arise from no life? Why would it want to? What impetus was there to cause molecules to cling together in that way? How could molecules come together and STAY together long enough to form anything that could replicate? Was the earth orbiting the sun long enough to even allow that process? those were some of my questions.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight As for science being full of gaps, there are more gaps in the Bible. Science now knows that the sun does NOT orbit the earth (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that rabbits don't chew cud and bats are not birds (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that the earth is spherical, not flat (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that putting striped branches in front of sheep as they eat doesn't make their offspring...
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge Please re-read what i said.Evolution is full of gaps...Where does the bible say the sun revolves around the earth.That KJV is causing problems again. It was wrongly translated i said. I seem to be repeating myself on that one.Most translations say in LEV 11 flying creature... Isa .40:22 the circle of the earth...The original hebrew does not mean chew the cud. These are the usual supposed contradictions or misunderstandings that are banded about by atheists etc that turn out wrong.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight "Where does the bible say the sun revolves around the earth."
Do you recall the story of Joshua? Do you recall what god did to the sun? He supposedly made it "stand still" in the sky. The story is written that way because the authors believed that the sun orbited the earth. It certainly looks that way when you watch it. They simply had no way of knowing otherwise.
Your "KJV causing problems" doesn't explain this case of a heliocentric belief.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight That the sun revolved around the earth was belief that was ubiquitous in ancient times. It was common. So there's no reason to believe the authors would not believe what everyone believed about cosmology such as the sun orbiting the earth.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight "That KJV is causing problems again."
When 50 other translations translate a passage the SAME as the KJV, what do you think about that? Thousands of scholars who actually CAN read the Hebrew and Greek all got it wrong?
Your KJV excuse cannot be blanketly thrown about as some get out of jail free card.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight another is Matt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,
The sun does not rise. It is stationary. It SEEMS to rise because the earth is a sphere which rotates on an axis.
blueletterbible (d o t) org. you can find anything in the bible in 20 or so translations along with definitions of the actual Greek and Hebrew words. Once you go there, you have no more excuses. :)
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge
Sun is a source of heat which produces LIGHT to the world
John 8:12 I am the LIGHT of the world
Your taking it to litrually this is why u read the bible like a story book you have no knowledge
Proverbs 2:6 For the Lord giveth WISDOM: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and UNDERSTANDING.
NickyTheo21 6 months ago
@knowthelight "Isa .40:22 the circle of the earth..."
Isaiah 40:22 most certainly means circle/compass/circuit. In NO WAY does the Hebrew word there (chuwg) mean sphere or ball.
Strong's H2329
1) circle, circuit, compass
2) (BDB) vault (of the heavens) (vault meaning a dome or bowl shape)
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight Strong's H5847 atalleph
1) bat
All translations I see translate atalleph as "bat". You were saying?
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight ...doesn't make their offspring spotted or striped (as the writers of the Bible believed). Science now knows that lightning isn't caused by an angry god ((as the writers of the Bible believed). Neither are tornadoes, typhoons, earthquakes, eclipses, etc. I could go on and on for the remainder of this day but maybe this will suffice for now. Science knows 10000 % more than the authors of the Bible ever dreamed of knowing. Same if we compare those people to cavemen.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@knowthelight As we learn more about how the universe really works, we know the authors of the Bible did the best they could, but had no way of knowing what we now do. I wish I could put what I now know into your head but the only way is bit at a time. I may do a vid on probability and how I didn't quite understand how the improbability of life was not equal to impossibility. thanks.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge I am not completely ignorant about what science has found out either. We are told however that none living at some point became living without any cause. This has not been replicated in any experiment .It is a big issue that is passed over .The more that is understood about even simple cells(they are very complex)the greater the odds are against life appearing by blind chance and luck. All the amino acids are left handed. The mechanism is not understod or explainable.Maybe you know.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight Don't bother, I already went around and around with this guy, he is full of it, and does not know what he's talking about and in the end (if he hasn't already) will only resort to name calling. Only more proof of what Jesus said "They have hated me before they hated you" Don't take it personal. He is not attacking you, he is attacking God. I learned this the hard way. I have had countless debates, there is a spiritual wall there we cannot penetrate. Only God can. God bless.
disprovinU 10 months ago 2
@disprovinU i understood this from the beginning.Like ex-smokers,ex-christians(if he really is one) are the worst kind of people.I thought he was worth some of my time.I know it is God who will prove his word is true.
The fact he is fulfilling prophecy seems to have escaped his notice.He is only repeating the usual criticisms of scripture.Not one new thing has been said by him.Thanks for your warning bro/sis.
knowthelight 10 months ago
@knowthelight Exactly. Too true. If he knew what he was talking about, he would not debate Christians proactively. That only proves what Jesus said. Kind of like killing Christians thinking it ends their belief, in fact martyrdom brings us to God. Thinking they are doing us wrong, in fact they are doing us good. You're welcome. We are meant to defend the word of God with the full armor of God, not stand by idly. Keep up the good work and be strong. =)
disprovinU 10 months ago
@disprovinU This world will pass away.All the realists in the world will not change the will of the few.Earth is in big trouble.The lunatic has taken over the asylum.We the few do what is right,not what is popular with the many.
Thank our God for giving understanding.Love to all that walk in his light.
knowthelight 10 months ago
I feel like we are good friends now or something with all this back & forth. I said claim knowing that they might not be true. But of course if I believe God would pause the sun so 1 "bronze age tribe" could defeat another, I dont have a hard time accepting other accounts. For now I will refrain from commenting on God's priorities, but for me its not what I havent seen but what I have. But the bigger the miracle the less of it I would expect to see. But to me blindness is up there.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom I feel that once you are in the position of defending the Bible, you're stuck. It's not a good place to be for now, you have to defend killing a child if he/she becomes unruly because the law commanded it and Jesus himself upheld the Mosaic law AND said it would not become void until heaven and earth passed away.
So, you are in a hard spot. Do you A) disagree with Jesus and say Christians are not bound by the laws? or B) agree with him and put to death a child who hits parent?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I dont believe He ever says uphold. But I know that He says He fulfills the law. Meaning that the Law wasn't fulfilled, meaning that it had a purpose or aim that it wasnt meeting. At transfiguration, Jesus was with Moses & Elijah representing law & prophets & God says "This is My Son Listen to Him" meaning now Jesus had authority over Law & Prophets, and Jesus said, "he that is without sin cast the first stone."... but now that I think about it we have an epidemic of unruly kids.joke
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom He certainly claimed to fulfill it but that is not the same as nullifying it. if it was, he certainly wouldn't have said:
mark 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
so, as you can plainly see, the earth hasn't passed away, therefore, the law is still in place per J.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom so, will you now just ignore jesus' explicit statement that the law is NOT nullified by his sacrificial act? or will you rather believe Paul over Jesus? I'm just the apostle (messenger). so don't shoot me. I didn't write your contradictory holy book. :) But I do know it very well. :)
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I wouldn't shoot someone who knows my holy book so well. Some people get converted reading it so I'm told.
So Jesus said it is NOT nullified....
Not only is it NOT nullified but it is now written on the hearts of men, which is part of what having the law fullfilled means. The Law on paper said no adultery. The Law on the heart says dont look at a women lustfully. Jesus didnt exactly strive to communicate everything so all could intellectually grasp. Sort of what He meant ...
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom "Not only is it NOT nullified but it is now written on the hearts of men, which is part of what having the law fullfilled means."
That's an apologist's copout. If the law is not nullified, it is still in force, in effect and you cannot simply wipe the laws away by saying something like we don't need them now that we have Jesus' sacrifice and he said the law is boiled down to 2 commandments. He said the law HANGS on 2. You are still bound by all of the law.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge If we are still bound by the Law why would God have split the temple in two when Jesus was on the cross. The Law was a type and shadow of things to come. As far as things dealing with morality in the Law, that wasnt really a type and shadow. We are always sopposed to be Holy. Now, though, instead of getting stoned for not being Holy you plead the BLOOD of Jesus.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom "If we are still bound by the Law why would God have split the temple in two when Jesus was on the cross. "
Because Christianity was written by MANY authors who often had very divergent views of just what it was all about. It's why James could say faith w/o works is dead faith and Paul could sweep away the law altogether and his later pseudonymic forgers could say that it was by grace ALONE people are saved. Who ya gonna believe? Most people believe the Pauline version.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I'm not sure that addresses the quoted statement but it gets down to the meat of your position without you having to pretend you even believe matthew recorded Jesus's sayings accurately. Divergent views? more like differing emphasis or issues addressed. Paul was addressing judaizers and saying animal sacrifices dont do anything anymore. James was saying your faith manifests itself in actions, actions that dont save you but show you have the faith.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Do you realize that many of the books now in the NT were hotly debated before they were accepted as authoritative? Even the earliest church "fathers" disagreed on basic doctrines. Paul explicitly chastised the Galatians for turning to another gospel (a variant gospel of Christianity). The authors wrote at diff times with diff views and these writings contradict on many levels. You may think you have answers but it's mostly a tapdance. For example, why didn't God forgive Adam?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge If I was aware of "theories" regarding pauline forgeries, I am probably aware a little of the NT development. The only "hotly debated" books were hebrews, 2pet, 2john, 3john, and revelation. Even though I am fond of most of these books and believe the Holy Spirit aided the writers in much of what was written, I would still have all of the tenets of my faith without those ones.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom "I would still have all of the tenets of my faith without those ones. "
I dare say, you'd have all the tenets of your faith if you merely kept a couple of verses from Paul talking about Jesus being resurrected and paying for the sins of mankind. You could lose all the NT but for even one letter because none of what you yourself deem non-essential matters. It doesn't matter whether the tomb was already open when the women got there or not.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Whether you are in the know or not, it seems that the wiki article on the NT canonization process includes JAMES as one of the disputed books.
"By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation"
Instead of fighting truth at every turn, why not just accept everything that is true?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I meant to say James. oops. After reading the summary and skimming the rest, I dont see anything that wasnt already covered. The aforementioned books and james were argued and there was a whole bunch of other writings that didnt make it in. Then it gives a list of various opinions on the aformentioned books and the ones that didnt make it in.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom So, the pt I made is that men decided which books were inspired by god, not god. ?
Anyway, I gotta chop this off cuz it ain't gettin us anywhere. Anyway, taker easy. I just got to get on some stuff I need to do.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Why did God allow the mess? Idk. But Christianity was originally an oral tradition that got converts from them seeing miracles, not based on their judging the attempts of the followers who wrote down the basics of the religion. Before I experienced miracles I was concerned with the 'mess'. And when you have been in environments where God's Spirit was THICK in the atmosphere, that feeling is worth it all.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom "But Christianity was originally an oral tradition that got converts from them seeing miracles,"
That's not a conclusion you can really draw confidently. NONE of the non-gospel/Acts books of the NT mention any miracle done by Jesus NOR any teachings of Jesus. Matthew, Luke and John rely on the WRITTEN gospel of Mark and as such, you have merely ONE "witness" to any life of Jesus. You are basing your entire belief on one man's fictional tale (Mark's). Anyway, later.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge The origin of the theory that Mark was the only witness was based on the a priori assumption that Christianity evolved from treating Jesus as a man to God & the assumption that Jesus could not have prophesied the destruction of the temple. Even in that theory, John is not considered to be based off Mark. So modern scholar's opinion is now considered more true than the knowledge of the church fathers who say that Matthew wrote 1st.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom No, I'm not saying Mark was a witness at all. I'm saying that the AUTHORS (anonymous authors) of Matthew, Luke and John based their works IN PART (Matthew in HUGE part) on the gospel of Mark. I believe the author of Mark was no eye witness of ANY life of Jesus and wrote his work as an allegory of the heavenly Jesus (he placed the heavenly Jesus on earth and as such it was a brilliant piece of fiction) which was an explanation as to why the temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge The only books that had the intent of sharing Jesus's teachings actions or miracles of his followers for that matter were the gospels/acts. The others were letters to churches who already knew Jesus's teachings. They were not meant to convert anybody but were dealing with specific issues. BTW Paul mentions a teaching of Jesus in 1 Cor 7:10. And a pretty big miracle is mentioned in romans 6:4 and 1 peter 1:3. And Paul mentions his own miracles in rom 15:18-19
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom "BTW Paul mentions a teaching of Jesus in 1 Cor 7:10. "
Paul never QUOTES a saying of Jesus and attributes it to Jesus. You are merely trying to link something in Paul to something in the gospels. That's the whole point. Paul apparently never KNEW any of Jesus' sayings (sans the puzzling lord's supper passage in 1 cor 15) or any of his miracles or anything that would link jesus to the gospel stories. Jesus was turned into a human by the author of Mark.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom I've got over 5 hrs of vids I personally made covering the historicity of Jesus. If you haven't watched them, you might find them interesting. But they are incomplete. I have not yet covered the absences in the epistles of the gospel Jesus, the pagan influences and still have more to do on the problem verses where it seems the gospel Jesus is making appearances in the non-gospel/acts works. search jesus myth and you'll find my vids.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I am currently at a computer that cannot play vids, but I will check out your vid, probably though not all 5 hours worth of material. I couldnt find a lords supper in 1 cor 15. there is a confusing one in ch11v23, which is probably saying supper originated with the Lord which Paul found out thru the apostles. But saying Jesus was fictional doesnt explain why so many would leave Judaism and be martyred for Him before the temple was destroyed, meaning before a sopposed work ...cont....
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Sorry, you're right. chapter 11. It's really the only time Paul says anything about a saying that Jesus supposedly uttered.
What is your source for any martyrdom? Surely, not the book of Acts? It is a 2nd century work of pure fiction. The places are real. The people are real. The events...
So, 1, there is no corroboration that any of the apostles or leaders were martyred and 2, even IF they were, that explains nothing. 9/11 ? People die for lies all the time.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Have you heard of Marcion? He's an important piece of the dating puzzle.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge ...cont....before a sopposed fictional work of Mark to explain the destruction of the temple. BTW most scholars put the writing of Mark a couple years before its destruction and Mathew at its destruction, which I dont believe eather of those dates anyway though. Speaking of the martyrs, Luke/Acts seems to celebrate them, but for some reason doesnt mention Pauls or Peters execution, leading some to believe it was written before the 60s
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom You really should read earlychristianwritings (d o t) com and see some good arguments for some of the dates. I did a 4 part vid on the dating of Mark if you're interested. It's on my channel. The likeliest date (IMO) is about 72 CE. I put Matthew about 10 years later and then John roughly 90 - 100 and then Luke roughly 100 to 120 and acts 110 to 130 and obviously acts would follow luke's date. Mark, Matthew, John and Luke then Acts.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom There are many pieces of evidence to consider in dating the NT writings. Ref the "before 60" idea, first, CHristians WANT the documents to be written shortly after the death of Jesus. That would support their belief that it actually happened. Unfortunately, most of the NT is quite late regarding that. Paul, the earliest of Christian authors we have, dates no earlier than the mid fifties, some 20 years after the alleged events of the gospels.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge marcion? Wiki doesnt tell me how I can use him to date anything. checked out earlychristianwritings. Lot of good arguments i guess except that they conflict with each other showing how the opiniions of smart men are still opinions. They also mostly conflict with your smart opinion date ranges, and they conflict with the position argued for in a bart erman textbook. Erman, an agnostic or something who wrote Misquoting Jesus, has marc at 66-70, mat 70-80, luke 80-90 & john 90-100
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater ref knowing something about the dates. YES, lots of people have various dates but it isn't the people you need to look at, it's their arguments. Being a Christian makes it harder for you to do this. I'm out so I have no vested interest except for clarity of mind and understanding of how things really went down.
As for Marcion, what he did NOT have in his canon of scripture is quite telling.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom You can find millions of scholars who date everything different than me or other liberal "scholars" or people interested in the issues. I have no degree. I just enjoy researching early Christianity.
I couldn't give a rat's arse who disagrees with me. It's not the people - it's the arguments.
Did you watch my 4 parter on dating Mark? that might give you some insight as to why I give it a 72 CE date.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom I have reasons for what I believe and if you should be so inclined to know a particular one, just ask. I'm sure you wonder why I date Luke after John. But there isn't any hardcore concensus among scholars because for one, most scholars are Christians. This alone skews the stats. I'm sure you'd agree that Muslim scholars would never admit to errors in the Quran, right? anyway, watch my Mark vid. Should give you an idea of how I see the most likely date for it.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge also after viewing your Jesus myth & mark date vids it appears to be the same smart opinion type stuff that can be conflicted by other smart opinions. But now I think I have a firm grasp of your position. So you would say someone else created all those genius sayings of Jesus & was humble enough to not take credit, & that this movement got started centered around someone who didnt even exist? Why does mathew reference what the contemporary pharisees were saying about the missing body
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom So many questions... But in order to answer, I must ask you a question first. Genius sayings? You can't be serious. Tell me one saying of Jesus that you consider to be genius. That's all I want for now. Just reply and type in or paste in the saying (JUST ONE) that you consider to be genius. Then I can proceed to answer.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge luke 10:29-37. The (JUST ONE) is a pretty clever rule. And I dont understand why you need JUST ONE saying of Jesus before proceeding to the other 2 questions.& it is a lot of questions for this forum. But proclaiming Jesus never existed brings up alot of questions. Though I am sure you will be happy to answer in the future as it seems this might be your favorite topic with your own original research. So... just warning you... even more questions are probably on the way
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom I am a transparent person. I hold nothing back. I do not lie or mislead intentionally. I have no time for BS or those who spew it. This is why a more focused back and forth is going to work rather than you sending a sort of scattershot back with lots of tangents. I can deal with one or two questions at a time but beyond that, why? One question from you will almost certainly lead into a week of discussion anyway. Now, let me look at Luke 10:29-37.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom as for "just one", it should be obvious. If I can show you ONE as an example, surely many of the others would take the same form. Once you know how to add, you don't need to add all numbers to be sure they will add correctly. But you may need to see lots of evidence that I've already seen in order to be swayed on any particular pt. I understand that. I just can't spend all day on this discussion between us, that's all, and I'm sure you can't either.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom So, the story of the good Samaritan... the issue as to whether the story was uttered by any Jesus seems to beg for an audience. In Mark and Matthew, Jesus is saying that one must keep the commandments to have eternal life but this scene in Luke contains extra data (the Samaritan story). This seems a bit odd considering that both Mark and Matthew apparently did not know about this parable of Jesus. Is it possible Luke invented it as an embellishment? more...
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Remember, Luke copied both Mark AND Matthew's written gospels and wrote decades after both, likely in the first part of the 2nd century (i know, more questions). So, how is it that someone writing decades LATER, knows more details than Mark and Matthew both?
Also, the synoptics are written by Greeks (not Jews) and they contain anti-Jewish sentiments (hence the Pharisee bashing found in all 3). The story of the Samaritan is in effect a Pharisee bashing tale. more...
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom The Samaritans were generally hated by the Jews (well, who did the Jews NOT hate?) and as such, a parable showing a Samaritan being BETTER than the Jewish religious leaders would be an ultimate INSULT to those leaders. This is a theme that permeates ALL three synoptics. For the synoptics were written by Greek Christians who generally disliked the Jewish religious leaders for one reason: their rejection of their Jesus cult. The parable is more of an insult to them than anything.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom And further, would you say that the parable could not have been written by Luke himself? There are tons of stories added to the gospels (adulteress story, 21st chap of John, resurrection accts of mark, etc).
So, this parable is not so much saying the person who does a good work is the neighbor as it is an intentional slap in the face to the Jewish leaders by a Gentile Christian author (Luke). This is why all 3 have Jesus abusing the Jewish leaders verbally. it is what they would
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom have personally said to them IF they could. But living in Rome and Greece and such, they simply attacked via words on the page. The parable has irony which you wouldn't catch if you didn't know the Jews despised the Samaritans. Notice that the ones who ignore the man are not just Jews but Jewish religious leaders.
Anyway, find me even one saying of Jesus that could not have been written by the author himself. Else, you have nothing strong to offer via a historical Jesus.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Also, the "just one" wasn't a "rule". It was a request. I'll be glad to answer any questions but I know for a fact that too many topics at once will accomplish nothing. You end up throwing your hands up and walking off saying "ah, whatever" and nothing is learned either way. that's a waste, IMO.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom "Why does mathew reference what the contemporary pharisees were saying about the missing body"
What evidence do you have to show that Matthew did not simply recognize the problem inherent in Mark's story and simply create a solution to it (by inventing the guards at the tomb and the rest of the issue)?
Matthew edited (deliberately) Mark's version to IMPROVE Mark's story and Mark's Jesus.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge The readers of the time would be able to verify what Mathew said in 28:15 about whether or not the Jews were saying the body was stolen.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom If the author of Matthew wrote his work around 80 CE, and that work could only be copied by HAND and propagated, it is likely that the readers who got the work first would be other gentile Christians and besides, 80 CE is about 50 years AFTER the events. How on earth could anyone verify what Jews who were by then long dead were saying? It's fiction. All of it. Matthew was improving Mark. Luke was improving both of them. As fiction. That's why they had no hesitation to edit.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Why don't we pick a topic that I can basically prove? Something that maybe you haven't heard or disagree with. Like.... maybe you have but here's one I can prove. The adulteress story in John was added long after the gospel was written. Have you heard of that? Do you agree or disagree? I'm assuming or guessing if you read Ehrman's "misquoting Jesus" you have already heard that. But did you agree with it or dismiss it? I'm saying you need to back up and kick the tires.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge You are right, there is no way to prove 1 way or other, but speaking of the adulteress and of proving things: Just because it isnt in the earliest manuscripts that we have, doesnt prove that it wasnt in the original. Those early manuscripts could have been bad versions and they used better versions to copy from. Anyway, I'm not arguing for that passage, even though I love that passage, bc I want to stay on this topic of the existance of Jesus.
humbletom 10 months ago
@humbletom Well, the adulteress story is not only missing from the earliest and best mss but is magically skipped over in Origen's commentary on John. He skips from the verse just BEFORE that story to the verse just AFTER that story. sort of makes you go hmmmmmmm, doesn't it?
Some people love truth. Real truth. And some people seem to hate it in favor of their pet beliefs. I cannot sleep at night believing anything that goes against the preponderance of evidence.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge I think it would help if you told me exactly what you feel the original thinking on Jesus was. Paul didnt think he was a physical man but all the salvation stuff happened in the spirit world?"Crucified" didnt mean a roman execution of hanging on a cross. Deviating from the standard "Jesus was just a man whose story was embellished" seems like would need a compelling reason. Alot of atheists have looked into this.
humbletom 10 months ago
@humbletom That's it. Paul believed in a Jesus who had not yet arrived on Earth but had performed his salvific act in the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands (Hebrews 9). The information about Jesus (the gospel) had been hidden from mankind since the beginning of time (that included the crucifixion and resurrection). This can ONLY make sense if you posit a heavenly Jesus who had been killed when the world was made (the lamb slain from the foundation of the world - Rev 13:8).
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom That Paul believed the demons killed Jesus is another pointer to a heavenly Jesus. The Ascension of Isaiah describes Jesus as descending from heaven and taking on the LIKENESS of man (not becoming a man, but merely transforming his morphological structure to LOOK like a man in appearance so as to trick the demons into killing him which was god's plan). For if the demons knew they were killing jesus, they would not do it for it would seal their doom (1 Cor 2:8).
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom Even Origen believed that 1 Cor 2:8 referred to demons, not Romans or Jewish leaders.
All of this is in my Jesus Myth vids. I thought you watched them. Your problem is that you view the NT as one unit. But it was written by diff men at diff times with diff agendas and later shoehorned together and even to this day I still can't break the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John chronology. This was never the right order. it's mark, matt, john then luke.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge Maybe u had more videos than what I saw. I watched 2 about occurence disciple/apostle & 1 about judas betrayal. So you think Revelation was written earlier like around the time of Nero, sopposedly b4 they said Jesus came to earth? In Hebrews 9 about high priest going into heavenly holy place, the shedding of blood took place outside the the temple. Google tells me the ascension of isaiah was written way too late to support any points from eather side, but it does say He came to earth
humbletom 10 months ago
@humbletom There's between 5 and 6 HOURS of vids on the Jesus myth theory. Here's the link to the first vid after the summary vid.
/watch?v=017Cn0JMv2Y&playnext=0&list=PLAAA3872E8F6B9A8E
I tried to put em all in a playlist but not sure if they'll all play.
Also, I'm going to be busy on some paying stuff for a while so prob need to hold off our back n forth. At least for say 2 or 3 weeks. that'll give ya time to view those vids too.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom "So you think Revelation was written earlier like around the time of Nero, sopposedly b4 they said Jesus came to earth?"
Not necessarily. See, the timelines do not have to coincide like that because remember, when a work was written in say 72 CE, it would take many years to propagate around and become known because each copy had to be done by hand. So it is not necessary for Revelation to have been written in say 65 CE or before the first gospel. Not necessary at all.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom the ascension of isaiah is like other works. there isn't really ONE work but the hand of several authors and yes, some of it is later but SOME of it must be at LEAST earlier than the general time where the gospels were the norm (roughly 150 CE). It says he descended through the 7 levels of heaven and became increasingly like humans in FORM (shape, appearance, LIKENESS). Paul says the exact same thing about Jesus. He looked LIKE a man. odd thing to say if he WAS a man.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom I answer a lot of this in those jesus myth vids. if you watch them, they should make perfect sense after you get through most of them (even if you don't agree with them). I try to make them very clear and not confusing.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom Where do you find in Heb 9 that Jesus offered himself outside of a temple? It clearly says that Jesus offered himself in the holy of holies in a tabernacle in heaven (ie, NOT on earth).
Hebrews 9:11-12 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all...
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge It will probably take me those 2-3 (or 4-5) weeks to get through that playlist so enjoy your break. But about Hebrew 9: "with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place." In the pararallel of earthly temple, the regular priest shed the animals blood outside of the Most Holy Place & then entered in with the blood. Anyway it also looks like you have other discussions going on so I will be back in a couple weeks and wont even respond to your response to this unless u make it urgent
humbletom 10 months ago
@humbletom Nothing urgent. that Hebrews has a middle-platonic view of cosmology and such really is important to understand. Paul uses it as well. I go into this a little bit in a later vid in that series. basically, heaven is pure, perfect, eternal, incorrupt, sinless, spiritual bodies, and earth is basically an imperfect copy of that. This is why Jesus (the perfect sacrifice) would have had to have made his offering in the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands. Make notes and see ya
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom Lastly, the Jesus as man who got embellished doesn't answer all of the problems that the Jesus Myth theory does. It doesn't explain why Paul and the author of Ephesians believed demons killed Jesus. Doesn't explain why all but one verse in the NT non-gospels/acts writings talk of a coming jesus but not returning jesus. it doesn't explain the absence of any link by Paul to the 1st century. doesn't explain the absence of miracles and sayings. and I could go on and on and on.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom Okay, I will. It doesn't explain why the author of Hebrews would claim Jesus was crucified in heaven or the perfect tabernacle not made by human hands. It doesn't explain why Philo of Alexandria would be writing contemporary with Jesus and talking about the Logos in almost identical terms that we find in the gospel of John. It doesn't explain why the earliest writers view Jesus in an exalted deified way only to have the gospels decades later depict him on earth. etc.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom If Jesus did anything and sent his disciples out, we'd have a more unified ground zero blast effect. what the docs show is nothing like that. we have a scattered disjointed effect. Many gospels, many ideas that conflicted and contradicted the next. There were no disciples of Jesus. The early Christians were called apostles but never disciples (outside the gospels and acts). coincidence? shall I go on? no, it's 1am. I've done my homework. I'm sure you'll do yours. :)
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge Having only 1 epistle mentioning of a returning Jesus instead coming seems like it is all you need to show the idea was there. I assume you are referring to Hebrews 9. Also why if it was a heavenly death would they choose the word "crucifixion." Ground zero blast: I really dont think we have enough information to tell if there was or wasnt, but Acts says they stayed in Jerusalem until persecution dispersed them. Saying there WOULD HAVE BEEN a blast effect is an opinion.
humbletom 10 months ago
@humbletom "Having only 1 epistle"
You didn't watch the vid where I explain that Hebrews is not talking about a return. It only looks that way because of the parallels between the gospel story and the epistles. watch the vids. it'll all make sense.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom "Also why if it was a heavenly death would they choose the word "crucifixion.""
Answering this could take a whole 10 min vid but remember, these people were basing most of their beliefs on OT passages they felt were revealing Jesus and what he HAD done in the far past. When they read Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53, along with the knowledge that hanging on a tree meant you were cursed, it didn't take much to conclude Jesus MUST have been crucified by the demons. etc.
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@TruthSurge I dont know what you mean an absence of link by Paul to the first century. Does this mean Paul didnt have any language to show that when he referred to Jesus he wasnt referring to beginning of time? It seems like saying His body was descended from David at Romans 1:3 would be a link.
humbletom 10 months ago
@humbletom Paul does not link Jesus to the 1st century and no, saying that Jesus was of the seed of David is not linking him to the 1st century or even calling Jesus a man. Remember, Paul himself uses the word "seed" to mean not genetically related (Abraham) but in spirit. ALL of the seed (genetic descendents) of Abraham are NOT of the "seed". :)
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom so, just watch those vids, read Earl Doherty's book if you can find a copy (newest edition) and it should make sense. But i got to get on some stuff. good luck!
TruthSurge 10 months ago
@humbletom "And a pretty big miracle is mentioned in romans 6:4 " The resurrection of Jesus is mentioned NUMEROUS times by Paul. That is not a miracle Jesus performed. If you remember, it was god who raised Jesus, not himself. But also, Paul never places that resurrection on earth or even in the recent 20 or 30 years from Paul's writings. Anyway, watch my jesus myth vids if you are inclined. if not, no biggie.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon just the very length of this SUMMARY article, should call the entire process of "inspiration" into question. Why would a god allow such a mess? I'm sure you have an answer.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom 100 years after the first gospel (Mark), St. Irenaeus of Lyons was arguing that there could be no more than 4 authoritative gospels. This is because by his day, there were many other written gospels floating about besides the 4 that actually made it. Christianity evolved from day one and has not stopped. Even a cursory look at a history of Christianity tells you that.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Why did God punish Adam and kick him from the garden when he could have forgiven him? IOW, why did god not PLAN to forgive Adam and Eve ESPECIALLY since they didn't even know good and evil yet? ESPECIALLY, since it was their first "transgression"? You have no good answer for that except "we cannot question god's motives". That's what Paul believed (Romans 9) about god hardening pharaoh's heart. why would god do that and hold him accountable? Paul had no other answer.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Why did God let his chosen people get enslaved by Egypt when He could have just kept their land from getting a famine? The list of "why's" is as big as the Bible itself. I think I can come up with good answers, but you are correct in that all presumed tapdance answers would indeed just be guessing. Fortunately, I have not put the stipulation on my faith of being able to read the Great Deity's mind and answer all the why's.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom I have one answer that answers ALL of the "whys" in one simple, elegant, fell swoop.
Religion is the product of imaginative men.
When the Jews wrote their stories, they were writing with hindsight. retrofitting history to make themselves seem important as well as their god. Daniel. Rewrite of the Babylonian captivity including many historical inaccuracies. Creation and flood accounts. Copies of earlier written accounts. El was chosen as their god FROM the Canaanites. etc.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom anyway, I've got to get working since you aren't interested in how the religions really came to be and why they are not true. I pity you because you must carry such a heavy burden of defending a god who drown little babies for their parents' crimes. A god who endorsed slavery and punished innocent people for other people's offenses. A god who felt murder was an appropriate punishment for unruly children. See ya.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom "Now, though, instead of getting stoned for not being Holy you plead the BLOOD of Jesus."
That's because we now know that it is immoral to kill a child for hitting their parent. Modern knowledge and moral growth through the centuries has taught us that, not any holy book.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Pseudonymic forgers? That theory is not universally accepted among biblical scholars, and the reasons behind the theory are very opinionated. Regardless the grace alone view is in letters that are universally recognized to be paul. Some of your points (not the pseudonimc forgers but other ones) I think you could answer yourself if you wanted to
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom It is accepted by many scholars but whether any scholar accepts it, it is accepted by me and I can tell you WHY it's true, not just THAT it's true. And therein, I feel, lies the difference between me and many Christians. They rely on Christian scholars and apologists to tell them what to believe. I rely on my own ability to sift the data and come to the best conclusion given all that I know.
Tons of scholars agree that Paul did not write the pastorals, for example.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom I don't think I have time to teach you WHY the pastorals were not authored by Paul, especially since you can teach yourself by simply going to the wiki article on the pastorals or 1 Tim, etc as well as other sources. But trust me, any pointed discussion you'd like to chance, I'm game. But just be sure you teach yourself because I wouldn't want you to take my word for anything w/o verifying it on your own.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom Jesus even upheld the murder of unruly children in Matt 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
If the specific laws of the OT didn't matter anymore, why would Jesus accuse the Pharisees of breaking that particular law? Wouldn't they be just fine by loving god and their neighbors as Jesus said?
Clearly, the best explanation is that Jesus meant what he said.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge If this was "clearly" the best explanation not only would we not be discussing it, but every person who followed Jesus during His ministry, including the ones that wrote His quotes that you are now analyzing would not have left following the Jewish Law as you say we are sopposed to follow it. In Mat 15, Jesus was pointing out the Pharisees hypocracy, not saying we should stone unruly children.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Once you step out of your defend your religion at all costs mode of operation, you THEN can see much more clearly how the various Christian strands of religion came to be and came to clash over the centuries. Have you happened to read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"? It's a good book that shows how the Bible was pieced together over time and how the various theologies were overlaid onto previous ones over time.
As for the law, it gets no clearer than Jesus' own words.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom When Jesus was asked what one must do to enter eternal life he told the guy he must keep the commandments (that would be ALL of the Mosaic law).
You're arguing against Jesus, not me, bro.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge ....when he said thank said thank You Father for hiding these things from the wise and revealing them to the children. It takes a spiritual eye to read Jesus. Paul on the other hand did his intellectual best to ensure his audience understood him. He knew Jesus's sayings and had that spiritual eye to understand them. It wasn't easy for them to see though. The vision Peter had in Acts might have given the first understanding; only say that to acknowledge your questioning is legitimate
humbletom 11 months ago
Yes! God wants us to be tested. Yes He initiatied Jesus's testing. Set up for failure? In the Bible, God typically tests those who are not prone to failure. Most people never get tested by God because they fail to their own flesh so often, which is the people James was talking to. Every loving parent "thrusts" their children into testing situations: little league sports, beauty pageants, learning to swim. Parents love to see their children overcome.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Okay, so now you're redefined the word to mean only learning challenges or sports and things like that. Does god lead anyone or did he lead anyone into a situation where they weren't just challenged to learn but tempted to sin? Of course, JESUS! Of course, ABRAHAM! Of course, ADAM AND EVE! Jesus passed his tests. Abraham passed his test (although what a horrible person to believe that killing his child was a good thing) but unfortunatley for mankind, Adam failed his test.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@humbletom So, god put adam and eve into a situation (the tree that was a no no) where they not only MIGHT fail, but HAD to fail. They did not know right from wrong. Shame on god. Then, he punishes them for doing something they could not understand morally. tsk tsk. what a horrible and unjust god. THEN, god punishes ME for adam's sin? What an unjust god that is. Punishing someone for someone ELSE'S crime.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I wasnt trying to redefine a term, but when you try to draw parallels between God and parents I just showed how parents test their children. Some even throw them in the deep end for them to learn to swim. As far as adam goes, dont feel sorry for adam. He had paradise. And not having "knowledge" of good and evil is not the same as knowing you shouldn't eat the fruit.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom if you don't know right from wrong, you cannot know you were disobeying. I'm done, bro. Best of luck to ya. I can see you're pretty deep off into trying to justify a horribly immoral bronze-age myth. Next you'll be justifying slavery and killing unruly children. later.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Best of luck to you as well.. You are right I am pretty deep into this thing. But not deep into justifying God; I just happened to spend more time on utube than usual and I guess this type of conversation can just suck someone right in. Bc when you have experienced the things I have justifying God is like justifying drinking water
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom We all have our own consciences to answer to. I have to be content with going with what I truly believe. I can't do otherwise. see ya.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I understand completely. If I was in different circumstances, I dont know what decisions/beliefs i would have made/held. I am just thankful to have experienced all the things I have in the last two years of being in a "swinging from the chandelier" pentecostal environment. like, among other things, shaking hands with the man my pastor healed of blindness
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Wow. Do you have any documentation showing this healing in a way that can be verified as really happening? That would go a long way toward supporting the idea of your god but it also brings up a troubling question. Why would god let that man heal another person of blindness but not let your pastor drive to LeBohneur Children's hospital and cure one or more children of their diseases? Lastly, have you ever seen any amputee get their lost limb regenerated via prayer?
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge I dont know about documents. Im sure the blind guy has it. As far as driving to hospitals, she isnt really a healer, just occasionally if the Spirit is moving. & to get the Spirit moving in a room alot of worship takes place 1st. And if I had ever saw an amputee healed I would've mentioned that before the blind guy. I was merely relating my experience, which has confirmed my faith for me. I'm not going to go investigate but a quick utube search has people claiming amputee healings
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom "claiming "
I think you've summed it all up here. Claims. That's all they are. Why would god be pleased to heal a random person of blindness and not thousands of cancer children? Sounds to me like god has his priorities a little bit off.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
@TruthSurge As far as you being punished for Adams sin, thats off the topic that you asked Christians to respond to in the video, but I guess if I am going to discuss things with an atheist I should be prepared to discuss everything. (I'm not using the term atheist as a derogatory name) Obviously the "God tempting people" topic isnt really the main hamper to your beiliving in Him. Maybe one day I will watch you other videos. So you being punished for adam:
humbletom 11 months ago
@TruthSurge Idk if these posts are appearing in the right order but anyway, you can say you are being punished for adams sin bc of all the bad things happening to you in this world. But that would be 'redefining' the word punishment. If a bully punches you, God is not punishing you; you are experiencing the consequences of the bully's sin. This world has repeatedly told God we dont want Your presence or holy ways, so He is less likely to give us His presence to stop the bully's fist.
humbletom 11 months ago
When I first learned the Lords Prayer when I was 5, I understood that to mean "lead us away from temptation." In gen 22:1 that word translated to tempt in KJV (strongs 5254) mostly means to test. The point james was trying to make is that God himself doesnt do the tempting so quit making excuses. If God did the tempting everyone would fail. But He does allow us to go through temptation to test us.
humbletom 11 months ago
@humbletom Does god want us to be tested? And does that set many of us up for failure? And why would any loving parent want their child to be thrust into a testing situation?
And further, trying to explain James doesn't explain the many times god most certainly initiated the "testing". Who initiated the testing of Jesus during his 40 day wilderness sojourn? If you will just kindly answer this one question for me, I'd appreciate it.
TruthSurge 11 months ago
Hi, I'm shane. I just turned 13 and I want to stay christian, but whenever I try to tell myself I am I get a feeling that I don't really believe. Please reply with support! I dont know what else to do.
DrinktheLatte 1 year ago
@DrinktheLatte My advice: read the Bible. It's the best way to become a non-believer or prove to yourself that it's a bunch of BS that should be relegated to the horribly barbaric past of mankind. Do you think a loving god would drown newborn babies in a flood for something their parents did? If so, go ahead and be a Christian. If not, keep reading and you'll find more of the same. Horrible stories about a jealous and hateful god. then there's the new testament. fiction on fiction.
TruthSurge 1 year ago
@DrinktheLatte look into buddhism ,cause christianity is evil and immoral 1SAM 15:1-3 jesus(god) tells men to stab infants to death,DUET 13:6-10 murder ur mother if she is an unbeleiver,EX 21:7 sell ur daughter into slavery,lev 25:44-46 u can own slaves,and i have many more evil christian verses,i left christianity and on my spiritual search i found buddhism please send me a message i would love to talk to u about buddhas love.
Buddhist1986 1 year ago
You make some very good points. People always say it's the devil who tempts us, yet God is supposed to have put the tree of temptation there. Very confusing.
galaxychoc82 1 year ago