jajrussel

What scriptures?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Hopefully he would have been carrying the gospels,

How would Paul have carried the gospels?  His journey started just after Jesus died no? The gospels weren't even written until years later. Is this some new holy ghost revelation you've been given or something? Please explain. If the god was real and alive in side of you then why would he allow this kind of statement from you. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DrP said:

How would Paul have carried the gospels?  His journey started just after Jesus died no? The gospels weren't even written until years later. Is this some new holy ghost revelation you've been given or something? Please explain. If the god was real and alive in side of you then why would he allow this kind of statement from you. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Paul, as Saul the Pharisee, held the coats of the men who stoned the apostle Stephen to death.  He had Christians rounded up and killed.  Then he was converted and began preaching Christ right away.  He met the other apostles including Peter.  Peter was writing his books of the bible.  He knew Luke the beloved physician and writer of the book of Luke personally.   He knew Mathew and John the apostle.  John wrote his gospel then, and his other books, and the Revelation but he wrote the Revelation late in life when he was in exile.  This stuff is all in the New Testament.  

Why do you believe accounts of when the books of the bible were written but not the bible itself?  Who do you think is telling you the bible is a bunch of lies written by men who never met Jesus?   

Yes, the Holy Ghost reveals these things through the bible.  But I almost certainly won't be around this forum much longer because I'm told I don't obey the rules.  

As a scientist why would you believe a translation of Herodotus's books, or Plato, or the clay tablets of Babylon, but not the translation of the bible into English?  

Edited by coffeesippin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Holy Ghost reveals these things through the bible.

That's classic delusion though.  Everyone believes that when they are Christian and they come up with different interpretations and meanings. If the holy ghost really guided our readings the we wouldn't have dozens of denomination all split and arguing over interpretations of scriptures.  It's utter nonsense unfortunately and you have been sucked into it and conditioned to follow it all your life  -  like I was too once.  

 

14 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Why do you believe accounts of when the books of the bible were written but not the bible itself?

Because historical evidence supports this whereas the bible has lots of historical evidence showing it to be wrong about much of history and creation.

14 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Paul, as Saul the Pharisee, held the coats of the men who stoned the apostle Stephen to death.  He had Christians rounded up and killed.  Then he was converted and began preaching Christ right away.  He met the other apostles including Peter.  Peter was writing his books of the bible.  He knew Luke the beloved physician and writer of the book of Luke personally.   He knew Mathew and John the apostle.  John wrote his gospel then, and his other books, and the Revelation but he wrote the Revelation late in life when he was in exile.  This stuff is all in the New Testament.  

it's in the new testament...  but where else? Just because it is written there why should it be true? What evidence is there to support it beyond what is in the book.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DrP said:

That's classic delusion though.  Everyone believes that when they are Christian and they come up with different interpretations and meanings. If the holy ghost really guided our readings the we wouldn't have dozens of denomination all split and arguing over interpretations of scriptures.  It's utter nonsense unfortunately and you have been sucked into it and conditioned to follow it all your life  -  like I was too once.  

 

Because historical evidence supports this whereas the bible has lots of historical evidence showing it to be wrong about much of history and creation.

it's in the new testament...  but where else? Just because it is written there why should it be true? What evidence is there to support it beyond what is in the book.

 

I was 30 years old when I became a believer Doctor P.  You must be born again .. though you went to a denominational church .. you must be born again .. for flesh and blood cannot see the kingdom of heaven.

If people were allowed to discuss the bible on this forum your questions might be answered.  But were not.  I'm being kicked out very soon, 99.9999% sure.   But the Holy Ghost will lead you into all truth.

Edited by coffeesippin
stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

Peter was writing his books of the bible.  He knew Luke the beloved physician and writer of the book of Luke personally.   He knew Mathew and John the apostle.  John wrote his gospel then, and his other books, and the Revelation but he wrote the Revelation late in life when he was in exile.  This stuff is all in the New Testament.  

And virtual all New Testament scholars are convinced that:

- Peter could not write, so surely not Greek

- the gospel of Luke was not written by Luke 'the physician'

- the gospel of John and Revelation were not written by the apostle John (but very probable were written by the same person)

You see, the bible itself has a history, and a lot that historians agree on, does not agree with your naive believe in the bible as factual truth. E.g. Was Jesus just born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Maria lived there (Matthew); or was he born there because they had to travel to Bethlehem because of the Roman census (Luke). All historians agree that such a census never took place. And Luke makes even false propositions about the time that that supposed census should have taken place (Herod the great and Quirinius did not reign at the same time, as Luke suggests).

Quote

There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, ten years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

If people were allowed to discuss the bible on this forum your questions might be answered.  But were not.  I'm being kicked out very soon, 99.9999% sure. 

We can discuss the bible here, and you don't have to be kicked out.  Just take your time, pray on the questions and respond accordingly.  As long as we don't give the impression that we're shoving our beliefs down everyone's throat, it shouldn't be a problem, and it will be respected.

Edited by DirtyChai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eise said:

And virtual all New Testament scholars are convinced that:

- Peter could not write, so surely not Greek

- the gospel of Luke was not written by Luke 'the physician'

- the gospel of John and Revelation were not written by the apostle John (but very probable were written by the same person)

You see, the bible itself has a history, and a lot that historians agree on, does not agree with your naive believe in the bible as factual truth. E.g. Was Jesus just born in Bethlehem because Joseph and Maria lived there (Matthew); or was he born there because they had to travel to Bethlehem because of the Roman census (Luke). All historians agree that such a census never took place. And Luke makes even false propositions about the time that that supposed census should have taken place (Herod the great and Quirinius did not reign at the same time, as Luke suggests).

 

You go right ahead and believe all the book selling bookstores you want Eise, they make a LOT of money off you and others like you who reject the Holy Ghost.    WHY do you think Peter could not read or write.  Peter was a Jew, the BOOK was their LIFE.  "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is One God."  They learned to read and write as children.  The sign above Jesus'head was in THREE languages.  If you know many Europeans you know how many languages many European children can read and write, and Israel was the Europe of that day, a crossroads, a main highway liking Egypt and Rome, seaports.  The Israel of King Solomon's day was the envy of the world, the Queen of Sheba came to see its glory.  It wasn't some backwards little outpost.  Do you think Peter couldn't read because he was a Fisherman?  Do you know how many modern fishermen become multi-millionaires?  Get your head out of those books, and into the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, coffeesippin said:

Get your head out of those books, and into the bible

...which is just another book, written by men.

Keep the love and the joy. Drop the lies and the delusion. You don't need Dumbo's feather to fly. x.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

WHY do you think Peter could not read or write. 

They learned to read and write as children. 

The sign above Jesus'head was in THREE languages.  

(Historical) Sources?

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

If you know many Europeans you know how many languages many European children can read and write, and Israel was the Europe of that day, a crossroads, a main highway liking Egypt and Rome, seaports.  The Israel of King Solomon's day was the envy of the world, the Queen of Sheba came to see its glory.  It wasn't some backwards little outpost.

When did Solomon live? When Jesus? What happened in the time between?

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Do you think Peter couldn't read because he was a Fisherman?

Yes. And from a poor, rural country, that was oppressed by the Romans. He did not work and live in the high society of Jerusalem. Illiteracy was wide spread, even in Rome itself. The worse in their conquested countries.

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Do you know how many modern fishermen become multi-millionaires? 

You compare modern times with antiquity? 

2 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

Get your head out of those books, and into the bible.

If I want to read fantasy, I prefer Tolkien. If I want to read about history, I read historians. But if you prefer to keep your head in the sand, be my guest.

4 hours ago, coffeesippin said:

I posted the Revelation in the Lounge.  Read it and fear.

Why should I fear? In the end, it did not occur the time for what is predicted (should have been somewhere between 33 - 100 CE).

And your thread is closed... 

It is funny: you are on a science forum here, but when it comes to the bible you refuse to look at what historical science has to say about the bible. Instead you argue with arguments from within the bible, stating that it is consistent and true. Which of the 2 birth stories is true? Matthew or Luke? Luke was shown wrong about the census. You did not react on that at all. Obviously you see the problem.

Edited by Eise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eise said:

It is funny: you are on a science forum here, but when it comes to the bible you refuse to look at what historical science has to say about the bible. Instead you argue with arguments from within the bible, stating that it is consistent and true. Which of the 2 birth stories is true? Matthew or Luke? Luke was shown wrong about the census. You did not react on that at all. Obviously you see the problem.

I once [well probably a few times] confronted you with a quote re, "all philosophers are jackasses" :P I withdraw that in favour of "all religious zealots are jackasses" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Eise said:

Why should I fear? In the end, it did not occur the time for what is predicted (should have been somewhere between 33 - 100 CE).

A possible out for coffesippin is the tale that on his way to the cross a bystander annoyed Jesus and was told "Tarry thou until I return."

I read his entertaining but rather long biography "My first two thousand years:The Autobiography of the Wandering Jew" published around 1928.

I thought it was fiction but who knows for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The memories of people from that time period were apparently somewhat astounding. I would think that as a prisoner of Rome. The abilities of Paul to tote around a bunch of scrolls would have been somewhat limited. It is said he had eye problems so reading scrolls would seem to add to the difficulty, so I’m thinking Paul the possessor of a  phenomenal memory. The scriptures likely Jewish. Though according to the phenomenal story he had an epiphany somewhat within Jewish scripture as to fit within the norm. As in, as a story it fits just enough, but there are aspects that also fit within traditional local beliefs to the extent that even today arguments are made that Christian beliefs are an extension of  Zoroaster

Even if he was allowed as a prisoner to have servents  to pack and carry his things, which to me seems a little far fetched. As a Roman athority do you arrest a man then allow his servents to tag along as you move from one province to another. Where is the money coming from? Who feeds the servents.? Who’s handling the money? As a Roman authority do you arrest one man then allow his friends to just tag along? Feeding them? Worrying? Do I trust that they do nothing to interfere with the duties I’m charged to complete. Or do I arrest the man, confiscate his  posestions, and sell them to pay the fare. Making it clear that no one just tags along on Rome’s dime. The only scribe tagging along would be keeping a strict accounting of the money, to be presented at the end of my tour to Ceasor lest Ceasor judge me more harshly than the prisoner I’m hauling around.

My point being it has the sound of a good motivational story. Believable only to those wanting motivation, and even then only if they are somewhat removed from the truth. People believe what they want to believe. Some are even 99.99% certain they are going to be persecuted for their beliefs. Let me think. Wrapped in animal hide, painted with pitch then set to torch. A thing credited to those Romans who according to the story accorded Paul all hospitality, or banning? The imagination is being stretched. You are not being asked to reject your religion. The ban is against preaching. Getting swept up by the ban is a matter of choice.

The Gospels certainly would not have been part of the scripture known or carried by Paul given his initial occupation, but its possible he was aware of local traditions. Once again assuming the story is based on a real person that existed. A record of a name of a man executed by the Romans isn’t proof that the story is actually the executed mans story. It doesn’t really matter how many times the story is repeated. It doesn’t become more real with repetition. It’s the kind of thing that even Islam requires. A belief in things unseen. A thing Christians call faith.

When we are taught that only God is good. It is little wonder that we have so little faith in men, but all good things are done by men. My opinion, good things generally occur when people get tired of other people insisting on doing things in name of God.

Note, when a person gets banned the conversation can continue. I noted in another thread that in this section moderators can be to quick to close a thread. I can be empathetic, but banning doesn’t necessarily mean a decent conversation ends. I’m about 99.99% percent sure that’s the truth of it.:)

Edited by jajrussel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 7:34 AM, Eise said:
  • Jesus said you have to live according to the Jewish law, i.e. prepare by being morally good, doing good works and loving God and each other.
  • Paul, on the other hand, said that people should accept Jesus as saviour, that's all. For gentiles (non-Jews) it is not necessary to keep to the Jewish laws.

Can you include supporting verses please?

 

On 12/5/2018 at 7:34 AM, Eise said:

So the Catholic Church (and I assume most protestant churches too. Or are the protestant boys circumcised? Or don't protestants eat pork?) are not Christians, but Paulians.

Then where did the idea of Christianity come from, wouldn't it still be Judaism?  If Jesus just taught the same basic Jewish laws that everyone else was doing for the past 6,000+ years, then why was he so special?  If you could just keep the same Jewish laws and be saved, then why did they get all pissed off and kill him?  What was the significance of his death according to the text?

 

On 12/7/2018 at 2:20 AM, jajrussel said:

My opinion, good things generally occur when people get tired of other people insisting on doing things in name of God.

Nonsense.  Both good and bad things happen in the name of God, and both good and bad things happen that have nothing to do with God. 

 

On 12/7/2018 at 2:20 AM, jajrussel said:

When we are taught that only God is good. It is little wonder that we have so little faith in men, but all good things are done by men.

What is the good of man if it's not defined by the worst of man?

Good is often defined by that which mitigates the bad.

For example, a man sacrificing his life by shielding a child from a bullet.  Is it really a "good" thing that a man had to die in order to protect a child?

Edited by DirtyChai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now