| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Tim the plumber 
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
 Posted: 29 November 2014 at 3:24am |
|
The Bible is drivel. Loads of additional drivel has been tacked on to it by, mostly, the Catholic church.
You can justify anything with it or oppose anything with it.
As an ethical guide it fails utterly.
|
 |
kingskid
Guest Group
Joined: 01 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 125
|
Posted: 29 November 2014 at 8:45am |
Greetings Saint. The following points will attempt to answer your comments/ questions:
1. You left out verses precedent and/or antecedent to those you quoted, thus losing the context.
2. When you cherry-pick text from any book, you lose the depth and intent of what was written. You do that with the Bible, then you say it is inconsistent. It is the cherry-picker who is inconsistent.
3. I do not seek to win any argument for glory or otherwise, so in that we are in agreement. We are both sincere believers in our Christian and Muslim faith, and try our best to present our faith to each other. I already pointed out the Matthew, Mark, and Luke scriptures that were taken out of context re how children believe so easily, and the implicit exhortation for adults to have that kind of simple faith. It had nothing to do with sinlessness of children.
4. Some would say that original sin began with the serpent. Perhaps. On the surface it would appear that way. However, as I ponder that whole scenario, it appears to me that the free will God gave Adam and Eve was the fertile ground which the serpent used to till and plant seeds of rebellion and disobedience. The serpent's enticement to know good and evil and to be like God would not have been effective if man had not been given a free will to make choices. Nothing has changed today.
5. Saint, you are completely wrong on atonement being inconsistent between the OT and the NT. On the contrary, it is totally consistent from Genesis to Revelation! In the OT, there had to be animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins. The high priest performed that ritual every year. In the NT, Yeshua was the "Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world." He did not destroy the law, but fulfilled and finished it on Calvary.
6. In the OT, man's sins were covered by the blood of the animals that were sacrificed for them. In the NT, man's sins were taken away ("as far as the east is from the west") by the sacrifice on Calvary, so there is no inconsistency in the atonement of sins in the OT and NT. The way they were atoned for in the OT was an archetype for the atonement in the NT by Yeshua.
7. I don't think you understand John 1:15. John is the speaker, not Jesus: �This is the one I spoke about when I said, �He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.�)
8. As to why grace could not have come through Moses or Mohammad, you'd have to ask God. I do know that the Law came through Moses and Yeshua fulfilled the requirements of the Law as I stated earlier.
9. As to your comment about if no one has seen God how could Jesus be seen, that question is turned on its head in John 14:5-14:
5 Thomas said to him, �Lord, we don�t know where you are going, so how can we know the way? 6 "Jesus answered, �I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.� 8 Philip said, �Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.� 9 Jesus answered: �Don�t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, �Show us the Father�? 10 Don�t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe
me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at
least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." 10. Good comments Saint. I don't know if I were able to answer them to your satisfaction, but I gave it my best shot.
|
|
kingskid
|
|
Tim the plumber
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 01 December 2014 at 3:46am |
|
Kinskid,
You complain about your opponent citing quotes from your Bible, describing it as cherry picking, then do exactly that.
Cherry picking is exactly how theology works. And yes it's all drivel.
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 832
|
Posted: 02 December 2014 at 6:18am |
 kingskid wrote:
Greetings Saint.� The following points will attempt to answer your comments/ questions:
Ok.
1.� You left out verses precedent and/or antecedent to those you quoted, thus losing the context.
That may have happened unintentionally. Please quote the context to rectify the situation.
2.� When you cherry-pick text from any book, you lose the depth and intent of what was written.� You do that with the Bible, then you say it is inconsistent.�
Kindly enlighten me. How and where I did it.
It is the cherry-picker who is inconsistent. 3.� I do not seek to win any argument for glory or otherwise, so in that we are in agreement.� We are both sincere believers in our Christian and Muslim faith, and try our best to present our faith to each other.
We do.
I already pointed out the Matthew, Mark, and Luke scriptures that were taken out of context re how children believe so easily, and the implicit exhortation for adults to have that kind of simple faith.� It had nothing to do with sinlessness of children.
Can you recount that here again. As I seem to mis-remember the thread of the conversation you are referring to.
4.� Some would say that original sin began with the serpent.� Perhaps.� On the surface it would appear that way.� However, as I ponder that whole scenario, it appears to me that the free will God gave Adam and Eve was the fertile ground which the serpent used to till and plant seeds of rebellion and disobedience.� The serpent's enticement to know good and evil and to be like God would not have been effective if man had not been given a free will to make choices.� Nothing has changed today.�
The first sin, as I prefer calling it, was entirely due to the free will given to Adam and Eve, Satan used it effectively to the detriment of both of them. Don't you realise that this life is a test and that God Almighty will continue to test us till the end of times?
However, free will is given in conjunction with the knowledge of what is good and what is bad.
5.� Saint, you are completely wrong on atonement being inconsistent between the OT and the NT.� On the contrary, it is totally consistent from Genesis to Revelation!� In the OT, there had to be animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins.� The high priest performed that ritual every year.� In the NT, Yeshua was the "Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world."� He did not destroy the law, but fulfilled and finished it on Calvary.� 6.� In the OT, man's sins were covered by the blood of the animals that were sacrificed for them.� In the NT, man's sins were taken away ("as far as the east is from the west") by the sacrifice on Calvary, so there is no inconsistency in the atonement of sins in the OT and NT.� The way they were atoned for in the OT was an archetype for the atonement in the NT by Yeshua.
"The first to offer a sacrifice to Hashem were the brothers Cain and Abel. They brought the sacrifices as praises to Hashem. Cain brought vegetation, which was not a bad idea, since it was the work of his own hands. The problem was that he brought his worst produce, as he did not really wish to bring a sacrifice at all.
Abel, by contrast, brought one of his best animals. Hashem was pleased with his intentions. We all know the result of that incident. Cain later repented his murdering Abel, and he was forgiven. Note, by the way, that Cain did not bring a sacrifice for atonement, and yet he was forgiven his sin.
Many people brought sacrifices to Hashem, for many reasons, and in many places. After the Flood, Noah brought many sacrifices as well.
Abraham, of course, brought sacrifices, and was even willing to sacrifice his son when he thought Hashem wanted him to. Of course, as we know, Hashem had never intended that Abraham actually bring Isaac as a sacrifice, Hashem merely wanted Abraham to think that. Abraham passed the test, and human sacrifice has never become a part of our heritage.
Also: " Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mountain."
Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:
What I want is mercy, not sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6)"
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?" sayeth the Lord. "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he-goats...bring no more vain oblations.... Your new moon and your appointed feasts my soul hateth;...and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-16)
I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me burnt-offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy song; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-4)
Deeds of compassion and kindness toward all creation are of greater significance to God than sacrifices: "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Prov. 21: 3).
It was mercy that God wanted not sacrifice. So, clearly sacrifice was not truly the order of the day. Jews stopped sacrificing long ago and they have not recognised or acknowledged Jesus PBUH even as a Messiah. Clearly there was no idea of an original sin in OT times. Whither atonement, kingskid?
7.� I don't think you understand John 1:15.� John is the speaker, not Jesus: �This is the one I spoke about when I said, �He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.�)8
So, you are saying that Jesus PBUH existed before John? However you have still not answered why Jesus PBUH said, "Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;"
As to why grace could not have come through Moses or Mohammad, you'd have to ask God.
Muhammad PBUH was the only Prophet sent to all mankind. All other prophets were sent to specific nations. The Quran calls him a mercy to all the worlds.
I do know that the Law came through Moses and Yeshua fulfilled the requirements of the Law as I stated earlier.
Jesus PBUH actually opposed Mosaic laws. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/485-did-christ-abolish-the-law-of-moses
9.� As to your comment about if no one has seen God how could Jesus be seen, that question is turned on its head in John 14:5-14: <span ="text John-14-5"><sup ="versenum">5 </span>Thomas said to him, �Lord, we don�t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?<span id="en-NIV-26675" ="text John-14-6"><sup ="versenum">6 "Jesus answered, <span ="woj">�I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26676" ="text John-14-7"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">7�If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.�</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26677" ="text John-14-8"><sup ="versenum">8�Philip said, �Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.�</span> <span id="en-NIV-26678" ="text John-14-9"><sup ="versenum">9�Jesus answered: <span ="woj">�Don�t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, �Show us the Father�?</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26679" ="text John-14-10"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">10�Don�t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26680" ="text John-14-11"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">11�Believe
me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at
least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26681" ="text John-14-12"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">12�Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26682" ="text John-14-13"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">13�And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26683" ="text John-14-14"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">14�You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."</span></span> 10.� Good comments Saint.� I don't know if I were able to answer them to your satisfaction, but I gave it my best shot.� <span id="en-NIV-26683" ="text John-14-14"><span ="woj"></span></span> |
Jesus PBUH used to say believe in the evidence of the works. He always emphasized on good works.
"or at
least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
All along Jesus PBUH was referring to his teachings which were as intended by God. Which is why, as opposed to your interpretation, he said in works he and his father were the same.
Those words were intended metaphorically. Just as the following are:
"Whoever receives this child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives Him who sent me;" (Luke 9:48). See simple!
How about:
"...and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me." John 8:28
"...I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak." John 12:49.
and last but not least:
Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." (John 13:16).
Are'nt the above verses so transparent and clear that Jesus never claimed divinity?
Edited by The Saint - 02 December 2014 at 6:58am
|
|
kingskid
Guest Group
Joined: 01 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 125
|
Posted: 03 December 2014 at 12:20pm |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Kinskid,
You complain about your opponent citing quotes from your Bible, describing it as cherry picking, then do exactly that.
Cherry picking is exactly how theology works. And yes it's all drivel.
--------------------
Tim, I quote scriptures pertinent to whatever the discussion is, not just pick scriptures out willy nilly. If it's all "drivel" to you, you must have some arcane reason for jumping in to the interfaith dialogue...just saying.
Edited by kingskid - 03 December 2014 at 12:25pm
|
|
kingskid
|
|
The Saint
Senior Member
Joined: 07 November 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 832
|
Posted: 23 December 2014 at 12:03am |
kingskid wrote:
Greetings Saint.� The following points will attempt to answer your comments/ questions:1.� You left out verses precedent and/or antecedent to those you quoted, thus losing the context.2.� When you cherry-pick text from any book, you lose the depth and intent of what was written.� You do that with the Bible, then you say it is inconsistent.� It is the cherry-picker who is inconsistent. 3.� I do not seek to win any argument for glory or otherwise, so in that we are in agreement.� We are both sincere believers in our Christian and Muslim faith, and try our best to present our faith to each other.� I already pointed out the Matthew, Mark, and Luke scriptures that were taken out of context re how children believe so easily, and the implicit exhortation for adults to have that kind of simple faith.� It had nothing to do with sinlessness of children.4.� Some would say that original sin began with the serpent.� Perhaps.� On the surface it would appear that way.� However, as I ponder that whole scenario, it appears to me that the free will God gave Adam and Eve was the fertile ground which the serpent used to till and plant seeds of rebellion and disobedience.� The serpent's enticement to know good and evil and to be like God would not have been effective if man had not been given a free will to make choices.� Nothing has changed today.� 5.� Saint, you are completely wrong on atonement being inconsistent between the OT and the NT.� On the contrary, it is totally consistent from Genesis to Revelation!� In the OT, there had to be animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins.� The high priest performed that ritual every year.� In the NT, Yeshua was the "Lamb Who takes away the sins of the world."� He did not destroy the law, but fulfilled and finished it on Calvary.� 6.� In the OT, man's sins were covered by the blood of the animals that were sacrificed for them.� In the NT, man's sins were taken away ("as far as the east is from the west") by the sacrifice on Calvary, so there is no inconsistency in the atonement of sins in the OT and NT.� The way they were atoned for in the OT was an archetype for the atonement in the NT by Yeshua.� 7.� I don't think you understand John 1:15.� John is the speaker, not Jesus: �This is the one I spoke about when I said, �He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.�)8.� As to why grace could not have come through Moses or Mohammad, you'd have to ask God.� I do know that the Law came through Moses and Yeshua fulfilled the requirements of the Law as I stated earlier.9.� As to your comment about if no one has seen God how could Jesus be seen, that question is turned on its head in John 14:5-14: <span ="text John-14-5"><sup ="versenum">5 </span>Thomas said to him, �Lord, we don�t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?<span id="en-NIV-26675" ="text John-14-6"><sup ="versenum">6 "Jesus answered, <span ="woj">�I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26676" ="text John-14-7"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">7�If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.�</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26677" ="text John-14-8"><sup ="versenum">8�Philip said, �Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.�</span> <span id="en-NIV-26678" ="text John-14-9"><sup ="versenum">9�Jesus answered: <span ="woj">�Don�t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, �Show us the Father�?</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26679" ="text John-14-10"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">10�Don�t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26680" ="text John-14-11"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">11�Believe
me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at
least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26681" ="text John-14-12"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">12�Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26682" ="text John-14-13"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">13�And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.</span></span> <span id="en-NIV-26683" ="text John-14-14"><span ="woj"><sup ="versenum">14�You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."</span></span> 10.� Good comments Saint.� I don't know if I were able to answer them to your satisfaction, but I gave it my best shot.� <span id="en-NIV-26683" ="text John-14-14"><span ="woj"></span></span> |
Kingskid, Still awaiting a response to above. Happy Christmas.
|
|
Tim the plumber
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 23 December 2014 at 12:51am |
kingskid wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Kinskid,
You complain about your opponent citing quotes from your Bible, describing it as cherry picking, then do exactly that.
Cherry picking is exactly how theology works. And yes it's all drivel.
--------------------
Tim, I quote scriptures pertinent to whatever the discussion is, not just pick scriptures out willy nilly. If it's all "drivel" to you, you must have some arcane reason for jumping in to the interfaith dialogue...just saying.
|
I see around me a world where faith is the rout of a vast amount of distress and harm. This is from Northern Ireland where Christians have managed to continue the wars of religion that swept across Europe for 300 years or so for another 200+ years to the present trouble between Islamic religiously inspired rejectors of modernity and the rest of the world around them, mostly other Muslims. I also include the unnecessary repression of peoples freedom and creativity.
I would like to do my bit to change the world for the better. This is my little bit of effort to do that.
Oh, and I do enjoy a good argument.
|
|
Tim the plumber
Senior Member
Male
Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 23 December 2014 at 12:54am |
The Saint wrote:
THIRTEEN REASONS WHY THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN IS FALSE
The doctrine of original sin is false because:
1. It makes sin a misfortune and a calamity rather than a crime.
2. It makes the sinner deserve pity and compassion rather than blame for his sins.
3. It excuses the sinner.
4. It makes God responsible for sin.
5. It dishonors God. It makes him arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.
6. It causes ministers to wink at and excuse sin.
7. It begets complacency and a low standard of religion among Christians.
8. It is a stumbling-block to the unsaved.
9. It makes Jesus a sinner or it must deny his humanity.
10. It contradicts the Bible.
11. It "adds to" and "takes from" the Bible. God warns against this in Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19.
12. It begets false doctrines and false interpretations of the Scriptures.
13. It is ridiculous, absurd, and unreasonable. It contradicts the necessary and irresistible affirmations of every man's consciousness and reason, which is something that no true doctrine of the Word of God could do. |
Well said, even as an atheist I agree with that.
|
|
Tweet
The Original Sin