It doesn't go anywhere at all toward improving the credibility of the Bible. Almost every religious doctrine and even mythologies can be traced back to actual events. Most people believe that a man named Hercules actualy lived in acient Greece. In fact a lot of what their mythology was based on is believe to have been actual historical events.

The fact that the authors of Mediterranean mythology were inspired by actual events doesn't give the mythology one iota of credibility in a divine or religious sense. On the contary, all the Mediterranean mythologies can be traced to actual people, places, and events.

Even other cultures far removed from the Mediterranean area have historical evidence to back up their ancient myths. In including the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Vikings, and the list goes on to cover just about every popular myth ever created by mankind.

There are major problems with the Biblical myth concerning self-inconsistences. Insurmountable problems as far as I'm concerned. And then couple that with the problem that it doens't match up with real world data. It has no credibility at all as far as I'm concerned. At leat not as having any divine origins.

You'd have to believe that God asked people to stone their children. You'd have to believe that God asked people to pass judgments on others since he also asked them to stone sinners as well. The biblical god was clearly asking people to judge others to be sinners and to stone them to death.

The biblical god also directed poeple to murder heathens, and to infact destroy the entire villages where they came from including women, children, and even their pets and animals. They were to burn those villages to the ground and never to rebuild on those places again.

You have to believe that God is like that to believe in the Bible because the Bible tells us so!

There's no denying it. It what the Bible says God is like!

To try to claim that God isn't like that is to try to claim that the Bible can't be trusted to tell the truth.

If you want to believe in the Bible you have no choice but to believe in a very nasty God. Because that's what the Bible says God is like.

Spider,

I was responding to the quote preceeding my reply. An observation of the inconsistencies I noted in the statement. Not be confused with a complaint!!!

Let me bring the premise of the quote back for the benefit of clarifying what yo might have missed.

'... Historians have yet to disprove a historical event described in the Bible, I'm not sure what more evidence you are waiting for before you decide it's "proven"...'

The approximate wording of the statement strongly leads one to equate the first part of the quote:

'... (no historical event) yet disproven in the Bible'

with,

'... decide that it's proven'. (what proven? Historical events, or bible. I opted for 'bible')

The fact that some events in the bible might be have taken place, doesn't allow for the inconsistent and false equation that the Bible is 'proven'. And thus the object of my observation (not complaint).

Of course one might argue that you were simply referring to the 'provable' or proven historical events. But that would be so insignificant and pointless, ... and IMO, you are neither, that one would be completely misguided to suggest anything of the sort.

It's difficult to try to debate with someone who rejects all arguments out of hand without a second thought.

Leviticus 11:1-2


These commandments were given directly to the Israelites.

The 10 commandments are in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 and in neither case are they addressed directly at the Israelites.

spider:

It's difficult to try to debate with someone who rejects all arguments out of hand without a second thought.


tribo:

Then dont - your the one who started the responses, i just asked the questions, leave it to someone else who's answers are what i ask and not skirt around the issues instead.


Im fully aware that the law was given to the israelites, that jesus streghthen them when speaking to the pharisees and that the laws were the means to show man that he could not obey them therefore making it necessary for god to become man and usher in grace! I'm not an idiot! but none of this answers what i was asking - now that all repentent believers HAVE the holy spirit, why is there divisions among you? either he teaches all the same truth or not! Why should NEW christians have to struggle if the apsotles who were new and recieved the spirit not have to? did not jesus state all would be revealed to them and not to take worry for what they would say as the spirit would lead them in all truths? so if they were NEW christians, as were the early converts, then why the difference? and why even more now so? and why do you think some more right as to others, if you ALL CLAIM to have the same spirit? is the spirit only right once you have been throughly indoctrinated into the cult of your choice, that you say with confidence, "i have the spirit and the truths"? Hog wash - if the spirit is gods spirit you believe then he would always be correct, not varying from truths to truth's from finger to finger, toe to toe, it must be the same or the BODY of christ is a joke.

Tribo,

If *I* believed that eating pork was a sin, it would be for *me*. Because I believe that eating pork would be against God's law. For me to eat pork that would be me not caring if I broke God's laws.

If *my* weakness is that I don't understand the scriptures (I think that Christians can't eat pork), then God's strength is perfected in my weakness. God allows me to learn to be faithful to God by me avoiding pork. God hasn't lied or deceived and the message is the same: Don't do something which you believe to be a sin. (That's not to say that one can decide that a particular act isn't a sin, this only works one way.) So you see, the various denominations are divided by human weaknesses, not the Holy Spirit. If Christians obeyed Romans 14, there would only be one church where everyone believed differently about doctrinal issues without debating or arguing about those issues. Since human nature leads to conflicts, the church has divided many times for the many weaknesses which afflict people.

I am directly addressing your questions. I believe that another Christian would step in to correct me if one believed that I was misleading you or not being clear.

You want historical fact? here ya go...

Let's start with the concept of hell, before "christianity" it didn't exist, Lucifer was the tempter working for god not against him. (according to the Hebrew belief structure). Hell actually sprung from the way the ancient Hebrew culture dealt with the unwanted in society. (this is proven by archeological findings and manuscripts) The ancient villages and towns had an outer ring around the city. This is where their wast was burned night and day. The outcasts of society were forced there to keep the fire going and weren't allowed in with the "norm" inside the village/town.

Now lets look at the fact that every element of christianity has been taken from somewhere else.

Archangels: Zoroastrianism (even many of the names of the angels in the bible were taken from this "father" to Hebrew/christian belief)

Virgin birth: There too many to mention them all but the best example and the one that gave most competition in christ's day is Isis and Horus.

"godson saving humanity": at least a half a dozen myths around the world have one (this includes the biblical myth).

The Hebrew people did NOT start out believing in the johova god. they started out with a mystical system called Mithra.

Ok... now we look at the life of christ:

There were at least 20+ other "messiahs" running around at the same time with their own followers and preachings. christ simply had a better campaign for the time.

Do you seriously believe the gospels in the bible are the whole truth and nothing but the truth? There were 30+ other gospels running around in the early church, all held to be as sacred as the next a roman priest spear headed what he called a "unifying" of the church by hand selecting the four you know and love. However, some of the others have been found and together they paint a bit of a different picture on christs life and his teachings...

my point here is not to destroy someone's faith... however, to make them understand that there is no "absolute truth" in faith. I am a witch and have been for nine years, neither you nor your faith have the right to tell me I'm going to "hell" for what I believe nor do I have the right to deny you your believe in such a place. Faith is just that... faith. It is everyone's individual right to believe what they will and no one has the right to tell them they are wrong.

Inversely, everyone has the right not to be bombarded by quotation of myth as some kind of prove they are on the road to hell either.

Ok... I'll step down from my soap box now

Wrong, Jesus compared hell to a section of Hinnom Valley, which was called Topheth. Topheth was where the people of Jerusalem would put their trash to be burned. The Hebrews didn't ring their cities in trash as this would have smelled terrible, attracted wild animals and possibly violated OT laws.



Similarities don't prove common decent.



Most Zoroastrians claim that their religion is dated to 6000 BC, but historians place Zoroaster's life to be around 6th century BC. This was the time and place of the Babylonian enslavement of the Israelites. Jewish writings dated before 6th century BC spoke of angels, resurrection and salvation, so it is almost certain that Zoroastrianism sprang from Judaism and not the other way around.



Isis wasn't a virgin, she was married. Her husband had been castrated, but she made a penis out of wood for him and they had sex to produce Horus. It would be reasonable to assume that Isis and her husband had sex before that event.



Why don't you list them by date, otherwise it's sort of pointless for me to try to refute if I don't know what I'm refuting.



Mithra/Zoroastrianism originated around 6th century BC, by that time Judaism was very well established.



Yes, let's!



How should I respond to this? By researching for two weeks to try to find who you are talking about? If there were 20+, then couldn't you just give me a couple examples?



The Gnostic Gospels were rejected by the majority of Christians. We see that clearly in various documents written before the Council of Nicea. Irenaeus in 180 AD wrote that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were to be accepted as Gospels. By 300 AD, Eusebius was still saying the same thing.



Neither me nor my faith say you are going to hell. Jesus is the only Judge. I can tell you what God doesn't like, but I can't say if any or all of them would send you to hell.



I quote the Bible when debating the Bible. In a debate of the Bible, only the Bible would be valid evidence. So if you say "The Bible is inconsistent, it says you shouldn't eat pork then it says you can", I would be forced to quote the Bible to prove that those two statements aren't inconsistent, they are addressed to two different audiences.

Tribo in keeping with your original question.

The holy spirit is there. Not all seem able to breath it with the same depth.

An unfortunate side effect when the word of god is twisted by the tools of man.

god does not write in ink nor does he bind his words in paper and leather.

Similarities don't prove common decent.

Yes actually, when talking in terms of religious development they do.



Most Zoroastrians claim that their religion is dated to 6000 BC, but historians place Zoroaster's life to be around 6th century BC. This was the time and place of the Babylonian enslavement of the Israelites. Jewish writings dated before 6th century BC spoke of angels, resurrection and salvation, so it is almost certain that Zoroastrianism sprang from Judaism and not the other way around.

Try looking at the findings of historians that aren't biased by the christianized culture. I think you'll find that respected historians, such as the ones that write actual history books will disagree with you.




Mithra/Zoroastrianism originated around 6th century BC, by that time Judaism was very well established.

see answer above

sorry, Mithra was around in the days of Egyptian enslavement, try again. where do you think they built it from?



Yes, let's!



How should I respond to this? By researching for two weeks to try to find who you are talking about? If there were 20+, then couldn't you just give me a couple examples?

Simon the sorcerer, John the Baptist to name a couple. I know, you'll say "the bible says John the Baptist was a follower of christ" get your nose out of the bible and look at historical evidence like the fact that John had his own gig goin and saw christ as a greater leader so the John who had deciples of his own began following christ.



The Gnostic Gospels were rejected by the majority of Christians. We see that clearly in various documents written before the Council of Nicea. Irenaeus in 180 AD wrote that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were to be accepted as Gospels. By 300 AD, Eusebius was still saying the same thing.

Only because they didn't want the competition. Not for any more valid "truth" in them.



Neither me nor my faith say you are going to hell. Jesus is the only Judge. I can tell you what God doesn't like, but I can't say if any or all of them would send you to hell.

Wrong read your bible. your faith is all about telling me I'm going to hell. Here's a news flash for you, your christ will never be my judge, nor will any other human being.

You can tell me what god doesn't like? lol which one? you still are so blind to think yours is the only one out there... wow.



I quote the Bible when debating the Bible. In a debate of the Bible, only the Bible would be valid evidence. So if you say "The Bible is inconsistent, it says you shouldn't eat pork then it says you can", I would be forced to quote the Bible to prove that those two statements aren't inconsistent, they are addressed to two different audiences.


no, they are addressed to one audience... humanity. you can't on the one hand say that all the bible is for all humanity and on the other say "well don't pay much attention to this cause it was written for a specific audience for a specific culture and time"... doesn't work.

Tribo - edited for brevity (and some of your spelling)



Saying that one is something is not the same as being what one is (or does). One does not need the ability to assess one's heart, when all they need do is witness their actions, and hear their words. "For out of the mouth the heart speaks" and "walking in the light" (without having to reference all of first John) is enough to determine if one's actions back up their testimony. This is not "judging" people, but assessing them with discernment. I cannot claim that someone is or isn't spitit filled, but I can surely doubt their ascertion if their actions are contradictory to this.



Your question was "why don't all denominations agree" - in a sense. The reason for this is the varying degree's of understanding (once you recieve the spirit you do not know, nor understand all truth - you are lead to the path of understanding it.) There are denomination's which claim to be Christian (I.E. spirit filled) yet their words and actions contradict obvious biblical truth's. I see no spirit working here. Christian Science, Mormanism, Unity School of Christianity, to name a few. All Cults - yet recognised as Christian by the secular media. Where are you drawing your line as to the denominations directly in conflict with one another? And whether or not church "A" agree's with "B" on a particular issue - does not make one right and the other wrong. They could BOTH be wrong. But what they can't be - is both correct.

But your question seems to be headed in the direction of "If I don't have the spirit - why is it I cannot understand the bible equally as one who has it?" Is that what you're getting at?
So you think by citing that denominations (a creation of man by the way - denominations are NOT biblical) have differences this somehow qualifies you to understand scripture without the spirit? Is that your point?

Myrrdin,

I'm afraid that our conversation has to end here. You don't seem interested in having a conversation, just in being right no matter how far the truth must be twisted.

The simple fact my friend is that I have found many Zoroastrianism that claim that Zoroster lived around 600 BCE.

Therefore, if Zoroastrianism is similar to Judaism, it's because they took from Judaism, not the other way around.

Mithrianism was a religious belief of the Persians, not Eqyptians. Mithrianism has very little in common with Christianity and Judaism.

The Simon the Sorcerer / John the Baptist thing is really reaching at straws. Don't forget the Kool-Aid man, i think he had followers then too. Please try to be serious, fair and honest with debates, okay?

You claim to know the thoughts and motives of people who lived 1700 years ago? How do you know that they rejected the Gnostic gospels "because they didn't want the competition"? That's pure speculation on your part.

The Bible says that many people are going to hell, but specific names aren't mentioned. If you believe that the Bible mentions you by name as someone bound for hell, could you quote chapter and verse?

I know that there are many gods, but there is only one Living God. All of the others are imaginary or made by human hands.

The Bible was written to many audiences. This comment was just pointless and silly. No Biblical scholar would say that the whole Bible was addressed to all of the world, especially when some of the commandments were directly addressed to the Israelites. When Jesus said "Oh ye vipers...", he was addressing the Pharisees and Sadduccees, not everybody alive.

These comments are about as much effort as your post of gratuitous assertions deserved. Actually that's not true, this was far more effort than your post deserved. You claim to have special knowledge, you insist that I am using the wrong sources, etc. It's really boring and childish and really, not worth my time. So I will blast you from time to time when you make posts like these, but I won't waste my time responding to whatever silly arguments you can present to push your specious beliefs.

thnx AB

Look at who's talking about always twisting the truth and always needing to be right.

The real truth is that mankind cannot possibly be responsible for the imperfections in this world, or for death, because both imperfection and death was a common trait of all biological activity long before mankind even made his appearance on earth.

This was something that the ancient men who wrote the Bible couldn't possibly have known. But today we know this truth. Therefore the whole idea that man is responsible for the death and inperfections of the world is total nonsense.

The religion absolutely positively has to be false for a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which is that the God it describes doesn't have any of the qualities that it claims God must have.

Those are the hardcore truths for anyone who genuinely interested in truth.

Nope, spider just claimed you can understand 90% of the book without the spirit, so that's not the issue, the issue is that other's have told me i can't "understand it at all" without the holy spirit!! That does not fly with me at all or others here that have read it either. It, to me is not whether or not it can't be read and understood Eljay, It's that the majority of those here, state that i cannot read it correctly! That because their spiritual take on it is qualified by the spirit within them. what you and spider both say is its not the spirit that's wrong but that people are wrong - but that just doesnot fly with me, if all or most here think they have "THE TRUTH" of what's said, and it differs with others, not present to speak here, to defend their spirit filled truths of the book, then it is not qualifiable. mainly there is you, pitbull,wouldee,MS, spider,and a few other "futurist" making claims. A tight knit family! But in the real world I have heard many that don't see or believe as those here. on many more issues than just pork or dancing or other trivial issues you speak of. the bottom line is this - If the body is not united, then its wrong. if its because its that way over spiritual matters then its even more wrong, if its because of fleshly interpretations of all, then again it is wrong - unless you all believe that your thinking comes before gods thinking - do you?

If so - why would i become christian or get your spirit if it cannot even bring you all together under one body? WHY?

the only thing i agree with you on - is that all of you could be wrong. So far that makes most sense.

The whole idea that a god would write a book and then blind people from understanding it who are trying to seek him is utter nonsense.

For a god to do such a thing it would need to be an extremely deceitful and untrustworthy deity.

That would be cruel beyond comprehension.

Hi james, enjoying your as usual

Also he could have made religion easy to understand like food , water , sex ,....something from him to humans without going through a third party who is a man .

I agree. I'm not sure who believes that or who you think believes that. God doesn't blind people, Jesus is the light. That's what the Bible tells us. You need light to see, Jesus is the cure to spiritual blindness. Those who choose to be blind will always be blind. Those who want to have their eyes opened, will.

Well, I'm not quite sure where the accusations of your not being able to understand the bible, for I can see that you are more than casually acquainted with the historical Christian doctrines. You also refrain from making claims - then using a scripture out of context to support it. That being said...

Has there been any other book in History more abused than the bible? Both by those who claim to follow it, and those who spend their life attempting to disclaim and discredit it. To me, I often think that if the rapture (bear with my futuristic view here) occured on a Sunday morning, very few churches in America would have their service disrupted. But that speaks nothing of the "church" here on earth. It's been here since the first century, and continues on to this day. The issue today, is that people expect to walk into a building to find the "church" - and where this comes from, who knows. If you look to denominations for unity of the church - you're just not going to get it. Even at the time of Paul's letters to the various churches, it was obvious that not all of the believers understood the truth. And remember too - in terms of the bible, truth is not a concept or a belief, but a PERSON! Jesus is truth. The Holy Spirit leads one to "live life as Jesus did". Vertually impossible for man, and obviously, you are going to have believers at various stages of understanding just who Jesus was, let alone living ones life as He did.

As for bringing all of the believers into one body, what would make you think the church is not functioning here on earth in exactly the manner that Christ wishes? Totally unified toward his purpose? Because there are buildings full of people claiming so - on Sundays. Or televangelists telling their audience how much good they are doing - in between their plee's for "Love offerings". If this is what you think the "spirit filled church" of today is - then I'm with you. That "spirit" I want no part of.

ELJAY:

Well, I'm not quite sure where the accusations of your not being able to understand the bible, for I can see that you are more than casually acquainted with the historical Christian doctrines. You also refrain from making claims - then using a scripture out of context to support it. That being said...




TRIBO:

no i have even been accused of using scripture out of context but that is in a comparison of futurist vs preterist thought. not my interpretayions, though i still agree with the P's more than the F's. You may not have ever said that - i would have to check all your comments to know - but i assure you Ferral, MS, and wouldee have many times. and it is only now that i've heard from spider that i can understand without the spirit.

ELJAY:

Has there been any other book in History more abused than the bible? Both by those who claim to follow it, and those who spend their life attempting to disclaim and discredit it. To me, I often think that if the rapture (bear with my futuristic view here) occured on a Sunday morning, very few churches in America would have their service disrupted. But that speaks nothing of the "church" here on earth. It's been here since the first century, and continues on to this day. The issue today, is that people expect to walk into a building to find the "church" - and where this comes from, who knows. If you look to denominations for unity of the church - you're just not going to get it. Even at the time of Paul's letters to the various churches, it was obvious that not all of the believers understood the truth. And remember too - in terms of the bible, truth is not a concept or a belief, but a PERSON! Jesus is truth. The Holy Spirit leads one to "live life as Jesus did". Vertually impossible for man, and obviously, you are going to have believers at various stages of understanding just who Jesus was, let alone living ones life as He did.

As for bringing all of the believers into one body, what would make you think the church is not functioning here on earth in exactly the manner that Christ wishes? Totally unified toward his purpose? Because there are buildings full of people claiming so - on Sundays. Or televangelists telling their audience how much good they are doing - in between their plee's for "Love offerings". If this is what you think the "spirit filled church" of today is - then I'm with you. That "spirit" I want no part of.



TRIBO:

nope not that at all, i've told you Eljay, that i was in your belief system for quite some time - i know who the church is and i know it's not the building but the body of christ. I rant against lidsey and hinn and robertson and TBN and all the rest because i know they are WRONG!! yet MS, and possibly the others follow their futurist teachings and lies. Yet CLAIM to have gods spirit - these are whom i talk of. And they continue to tell me that i'm wrong because i dont have this spirit they have. I tell you truly or as jesus would put it - verily verily i say unto you - i believe the spirit i have leads me into finding all truths, but i dont claim some special spirit as other's here do. my belief is if you search for truth you will find it. but those here seem to think they have found it, i disagree. And i will continue to do so till they get their heads out of there holy a**'s and wake up.

Why? Why bother? because no one can move forward when they have settled on beliefs they hold without continuing to see if there is better info out there first. As long as you have bias, you cannot continue to learn and grow and become all you may become. Stagnant beliefs are wasted life and can and do bring dissapointment to all who do so.

I am dead set against "religion" but i donot hate christians or muslims or anyone - i hate stupidity, not ignorance. And i believe it's stupid to lull yourself with that which has been shown or taught you and refuse to move past that which you blindly follow.