God Bless You.

And Yes....The Bible IS Accurate.....because GOD HIMSELF is the

AUTHOR!!!.

God is more than ABLE to author a book, and Divinely Inspire man

thru the Power of His Holy Spirit ,to Write the Words down.

AND also ,to PRESERVE that Holy Book called the B-I-B-L-E.

Ok then, again I ask you WHY can't people get the most important story in it right? Three people all say different things! Is that what passes for accuracy?

My friend told me one shouldn't worship a God that is less loving than we are. That about sums it up here.

Prove it without your book. Otherwise it means little.

And I don't care if the book explains anything, it's not valid evidence as far as Jesus.

Aren't I trying to prove what happened in the book? How would I do that without the book?

I will type this verse out for you:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like unto him" Proverbs 26:4 (hope you can translate that)

These verses don't "explain" anything.


Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Give his life as a random to WHO?

Who required this "ransom".

That is the problem my friend.


Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Why would blood need to be shed for the remission of sins?

Again, there is no explanation here, only more questions.

Why would a loving deity require these sorts of violent things before he can forgive someone?

Cowboy continually tries to answer this question with the same thing over and over again, Cowboy states:



This makes absolutely no sense at all to me. On the contrary this flies in the very face of the idea of a God himself needing to sacrifice his very own son before someone could be forgiven.

If the idea of sacrifice is that we need to prove our sincerity to god. They the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for our sins would have alleviated us from having to prove our sincerity.

Does this truly makes any sense to anyone?

It certainly makes no sense to me.

Also the very idea that anyone would need to "prove" their sincerity to an omniscient God who knows what's in the hearts and minds of men is itself a totally misguided notion.

Look at what Cowboy said in more detail:



Cowboy has a really consistent habit of reducing God to the ineptitude of mortal men. He compares a supposedly omniscient God with a mortal man who would indeed need to be convinced of a person's sincerity and/or intend.

But a truly omniscient God would have absolutely no need for anyone to display their sincerity. That would fly in the very face of the idea that this God is supposed to know what's in the hearts and minds of men. God would automatically know whether or not a person is sincere.

So Cowboy's "explanation" is a sieve that holds no water. It simply can't be applied to a supposedly omniscient God. It makes absolutely no sense in that context.

~~~~~

And again, it makes no sense in terms of Jesus "paying for the sins of men" via this crucifixion. Because that too would do nothing other than FREE men from having to PROVE their sincerity to God (based on Cowboy's attempt to address this problem)

Cowboy's answer simply can't be made to work. So some other explanation would be required.

~~~~~~

Let's go back to the idea of a "Ransom" which is more in-line with scripture anyway:


Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Who was demanding this "random"?

That is the unanswered question.

God certainly didn't have any need to "prove" his sincerity to mortal men by having them crucify his son. And since it was supposed to be a "sacrifice" by God (since Jesus is said to be the sacrificial lamb of God) and a "ransom" as claimed by Matthew 20:28, then there must have been a THREAT to God.

The only entity that could have possibly posed a "Threat" to God would have been Satan. But I've been down that road many times. It makes no sense to have God bending over backwards sacrificing his only begotten son to Satan. That gives Satan far too much power and implies that God felt that Satan was a real threat to have to make such a great sacrifice as a "ransom" to him.

Also none of this is consistent with the original religion anyway.

~~~~

Who was it that was originally appeased by blood sacrifices?

Well, it was the God himself!

He was the one who was demanding this 'ransom" as an atonement for sins.

Therefore the only explanation that makes sense in this religion is that this God was making a "sacrifice" unto himself to appease himself so that he could forgive mankind of their "sins".

That's a little too circular for me. A God making a sacrifice unto himself to play himself a ransom so that he can forgive people their 'sins'.

As far as I'm concerned there is no rational explanation for this myth.

~~~~

My solution?

It's quite simple.

Simply recognize that Jesus was not the son of Yahweh. Jesus was a mortal man who objected to the immortal teachings of the Torah, he publicly voiced his views on this and taught far better moral values (that coincidentally happen to be very similar to the moral teachings of Mahayana Buddhism which was at it's peak at the time Jesus would have lived).

Jesus accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites. He was ultimately crucified for his views and his slander against the Pharisees. He died. He did not raise from the dead.

However, rumors and superstitions did raise up after he died, and that's what became the New Testament.

~~~~~

This explanation WORKS without a hitch.

It's no longer necessary to try to rationalize how a God could be associated with having his only begotten son crucified to pay for the sins of mankind. It never happened. It's that simple. No God had any part in this crucifixion, and the crucifixion of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with finding your way to "God".

No that explanation WORKS. It's rational, reasonable, and has no problems that need to be explained away.

Jesus was a mortal man. Not a demigod who was sent by God via a virgin birth through a mortal woman to ultimately be crucified as a ransom to pay for the sins of men.

It's that simple.

~~~~~

The verses you posted Pimpwagn don't "explain" anything. All they do is open up a whole can of worms of contradictions and questions.

Ransom?

Who was demanding a "ransom" from God?

Got a verse that explains that one?

And why did God cower down to the ransomer's demands?

And if God himself was demanding the "ransom", then you've got major problems. God would be sacrificing the "ransom" unto himself, what sense would that make?

Well, in terms of the book I don't see where you've shown anything significant. Like I said in my previous post. Explain who was demanding a ransom from God. Otherwise the verses you've quoted are meaningless.



That kind of wisdom is better read and acted upon privately.

To actually type it out and toss it in the face of another is to do nothing more than abuse the scriptures in an attempt to egotistically try to call someone else a "Fool".

That is extremely poor use of a religious doctrine, IMHO.

"The son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28)

He came to give his life, to die, and his death would result in salvation for others. This is the reason he came to earth, to pour his blood out for us.

Every bible has worded different not sure on the version you have but Matthew 20:28 does explain it.

All the verses I typed earlier were things the bible said would happen and they did I don't believe I was talking to you about it but I was asked to prove the bible has been accurate and I just threw a few verses out there that did occur

But you're avoiding the crux of the issue.

In what way would his death result in the salvation of others?

That's the paramount issue that needs to be explained.

I wasn't following that particular conversation, but I have yet been shown anything in the bible that is impressive in terms of having made any valid prophecies.

PROOF???

Toooo NUMEROUS to count ( look at the over 300

PROPHESIES on JESUS alone, that CAME TO PASS...EACH AND EVERY

ONE , in fact!!!)


Takes the Holy Spirit INDWELLING a BELIEVER to be

able to RIGHTLY INTERPRET God's Word.....

and be able to RECEIVE and UNDERSTAND and DIGEST the FULLER

and DEEPER MEANING of God's

Word ( The Word of God becomes DAILY BREAD for the born again

believer ).


YET, the fundamental BASIC Truths of the bible are EASY

enough to understand, to where even a BABE can understand it.

Yes proof, you know that thing historians agree on actually happened? Where is the proof that the people of the Bible really existed? There isn't any!

Secondly, you totally ignored my 2nd part of that post. How can a book that is perfect and without error, somehow NOT be able to get its' story straight about when Jesus died and the words he said when he did? It makes no sense at all whatsoever.

IT IS ONLY MAN'S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT GOD, THAT

IS THE PROBLEM....

NOT GOD.

Once again that is just a copout to absolve the Bible God of any wrong doing. Any time anyone tries to question the Bible or the ways the God of the Bible acts, it's ALWAYS our fault, it's ALWAYS our lack of understanding, it's NEVER that the Bible and Bible God with it is wrong. If you can't see how that would inhibit debate against it, you're simply not paying attention.

How can you have an open debate about the validity of something if you can't challenge what it says? You can't!

AGAIN...BECAUSE of men TRYING to INTERPRET the

MEANING of the Bible,

WITHOUT the INDWELLING first by the HOLY SPIRIT ,WHO IS THE ONLY

ONE WHO GIVES PROPER INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S WORD....AND LEADS

AND GUIDES EVERY SINGLE BORN AGAIN BELIEVER INTO ALL TRUTH !!!


THAT IS WHY.....




YET.....(saying it ONE MORE TIME NOW to hopefully make this

very clear)........the BASIC FUNDAMENDAL TRUTHS of the

Bible, are EASY enough to UNDERSTAND, to where even a CHILD

can understand.

^This

But if man lacks understanding of God that could only be God's fault.

Either God didn't create man with enough capacity to understand him, or God failed to communicate with man in a way that man could understand.

Besides, the whole idea of men "misunderstanding" God flies in the very face of the idea that we are supposed to be "CHOOSING" between good or evil.

Misunderstanding does NOT constitute an informative choice.

All it would constitute would be precisely what it is - misunderstanding.

So how would that play into the picture of a God who is supposedly interested in people CHOOSING between good and evil?

These kinds of "excuses" for an obscure confused religion simply don't cut it.

If the religion is confusing, then it's only because the religion itself is a confused religion.

You can't be starting to "blame" misunderstandings on men.

Men are supposed to be CHOOSING between "Good" and "Evil", NOT between understanding and misunderstanding.

So the religion fails entirely if it needs to resort to proclaiming that men are simply misunderstanding it.

What is there to interpret, if all 3 men CLEARLY disagree on what happened when Jesus died on the cross and the time he died? I'm sorry but your argument fails, you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

Abra....See above posts