Please tell me this bible verse does not mean what I think it does!

This is just a brief review, do your own research and you will see the bible for what it is.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Horus12]

reply to post by noobfun


So it would appear then that christianity, is in fact a religion invented by the authors of Paul, with what seems to be a definate agenda of superceding and supressing the jewish Messiah.

The messiah being one of many, not in fact claiming to be a god on earth but merely claiming, the right to the throne of israel ie the kingdom of god, a very jewish god.

This would go far to explaining why JC when taking his last breath asks god "Why have you forsaken me?"

It would also explain why christianity would try very hard to marginalize jesus' family, brothers and sisters etc.

However the problem christianity seems to have, is that, should Jesus be the rightful heir to king David, then upon his death his younger brother james automatically takes his place.

The plot seems to thicken, if james had indeed replaced the sanhedrin, then we would probably not have christianity as it is today.


this seems to require more investigation

reply to post by tgambill



its all good. when we, the people that are doing what were supposed to are raptured(if in our lifetime) or die and go to heaven, those on earth who wouldnt listen will be looking pretty dumb sitting in Hell or dealing with the tribulations to come.

and as i said a couple times. a few churches, or groups may have been scams, but not every church is the same. just because you may have heard of someones church or pastor or leader being that way you wanna throw it on the rest of them as well and it doesnt work that way. some of you will be wishing you listened one day. but for now, go ahead and keep up your ridicule and accusations about wat YOU think is right.


[edit on 11/12/2008 by Bean328]

Originally posted by tgambill
Sorry, but most all of your post is designed to distract and has virtually no evidence except for mankinds later efforts to discredit the Bible which has obviously failed. I could comment on the post but it would serve no real end as you will go in one circle to another.

*****If the Pope really did he would be incorrect and I would tell him so. you can't in any case speak for the Pope and use this as a basis for Evidence for your argument!.

i can use anything i like for the basis of my argument its my argument

and i can speak for the pope or at least earlier popes who aknowledged it ^_^

proof proof which bits do you want?

luke and his never been to palestine? .. no problem tell me will you accept a christian source?

Luke's consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Luke 23:33; // Mark 15:22; Luke 18:41; // Mark 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mark 7:1-23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Luke 2:30-32; 3:6, 38; 4:16-30; 13:28-30; 14:15-24; 17:11-19; 24:47-48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians.

^_^ well if a bunch of bishops says it ......

what do they say about Mark

Papias (ca. A.D. 135) described Mark as Peter's "interpreter," a view found in other patristic writers. Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day.

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem.

umm so he wasnt really there or see it? and he wrote it about 40 yeasr later too

but surley? Matthew

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

what he copied the other guy? the guy that didnt see jesus?

Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem.

so this is far after the date too

well surely hebrews must be right

Pauline authorship was contested in the West into the fourth century, but then accepted. In the sixteenth century, doubts about that position were again raised, and the modern consensus is that the letter was not written by Paul. There is, however, no widespread agreement on any of the other suggested authors, e.g., Barnabas, Apollos, or Prisc(ill)a and Aquila. The document itself has no statement about its author.

Among the reasons why Pauline authorship has been abandoned are the great difference of vocabulary and style between Hebrews and Paul's letters, the alternation of doctrinal teaching with moral exhortation, the different manner of citing the Old Testament, and the resemblance between the thought of Hebrews and that of Alexandrian Judaism. The Greek of the letter is in many ways the best in the New Testament

..........


ahhhhaaa Peter 2 will be all fine and historical!!

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.

The principal reasons for this view are the following. The author refers to the apostles and "our ancestors" as belonging to a previous generation, now dead (2 Peter 3:2-4). A collection of Paul's letters exists and appears to be well known, but disputes have arisen about the interpretation of them (2 Peter 3:14-16). The passage about false teachers (2 Peter 2:1-18) contains a number of literary contacts with Jude 1:4-16, and it is generally agreed that 2 Peter depends upon Jude, not vice versa. Finally, the principal problem exercising the author is the false teaching of "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could scarcely have been an issue during the lifetime of Simon Peter.

so will you accept 'The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops' as a fair and impartial source? www.usccb.org... all exerts are taken from the introduction of the book named



[edit on 12/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Wow, noobfun. Bishops saying these books are as dubias as the quotes have stated. What a shocker. It must be very confusing and conflicting to be a christian with this looming over ones head.

So out of curiosity, what part of the bible is reliable in it's authorship?

reply to post by Good Wolf


ummm the bit that tells you about the print house that printed it and the date and version of print mostly

and the front cover of course

after that it all gets a bit dubious and open to speculation although there a bunch of writtings attributed to paul that seem to be consitent and may possably have been written by paul (proof for or against is none existant so its just accepted as the best answer we have)

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Good Wolf

 

ummm the bit that tells you about the print house that printed it and the date and version of print mostly

and the front cover of course

Hahahahha

Ohh... That just made my day.

Originally posted by The Stand
After reading the bible and some other very interesting books, I have been contemplating that the bible may have been a plan to take over the world physically, mentally and spiritually. A lot of verses seem to imply harm to anybody who does not think like this god wants. Other verses I do not even want to think about because they make me sick as to think god is telling these people to do what I think he is. For example, what does this verse mean? Numbers 31:17-18 “now kill all the boys and all the women who have had sexual intercourse. Only the little girls may live; you may keep them for yourselves.”

[edit on 9-11-2008 by The Stand]

It is my understanding that this population, as well as the others that were eliminated by the Hebrews, were those who performed child sacrifices.

I would hope that it is apparent that such treatment of children is something to squelch. We still have that same mindset... just read this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... for verification.

reply to post by L.I.B.

wait what to stop child sacrifice you must kill all the children that arnt female ....

what about when god says 'when you inavde a town kill all the men women and children leave none alive'

what about when god killed all the egyptian children? he is all powerful he could have just magic'ed the jews out of israel but instead went on a spree of misery and torture leading the death of hundreds of thousands of children

what about when he drowned ALL the children on earth

what about gods law to stone children to death who misbehave for thier parents

and what about jesus rebuking the pharasie for not carrying out this law



[edit on 12/11/08 by noobfun]

"so will you accept 'The United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops' as a fair and impartial source? www.usccb.org... all exerts are taken from the introduction of the book named"

******Actually no. I also won't accept the non-Biblical sources from the Christian Associations. Why? Well now this is very credible evidence...

Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens; May 13 12:48 PM US/Eastern

www.breitbart.com...

VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican's chief astronomer says that believing in aliens does not contradict faith in God.
The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, says that the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

In an interview published Tuesday by Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Funes says that such a notion "doesn't contradict our faith" because aliens would still be God's creatures.

The interview was headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother." Funes said that ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
www.news.com.au...

By Martin Penner
The Australian
November 07, 2005 12:00am
Text size
+ - Print Email Share
Add to MySpace
Add to Digg
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Fark
Post to Facebook
Add to Kwoff
What are these?

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements w
ere interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

Opppps, whatever happen to Adam and Eve? Primates? The vatican thinks that Adam and Eve were Primates? Or cave people. Maybe Fred Flintstone was Catholic. hmmmmmm



Vatican revises limbo view, hope for unbaptized babies
www.usatoday.com...

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.
Theologians said the move was highly significant — both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin — the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

NOW that is power.....I wonder if the Pope, Vatican's representative to God, clear this with God first or did God tell him too; or what...now this is credible.

The End of Limbo
What happens to all the babies who used to be there?
www.slate.com...

Archbishop says nativity 'a legend'
The Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday that the Christmas story of the Three Wise Men was nothing but a 'legend'.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Now the Vatican is really credible, you think?

Lets be fair now......

Born again Bush??
www.youtube.com...

Joel Osteen is full of it up to his nose. He is nowhere Biblical
www.youtube.com...

Benny Hinn is really credible, he is of God for sure /sarc.....Satan is alive and well. Fire in the hole.
www.youtube.com...

Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father
www.youtube.com...

WHOA, Rewritting Biblical Stories...Imagine that....

Popular Bible Stories Re-Written, Include Alcoholic Goliath
By Ethan Cole, Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Mar. 28 2008 03:15 PM EDT
www.christianpost.com...

Some of the most popular stories in the Bible were recently re-written by a British Anglican vicar, including the story of Goliath, who in the retelling is a celebrity binge drinker.

The Rev. Robert Harrison of St. John’s Church in northwest London is behind the reworking of the top 10 Bible stories that were chosen by a poll conducted by the Christian charity Scripture Union.

The Must Know Stories, the tale of David and Goliath is retold from the perspective of Goliath, who is portrayed as a “depressed alcoholic” who is hung over on the day of battle with David, according to

reply to post by noobfun

Apparently God doesn't have the same view of death as we do.

what about when he drowned ALL the children on earth

Well, since living is so important, why aren't you more upset that after this particular event mankind's lifespan was limited to 120 years?

reply to post by L.I.B.


But he does consider life to be important.

It was him who said "thou shall not kill"

Maybe he shoulda made an 11th commandment:

"Thou shall do as I command, thou shall not do as I do."

reply to post by L.I.B.



becasue i may get to live 120 years but the poor kids he killed and were killed for him wont

Vatican revises limbo view, hope for unbaptized babies
www.usatoday.com...

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.
Theologians said the move was highly significant — both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin — the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

one of your reasons for not believing catholic sources is they dont want babys to go to hell?

im sure you make jesus very proud

p.s. your religeon is the spawn of catholasism and like it or not it still masivley influenced your church and what it believes


so you refute the catholic church despite it is almost the oldest form of christianity and has a vast library of christian writtings going back practically to the time of jesus. lets be honest if anyone was going to know they would be the ones

so if you ignore the vast majority of biblical scholars and historians and the catholic church ..... what proof would be enough?

are you Behe by anychance?

[edit on 12/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Good Wolf


Yes, God does consider life to be important. But, what is life? I recall a biblical verse having Jesus saying: Let the dead bury the dead.

So, truly, what is life?

It was him who said "thou shall not kill"

From what I understand, the original text said murder, which is an action with passion involved. Killing doesn't necessarily have that same connotation.

Maybe he shoulda made an 11th commandment: "Thou shall do as I command, thou shall not do as I do."

Yeah, or something along the line: Thou shall do as I command and shall not do what you might think I do.

reply to post by noobfun


Not in that life anyway.

Which involved traditions with a bunch of atrocities, btw.

Traditions that were detrimental to a soul's evolution/elevation. Personally, I see it as a mercy since those souls could then be reborn into a society with higher standards... er, at least without the traditions of child sacrifice.

reply to post by L.I.B.


No the original said kill. Murder was one of the changes that has occured over the years.

All the traditional english translations said kill, and almost all the contemporary (jazzed up and modern) translations say murder.

I think this is an important thing to know when it comes to the bible, ie. new translations are rubbish.

reply to post by Good Wolf

actually the proper version is though shalt not murder

hebrew has 2 very distinct words and meaning for kill and murder


it got changed to kill and is now as you say in more jazzy versions bieng changed back


[edit on 12/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by L.I.B.

Traditions that were detrimental to a soul's evolution/elevation. Personally, I see it as a mercy since those souls could then be reborn into a society with higher standards... er, at least without the traditions of child sacrifice.

wait its a blessing to kill them for god and for god to kill them so they can become hindu or buddist and be reincarnated into a society with higher standards?

unless christianity is teaching reincarnation for the masses again

You are correct. Not all churches, not all of the Vatican, not all Muslims in their secret places, not all Christians, but God knows the heart. The heart comes out in their their fruits, behavior and if they are Biblical or non-biblical. It is the role of the watchman to point out the truth......

"All that is necessary for the triumph of EVIL is that good men do nothing"

Edmund Burke.




reply to post by Bean328