Why I don't trust the Bible.

[silentfem]

well as the bible gets translated to suit the creed that use it, as over 2500 diff creeds in the uk and more than half the world doesnt believe in jesus so best con of the human race.as any other type of religion made to give power and control and devide

 

[joe90]

 

[joe90]

For the first time in over 70 years, British Army recruits have sworn their oaths of allegiance to a King.

Known as the Attestation Ceremony, each recruit reads aloud their promise to be loyal to the monarch:

"I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King Charles III, his heirs and successors, and that I will as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend his Majesty, his heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity, against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, his heirs and successors and the generals and officers set over me."

The ceremony held at the Army Training Regiment, Winchester saw 130 recruits swear their allegiance as they embark on their Army careers.

 

[silentfem]

For the first time in over 70 years, British Army recruits have sworn their oaths of allegiance to a King.

Known as the Attestation Ceremony, each recruit reads aloud their promise to be loyal to the monarch:

"I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King Charles III, his heirs and successors, and that I will as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend his Majesty, his heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity, against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, his heirs and successors and the generals and officers set over me."

The ceremony held at the Army Training Regiment, Winchester saw 130 recruits swear their allegiance as they embark on their Army careers.

as have to well i wouldnt no matter what

 

[Smew]

aka liberal mystic.

How do you translate 'deist' in to the above?

There's nothing mystical about being a non-theist, which is what deism is.

 

[Smew]

The problem here is, people often equate "the church" with what the Bible says. Also, they claim "facts" when they don't actually know or understand something. It's a very stupid thing to do. In the future, these people will be our tradespeople, building bridges. They'll get to the interview, lie to the interviewee, then get on the job and not know anything, but cause death and disaster.
You make a fair point here.

Well, actually mate, he did. Here are some examples...............

On all the above quotes it is Paul telling it Paul's way. He doesn't quote Jesus nor does he tell a single anecdote about Jesus (excepting repetitions of communion and resurrection which was all he was interested in).

The gospels tell about what Jesus said and did...... Paul, nah.

 

[Smew]

Moses never existed and .........

Maybe not......and the Mosaic laws were written by clever men who understood how a community could survive.

Jesus Christ Never existed.

I think that a Jesus existed, a Northern Jew who raised a small following to campaign against Priesthood greed and corruption, especially in the Temple. But the 'Christ' thing is a total mish-mash of mumbo-jumbo, imo.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

...all the above quotes it is Paul telling it Paul's way. .

Paul didn't teach a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did.

The gospels tell about what Jesus said and did...... Paul, nah.

This is what you said. Not "Paul didn't quote Jesus exactly verbatim". If you expect people to do that, then no wonder you can't understand things.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

The gospels tell about what Jesus said and did...... Paul, nah.

The book of Acts is written by the same writer of the Gospel of Luke. Namely, Luke.
The book of Acts speaks a lot about Paul, and shows that not only did Paul do what Jesus asked, but was specifically chosen by Jesus as a precious vessel.

Secondly, it is Peter - the one who the Catholic church claims is their first pope - who shows Paul as being a chosen vessel of God and his Christ. (2Pe 3:15-16)
So maybe one day you'll have to tell Peter how wrong he was, and how right you are.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Maybe not......and the Mosaic laws were written by clever men who understood how a community could survive.


I think that a Jesus existed, a Northern Jew who raised a small following to campaign against Priesthood greed and corruption, especially in the Temple. But the 'Christ' thing is a total mish-mash of mumbo-jumbo, imo.

Altair doesn't exist. When I log in, I no longer see his writing. I think he was a figment of my imagination when I was talking to him before. Maybe it was the weather, but because I can't see him, I don't know he really exists.

 

[Smew]

This is what you said. Not "Paul didn't quote Jesus exactly verbatim". If you expect people to do that, then no wonder you can't understand things.

Hmmm..... I do have an understanding, and that is this:- Paul was fashioning his own ideas about the new religion, and all he needed from Jesus was the communion and resurrection.

I'm sure that he had heard many reports about Jesus's miracles even though no gospels were written in his time, but none of them interested him, and he'd heard of many things told by Jesus but he held his own voice to be more important.

The vast majority of guides, rules and laws written by Paul....came from Paul.

 

[Smew]

Altair doesn't exist. When I log in, I no longer see his writing. I think he was a figment of my imagination when I was talking to him before. Maybe it was the weather, but because I can't see him, I don't know he really exists.

And that answers my point about who I think Jesus was........ exactly?

 

[Harbal]

If there is one thing I've learnt after 10 years experience of internet forums, it is that nothing is a bigger waste of time than arguing with a Bible literalist. My advice is to spare yourself the frustration and agony.

 

[joe90]

 

[Smew]

The book of Acts is written by the same writer of the Gospel of Luke. Namely, Luke.
The book of Acts speaks a lot about Paul, and shows that not only did Paul do what Jesus asked, but was specifically chosen by Jesus as a precious vessel.

Luke's gospel copied much of G-Mark, many of Jesus's words from the lost gospel, and masses of spin from the new Christianity.

Yes, Luke did write about Paul but all that was after Jesus's time.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Hmmm..... I do have an understanding, and that is this:- Paul was fashioning his own ideas about the new religion, and all he needed from Jesus was the communion and resurrection.

I'm sure that he had heard many reports about Jesus's miracles even though no gospels were written in his time, but none of them interested him, and he'd heard of many things told by Jesus but he held his own voice to be more important.

The vast majority of guides, rules and laws written by Paul....came from Paul.

Your thoughts on "no gospels were written in his time" are debateable. There are those who suggest that Matthew was written 8 years after Jesus' death. Additionally, as Paul - according to Luke - was chosen specifically by Jesus.

Paul was a very uniting Christian, trying to save his Jewish brothers from their rejection of the Messiah that was prophecied to come in his day.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Luke's gospel copied much of G-Mark, many of Jesus's words from the lost gospel, and masses of spin from the new Christianity.

Yes, Luke did write about Paul but all that was after Jesus's time.

The presumption of the lost gospel is written from an angle where "plagiarism" is rampant, and people are suing each other for copyright. In Jesus' day, they were brothers. And Luke himself states that he "traced all things with accuracy". So, he's TELLING us he used other sources. But so what? That's what a historian is supposed to do.
So whether there was or wasn't what you call a "G-Mark", or try a Q, as others love so much (they love their q's, especially in shopping centres this time of year) is not the point. Luke records Paul as a Christian, following Jesus' teachings, and the account of Paul being called to be a Christian wasn't without witnesses. It involved others.
As for what was written, by the time Luke had penned his Gospel, you've already noted that Mark may have been written. But so was Matthew. In fact, without worrying about what the narrators say, you could read the things yourself and see it very clearly that Matthew and Mark are very similar. They are though, directed to other audiences.
Nonetheless, the issue here, which for some reason you're wanting to take off on a tangential slide to avoid addressing is the fact that Paul was in harmony with the other brothers in the day. And it is Peter's letter that shows it as well.
And of course it was after Jesus' time. Jesus was killed. What does that mean anyway in that it was after Jesus' time? He was around the apostles - you know, the ones Jesus chose out of all the followers at the time for special duties.

 

[Smew]

Secondly, it is Peter - the one who the Catholic church claims is their first pope - who shows Paul as being a chosen vessel of God and his Christ.

Peter? Can you see how far from Jesus you all are?
Jesus called him Cephas, and never used any name like Petros.

 

[Smew]

Your thoughts on "no gospels were written in his time" are debateable. There are those who suggest that Matthew was written 8 years after Jesus' death. Additionally, as Paul - according to Luke - was chosen specifically by Jesus.

Paul was a very uniting Christian, trying to save his Jewish brothers from their rejection of the Messiah that was prophecied to come in his day.

Paul never read any of the included gospels.
Yes, Paul was a uniting Christian, but was far from what Jesus had wanted.

 

[Smew]

The presumption of the lost gospel is written from an angle where "plagiarism" is rampant, and people are suing each other for copyright. In Jesus' day, they were brothers. And Luke himself states that he "traced all things with accuracy". So, he's TELLING us he used other sources. But so what? That's what a historian is supposed to do.
So whether there was or wasn't what you call a "G-Mark", or try a Q, as others love so much (they love their q's, especially in shopping centres this time of year) is not the point. Luke records Paul as a Christian, following Jesus' teachings, and the account of Paul being called to be a Christian wasn't without witnesses. It involved others.
As for what was written, by the time Luke had penned his Gospel, you've already noted that Mark may have been written. But so was Matthew. In fact, without worrying about what the narrators say, you could read the things yourself and see it very clearly that Matthew and Mark are very similar. They are though, directed to other audiences.
Nonetheless, the issue here, which for some reason you're wanting to take off on a tangential slide to avoid addressing is the fact that Paul was in harmony with the other brothers in the day. And it is Peter's letter that shows it as well.
And of course it was after Jesus' time. Jesus was killed. What does that mean anyway in that it was after Jesus' time? He was around the apostles - you know, the ones Jesus chose out of all the followers at the time for special duties.

If you want to follow a Pauline religion then that's up to you, but the Jesus reported in G-Mark was a totally different person.