Why I don't trust the Bible.

[A_Son_of_God]

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.

Oh. Okay.
Show me. Show me how it differs in this set of scriptures.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

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

Again. Show me. Show me the writings of Jesus. Show me what Jesus wrote down, Sr Experte.

 

[Smew]

Oh. Okay.
Show me. Show me how it differs in this set of scriptures.

Scriptures?
Paul wrote LETTERS to various congregations.
G-Mark is a description of the ONE YEAR that Jesus spent in trying to build up a movement against Temple and Leader corruption and greed, which was nothing like Paul's religion which was based upon superstitious waffle. The last verses of Mark were tacked on the the whole, Jesus was estranged from his family (as shown so clearly) how actions in the Temple show exactly what he intended.

Paul? Paul built Christianity.

 

[Smew]

Again. Show me. Show me the writings of Jesus. Show me what Jesus wrote down, Sr Experte.

Show me where I have claimed that Jesus could write.
Sr Experte? That's nasty.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

but the Jesus reported in G-Mark was a totally different person.

Show me where, in this G-Mark of yours.

Jesus called him Cephas, and never used any name like Petros.

Again, show me where.
Sr. Experte. How is that mean? You're an expert, right? So, show me. Don't make up claims with no back up. I posted scriptures and reasoned on them. You're only posting opinions on things you've heard. So, considering you know about this G-Mark document, post what it says, and then show me how Jesus never used Peter. Until you produce REAL evidence - a quote, for instance, with a link I can look at, you're not a true expert. You're "experte" until you demonstrate your worth.
Because once you do, I'll show you where he DID call him Peter. Your motive is not to learn nor teach, but to fight.
In the old days, you could have had your chance. But two things. I don't fight any more, and I'm getting too old to be a belligerant old fool. So you'll have to go and pick a fight with someone at the bus stop instead. Or take up hooliganism. But if you want to debate, then present your points and evidence. Otherwise, what are you actually doing? Why?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Scriptures?
Paul wrote LETTERS to various congregations.

As mentioned, Peter - the apostle of Jesus, who you are criticising because PETER said it and not Jesus - stated Paul's letters as godly wisdom. So you're arguing against the "pattern of healthful teaching".

G-Mark is a description of the ONE YEAR that Jesus spent in trying to build up a movement against Temple and Leader corruption and greed,

Again. If you're going to claim what it is, show it. Look, here's an example. Jesus says that "“Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. Then, too, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and mislead many". That came from this scripture. Matthew 24:9-11.
So, please show where this G-Mark says what you're claiming.

which was nothing like Paul's religion which was based upon superstitious waffle.

Please support your claim. Do you have any, or are you just a big mouth? Flapping your gums, blablabla, with no evidence. A bottle in the wind?

The last verses of Mark were tacked on the the whole

This part, you are correct on. We know when it was added in. Therefore, we know it should be removed. Here's an article showing how we know when it was added in.

, Jesus was estranged from his family (as shown so clearly)

No mate. Just because his family didn't accept him as the Messiah, other than his mother and stepfather, doesn't mean he was estranged from them. There are many scriptures showing that his brothers and sisters visited him.

Paul? Paul built Christianity.

He was certainly a big part.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

the people who believe nothing created everything, when the properties of nothing means it doesn't exist are the winners. congratulations for winning your case.

LOL A faith in nothing, with nothing as the future. Well, they will be right if they stick to it.

 

[Smew]

As mentioned, Peter - the apostle of Jesus, who you are criticising because PETER said it and not Jesus - stated Paul's letters as godly wisdom. So you're arguing against the "pattern of healthful teaching".

We know that Cephas faced up to Paul.... I can imagine why.
Whatever do you call Cephas Peter? Jesus never did!

Again. If you're going to claim what it is, show it. Look, here's an example. Jesus says that "“Then people will hand you over to tribulation and will kill you, and you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name. Then, too, many will be stumbled and will betray one another and will hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and mislead many". That came from this scripture. Matthew 24:9-11.
So, please show where this G-Mark says what you're claiming.

Whatever did you show me a claim from Matthew? For what purpose?
Now, if you want m to show you that G-Mark described an 11-12 month period in the life of Jesus, why don't you just read G-Mark?

This part, you are correct on. We know when it was added in. Therefore, we know it should be removed. Here's an article showing how we know when it was added in.

......which helps to show what an absolute construct the resurrection was.

No mate. Just because his family didn't accept him as the Messiah, other than his mother and stepfather, doesn't mean he was estranged from them. There are many scriptures showing that his brothers and sisters visited him.

Show me! The only visit I remember was when Jesus did not receive them but told his true friends 'You are my Mother and brothers!'

He was certainly a big part.

Paul was a big part in the fabrication of Christianity.

 

[Smew]

So you're arguing against the "pattern of healthful teaching".

'The pattern of healthful teaching'? What exactly is that? My whole point about Christianity is that it is a fabrication.

So, please show where this G-Mark says what you're claiming.

A one-year (or 11-12 month) series of events: As you read through the gospel of Mark you will realise that there is only one Passover event that takes place, the week in which Jesus goes sightseeing in the Temple (On the Palm Sunday afternoon) 11:11, Trashes Anna's bazaar and pickets the Temple Courts (Monday) 11:15-16, Returns to do the same all again and ends up in a big debate with Temple Leaders and priests (Tuesday) 11:27-33......... this one week shows how the other gospels extended the mission over 3 years in some attempt to make it all bigger,longer than it really had been.

Please support your claim. Do you have any, or are you just a big mouth? Flapping your gums, blablabla, with no evidence. A bottle in the wind?

The above shows how you wander from this debate to insult me in several ways. This shows how some Christians have descended, imo.

No mate. Just because his family didn't accept him as the Messiah, other than his mother and stepfather, doesn't mean he was estranged from them. There are many scriptures showing that his brothers and sisters visited him.

The Mother and brothers of Jesus were not close to him at all:-
Mark {3:31} There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. {3:32} And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. {3:33} And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? {3:34} And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

And on Nazareth....remember thev things that his family said about him?

You see? Once on my computer I can indeed access quotations to show you, but you need to understand that

 

[A_Son_of_God]

We know that Cephas faced up to Paul.... I can imagine why.
Whatever do you call Cephas Peter? Jesus never did!

Matthew 16:18 <-- a verse where Jesus calls Peter, "Peter".

As mentioned, you don't know anything. Your complaints about poor little old troll you being picked on by all the horrible Christians is the picture you want to paint. All you do is lie and accuse, you little Satan.

Because you lied, I do not intend to answer anything else from you. You go on the list of others who can be ignored.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

For others who may be reading this article, I am going to guess that the person who claims "Aramaic" here will try to dismiss "Peter" as being what Jesus called him. Therefore, I will propose my counter argument pre-emptively.

An article in the Insight on the Scriptures - a publication by Jehovah's Witnesses - says this:

"But, say some, Jesus spoke in Aramaic and in that language the same word keʹpha is used in each instance. True, but let it be noted that in his expression “on this rock” Jesus used a feminine demonstrative pronoun, translated “this,” which he would not have done had he meant that Peter is the rock on which his congregation was to be built. It was, no doubt, because this feminine demonstrative pronoun made it apparent that Jesus intended to distinguish between Peter and the rock on which his congregation was to be built that Matthew when translating into Greek used two different nouns, Petros and petra. (Incidentally, the evidence indicates that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then himself translated it into Greek.) We cannot imagine Matthew’s being so careless as to use two different nouns if Jesus had not intended to make any distinction. And so we have a modern literal translation of Jesus’ words as follows: “You are Peter [Petros, masculine], and on this rock-mass [petra, feminine] I will build my congregation.”

This demonstration of the language shows that because both the masculine and feminine were used in the same sentence, it shows which language was used, and no, it wasn't Aramaic. It secondly demonstrates that there is evidence that Matthew was written in Hebrew first, and then copied into Greek, (which by the way, shares evidence that Matthew was the first gospel (or "good news") of Christ written, estimated at being about 8 years after Christ's death).

 

[ArthurSleep]

Moderators on here are too harsh

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Moderators on here are too harsh

I thought you are banned. If you're banned, how are you still on here talking?

 

[Altair]

I thought you are banned. If you're banned, how are you still on here talking?

Banned from the Chat rooms NOT the forum.

 

[Altair]

Matthew 16:18 <-- a verse where Jesus calls Peter, "Peter".

As mentioned, you don't know anything. Your complaints about poor little old troll you being picked on by all the horrible Christians is the picture you want to paint. All you do is lie and accuse, you little Satan.

Because you lied, I do not intend to answer anything else from you. You go on the list of others who can be ignored.

I don't think he Lied. Lets not no one fall out over this.

It's debate.. Each and every one of you has good and bad points. No need for animosity.

 

[Altair]

'The pattern of healthful teaching'? What exactly is that? My whole point about Christianity is that it is a fabrication.

A one-year (or 11-12 month) series of events: As you read through the gospel of Mark you will realise that there is only one Passover event that takes place, the week in which Jesus goes sightseeing in the Temple (On the Palm Sunday afternoon) 11:11, Trashes Anna's bazaar and pickets the Temple Courts (Monday) 11:15-16, Returns to do the same all again and ends up in a big debate with Temple Leaders and priests (Tuesday) 11:27-33......... this one week shows how the other gospels extended the mission over 3 years in some attempt to make it all bigger,longer than it really had been.

The above shows how you wander from this debate to insult me in several ways. This shows how some Christians have descended, imo.

The Mother and brothers of Jesus were not close to him at all:-
Mark {3:31} There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. {3:32} And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. {3:33} And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? {3:34} And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

And on Nazareth....remember thev things that his family said about him?

You see? Once on my computer I can indeed access quotations to show you, but you need to understand that

Once on a Computer?

Hmm ok.

So all what you have said is from the NET and not from your own mind and reading of the scriptures?

That much I understand... NOW..!

A lot of what I say comes from my heart and my mind. I don't need a computer to do that.

 

[A_Son_of_God]

I don't think he Lied. Lets not no one fall out over this.

It's debate.. Each and every one of you has good and bad points. No need for animosity.

No, he actually lied. He knew it.

 

[Altair]

No, he actually lied. He knew it.

Fair enough.

 

[Altair]

About the Bible....For ME personally falls into HOW MANY GODS there are and How many Religions there are.

The point I'm trying to make is....Every person of Faith in their Religion is an Athiest about EVERY OTHER Religion.

This is a Correct statement from me.

Challenge me on this? Which is the right one and why?

 

[A_Son_of_God]

About the Bible....For ME personally falls into HOW MANY GODS there are and How many Religions there are.

The point I'm trying to make is....Every person of Faith in their Religion is an Athiest about EVERY OTHER Religion.

This is a Correct statement from me.

Challenge me on this? Which is the right one and why?

I actually like your thoughts on this. It is very important. You're in a good place in that you're not technically discriminating on any. So you're in a good place to start searching from.

So I won't challenge you on this. But I will say this though. If I - claiming to be a <place religion here> - have a book that I claim I follow as my instruction, but I don't follow what is in that book, that will define me as not actually being a <place religion here> if that book is so defined by that religion.

Based on that, one of the easiest ways to determine true from false is see who follows what is written in them, as opposed to those who don't, and that will eliminate a good 90% of religions as false.

What you do with each religion from there though, they're different exercises.