The Gospels are not Historical

[Maria]

W-H = Westcott/Hort

TR = Textus Receptus Correct, but they are blind. Westcott and Hort were unbelievers who are hostile to the TR. I read their answers toward God's Word.

The quotation by Bruce Metzger, an unbelieving editor of the UBS is here:

NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13 ... the meaning of the third line (they have pierced my hands anf feet) is obscure."

Does he believe the prophecy of Christ's cruifixion according to his notes on this verse? No, he does not.

He is absolutely wrong. It is NOT obscure, but it is the prophecy of Christ's cruifixion.

I have read about W-H's history. I was shocked when I read about them.

 

[Askjo]

I have read about W-H's history. I was shocked when I read about them.

After you are shocked when you read about them, how do you feel about 1881-5 ERV that they produced?

 

[Liza]

Excellent book! But I must warn you that Dan Brown stole almost everything from the Holy Blood book without really crediting the source. Shoddy scholarship. And I myself am even more skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I think you should open a new thread and we can hash it out until the cows come home!

Yes, I was aware about the plagarism and I can see this steering off topic already. Sounds fun, though, about doing the cow-reunion threads on "conspiracy theories."

Agreed! The map is not the territory and all that. That leads me to the heretical conclusion that a person can be a "christian" without having to convert to "christianity" first or by declaring the all-too-simple psychological ploy that Jesus is God and savior. The person must act like jesus did in the gospels, be able to practice the difficult art of turning the other cheek, being kind to enemies, and associate with disreputable people of the day. The rest (stuff like saying Jesus is my lord) is merely politics and grandstanding. Actions, not words.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote: my aunt, a devout catholic, desired to prove the truth of Christianity to me. But when she asked me if she could prove it to me, I told her then my belief would be no longer faith because faith doesn't rely on evidence or demonstration. She conceded my point and did not belabor her point.

By the way, you are espousing something dangerously close to Kierkegaardian fideism, or radical theology, circa 1840's.

Yes, it would seem that I were using the approximation argument re Kierkegaardian fideism. Thank you for bringing that up! Re your aunt's tale, I should use that on my mom, too. Heh heh.

I also can see the psychological side of this as well. More politics of the gospels, sorry.

Could it also be a possibility that folks of long ago... had to do whatever to survive in these dark times? Ie. Allowing themselves to be bullied into converting so they would have protection in that respect, and that even meant shallowing whatever those in power shoveled down their throats. It is similar to many of our upbringings, eh?

Terror can be a strong motivation when it's always in your face. We are programmed to believe the... whatever we have been taught by questionable sources and all.

It is an entirely different story when we choose a faith because we find ourselves passionate in the heart about it, not because we are whipped into believing it. No, I'm not talking about those who resort to the drama/game of "believers, unbelievers," although they would fit in the whipped category (terror, bullying, whatchacallit). That's another thing.

Perhaps, in conclusion... facts and faith are two completely different things, with all the factors of the psychological effect, need, risk, the idea of having to wait "forever" for all scientific/religious data to come in (evolution is that... change is the constant, even in science and religion). I say change in religion because we've seen the divisions in Church - I offer Lutherism, Episcopalism, all the differing denominations of Christianity, and different branches of Catholicism as examples of changes in religion.

Finally, perhaps - the Gospels, in any language and version, are just that... based on faith rather than fact. As it has already been mentioned, the antedote of Heretic's aunt tells us about the consequences of basing faith on evidence (passion argument; faith would be no longer faith (or just less valued) but it would be something else because fact with evidence would take priority to faith).

So, the more unproven faith is, the better! And it better stay away from being a scientific truth (we won't say that science is still always collecting data, and we are still learning about life through science either). Unless you mean your own truth (your unique perspective of what is true based on need or feeling), then that's probably a different story.



Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[The Heretic]

Weak.

Correct, but they are blind. Westcott and Hort were unbelievers who are hostile to the TR. I read their answers toward God's Word.

You keep slandering them as "unbelievers." I don't see anything that supports that slander.
I know this is a waste of time, but let me ask you something: which is the superior greek new testament, the "textus receptus" or the critical text of westcott and hort? and why? (Note: you can't beg the question)

At any rate, I doubt you understand much of textual criticism to be able to judge them as "hostile" and "unbelievers."

The quotation by Bruce Metzger, an unbelieving editor of the UBS is here: NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13 ... the meaning of the third line (they have pierced my hands anf feet) is obscure."
Does he believe the prophecy of Christ's cruifixion according to his notes on this verse? No, he does not.

Ah, this is a non sequitur. You jump to conclusions without reason. The fact that he said the meaning of the line is obscure does not mean he doesn't believe in the crucifixion.

Ergo, I'm still waiting for a direct quote that clearly indicates his unbelief, not some offhand comment about the psalms - which you, of all people, ought to know - is full of poetic language.

He is absolutely wrong. It is NOT obscure, but it is the prophecy of Christ's cruifixion.

Said the fundamentalist.

You're wrong, because i don't think you must interpret that psalm verse literally to be a christian. Plus, far too much would be riding on the correct interpretation of a single verse!

Bottomline: You have failed to supply direct evidence of Metzger's purported unbelief. You also have failed to answer my earnest questions here. Clearly, you are wasting everyone's time. :thumbd:

 

[Maria]

After you are shocked when you read about them, how do you feel about 1881-5 ERV that they produced?

Biblical Text Editor, Wescott is the son of Spiritualist --
a spiritualism activity. Wescott and his famed partner Hort were involved in the "Ghost Society" in the 1850's.

They both also worked together to discard the centuries-old Majority Text upon which the King James English Bible was based, replacin' it with a polluted text gleaned from manscripts provided by the Roman Catholic Church.

By the way, care to state what ERV stands for ?

 

[Askjo]

By the way, care to state what ERV stands for ?

W-H produced the first version - English Revised Version.

 

[Askjo]

You keep slandering them as "unbelievers." I don't see anything that supports that slander.

You denied the facts.

I know this is a waste of time, but let me ask you something: which is the superior greek new testament, the "textus receptus" or the critical text of westcott and hort? and why? (Note: you can't beg the question)

The TR is superior to the CT because of manuscript evidences.

At any rate, I doubt you understand much of textual criticism to be able to judge them as "hostile" and "unbelievers."

Again, you denied the facts.

Ah, this is a non sequitur. You jump to conclusions without reason. The fact that he said the meaning of the line is obscure does not mean he doesn't believe in the crucifixion.

Wrong!

Ergo, I'm still waiting for a direct quote that clearly indicates his unbelief, not some offhand comment about the psalms - which you, of all people, ought to know - is full of poetic language.

He answered his comments on the Scriptures reflecting to his unbelief. If he believes the Bible, he must believe in from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation. If he does not believe in the Book of Genesis, I am sure Moses would ACCUSE him.

You're wrong,

History disagrees with you.

You have failed to supply direct evidence of Metzger's purported unbelief. You also have failed to answer

I research for more than 15 years. The sources about Bruce's unbelief are very obviously factual, but you denied them.

:thumbd: That is why you are apostate and a heretic.

 

[Maria]

After you are shocked when you read about them, how do you feel about 1881-5 ERV that they produced?

How do I feel ? I felt they blasphemy against God and to distorted God's Truth, the Livin' Word. Let's look at the verses what it says about Satan's way to subtle Eve.

Genesis 3:1-5
"Now the serpent ( Satan ) was more subtl than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ?
And the woman said unto the serpent ( Satan ), We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Wescott and Hort were doin' the same thing what Satan did to Eve.

 

[LinuxGold]

I got a question....

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Notice the part "Correction" -- how can incorrect Bible correct us?

 

[Askjo]

How do I feel ? I felt they blasphemy against God and to distorted God's Truth, the Livin' Word. Let's look at the verses what it says about Satan's way to subtle Eve.

Genesis 3:1-5
"Now the serpent ( Satan ) was more subtl than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ?
And the woman said unto the serpent ( Satan ), We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Wescott and Hort were doin' the same thing what Satan did to Eve.

Good point! I agree with you. Do you know that Westcott and Hort were closet Catholics?

 

[Maria]

Good point! I agree with you. Do you know that Westcott and Hort were closet Catholics?

Yes, I am aware of them both were closet Catholics.

In fact, Westcott was a bishop in the Anglican church and Hort a Professor of divinity but both men had abandoned their Christian faith. Westcott formed a club while an undergraduate at Cambridge called Hermes. Hermes is another name for Satan and was bi-sexual or androgynous. These clubs were noted for the intensity of the homosexual relations between its members.
In 1851, Hort and Westcott started the Ghost Society which over the years included some of the most noted intellectuals in England including future Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. Balfour was at the center of an elite group which had inherited great political power, wealth and social position.
They were leaders in the occult revival of the 19th century and founders of the New Age Movement with Luciferian Helen Blatavsky.
Hort and Westcott were committed Communists. They hated America and democracy. There was a close tie between their occult group and Marxism in England. And under the leadership of the powerful Arthur Balfour they began working on what has become the one world religion and the New World Order.

A key strategy in bringing about this one world religion involved replacing the King James Version which was standard in their day with a revised text where words were added and removed and meanings changed. Hort and Westcott’s New Age Versions have virtually replaced the King James version today.

Not content with changing God’s word, Scofield’s credit reveals they also worked to change bible prophecy. Historicism had been the standard for 500 years. But the publication of the Scofield Bible resurrected the old Jesuit futurism with a Zionist twist.Today the policies of our country are dramatically influenced by futurism and Christian Zionism while few have even heard of historicism.

During the years they worked on the revised text they secretly met at night and held séances with their depraved society. These meetings were often held at Arthur Balfour’s residence or townhouse. They are acknowledged today as the fathers of modern channeling. Channeling involves inviting a familiar spirit or diving demon into ones body.
Channelers or mediums frequently end up in bondage with the occult. This practice is an abomination to God who warned that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils"... (1 Timothy 4:1) Men with familiar spirits in the Old Testament were to be put to death.

According to Scofield, the real influences behind the publication of the Scofield Bible were two men who were influenced or possessed by demons. Their motivation was not to glorify God but to bring about a New World Order with a New World Religion based on spiritualism.

( Readers : You may investigate all these information above through website by usin' Search in a blank box. You can start with the names of those people to check their background and history. )

 

[Vance]

To keep the Bible out of schools is to increase the crimes, more profanity, parental fighting, intellectual declining, more drugs, premartial sex, more prisoners, etc.

During the Bible was in schools in 1960's, they were low. Today they are high without the Bible in public schools.

That is quite hilarious that people still believe that shoving the Bible in our throats will solve the crimes and such. I guess that certain christians still refuse to acknowledge the hard fact that christians themselves does commit the crimes as much or less as other non-christians did. In conservative religious groups such as christians, molestation & child rape rates are higher than any kind of religious groups. See for yourself: http://www.skeptictank.org/clrabuse.htm and be sure to pick up this wonderful book too. Divorce rates is also higher in conservative christians/Baptists than any religious groups. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised. Oh btw, Dudes & Dudettes, Catholic isn't christianity. That's a fact. Here's my favorite statement:

What's easilly observed by the not-Christians in America is not so easilly seen by the Christians. This is true for many things which have their roots in ideologies and the sciences. Yet one of the worse artifacts of religion to face humanity in contemporary times is the increase in clergy abuse -- an abuse which is not located within any one church; an abuse from which no Christian church is exempt. (Claims that "my church has no such problems" are always proven false in time.)

Indeed.


As a doctor-student, it is easy to point out the hard fact that many people/believers included Askjo possibly refuse to realize or acknowledge. In 1960's, foods quality is considerable better than nowaday so therefore children & citizens behave somewhat better than present. It is common knowledge in health science & alternative medicine studies. There are numbers of studies proved my statement countless times (Someday, I will make a topic to connect the dots included evidences & hard facts). Bible or no Bible does not make any difference. It never did. Heck, I didn't study the Bible for long time and I behave much better than three conservative christians at my college who got arrested for excessive violence toward women sometimes ago (included sex harassment). That said all really. I will cover more about that in my new Theocracy (actually, it will be Theofascism) topic soon or later.

I found it very disturbing that some... certain AD'ers so quickly dismissed UN's sources and so quickly believed America's sources. Well, I visited few foreign countries and I know what I saw. I also want to show you a excellent example: http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/04/bush-bad-data-means-stop-publishing.html (I will create a topic about that in News topic asap). So which do you believe America's so-called 'sources' or your lying eyes? It is also quite frightening what I learned from these foreigners about America, i.e. News. There are much more going on about America than America's Corporate news seemingly refuse to cover or 'hide' the events. Huge thanks to Europeans & Japaneses for informations.

Evolution is not a proven "fact" and yet it is taught in schools.

Creationism is not a proven "fact" either and yet Religious Right aggressively force the teaching in the public schools too. So what's your point?


Heretic, sorry for derail this topic... let me back to this topic. Wonderful and informative topic as usual. I would say the same thing about Liza's posts too.

Concerning about one of your statement:

No Gospels or Jesus of Nazareth known in the 1st century

Wow, I would think that it is common knowledge in the 1st century about Jesus or Gospels. I found it very interesting. Thanks for contemporary references link. That's what I am looking for a while.

But I wonder about one thing in Bible and Turkey though. What about Noah's Ark? Yeah, it is highly possible that photographs are altered or 'photoshopped' to fit in christians' beliefs but it is also possible that it does exist?

Cheers.

 

[Askjo]

Yes, I am aware of them both were closet Catholics.

In fact, Westcott was a bishop in the Anglican church and Hort a Professor of divinity but both men had abandoned their Christian faith. Westcott formed a club while an undergraduate at Cambridge called Hermes. Hermes is another name for Satan and was bi-sexual or androgynous. These clubs were noted for the intensity of the homosexual relations between its members.
In 1851, Hort and Westcott started the Ghost Society which over the years included some of the most noted intellectuals in England including future Prime Minister Arthur Balfour. Balfour was at the center of an elite group which had inherited great political power, wealth and social position.
They were leaders in the occult revival of the 19th century and founders of the New Age Movement with Luciferian Helen Blatavsky.
Hort and Westcott were committed Communists. They hated America and democracy. There was a close tie between their occult group and Marxism in England. And under the leadership of the powerful Arthur Balfour they began working on what has become the one world religion and the New World Order.

A key strategy in bringing about this one world religion involved replacing the King James Version which was standard in their day with a revised text where words were added and removed and meanings changed. Hort and Westcott’s New Age Versions have virtually replaced the King James version today.

Excellent research on W-H! I had a research about them for passing a course at Bible college a few years ago. My research is called, "The Facts of The Westcott and Hort Deception." My opinion is that Westcott and Hort tried to "rewrite" the Word of God for replacing the KJV. That is why they produced a "new" bible namely, 1881-5 ERV (English Revised Version).

Not content with changing God’s word, Scofield’s credit reveals they also worked to change bible prophecy. Historicism had been the standard for 500 years. But the publication of the Scofield Bible resurrected the old Jesuit futurism with a Zionist twist.Today the policies of our country are dramatically influenced by futurism and Christian Zionism while few have even heard of historicism.

During the years they worked on the revised text they secretly met at night and held séances with their depraved society. These meetings were often held at Arthur Balfour’s residence or townhouse. They are acknowledged today as the fathers of modern channeling. Channeling involves inviting a familiar spirit or diving demon into ones body.
Channelers or mediums frequently end up in bondage with the occult. This practice is an abomination to God who warned that “in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils"... (1 Timothy 4:1) Men with familiar spirits in the Old Testament were to be put to death.

According to Scofield, the real influences behind the publication of the Scofield Bible were two men who were influenced or possessed by demons. Their motivation was not to glorify God but to bring about a New World Order with a New World Religion based on spiritualism.

( Readers : You may investigate all these information above through website by usin' Search in a blank box. You can start with the names of those people to check their background and history. )

Your essay here is new to me. I know little about Scofied. Thank you for informing me abut them. I will investigate them later.

 

[Codger]

Sexual misconduct is actually more common in the medical profession Magatsu. I don't see any studies looking into the theological connections of these people, so what they believe is hard to say.


Sexual Abuse in Professional Relationships


Sexual abuse in professional relationships. It grabs headlines, creates talk show fodder and leaves its victims mentally and emotionally shattered. And it happens more often than most people think. Most commonly reported between a patient and her (sometimes his) psychiatrist/psychologist/therapist, this misuse of power also occurs among lawyers, the clergy, doctors, dentists and teachers.


Just how widespread is the problem?

"There is substantial incidence of sexual contact between physicians of all specialties, and their patients,'' says the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The American Psychiatric Association suspends or expels an average of 12 members per year for various forms of patient exploitation -- most of them sexual.
A growing number of states have criminalized psychotherapist-patient sexual exploitation, including Wisconsin, Florida, New Mexico, Connecticut, Texas, California, Maine and Georgia.
One self-reporting survey reported that ``as high as 13.7 percent of male (therapists responding) and 3.1 percent of female respondents have engaged in some form of erotic contact with at least one patient.''
Like all victims of sexual abuse, the victim in this circumstance feels violated, betrayed, angry and ashamed. It makes no difference that the abuse may not have been a violent sexual assault. But when the abuser is a person in whom professional trust is placed, the betrayal is all the more bitter.


Why is sexual contact between a professional and his or her client unethical?

Legally, many professionals, including doctors, lawyers, professors and therapists, are considered in a ``fiduciary'' relationship with their client -- a relationship of trust, confidence or responsibility. A fiduciary relationship also denotes one party having less power than the other, with the more powerful party obligated to serve the best interests of the ``trusting'' party. Sexual contact compromises the judgment of the professional, and may harm the client, student or patient involved. Which is why it is considered unethical. While therapist-patient sex has long been prohibited, other professions, including medicine and law, have adopted ethical rules forbidding such contact. In many cases, the courts have held the professional liable for the harm caused by the relationship.

http://www.kgrs.com/info/abuse.htm

Shove a bible down your throat? A bit melodramatic, don't you think? If someone "forced" the bible on you (such a by posting their opinions and beliefs in a thread about religion), you certainly do not have to respond to it, much less mock the people who believe differently than you. ( "That is quite hilarious "). We might as well make fun of your lack of grasp of the proper written English language. That would be neither fun nor funny.

You are quite correct that reading the bible does not make a person either moral or a Christian. And many people practice "churchianity" but are a long way from being Christians. Just as reading a dictionary and well written medical and other books books does not make a person accomplished in the use of the written language.

I read the skeptic site, but there was no link to the source for the opinions posted there except this disclaimer: "The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page." The authorship was not noted.

U.N., European, and Japanese sources are not infallable either. Shall we point out historical evidence of Nanking? Serbia? WWII Europe? Africa? Phillipines? The WORLD has problems. There is no magic nation, tribe, race, occupation that is immune to immoral excesses. And every news source must be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of it's nation of origin.

Evolution is taught as a fact, not theory. Just as the whole global warming is taught as being man's sole fault as a fact. Creation is not taught in schools, as fact or theory.

There have been many theories about Noah's ark over the years. I remember one a few years ago in which the "discovery" was supposed to be in an Arab country, and entry into the area was forbidden. The hypothesis was that the actual mountain was not the one we in modern times call Arararat in Turkey, but another one. I am skeptical that any such artifact will ever be found. But who knows? It would be neat if someone did fing a large boat 17,000 feet up on a mountain. But what would be left after so many thousand years? I dunno.

 

[Reba]

...Evolution is taught as a fact, not theory. . .Creation is not taught in schools, as fact or theory.

You are right. I have worked in public government schools, and I have seen and heard what they teach. Creation science is not taught in the government schools even here in "the Bible Belt." The only way our children get any Creation science teaching is by attending private Christian schools, homeschooling, family discussion, or at church.

There have been many theories about Noah's ark over the years. .. I am skeptical that any such artifact will ever be found. ..

I too, am skeptical of finding any remains of the ark. To me, it is better NOT to find artifacts and relics of Biblical events and people. That just puts emphasis on the material rather than the spiritual. Do we really need to see pieces of the ark on eBay? It is bad enough that unscrupulous vendors in the Holy Lands have sold slivers of wood from Jesus' cross for hundreds of years, and that various churches keep the bones of saints around for worship. Just my opinion, that God doesn't want us to find the body of Moses, the bones of Joseph, the cross of Jesus, the ark of Noah, the Garden of Eden, the Ark of the Covenant, the goblet from the Last Supper, etc., because He doesn't want people to worship those things, or ascribe special "powers" to those objects. Just my theory.

 

[Maria]

Excellent research on W-H! I had a research about them for passing a course at Bible college a few years ago. My research is called, "The Facts of The Westcott and Hort Deception." My opinion is that Westcott and Hort tried to "rewrite" the Word of God for replacing the KJV. That is why they produced a "new" bible namely, 1881-5 ERV (English Revised Version).
Your essay here is new to me. I know little about Scofied. Thank you for informing me abut them. I will investigate them later.

Sure thing. Welcome anytime !

 

[Crazymanw00t]

I lost to keep track with all of your comments. Oh well.

 

[Codger]

.....I too, am skeptical of finding any remains of the ark. To me, it is better NOT to find artifacts and relics of Biblical events and people. That just puts emphasis on the material rather than the spiritual.....Just my opinion, that God doesn't want us to find the body of Moses, the bones of Joseph, the cross of Jesus, the ark of Noah, the Garden of Eden, the Ark of the Covenant, the goblet from the Last Supper, etc., because He doesn't want people to worship those things, or ascribe special "powers" to those objects. Just my theory.

We are in agreement on this. Frauds pop up from time to time like the stone sarcophogus recently that was carved ".....brother of Jesus". It was proven a fraud. I read long ago about a famous dictator who was obsessed with the occoult. One of his most sought after objects was the spear used to pierce Jesus' side on the cross. Legend has it that whoever posesses it will have special powers to rule men. And we know of the searches for the Ark of the covenent, the grail, etc. I do not think God wants us to base our faith on objects.. "Idols". Lord knows we have enough in our lives as it is. I would not be surprised if God arranged for all these things to dissapear in the fog of history. The Grail, cup of the Last Supper, portrayed as solid gold and jewel encrusted was probably a lowly alabaster or bronze cup that was long ago relegated to the melting pot or buried beneath the rubble of some invading army. Faith that needs physical proof is not faith. Perhaps this is a hard thing for people without faith to understand. "I will believe it when I can touch the holes pierced in His hands".

 

[The Heretic]

A glutton for punishment

You denied the facts.

What facts? All I see is character assassination. Please provide a direct quote. Well, perhaps you are using the wrong word, “facts.” Even if a textual critic does not subscribe to your version of Christianity, that doesn’t necessarily make him an “unbeliever.” And that, my alldeaf.com interlocutor, is a fact.

The TR is superior to the CT because of manuscript evidences.

*buzzer* I’m afraid that’s incorrect. The superior text is the New Testament that most closely preserves and presents the precise original wording of the original Greek language of the New Testament.

Again, you denied the facts.

I don’t think so. First the fact will have to exist before I can deny it. And I am still convinced you don’t know the first thing about textual criticism. There are many methods in textual criticism: the traditional ones like historico-critical, form, source, and redaction criticism, as well as newer ones like social-scientific, structuralist, post-structuralist, and feminist criticisms. And get this through your thick head: Not all of them are hostile to Christianity. Hell, some of them invented hermeneutics!

Wrong!

Why not? You presume your interpretation to be superior to a bible scholar, who probably can read the original Hebrew language the Psalms were written in.

He answered his comments on the Scriptures reflecting to his unbelief. If he believes the Bible, he must believe in from the Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation. If he does not believe in the Book of Genesis, I am sure Moses would ACCUSE him.

Um, I don’t think your brand of fundamental Christianity is the only one out there. There are many shades of Christians who see differently, interpret the divinity of Christ differently, and I wouldn’t call them unbelievers.

Bottom line: You do not have a monopoly over what Christianity means. If someone doesn’t exactly agree with your narrow, parochial view, then they’re automatically “unbelievers.” Well, if they call themselves Christians, then your definition is actually a prejudiced version of Christianity, and that is your own personal preference, personal bias. When you learn how to not use prejudiced or biased definitions of words, you will communicate better, debate better, and generally, get along with people better.

History disagrees with you.

Sacre bleu! I didn’t know history could talk. Can you tell it to come check out my posts on why the gospels are not historical? Maybe he has something intelligent to say.

I research for more than 15 years. The sources about Bruce's unbelief are very obviously factual, but you denied them.

No, you only established that you didn’t like what he said. You seem to be missing this point: the fact that he finds a verse to be obscure does not prove his unbelief. May I suggest you to try something more substantial this time, instead of reaching for straws that doesn’t exist?

That is why you are apostate and a heretic.

Not really, but I don’t think you really want to know why.

 

[The Heretic]

Wow, I would think that it is common knowledge in the 1st century about Jesus or Gospels. I found it very interesting. Thanks for contemporary references link. That's what I am looking for a while.

Yes, the assumption of common knowledge is not backed up by any evidence besides the efforts of apologists who heroically stretch every possible evidence to support their religious beliefs. I originally wrote the OP for deaf madness, but since their administrator and I had a falling-out, I posted it here instead.

But I wonder about one thing in Bible and Turkey though. What about Noah's Ark? Yeah, it is highly possible that photographs are altered or 'photoshopped' to fit in christians' beliefs but it is also possible that it does exist?

Yes, it’s possible that there’s a large wooden boat on the top of the mountains in Turkey. It's also entirely possible that it may have nothing to with the account of the Flood in the bible. Even if we do discover such an object, does that necessarily mean the only true version of the flood myth is reported by the book of Genesis? What if it confirms the older mythology of Sumer or Babylon? Does this mean a dead mythology is about to be resurrected by fair-weather fanatics?