Originally posted by sailormoon
I don't think Marchello said that. He's saying he has proof that the book is basicall the original. He's saying he has proof the bible has not been corrupted over the years. He didn't say Chrisianity was the true religion or he had proof God exists. He's saying there is an original Bible.
There isn't of course. There's factually people that chose some gospels over another.
Originally posted by leonheartmmSource?
all evidence is to the contrary. the bible is a forgery of untrue, made up, misshapen, manipulated, edited, and mistranslated events, gossip and fantasies all brought together in a self contradictory, anti historic and linguistically misshapen book which does not deserve to even be called one.
not one but many. compare stories, claims{of miracles etc, noah's flood, battles etc} with historical records of the time. youl find definite contradictions.
im kinda lost. for which of the claims are you asking a source for???
these things have also been discussed on multiple threads here ever sinc ei came. look em up.
the very existance of the character of jesus is a dubious fact. the bible is a collection of over 180 books. of which around 90 are generally chosen to be compiled nito what you call the king james/new international version.
these books were chosen by constantine{who was himself a sun worshipper} for his political ends. to unite the empire with one strict philosophy. MANY opposing books were burnt and thrown away. the church was foremost in these endavours. it was NOT an organisation of christ's wishes but of PAUL. its motivations were purely political. very few opposing texts{which were also as authetic as the bible of today and had VERY opposing views of the whole relegion and christ himself as divine and whatnot} u find some like the gospel of judahs even now which survived.
furthermore the gospels THEMSELVES, are written as you well know, by SAINTS, and the revelations THEY recieved and the things THEY wished to put in as historical facts. in the bible itself, less than one or 2 percent of all content is actually that from the mouth of christ himself{the RED LETTER BIBLE, which atleast has a POSSIBILITY of being christ's own teachings}. all else is content from the SAINTS. furthermore the conten has more logical contradictions than can be counted{tens of thousands with ease}. also, it is all{new testatment} in greek not christ's tongue. furthermore it has been translated many times and many fabrications continue to exist because of churche denominations which were even taken out as beng fake by christian scholars and put back in due to only the opposition of TWO church denominations{im talking about the only verses which HINT towards trinity} furthermore concepts like trinity, rapture, and jesus being the son of god in the literal sense dont even EXIST in the bible as it is. not to mention him DYING at the cross.
there is also the fact that jesus in the red letter, proclaimed that he didnt come to destroy the commandments of old. yet the non red letter bible teaces things other than the old testament.
reasons why there never was a true BIBLE ot begin with. its all made up.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the very existance of the character of jesus is a dubious fact. the bible is a collection of over 180 books. of which around 90 are generally chosen to be compiled nito what you call the king james/new international version.these books were chosen by constantine{who was himself a sun worshipper} for his political ends. to unite the empire with one strict philosophy. MANY opposing books were burnt and thrown away. the church was foremost in these endavours. it was NOT an organisation of christ's wishes but of PAUL. its motivations were purely political. very few opposing texts{which were also as authetic as the bible of today and had VERY opposing views of the whole relegion and christ himself as divine and whatnot} u find some like the gospel of judahs even now which survived.
furthermore the gospels THEMSELVES, are written as you well know, by SAINTS, and the revelations THEY recieved and the things THEY wished to put in as historical facts. in the bible itself, less than one or 2 percent of all content is actually that from the mouth of christ himself{the RED LETTER BIBLE, which atleast has a POSSIBILITY of being christ's own teachings}. all else is content from the SAINTS. furthermore the conten has more logical contradictions than can be counted{tens of thousands with ease}. also, it is all{new testatment} in greek not christ's tongue. furthermore it has been translated many times and many fabrications continue to exist because of churche denominations which were even taken out as beng fake by christian scholars and put back in due to only the opposition of TWO church denominations{im talking about the only verses which HINT towards trinity} furthermore concepts like trinity, rapture, and jesus being the son of god in the literal sense dont even EXIST in the bible as it is. not to mention him DYING at the cross.
there is also the fact that jesus in the red letter, proclaimed that he didnt come to destroy the commandments of old. yet the non red letter bible teaces things other than the old testament.
reasons why there never was a true BIBLE ot begin with. its all made up.
WTF? I am real! Are you doubting such existence? HELL FOR YOU MY CHILD! 😠
Originally posted by leonheartmmChrist's existence is pretty much written in stone. Scholarship is nearly perfect agreement on that fact. To say otherwise is pretty much rambling idiocy. The King James Bible is 66 books and the Roman Catholic bible is hardly more, 72 going off the top of my head.
the very existance of the character of jesus is a dubious fact. the bible is a collection of over 180 books. of which around 90 are generally chosen to be compiled nito what you call the king james/new international version.these books were chosen by constantine{who was himself a sun worshipper} for his political ends. to unite the empire with one strict philosophy. MANY opposing books were burnt and thrown away. the church was foremost in these endavours. it was NOT an organisation of christ's wishes but of PAUL. its motivations were purely political. very few opposing texts{which were also as authetic as the bible of today and had VERY opposing views of the whole relegion and christ himself as divine and whatnot} u find some like the gospel of judahs even now which survived.
furthermore the gospels THEMSELVES, are written as you well know, by SAINTS, and the revelations THEY recieved and the things THEY wished to put in as historical facts. in the bible itself, less than one or 2 percent of all content is actually that from the mouth of christ himself{the RED LETTER BIBLE, which atleast has a POSSIBILITY of being christ's own teachings}. all else is content from the SAINTS. furthermore the conten has more logical contradictions than can be counted{tens of thousands with ease}. also, it is all{new testatment} in greek not christ's tongue. furthermore it has been translated many times and many fabrications continue to exist because of churche denominations which were even taken out as beng fake by christian scholars and put back in due to only the opposition of TWO church denominations{im talking about the only verses which HINT towards trinity} furthermore concepts like trinity, rapture, and jesus being the son of god in the literal sense dont even EXIST in the bible as it is. not to mention him DYING at the cross.
there is also the fact that jesus in the red letter, proclaimed that he didnt come to destroy the commandments of old. yet the non red letter bible teaces things other than the old testament.
reasons why there never was a true BIBLE ot begin with. its all made up.
The books were not chosen by Constantine. This is a pure falsehood. The canon was decided at the Council of Nicea where Constantine was not present and was not a voting member, but nice try.
The motivations of the church are not purely political. You will have to back that up more substantially because there were churches well before the time of Constantine. Also, the structure of the church remained unchanged in the time of Constantine. Constantine used religion as a political tool which is far different than the church being politically motivated. Did the church take advantage of their new found freedom in a malicious way? Yes, but that has nothing to do with Constantine or the validity of the church.
Jesus dying on the cross is definitely in the Bible, you'll have to back up the outrageous claim that it isn't. Furthermore, all three concepts exist, perhaps not in the commonly known form, but they are there with 100% certainty.
Jesus spoke Greek with nearly 100% certainty as he was known to quote the Septuagint almost exclusively and taught in the synagogues. He also spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. So you have another fail there.
Furthermore, the "saints" that wrote the NT were apostolically supported or were apostles themselves. They had nothing to gain from adding their own words at all. You'll have to give some explanation as to why they would do that if you want to hold that claim. Especially considering each apostle carried the same message all over the Roman Empire unchanged and before the writing of the Bible and were martyred for their beliefs (except John). What political advantage was their to willingly being martyred? None, therefore your argument fails.
Jesus didn't come to destroy the commandments and he did not. Christ built on the law and extended salvation to the Gentiles who are not bound to the law as per the Old Testament. Therefore, Christ did not contradict the Old Testament and you are arguing from ignorance.
Please try again when you have done REAL research from CREDIBLE sources not some anti-Christian ranting garbage website.
Originally posted by sailormoon
I don't think Marchello said that. He's saying he has proof that the book is basicall the original. He's saying he has proof the bible has not been corrupted over the years. He didn't say Chrisianity was the true religion or he had proof God exists. He's saying there is an original Bible.
He has always said that The Bible is 100% true, and that all other religions are false.
He has claimed completely the existance of Heaven, Hell, and that all who disagree with him will burn there.
You must be new, because you obviously know very little about him.
Re: The Bible: did the Bible evolve over billions of years?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Did the Bible evolve over billions of years? Why or why not. Why do some people believe that this is not possible. I do not believe that the Bible evolved in any way, I am just making a point. Why do you believe that the Bible could not evolve? Isn't the Bible matter just like everything else? But you believe that simple, inorganic matter evolved into complex, inorganic matter which ultimately evolved into complicated life right? Well, why couldn't the Bible be a product of inorganic matter evolving into a more complex state? We have fossils (i.e. manuscripts). Maybe the Bible is still evolving from inorganic matter. Maybe one day it will evolve into a person. How do you know that this is or is not possible?
Not a bad post.
It is known to us that Thor, the mightiest of the Skyfathers barring only his one eyed father, Thor, the most powerful of the Odinson, will give us the strength we need to destroy the individuals who believe that a book can be a person!
Let their blood stain my labor cap (rag) that I wear in Honor of the Guardian of Asgard. For when the twilight of Ragnarok is upon us, would a walking book be able to sunder the helms of Giantkind or wield Mjolnir in the face of the mighty World Serpent Jörmungandr? I think not. Those who hold firm in their beliefs or a living scripture and the divinity of Yeshua shall also have their blood spilled and not see the splendor that is Valhalla.
May the Thunder God's Strength reflect through me, for I shall use it for what causes he would justify. Let those who, beknowest to them or not, follow the treachery of Loki and the Giants perish at the end of my battle ready hammer as my last breth fades and I am escorted by the Valkyries to Asgard as you, oh mighty Thor, will defeat and die in battle against the Serpent of Midgard.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He has always said that The Bible is 100% true, and that all other religions are false.He has claimed completely the existance of Heaven, Hell, and that all who disagree with him will burn there.
You must be new, because you obviously know very little about him.
What a fool! How can the Bible be true? If Yeshua were truly the son of a God his prowess in battle would surely extend beyond casting out dove sellers from a Temple as would his pride. No, it cannot be. For Thor is one of the true Gods, and the one I choose to pay homage to. It cannot be denied. How would my prowess be so great if I did not labor for the Thunder God? How would it be raining right now? How would the moon be sundered by Thor's hammer Mjolnir each month and grow back? Where would those who fell in epic battle ascend to if not Valhalla, the Great Hall of the Father of Victory Odin?
All questions with no answer, for the path of Thor I follow is a true one.
Originally posted by jollyjim311
What a fool! How can the Bible be true? If Yeshua were truly the son of a God his prowess in battle would surely extend beyond casting out dove sellers from a Temple as would his pride. No, it cannot be. For Thor is one of the true Gods, and the one I choose to pay homage to. It cannot be denied. How would my prowess be so great if I did not labor for the Thunder God? How would it be raining right now? How would the moon be sundered by Thor's hammer Mjolnir each month and grow back? Where would those who fell in epic battle ascend to if not Valhalla, the Great Hall of the Father of Victory Odin?All questions with no answer, for the path of Thor I follow is a true one.
You are no different from JIA, but I think thath was your point. 😉
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
He has always said that The Bible is 100% true, and that all other religions are false.He has claimed completely the existance of Heaven, Hell, and that all who disagree with him will burn there.
You must be new, because you obviously know very little about him.
Yeah, I am. I was speaking based on that particular post.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the very existance of the character of jesus is a dubious fact. the bible is a collection of over 180 books. of which around 90 are generally chosen to be compiled nito what you call the king james/new international version.these books were chosen by constantine{who was himself a sun worshipper} for his political ends. to unite the empire with one strict philosophy. MANY opposing books were burnt and thrown away. the church was foremost in these endavours. it was NOT an organisation of christ's wishes but of PAUL. its motivations were purely political. very few opposing texts{which were also as authetic as the bible of today and had VERY opposing views of the whole relegion and christ himself as divine and whatnot} u find some like the gospel of judahs even now which survived.
furthermore the gospels THEMSELVES, are written as you well know, by SAINTS, and the revelations THEY recieved and the things THEY wished to put in as historical facts. in the bible itself, less than one or 2 percent of all content is actually that from the mouth of christ himself{the RED LETTER BIBLE, which atleast has a POSSIBILITY of being christ's own teachings}. all else is content from the SAINTS. furthermore the conten has more logical contradictions than can be counted{tens of thousands with ease}. also, it is all{new testatment} in greek not christ's tongue. furthermore it has been translated many times and many fabrications continue to exist because of churche denominations which were even taken out as beng fake by christian scholars and put back in due to only the opposition of TWO church denominations{im talking about the only verses which HINT towards trinity} furthermore concepts like trinity, rapture, and jesus being the son of god in the literal sense dont even EXIST in the bible as it is. not to mention him DYING at the cross.
there is also the fact that jesus in the red letter, proclaimed that he didnt come to destroy the commandments of old. yet the non red letter bible teaces things other than the old testament.
reasons why there never was a true BIBLE ot begin with. its all made up.
where exactly is your source?
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
you speak facts of no kind.Prove that God exists. Use facts to back up your argument.
Prove that Christianity is the true religion, and is absolutely infallible. use facts to back up your argument.
Prove that Jesus was resurrected. Use facts to back up your argument, not Biblical quotes.
The Bible is [b]not
factual. If it is, then prove that it is.Otherwise, be quiet. [/B]
***Evidently, from your hostility, you do not believe there is a God. Therefore, I will go on that premise.
(A)To say that you believe there is no God has problems. On what would you be basing your belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
(1)If EVIDENCE, then what positive evidence is there that DISPROVES God's existence?
(a)There can be NO such evidence since evidence is physical in nature [i.e., EVIDENCE is an EFFECT and/or RESULT of something in REALITY]. How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
(b)Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but NO ONE can rightly testify that God does not exist.
(2)If lack of evdence, then it means he has NOT yet seen ALL evidence and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheistic position is INCONSISTENT with his statement.
(3)If logic then WHAT logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
(a)At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does NOT mean there is NO God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are INSUFFICIENT.
(b)Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is a refutation of all possible proofs...since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does NOT disprove God's existence.
(c)If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist...it has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since NO PROOF of God's NON-EXISTENCE has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
(4)If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
(5)If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
(B)For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are NO logical proofs that God does NOT exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
Marchello