Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe so. 🙂 That is like saying that the first part of "Gone With The Wind" agrees with the last part, therefore, "Gone With The Wind" is the word of God. 🙄
* is that a joke? jester 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The problem is the misuse of the word proof.
* there were prophesies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ in the New Testament... the OT serves as a proof of what Christ fulfilled, the word was not misused... glare
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not saying that the bible is all lies.
* but a mythology is, yet you always consider Bible as a myth... now you say the Bible is NOT all lies? you got double-standards, ya know... laughing
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I am saying is that if you talk about prophecy, you can't talk about proof, because there is none.
* the proof of the prophesy is the fulfillment... and the proof of the fulfillment is the prophesy... it goes hand in hand, in this scenario... thumbsup
Originally posted by debbiejo
Only accruing to your doctrine......not all..so what become of the others?
* to my doctrine? no, it's in according to the entirety of the Bible itself... 😉
American Heritage Dictionary
mythNOUN:
1
a A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.2 A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3 A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4 A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).
The Bible does constitute a myth. It fulfills definitions 1 and 2. Also, many Christians consider many stories in the Old Testament to be fictional in illustrating a spiritual truth, this makes parts of the Bible, depending on the view of the reader, a myth by definition 3. Definition 4 is not completely in line, but to fit the term myth only one of the definitions need fit. The Bible constitutes myth without offense to a belief in its accuracy.
Couldn't quote the other and get the definition, sorry for the repost.
Originally posted by peejayd
* is that a joke? jester 😆
No. The bible was written and interpreted by people who changed the bible to fit their needs.
* there were prophesies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ in the New Testament... the OT serves as a proof of what Christ fulfilled, the word was not misused... glare
Again this is just your interpretation. There maybe a lot of people who agree with you, but the truth is not swayed by numbers of people.
* but a mythology is, yet you always consider Bible as a myth... now you say the Bible is NOT all lies? you got double-standards, ya know... laughing
A myth is not always a lie. The bible is a mix of fact, fiction and myth. Unfortunately we have not idea what is what for certainty.
* the proof of the prophesy is the fulfillment... and the proof of the fulfillment is the prophesy... it goes hand in hand, in this scenario... thumbsup
Post-diction; similar to prediction but all of the facts a put together after the said prophecy was fulfilled. In other words, if history had unfolded differently then the prophecy would have been interpreted differntly.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. The bible was written and interpreted by people who changed the bible to fit their needs.
* changed? what was changed? the Bible was only translated and revised many times but the essence of its entirety is still intact...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again this is just your interpretation. There maybe a lot of people who agree with you, but the truth is not swayed by numbers of people.
* not my interpretation... the Bible itself proves it... there were prophesies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ in the New Testament... the OT serves as a proof of what Christ fulfilled...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A myth is not always a lie. The bible is a mix of fact, fiction and myth. Unfortunately we have not idea what is what for certainty.
* here's the meaning from http://www.dictionary.com/
1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
1. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).
* is half-truth/fiction true or not? myths are fiction, Bible isn't...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Post-diction; similar to prediction but all of the facts a put together after the said prophecy was fulfilled. In other words, if history had unfolded differently then the prophecy would have been interpreted differntly.
* what was different? even history states that they really is a Pontius Pilate and a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in his time... 😉
Originally posted by peejayd* here's the meaning from http://www.dictionary.com/
1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
1. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).
* is half-truth/fiction true or not? myths are fiction, Bible isn't...
You are forgetting the Bible only has to meet a single one of those definitions to classify. Not all four. Some people (I will admit I am one of them) believe it could easily cover point 1,2 and 4. However even if one is to believe it is real, it still most certainly falls under 1 and 2.
Originally posted by peejayd
* changed? what was changed? the Bible was only translated and revised many times but the essence of its entirety is still intact...
The bible is an old and well used book, to think that people have not changed to over the many years is naive.
* not my interpretation... the Bible itself proves it... there were prophesies in the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Christ in the New Testament... the OT serves as a proof of what Christ fulfilled...
The bible cannot prove the bible. To say this it proves its self is circular logic.
* here's the meaning from http://www.dictionary.com/1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
1. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).
I am aware of the meaning and I used the word correctly.
* is half-truth/fiction true or not? myths are fiction, Bible isn't...
Again that is your belief. You cannot prove the bible to be 100% fact, therefore, myth is the appropriate term. Please do not take offence for none is meant.
* what was different? even history states that they really is a Pontius Pilate and a certain Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in his time... 😉
I’m sorry if my abstract analogy was confusing to you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is an old and well used book, to think that people have not changed to over the many years is naive.
* then prove what was changed...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible cannot prove the bible. To say this it proves its self is circular logic.
* but in this case, it can...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am aware of the meaning and I used the word correctly.Again that is your belief. You cannot prove the bible to be 100% fact, therefore, myth is the appropriate term. Please do not take offence for none is meant.
* no offense done... we just got different opinions...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I’m sorry if my abstract analogy was confusing to you.
* i'm not confused, i got your point... i stated another point and did not answer to your abstract analogy... my point is: even the history recognized the existence of Jesus... 😉
Originally posted by peejayd
* then prove what was changed...* but in this case, it can...
* no offense done... we just got different opinions...
* i'm not confused, i got your point... i stated another point and did not answer to your abstract analogy... my point is: even the history recognized the existence of Jesus... 😉
The existence of Jesus does not prove that he was divine.
I’ll try again: If I say the sky is green, and insist that you should prove that it is not, then wouldn’t I be unreasonable?
The burden of proof is on you. I do not care that you believe in something I do not, I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Shaky,
What do you think when you read say... Isaiah 52 and 53 or Zechariah 12 and 13(I think 13 has prophecies too)? They are an exact description of Jesus Christ, his life, and the implications of his coming. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. You might. My other question is why do you think Isaiah and Zechariah (and Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, and David for that matter) would make such prophecies? Do you really think they made it up to serve their purposes? I certainly think that it would be childish, pointless and waste of time to do so. I believe that there was definitely purpose and a driving force (God) behind all they wrote because that would be most logical. The prophets were humans and humans do not write prophecies like they did for no reason. Most prophecies concerning the Messiah concern different parts of his existence, life and implications, yet Jesus fulfills them all. Even if Jesus were trying to meet the requirements of prophecy as an imposter it would have been impossible to meet them all (I am extremely convinced of this). This is why I find it logical to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and why I believe it to be proof. Proof I find is based more in the eye of the beholder than in actual fact.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Shaky,
What do you think when you read say... Isaiah 52 and 53 or Zechariah 12 and 13(I think 13 has prophecies too)? They are an exact description of Jesus Christ, his life, and the implications of his coming. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. You might. My other question is why do you think Isaiah and Zechariah (and Moses, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, and David for that matter) would make such prophecies? Do you really think they made it up to serve their purposes? I certainly think that it would be childish, pointless and waste of time to do so. I believe that there was definitely purpose and a driving force (God) behind all they wrote because that would be most logical. The prophets were humans and humans do not write prophecies like they did for no reason. Most prophecies concerning the Messiah concern different parts of his existence, life and implications, yet Jesus fulfills them all. Even if Jesus were trying to meet the requirements of prophecy as an imposter it would have been impossible to meet them all (I am extremely convinced of this). This is why I find it logical to believe that Jesus was the Messiah and why I believe it to be proof. Proof I find is based more in the eye of the beholder than in actual fact.
Jesus used the prophesies to gain political power, in his day. Jesus knew the OT and used it to his advantage.
The connection you see is superficial and the bible has been changed to make it seem more coherent. This doctrine has evolved over time and the bible has been altered to reflect that doctrine.
Please tell me about all gospels that were left out of the bible. If you read them, and I have read some of them, they paint a totally different teaching of Jesus.
This is my evidence:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
Please take the time to read it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus used the prophesies to gain political power, in his day. Jesus knew the OT and used it to his advantage.The connection you see is superficial and the bible has been changed to make it seem more coherent. This doctrine has evolved over time and the bible has been altered to reflect that doctrine.
Please tell me about all gospels that were left out of the bible. If you read them, and I have read some of them, they paint a totally different teaching of Jesus.
This is my evidence:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
Please take the time to read it.
Shaky, the gnostics put positive twists on things that happened in the bible. They should not be taken as a credible source for what happened during those times. They use events in the bible to teach different philosophies contradicting OT teachings. For instance, they believed that the apple in adam and eve was an apple of knowledge and when he ate the apple it was good because he learned the difference between wrong and right, rather than the teaching that he just disobeyed god. So Jesus would have obviously a different persona according to these other gospels. The gnostics were the biggest movement of christianity initially after christs death and thats why there are so many, but eventually the catholic church prevailed with their teachings.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Shaky, the gnostics put positive twists on things that happened in the bible. They should not be taken as a credible source for what happened during those times. They use events in the bible to teach different philosophies contradicting OT teachings. For instance, they believed that the apple in adam and eve was an apple of knowledge and when he ate the apple it was good because he learned the difference between wrong and right, rather than the teaching that he just disobeyed god. So Jesus would have obviously a different persona according to these other gospels. The gnostics were the biggest movement of christianity initially after christs death and thats why there are so many, but eventually the catholic church prevailed with their teachings.
The Gnostics were the truth church of Jesus. The Catholics were a blend of Jesus and other religions in Rome at the time. The Catholics prevailed because of money and power, not because of anything else.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Gnostics were the truth church of Jesus. The Catholics were a blend of Jesus and other religions in Rome at the time. The Catholics prevailed because of money and power, not because of anything else.
it is disputed though at this point and to say that it is the truth of Jesus Christ, i ahve to disagree. There is not much evidence about Jesus christ as we speak nor any of his actions. They aren't consistent with the OT, so if Jesus was the messiah, then the gnostic gospels are most likely false, or a twist of the real story. Yes the catholics did prevail because of money and power at that point and because they were corrupt. I just want to say to everyoen now that the catholics of today shoudl nto be judged by the actions fo our predecessors because they were corrupt many times, but order has restored and the churhc of today is like any other church, except its about 100 times bigger