RED DAVE

From Magus55:About that thing you xtians call the New Testament. What do you call that besides changing scripture?

RED DAVE

Celsus

Let's get back on topic.

Joel

demoninho

'Cause we don't have this holy spirit(TM) thingy guiding us, so we don't understand the true meaning ie. all these confabulated ad hoc explanations

Weltall

Would Magus care to tackle the topic of the gospels taking elements from each other and adding to them? How about the fig tree parable, you can't tell me they're the same story. One is clearly a later modification of an earlier story.

Calzaer

It's worth noting that many of the solutions to Biblical contradiction come from Catholic oral tradition. Since the Early Christians compiled the canon based on which books fit with the oral tradition and which books didn't, this is a perfectly acceptable and understandable path to take. "No, it doesn't say that, but the tradition this is based on says..."

Protestants, on the other hand, have no leg to stand on. They steal willy-nilly from Catholic oral tradition (The snake is Satan? Satan rebelled against God and was cast out with 1/3rd of his angels before the creation of man?) while denouncing other parts of it... which breaks the irony meter entirely, since the original breakup was over Luther's idea of sola scriptura, that being the Bible contained everything necessary to interpret it within its own text and the oral tradition was COMPLETELY unnecessary.

What protestants are doing right now is creating their own oral tradition, which basically makes them backwards Catholics. At least Catholic oral tradition had the benefit of advice from people who, you know, talked to Jesus personally.

Amos

"Backwards Catholics" is funny but about right. I'd even say that they are galloping in the wrong direction and you know what? Catholics have saints in heaven with whom the whole world is eager to communicate. I am thinking here of their literature and the unspoken message that is contained in their works of art.

B. H. Manners

Since Christians use how it could-have-been-scenerios to supposedly solve contradictions in the Bible, I have formed some how-it-could -have-been scenerios myself.


As you know Jesus, according to the Gospels, was taken to the Temple at age twelve where the religious doctors were greatly impressed with his wisdom.

Well, when he was 15 he had a discussion with a group of the most renowm alchemists of his day: the subject---life in outer space. Jesus said "Ye Fools, you doubt that there is life on other worlds, but I say the Father is above your foolish speculations and has created many worlds with life." Since it could have happened, you Christians have to accept it.


Here is another: Jesus was walking to Jerusalem with his disciples and they asked him about the parable of the workers. they were angry at Jesus for teaching that it was right to pay a man the same pay who only worked half as much as the other doing the same job. Jesus rebuked their hard hearts "You have ears, but do not hear. My parable was not meant to justify unfair wage practices and the taking advantage of workers. It was meant to show how the father in heaven is merciful and makes sure all that seek him shall live with him in heaven, regardless of how long that person had a chance to serve him in this world. Anyone who perverts the meaning of my parables shall be accursed and damned to hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm dyeth not". Hey, it could have happened so I am going to go around teaching it did.

orac

The second you say "this particular verse means this particular thing" then you have added to scripture - specifically, you have added your own interpretation. Maybe God personally tells you what it means - but adding your own words to God's inspiration isn't much better than adding words to scripture.

If you pay close attention, you'll notice many different christians interpret the bible in many different ways. In fact, you yourself have a particular interpretation that differs from many respected and devout christians. Unfortunately, you have added your explanations to scripture on many occasions, while trying to teach us poor atheists. Simply quoting the bible wasn't enough - you used your own words, your own understanding and your own meaning to express what you believe to be true.

What did you say about doing that? Isn't it forbidden?

Still, the fact that you only read the bible in it's original languages, and not in any of the modern english translations is quite impressive. It's a pity you can't add anything to scripture by translating it for the rest of us, because we wouldn't want you to risk adding new meaning to sentences that don't have adequate translations.

Magus55

Ok, now spend the next 30 years of your life spreading that message around all over the world, teaching everyone you come in contact with, and then get crucified upside down, and I'll believe you.

HereLiesTheBible

Magus you are aware that your handle, Magus, is synonimous with that of the Zoroastrian priesthood, which happens to be, non-christian.