A re-examination of nothing

[Floatingaxe]

God has never made any statement about homosexuality. All God has ever said is he wants us to love and accept each other. This is completely compatible with homosexuality.

More denial. God has said plenty about homosexuality and you have had it presented ad nauseum.

The problem is not found in God's word, but rather in disbelief on the part of all homosexuals.

 

[Floatingaxe]

You are agreeing with anti-gay doctrine, and not God, for the record, and everyone reading this thread can see as fact, THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME.

Actually, Christians can see and read plainly that I am not arguing with God in any way. He tells it like it is, and so do I. Homosexuality is a forbidden thing. It has no merit, nor good fruit. It is a dead end, and leads a person away from God and not to Him. It is a satanic stronghold in a life and needs to be delivered of.

 

[davedjy]

There is no confusion on my part. The truth is, there is no debate. The word of God is clear on this issue, but homosxuals continue to wriggle and squirm and pick apart Scripture like no other group in history to get it to say what they are wrongly convinced of.

God will never agree with the homosexual rebellion. In the end you will discover that. Yes, your argument is with the Almighty God, who is holy and calls us to live holy lives. Homosexuals will not comply with that.

Using phrases like "Clear on the issue", and "in the end you will discover that", are AGAIN, not examples of credible debate points.

If God was so clear on the issue, why is it you have yet to prove any translation or historical context in your favor? Using phrases like "God's Word is clear on the issue" are not debate points that actually work.

Homosexuals do comply with a holy life, God does not discriminate, THAT would be incompatible with His Word.


Oh BTW here's another fun-filled fact you have yet to address:

FACT: there isn't any viable translation of the word "homosexual" in the Hebrew OR Greek language.

God's word is clear only with your misperceived biases.

Please don't respond to my posts, until you actually have the knowledge to address translations AND/OR interpretations, with the original language, instead of these blanket statements that don't hold any merit.

 

[davedjy]

but homosxuals continue to wriggle and squirm and pick apart Scripture like no other group in history to get it to say what they are wrongly convinced of.

...yet the humorous nature of this post suggests that you can actually:

1) Prove that ONLY the homosexuals themselves are the ones who use these highly credible interpretations (which is highly false).

2) Prove that the Pro-gay theology is false, which you haven't demonstrated in the least way

 

[savedandhappy1]

Appreciate you taking the time to follow up... and now I can't find it either

Don't want this to sound bad but so glad you can't find it either, because I really thought I was having a major senior moment.

But to recap, (and correct me if I'm wrong) weren't you saying that the meat and drink laws are repealed because there is a specific Bible verse that repeals them, right?

Oh, ok yes I believe I posted the scriptures from Romans 14.

Romans 14:13-23
13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

If this is the case, why do we not observe so many other OT Bible laws that do not have a repealing passage?If you are open to the possibility that "rape" is an incorrect translation of a word in the original, are you open to the possibility that "homosexual" might be an incorrect translation?

The possible translation problem was only for the scripture that stated that if a man rapes a woman who isn't betrothed then he must marry her. ( if I'm remembering correctly) I came across it some time when I was looking up something else, and made a mental note about it. I was hoping to go back and do a good study of the verse, but never had the time, then I forgot until you mentioned it.

We are talking about more than one verse if we are going to say that homosexuality is an incorrect translation and not mentioned in the Bible. Romans 1 doesn't even use the two words that so many have problems with. In fact it is just 1 Cor. 6 that have the questionable words, and like I told OllieFranz, if it was the only scripture that spoke of homosexuality then I could understand the confusion and questioning. It isn't the only scripture though, and so even taking out 1 Cor. 6 doesn't cancel out Romans, Timothy, Jude, etc. When we take the Bible as a whole then I can't deny what it says about homosexuality.

I know that you probably won't believe me, but I have studied this issue alot before I started debating and have continued to studied. I am open to read others ideas and explanations for why they believe the way they do. I do this prayerfully not so I can have things like davidjy calls clobber statements or whatever term he uses, but so that I am not misunderstanding the scriptures and God instructions to us.

I am not here to beat anyone over the head or so I can say I am right and you are wrong like it is some game and I'm some little kid going na na na na. Or of some mind set that points are given out everytime I do this or that. This is not a game to me, to me it is a matter of life and death, and I take it very seriously.

I will go and research and study to try my best to answer the questions you have raised. It is getting late so I will try to get back with you and OllieFranz sometime Saturday. I am on call for the hospital from 7AM Sat. till 7AM Sun., but will do my best to get with you both tomorrow.

Good Night.

 

[davedjy]

It isn't the only scripture though, and so even taking out 1 Cor. 6 doesn't cancel out Romans, Timothy, Jude, etc. When we take the Bible as a whole then I can't deny what it says about homosexuality.

Timothy uses the same word that 1 Cor. 6:9, does, so yes, that would be a dual cancellation.

Jude is not even a credible debate passage against homosexuality. It was used in the past, but there are problems with addressing that as a passage against homosexuality (such as it being about the angelic visitors that came to earth, hence the term "strange flesh").

 

[Floatingaxe]

...yet the humorous nature of this post suggests that you can actually:

1) Prove that ONLY the homosexuals themselves are the ones who use these highly credible interpretations (which is highly false).

Huh? You use highly INCREDIBLE interpretations, which have no merit and have been manipulated to say what you want them to say. Highly suspect of truth. True.

2) Prove that the Pro-gay theology is false, which you haven't demonstrated in the least way

It is proven in Scripture. No need to create deeper holes for yourselves by looking for more and more words that will childishly change what God means. That you refuse to hear God's own voice reveals a lot. There is nothing a born again Christian can say that can reveal any more truth than God's word. As you appear deafened to His voice, all we can do is pray that the Holy Spirit hasn't yet been quenched and left you.

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[savedandhappy1]

Your article states this, however, this does not mean that it is a fact. It still does not address going against one's own instincts and inclinations.


The point is, the customs of the time were brought into account. Do you believe a man with long hair is shameful or that it is unnatural? Paul never said that a homosexual will not inherit the kingdom of God, and I guess it bears repeating to an unknown translation that you are referring to of a different passage (Arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9). Paul's understanding of nature was based on Stoic philosophy, and it isn't the one we use now. Paul always associated the word "nature" with cultural heritage and religious teachings, which is why I made the comparison.


Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

Not speaking about 1 Cor. 6, and have explained in post to OllieFranz and I believe you, (so I'm sure you have read it already) that even if 1 Cor. 6 is taken out of the Bible, there are still plenty of scriptures that speak of homosexuality.

Maybe you should read OllieFranz information on, Law by Plato, and then maybe you will see there are simularities to the use of the Greek words that are used for nature/natural by Paul. So it isn't a big leap to believe that Paul would have used words that the people he was writing to would have understood, but you don't have to believe it.

Again, Romans 1 doesn't use the clobber words you are so centered on. It plainly says man.................you know what it says not going to re-state it or re-post it.

It has plenty of bearing, even though you may wish to ignore it. Customs, and historical context must be taken into account, as well as the perspective of the original author. You and some of the other anti-gay arguers like to cling to a false translation, which at the least has been proven to be unknown, THAT is confusion.

Doesn't appear that I ignored your question since I answered it, sorry if you don't like the answer.

Romans 1 isn't mistranslated and I have reseached alot on the scriptures just like alot of others have here. You can say 1 Cor. is a false translation all you want, that doesn't make the other scriptures null and void even if it is.

If so many of the scriptures have been proven mis-translated and/or proven that Jesus never said then frankly we are all in trouble, because that sure makes any scriptures that say how a person needs to be saved and what it takes to get saved so uncertain. So uncertain that we all need to live in fear of our very own salvation.

Yes, there is confusion alot of confusion, thats what happens when we start making everything ......................................nm.

Good night.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Timothy uses the same word that 1 Cor. 6:9, does, so yes, that would be a dual cancellation.

Jude is not even a credible debate passage against homosexuality. It was used in the past, but there are problems with addressing that as a passage against homosexuality (such as it being about the angelic visitors that came to earth, hence the term "strange flesh").

As I started to say in post 108. To make homosexuality alright we pretty well have to discredit the whole Bible.

Let's see 1 Cor is wrong, 1 Tim. is wrong, Jude is wrong, Romans is wrong, and most of what Jesus is credited with saying in the 4 gospels has been proven wrong. Hmmmmmmm that pretty well takes care of 7-8 books of the Bible we can throw out, because how can we trust any part of those books now?

So much is said in them about salvation, so now we can't be sure about that, and can we even believe the birth, life, death and resurrection stories? Did God even send His son? Does God even love us? How will we ever know since we have taken away so many books that help teach us about our Lord and Saviour?

We hear how the Bible isn't the inspired word of God, it is man made so has errors. This pretty well takes away the scriptures that tells how all knowing, and powerful God is because He isn't able to keep His word pure.

Don't have much Bible left now, so we should just throw it away. I would pray about all these things but Jesus interceding for us probably isn't true either, and will He even hear me and care, because now I can't believe the scriptures that say He will never leave us or forsake us.

Everyday I see more and more people chipping away parts of the Bible because it doesn't go along with the God they want or the life they want to live.

Good night

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As I started to say in post 108. To make homosexuality alright we pretty well have to discredit the whole Bible.

I sincerely disagree. I see no way in which a loving, monogomous homosexual relationship is in any way incompatible with Christ's teachings.

It MAY (depending how you feel about the translation) be incompatible with a part of Leviticus and a part of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, but:
A. Thats hardly the whole Bible
B. There are rational reasons to accept that these passages are not relevant to us today.

 

[davedjy]

Huh? You use highly INCREDIBLE interpretations, which have no merit and have been manipulated to say what you want them to say. Highly suspect of truth. True.

Prove even one of them has been "manipulated". I have already proved that your favorite translation: "homosexual" is a manipulation, and a breaking of Biblical exegesis, a rule breaker.

You also haven't proved that any interpretation I have posted doesn't have any merit. Try again.

It is proven in Scripture. No need to create deeper holes for yourselves by looking for more and more words that will childishly change what God means. That you refuse to hear God's own voice reveals a lot. There is nothing a born again Christian can say that can reveal any more truth than God's word. As you appear deafened to His voice, all we can do is pray that the Holy Spirit hasn't yet been quenched and left you.

This isn't about me, but since you can't debate with me, you have to resort to bringing up my personal walk with God. AD HOMINEM. Not a debate point. There isn't anything "childish" about fair and equal treatment. No person with any sense of reason would call gays or lesbians "childish" for being the way they are.

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Gays and lesbians have not been given over to a reprobate mind, and that isn't what Paul was saying. Those people were given over to a reprobate mind for their idolatry to graven images of birds, reptiles and mortal man (Romans 1:23).

Not speaking about 1 Cor. 6, and have explained in post to OllieFranz and I believe you, (so I'm sure you have read it already) that even if 1 Cor. 6 is taken out of the Bible, there are still plenty of scriptures that speak of homosexuality.

...none that prove a monogamous same sex relationship is sinful, and no, there aren't plenty. You are left with your faulty interpretation of Romans 1 and Leviticus...that's it.

Maybe you should read OllieFranz information on, Law by Plato, and then maybe you will see there are simularities to the use of the Greek words that are used for nature/natural by Paul. So it isn't a big leap to believe that Paul would have used words that the people he was writing to would have understood, but you don't have to believe it.

The problem is, it's irrelevant without seeing the big picture about what Romans 1 is REALLY about, which isn't homosexuality. It is about people who were malicious idolaters that God gave up to complete depravity for worshiping graven images. They were turned over to complete spiritual ruin.

Again, Romans 1 doesn't use the clobber words you are so centered on. It plainly says man.................you know what it says not going to re-state it or re-post it.

Already examined, and already posted why I don't believe it is referring to what you believe.

Romans 1 isn't mistranslated and I have reseached alot on the scriptures just like alot of others have here. You can say 1 Cor. is a false translation all you want, that doesn't make the other scriptures null and void even if it is.

Never said any Scripture was null and void, just your interpretation there of is questionable and open to debate, just like mine is.
Btw, after 1 Cor. 6:9, you are really only left to two other passages...Leviticus and Romans, and that's it.

If so many of the scriptures have been proven mis-translated and/or proven that Jesus never said then frankly we are all in trouble, because that sure makes any scriptures that say how a person needs to be saved and what it takes to get saved so uncertain. So uncertain that we all need to live in fear of our very own salvation.

I never said that so many Scriptures have been proven mistranslated, only 1 Cor. 6:9.
I believe you are confusing "mistranslated" with interpretation.

As I started to say in post 108. To make homosexuality alright we pretty well have to discredit the whole Bible.

I don't see how that could possibly be the case. Now that you mention that, it is no wonder you believe what you do about homosexuality. If that were true we wouldn't have credible pro-gay theologians, and we do.

Let's see 1 Cor is wrong, 1 Tim. is wrong, Jude is wrong, Romans is wrong, and most of what Jesus is credited with saying in the 4 gospels has been proven wrong. Hmmmmmmm that pretty well takes care of 7-8 books of the Bible we can throw out, because how can we trust any part of those books now?

You aren't even debating if you are saying that my argument is that these passages are "wrong". What I'm saying is 1 Tim and 1 Cor. use the same false translation, and humorously, they don't always translate out the same way. Did I say Jude was "wrong", NO! I said Jude is not referring to homosexuality. I never said that Romans was wrong, I said that your interpretation of it is wrong.

So much is said in them about salvation, so now we can't be sure about that, and can we even believe the birth, life, death and resurrection stories? Did God even send His son? Does God even love us? How will we ever know since we have taken away so many books that help teach us about our Lord and Saviour?

You've created a straw man argument, I never said that the Bible was wrong, just your interpretation of these passages is. The only 2 passages of Scripture I said were mistranslated were 1 Tim and 1 Cor. 6:9, since they use the same Greek word.

I deleted the rest of your quote, since you don't seem to really grasp the concepts that are presented to you. Instead of realizing your interpretation could be flawed, you think what I'm really saying is that the Bible is filled with erroneous information, which is not what I said.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I sincerely disagree. I see no way in which a loving, monogomous homosexual relationship is in any way incompatible with Christ's teachings.

It MAY (depending how you feel about the translation) be incompatible with a part of Leviticus and a part of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, but:
A. Thats hardly the whole Bible
B. There are rational reasons to accept that these passages are not relevant to us today.

Everyday in DoH I read posts that say this scripture is mis-interpretated or we don't really know the meaning of this word or that word. So far I have heard that Romans isn't right and neither is 1 Cor. or 1 Timothy. So since Paul wrote these books logic would say that none of Paul's writings can be trusted. If they can be trusted we then hear that Paul was a bully for saying homosexuality is a sin, just another attempt at discrediting Paul, which then discredits a good part of the NT.

Then I hear that most of what Jesus's is quoted as saying has been proved to be a lie, so that takes care of the four gospels. Looking at the above statements/beliefs we have pretty well gotten rid of or discredited most of the New Testament.

I won't even post all the statements made to discredit the OT, or to discredit anyone who believes what the OT says. It would just make an already long post longer, but I do have to ask if I am the only one who sees how this can't be anything but an attempt by the great deceiver to cause confusion and doubts?

I found the article below, when I was doing some research and thought it made alot of sense, so I thought I would post it while I continued my research.

If I hear it taught that Paul does not condemn homosexuality in the New Testament, but rather that he was referring to man-boy physical relationships common in his culture, how can I know whether or not that claim is true? Answer: by comparing Scripture with Scripture. This interpretation is easily refuted by Romans 1:27, which states, 'And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.'

This is fallacious. All that is being said here is that when there are contradictions in scripture, choose an interpretation that resolves the contradiction! This, of course, presupposes that the passages in question *must* be right. The correct order should be to independently validate the passages, then, if they both must be right (which is unlikely, if they contradict or are contrary to each other), then attempt to examine the conflict itself to resolve it. The usual resolution to such things is the modification of either passage (which means they weren't right) or the inclusive of additional information. The solution presented here is neither, simply choosing the reality that glosses over the contradiction, thus the reader learns nothing and simply sticks their fingers in their ears lest they actually learn something.


"Scripture also clearly states, 'We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' No prophecy of the Scripture, either foretelling [prophesying the future] or "forthtelling" [proclaiming what Scripture means or has to say about a certain issue], is of private interpretation. That puts a stop to those who would say, 'Well, this verse means this to me, but it may mean something else to you. The Bible just means different things for different people.' Wrong. You have no Biblical right to interpret something to fit your bias or to interpret it apart from the rest of Scripture. The task in Biblical interpretation is not assigning a meaning to a passage, but, rather, discovering what a passage means.

More poetic nonsense. Why is it necessary to discover "what a passage means"? Why doesn't it just say what it means? Why is interpretation necessary? Why is the book written in such a way that lends itself to contrary private interpretations? Why is not an unbiased, objective interpretation obvious?

In regards to literal or metaphorical interpretation, simply take the Bible literally unless you have some reason to take it
metaphorically. This is what we all do with every other written work. Why deviate from that pattern when interpreting the Bible? For example, words such as 'like,' 'as,' '[something] is [something else],' which are examples of similies, metaphors, etc., should be taken allegorically. Thus, when Jesus says, 'The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field,' (Matthew 13:44) we know to take this figuratively because of the word 'like.' The best rule of thumb is: Always take the Bible literally unless there is some obvious reason not to.

"So, to say 'Because there are so many claims to truth, one cannot know what really is true,' is wrong. Jesus clearly stated, 'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.' (John 8:32) Some Christians may respond to this verse with the old maxim, 'God said it, I believe it, that settles it.' Wrong. What we should say is, 'God said it, that settles it, I hope you believe it!' The Bible makes it clear over and over again that certainty is vital. Why believe in something that is anything less than 100% convincing? Thus, you're statement to the effect, 'We can't know where we're going after we die, so just live the best that you can,' flies in the face of both logic and sound reason. Human beings want, no demand, certainty.

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/08633bb992465ef8

EnemyPartyII and OllieFranz, I haven't forgot that I owe post to both of you. I have already started my day early by being called to the hospital, so ask for patience. I am working on your post.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

More poetic nonsense. Why is it necessary to discover "what a passage means"? Why doesn't it just say what it means? Why is interpretation necessary? Why is the book written in such a way that lends itself to contrary private interpretations? Why is not an unbiased, objective interpretation obvious?

because a literal, non interpretive reading of the Bible would have us all disowning our parents, and selling all our posessions and giving the money to the poor

 

[Floatingaxe]

It is so very foolish to hinge one's whole life and lifestyle on one's personal interpretation of one or two verses which go against the majority of scholarly interpretation.

What a waste. Everything that one gleans from the word of God is therefore tainted by that erroneous understanding.

A homosexual who believes this crap has put all his/her eggs in one basket and is now hanging everything on the premise that God is pleased with his/her exigesis. He's not. He hates it. He withdraws from such people. They are out of step with Jesus Christ and Christianity and have become apostatic.

The arguments presented with all the fancy lingo mean NOTHING. They are fabrications and manipulations, and any normal Christian, from newbie to mature, can see through the lies.

May God have some mercy on you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The arguments presented with all the fancy lingo mean NOTHING. They are fabrications and manipulations, and any normal Christian, from newbie to mature, can see through the lies.

since you are such a Biblical literalist... when are you going to sell all your posessions, give the money to the poor, so you can follow Christ as he commanded?

 

[Floatingaxe]

since you are such a Biblical literalist... when are you going to sell all your posessions, give the money to the poor, so you can follow Christ as he commanded?

You need to be educated in the word. Your puerile interpretations need grounding, and that requires faith, and relationship with Jesus Christ through His Holy Spirit. Spend time with God rather than mocking His kids.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You need to be educated in the word. Your puerile interpretations need grounding, and that requires faith, and relationship with Jesus Christ through His Holy Spirit. Spend time with God rather than mocking His kids.

sorry... so, is "sell all you own and come follow me" the correct, literal translation, or not?

 

[Floatingaxe]

sorry... so, is "sell all you own and come follow me" the correct, literal translation, or not?

Jesus wasn't telling us to do such a thing. He was telling the young man to do such a thing. Literally.

Now I shall leave you to your biblical studies.

 

[savedandhappy1]

because a literal, non interpretive reading of the Bible would have us all disowning our parents, and selling all our posessions and giving the money to the poor

Would it? Or would it just remind us that God should be first in our lives, and that anything we put above Him is wrong?

The Bible tells that the "church", meaning those who are Children of God, are to take care of the poor, fatherless and orphans, right?

Also, why did God tell the man to sell his posessions? Wasn't it because it kept him from totally surrendering to the Lord? Wasn't it because money/wealth was his god? We should look at that whole scripture in context, which shows us that the man was following all the commandments, so he ask what else he needed to do to be born again. We notice then that he was told to sell all his possessions and follow Jesus. The man then walk away very sad because he was very rich. The scriptures tell us that you can't worship money/wealth and God, because you will hate one and love the other. So to this man his wealth was a form of idolatry, which then leds to other sins as we are told many times in the Bible. The biggest problem is the separation it causes between God and him/us.

So again, when taking the scriptures as a whole we understand what is being said, as compared to pulling a scripture out here and there, which can cause confusion and doubt.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Gays and lesbians have not been given over to a reprobate mind, and that isn't what Paul was saying. Those people were given over to a reprobate mind for their idolatry to graven images of birds, reptiles and mortal man (Romans 1:23).

I have posted more then once the Greek break down of verse 27, where we see that He "therefore also gave them up too", so see no reason to post it one more time.

You've created a straw man argument, I never said that the Bible was wrong, just your interpretation of these passages is. The only 2 passages of Scripture I said were mistranslated were 1 Tim and 1 Cor. 6:9, since they use the same Greek word.

I deleted the rest of your quote, since you don't seem to really grasp the concepts that are presented to you. Instead of realizing your interpretation could be flawed, you think what I'm really saying is that the Bible is filled with erroneous information, which is not what I said.

Nope no strawman, just what I see being done daily in DoH as I posted.

Everyday in DoH I read posts that say this scripture is mis-interpretated or we don't really know the meaning of this word or that word. So far I have heard that Romans isn't right and neither is 1 Cor. or 1 Timothy. So since Paul wrote these books logic would say that none of Paul's writings can be trusted. If they can be trusted we then hear that Paul was a bully for saying homosexuality is a sin, just another attempt at discrediting Paul, which then discredits a good part of the NT.

Then I hear that most of what Jesus's is quoted as saying has been proved to be a lie, so that takes care of the four gospels. Looking at the above statements/beliefs we have pretty well gotten rid of or discredited most of the New Testament.

I won't even post all the statements made to discredit the OT, or to discredit anyone who believes what the OT says. It would just make an already long post longer, but I do have to ask if I am the only one who sees how this can't be anything but an attempt by the great deceiver to cause confusion and doubts?

I didn't even bother to mention how some believe that Jesus didn't raise from the dead, and so many other comments/belief used to discredit the Bible so that................nm