Is the Bible Without Error?

[jimmyjimmy]

I'm a disciple of Jesus, of his original teachings. I belive he is the Christ. One would have to ask which Christian doctrine as there are thousands.

This AV1611vet is not an honest person. When cornered he doesn't do well. He's anti-fact and anti-science, it's in his signature. NOTE, he chose an anti-Christ skeptic site discussing atheist Martin Gardner's critique of the Urantia Book instead of anything specifically from the book. That's what dishonest Baptist do when they aren't burning books.

The only help that Christ provides for sinners is in His perfect life and death on our behalf. If you reduce Christ to just a moral teacher, following His teachings, absent from faith in His sacrifice for your sins, will only lead one straight to condemnation.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Jesus and the 12 didn't go from town to town preaching "kill Jesus as a sacrifice for your sins".

Of course not. He had already been crucified. They were urging faith in His blood over faith in one's obedience to the law s the only way to peace with God, and I believe their witness.

 

[Colter]

The only help that Christ provides for sinners is in His perfect life and death on our behalf. If you reduce Christ to just a moral teacher, following His teachings, absent from faith in His sacrifice for your sins, will only lead one straight to condemnation.

Jesus lived for the cause if salvation making the way more clear. God has always been forgiving. Killing an innocent God wasn't needed. Your theoretical human sacrifice doctrine is your own business.

 

[Colter]

Of course not. He had already been crucified. They were urging faith in His blood over faith in one's obedience to the law s the only way to peace with God, and I believe their witness.

The people believed in his "good news" gospel long before the cross. The good news of the original gospel was different than the theoretical human sacrifice doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm a disciple of Jesus, of his original teachings.

Like these?

Here are some things Urantia teaches:

1. Prayer is not to be attempted until one has "exhausted the human capacity for human adjustment." In addition, "words are irrelevant to prayer."
2. The biblical doctrine of atonement (Hebrews 9:22) "unnecessarily encumbered Christianity with teachings about blood and sacrifice."
3. The home is seen as a "sociological institution," and the belief that marriage is a sacred state is called "unfortunate." "Deity is not a conjoining party" in marriages that dissolve.
4. Mankind's parents were named Andon and Fonta, who procreated Sontad.
5. Adam, Solomon, and David were not in the direct line of ancestry of Joseph, the father of Jesus.
6. Jesus adopted the term "Son of Man" at age fifteen after reading a passage in the so-called Book of Enoch.
7. During his twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth years on earth, Jesus toured the Roman world, accompanied by the natives from India.
8. The indwelling Christ is not essential to salvation, since "Jesus does not require his disciples to believe in him but rather to believe with him."

Source: Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Jesus lived for the cause if salvation making the way more clear. God has always been forgiving. Killing an innocent God wasn't needed. Your theoretical human sacrifice doctrine is your own business.

Clearly AV was correct about you.

Your views are not aligned with The Nicene Creed, that is certain.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then why did Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, and Habakkuk mention it?

They didn't, they used the word שאול.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Like these?

"Original teachings" was a red flag.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The people believed in his "good news" gospel long before the cross. The good news of the original gospel was different than the theoretical human sacrifice doctrine.

Yes. they did. The gospel which was first proclaimed in Genesis 3, and it even foretold of the death of Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Original teachings" was a red flag.

I noticed that too!

 

[AV1611VET]

They didn't, they used the word שאול.

-CryptoLutheran

"Borrowed"!?

 

[Colter]

Clearly AV was correct about you.

Your views are not aligned with The Nicene Creed, that is certain.

That's not true, but you are unable to address the original gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. So abveously you have to create straw men.

 

[Colter]

Yes. they did. The gospel which was first proclaimed in Genesis 3, and it even foretold of the death of Christ.

Salvation by faith has always been the Gospel. But some of the Jews lost sight of that fir the same reason you don't believe it either. So they turned to Pagan sacrifices which suited the temple profiteers nicely. After Jesus left Pagan sacrifices emerged again.

 

[Colter]

Like these?

While those things are true they don't mention the gospel of the kingdom of heaven; salvation by faith in the Father followed by the responsibility that comes with being a child of God.

 

[Colter]

Mark 9:38-42

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I forgot how weird, Controversial Christian Theology could be.

 

[Lazarus Short]

What's that have to do with anything?"Hell" appears some 50+ times in the KJB, from Deuteronomy 32:22 to Revelation 20:14.I'll take your word for it.

I never heard of "Hel" until just now.Then why did Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, and Habakkuk mention it?

Why did you chop my post up in reply?

Why did you leave out the most important part of my post?

You must know that if I quoted your reply, the disjointed nature of it would make reply more difficult, so I won't.

I think it is a tactic.

Please re-read my earlier posts if you have problems with what I am trying to say.

FYI, Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, and Habakkuk used the word "sheol," as you MUST know, if you know your Bible at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI, Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, and Habakkuk used the word "sheol," as you MUST know, if you know your Bible at all.

Well, if they did, then SHEOL means HELL.

As I said earlier, the King James translators had a lot of correcting to do, didn't they?

I've said this many times, and it bears repeating:

Where the King James Bible differs from the originals, the originals are wrong.

That's because Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, and Habakkuk didn't write the originals ... they wrote the autographs.

The originals are copies of the autographs.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Well, if they did, then SHEOL means HELL.

As I said earlier, the King James translators had a lot of correcting to do, didn't they?

I've said this many times, and it bears repeating:

Where the King James Bible differs from the originals, the originals are wrong.

That's because Job, Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jonah, and Habakkuk didn't write the originals ... they wrote the autographs.

The originals are copies of the autographs.

"Sheol" does not mean "Hell," in the sense of a place of eternal, conscious torment, and how can you be unaware of that? Your position is that the KJV translators corrected all mistakes and laid down a perfect translation, yes? We will never be on the same page if you really believe this, and you seem to: "Where the King James Bible differs from the originals, the originals are wrong."

I see no point in reading your posts in future, or in responding to them. Good day to you, sir.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Sheol" does not mean "Hell," in the sense of a place of eternal, conscious torment,

Fair enough.

I'll take your word for it.

I don't care if SHEOUL means COCA-COLA.

If the King James translators wrote HELL over the word SHEOUL, then more power to them.

... and how can you be unaware of that?

It doesn't matter if I'm aware of it or not.

I don't need to be aware of it.

I don't care if SHEOUL means PEPTO BISMOL.

I'm not the one who sat in the seat of a King James translator and wrote the word HELL.

The King James Bible says it, that settles it.