the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

[yashua]

I was'nt aware Jesus was pagan?

Lending credence to Romans and Greeks regarding "gods" and such really does'nt do much for me.

neither does L.Ray Smith.

<><

You apparantly didn't understand the whole point of what was said. Jesus did not teach "eternal torment." If you would truly go and study the subject out and search to "see if these things be so" you would have to take a long hard look at the "religion" you serve. While the jews were in captivity they had plenty of pagan ideas introduced to them and they embraced many of the concepts one of which was "eternal torment." It's no small wonder that today "Gods chosen people" still embrace the same ideas about God as did "Gods chosen people (the religious leaders) of jesus' day. Most of christianity today still think that Jesus came to "appease an angry God" and that is so pagan influenced you would have to be blind not to see that it comes right from the roots of paganism. Unfortunantly people are blind because of the hardness of their hearts as the scripture declares "God has given them eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear!

And the only thing you dont like about the sites I posted "L. Ray Smith" being one of them is that they might challenge your "religion" that you have so embraced to be the ultimate source of truth for your understanding of God.

A bit of wisdom from Thomas Thayer.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It matters not by what name a man is called, whether Pagan, Jew, or Christian; nor matters it at all where the lot of life has fallen to him, whether in a land over which broods the night of heathenism, or on which rests the radiant light of the Gospel. He is still a man, though a Christian; he is born, lives, and dies; he thinks and feels, hopes and fears, rejoices and sorrows, after the manner of all other men. Hence, if the Christian believe in a cruel religion, believe in it with all his heart, it will make him cruel; it will certainly harden his heart. If he believe in and worship a God of a merciless and ferocious character, this will eventually be, visibly or invisibly, his own character. If he believe the God of the Bible hates any portion of mankind, or regards them with any dislike or displeasure, he also will come to hate them, and to entertain towards them the same feelings which he supposes reside in the bosom of God. If he believe that God will, in expression of those feelings, or for any reason, devote them to flame and torture hereafter, it is natural and necessary that he should infer it would be, for the same reason, acceptable to God that he should devote them to flame and torture here. And if the degree of civilization and the condition of society shall permit; or, in other words, if no power from without prevent, he will assuredly do this, as a most acceptable offering to Heaven; and to the utmost of his power will conform to what he believes to be the disposition and wishes of God in this respect.[/font]

 

[gort]

yashua quotes:

You apparantly didn't understand the whole point of what was said. Jesus did not teach "eternal torment." If you would truly go and study the subject out and search to "see if these things be so" you would have to take a long hard look at the "religion" you serve.

You might want to revue some of the posts here regarding eternal torment , and what it is exactly Jesus did teach about everlasting torment and where their "worm dieth not".

I don't serve religion.

Most of christianity today still think that Jesus came to "appease an angry God" and that is so pagan influenced you would have to be blind not to see that it comes right from the roots of paganism. Unfortunantly people are blind because of the hardness of their hearts as the scripture declares "God has given them eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear!

That would be your opinion. Please not to accuse me thusly. thanx

And the only thing you dont like about the sites I posted "L. Ray Smith" being one of them is that they might challenge your "religion" that you have so embraced to be the ultimate source of truth for your understanding of God.

I hold the word of God as my ultimate source of understand, taught by the Holy Spirit. And not by men. L.Ray Smith being one of them.

It matters not by what name a man is called, whether Pagan, Jew, or Christian; nor matters it at all where the lot of life has fallen to him, whether in a land over which broods the night of heathenism, or on which rests the radiant light of the Gospel. He is still a man, though a Christian; he is born, lives, and dies; he thinks and feels, hopes and fears, rejoices and sorrows, after the manner of all other men.

Perhaps Mr. Thayer does'nt understand what being reborn by the Spirit of God really means. If one is reborn, he certainly does'nt do it "after the manner of all other men."

Hence, if the Christian believe in a cruel religion, believe in it with all his heart, it will make him cruel; it will certainly harden his heart. If he believe in and worship a God of a merciless and ferocious character, this will eventually be, visibly or invisibly, his own character. If he believe the God of the Bible hates any portion of mankind, or regards them with any dislike or displeasure, he also will come to hate them, and to entertain towards them the same feelings which he supposes reside in the bosom of God. If he believe that God will, in expression of those feelings, or for any reason, devote them to flame and torture hereafter, it is natural and necessary that he should infer it would be, for the same reason, acceptable to God that he should devote them to flame and torture here. And if the degree of civilization and the condition of society shall permit; or, in other words, if no power from without prevent, he will assuredly do this, as a most acceptable offering to Heaven; and to the utmost of his power will conform to what he believes to be the disposition and wishes of God in this respect.

How sad.

Mr. Thayer forgets that God desires all to come to repentence and the knowledge of a saving God. Surely something that one who is reborn by the Spirit of God would have an understanding about.


thanx for your reply.



<><

 

[Dottie]

And I will add, that whether you are able to wrap

your brain around this fact or not, and accept that it does NOT matter in the least that you think "JOHN LIGHTFOOT WAS AN ACCOMPLISHED HEBRAIST, does not change the fact that he was" , and draws from his vast knowledge of Hebraism very effectively in his commentary on Luke 16:19-31." In your quote he used two examples from his own time, people in Jerusalem claiming to know where the rich man's house was, and 17th Rhemists, trying to prove Luke 16:19-31, was not spoken by Jesus.

Sir, you really need to do some work on both your reading ability and your ability to comprehend what you have read. Lightfoot does not seek to prove Luke 16:19-31 was not spoken by Jesus, but rather that Luke 16:19-31 was a Parable that Jesus did say, but was based on pre-existing beliefs prior to the time of Jesus. For no where in his entire commentary on those passages will you find that he said that Jesus didn't say the parable. And this is where I part company with John Lightfoot, other commentators, and probably even some who are reading this thread. (and that is okay, for in the end of it, we all know that Luke 16:19-31 is not proof of the eternal torment theory.). And no one, absolutely NO ONE, is ever going to make me believe that Jesus, by using it to build a parable on, ever endorsed the big lie, that when an individual died, he either went to the bosom of Abraham, or to the Greek's mythological Hades. And can you honestly tell me sir, that you believe that you are going to Abraham's bosom when you die?

And then this great Hebraist even claimed to know the exact hour and day that man was created.

Lightfoot's notion that he could figure out the exact hour and day that man was created, has nothing to do with the fact that he was an accomplished Hebraist and was well acquainted with Jewish customs and beliefs.

Until Galileo proved them wrong, everyone, including all of Christendom, believed that the earth was a stationary object in the sky, and did not move. People before Phthagoras and Aristotle believed that the earth was a flat disc floating in the ocean , until these two men proved them wrong.

Adam Clark, who was one of the most eminent language experts of his day, (and our day also, if the the truth be known) believed that the tempter in the garden of eden was an ape, and not a reptile, and seeks to prove it in his commentary on the book of Genesis. But that din't take away from the fact that he learned twenty languages and became proficient in the Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, and Syriac versions of the scriptures.

So your mud slinging tactics just won't work here.

And in your quote there was NOT one single verifiable quote from any available source which has anything like the story of the rich man and Lazarus. I posted the link to the Talmud which this great Hebraist Lightfoot was supposedly quoting and asked you to find his so-called quotes. All his supposed "vast knowledge of Hebraism," that he was supposedly quoting, is NOT in the Talmud, where he claimed it was!

I must say your that the only thing that exceeds your arrogance here is your ignorance. For the first thing that one meets with when they go to your Come and Hear™site is:


[INTRODUCTION BY

THE EDITOR



THE SONCINO PRESS
LONDON

These are the Sederim ("orders", or major divisions) and tractates (books) of the Babylonian Talmud, as translated and organized for publication by the Soncino Press in 1935 - 1948. The tractates available on the Come and Hear web page are provided with hot links.

The English terms in italics are taken from the Introductions in the respective Soncino volumes. A summary of the contents of each Tractate is given in the Introduction to the Seder, and a detailed summary by chapter is given in the Introduction to the Tractate.

There are about 12,800 printed pages in the Soncino Talmud, not counting introductions, indexes, glossaries, etc. Of these, Come and Hear™ has put about 8050 pages on line, comprising about 1460 files — about 63% of the Soncino Talmud. However, this should in no way be considered a substitute for the printed edition, with the complete text, fully cross-referenced footnotes, a master index, an index for each tractate, scriptural index, rabbinical index, and so on. The sole purpose for the presentation of this text is to provide full context for the many things that are said and heard about the Talmud, and to invite further study."]

Now, the last time I subtracted 8,050 from 12,800, that left 4,750 pages, or 37 % of the Soncino Talmud which your Come and Hear™ site has not posted on line.

And If you think you have access to the Talmud in in its entirety through this site . . . . Well as I said earlier, your arrogance is exceeded only by your ignorance. What more can I say on the subject?

Tip: The Kiddushin, can be found in the Sedar Nashimand Deals with the rites connected with betrothal and marriage, the legal acquisition of slaves, chattels and real estate, and principles of morality.

TheJuchasin is better known as the Book of the Ancestors.

 

[Dottie]

You keep throwing out Josephus. Josephus is meaningless to this discussion without other evidence. J. wrote AFTER Jesus crucifixion and ascension. Josephus was NOT a Theologian or a Christian. Lightfoot wrote 1600 year AFTER Jesus. Do you have any credible, verifiable, evidence from BEFORE the time of Jesus that the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, or anybody in the entire world, ever, had any kind of story involving a rich man and a beggar going to heaven/hell, etc., that could have been copied by Luke? Don't give me this Lightfoot and Josephus garbage, anymore, it proves absolutely nothing!

You are right about onething here. Josephus was not a Theologian or a Christian! And neither were his constituents, the Jews. What kind of madness could possess anyone to even hint that Josephus or his constituents would base any of their beliefs on the sayings of Jesus, whom they rejected and refused to believe was the promised Messiah? And if they didn't base it on Jesus' sayings and teachings, where in the world do you think it came from?

As for Lightfoot, the post I was responding to only said "Lightfoot", not John Lightfoot, so get off it already. All this is is just muddying up the water about one insignficant little point because you don't have anything relevant to say about my posts.

Oh, I see. Now it is an "insignificant little point", whereas earlier you were telling me that I might want to paste your statement to the effect that you never quote things you can't back up, to my computer. Yeah, right. LOL

I am still waiting. You have not posted one piece of credible, verifiable, EVIDENCE, PROOF, DOCUMENtATION, SUBSTANTIATION, that the Jews, or any other society, had a story like the rich man and Lazarus or that it was anything other than what the WORD OF GOD, claims it to be. Your Bible is evidently the scribblings of Lightfoot and Josephus, NOT the scripture recognized by the church for 2000 years.

And neither did I claim that there was any EVIDENCE, PROOF, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, that the Jews, or any other society, had a story like the rich man and Lazarus in any of their writings. But you have been given ample evidence in both John Lightfoot's commentary, and Josephus' discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades, that it was commonly believed among the Jews that both the just, and the unjust went to Hades when they died, but were retained in separate divisions of this mythical place. The just going to Abraham's bosom, while the unjust were retained in that place of discomfort, that was described by Josephus. And you are waiting for evidence, because you WANT to wait, not because you haven't been given it.

And OBTW "Abraham's bosum," was not a place, it was a position. That is clearly shown in the story!

"The expression, "Abrahm's bosom" alludes to the posture used by the Jews at table. This was reclining on couches after the manner of the Romans, the upper part of the body resting upon the left elbow, and the lower lying at the length upon the couch. When two or three reclined on the same couch, the worthiest or most honourable person lay first, the next in dignity lay with his head reclining on the breast of bosom of the first, as John is said to have done of the bosom of Jesus at supper; and hence is borrowed the phrase of Abraham's bosom, as denoting the state of celestial happiness. Abraham being esteemed the most honourable person, and father of the Jewish nation, to be in the bosom of Abraham signifies (in an allusion to the order in which guests were placed at an entertainment) the highest state of felicity, next to Abraham himself."- Burdes

[1. Lazarus dies and is carried into Abraham's bosom.. By the phrase, Abraham's bosom, an allusion is made to the custom at Jewish feasts, when three persons reclining on their left elbows on a couch, the person whose head came near the breast of the other, was said to lie in his bosom..

So it is said of the beloved disciple, John xiii 25.

Abraham's bosom was a phrase used among the Jews to signify the paradise of God. (from A. Clarke's commentary on Luke 16:19-31)]

So yes, you are correct when you say that Abraham's bosom was a position and not a place, for most all of the eminent Bible scholars of antiquity attest to this. So where do you think your position will be in relation to Abraham? First, no doubt. For the impression you have made on me is, that you would probably bludgeon the first one that tried to beat you to it.

I said nothing about an "allusion," I said "clearly shown." A 1st century Christian or Jew would have known it instantly.

See comment above.

Maybe you should spend more time reading the Bible and less time reading Josephus, Bullfinch and Lightfoot. And OBTW all those quotes up there, meaningless! Clement, Papias, Bullfinch, Lightfoot, etc., did NOT write the BIble. Talk about somebody handling the Bible, you're the one ripping out big parts of he Bible because they don't agree with your assumptions and presuppositions.

No, Bullfinch and Lightfoot did not write the Bible. But I am not so sure that Clement and Papiasdid not write at least part of it. Especially Luke 16:19-31. And maybe Clement should have taken your advice and spent more time reading the Bible rather than Egyptian myths.

And I notice you with all your quotes about supposed legends and myths similar to Luke 16:19-31 which supposedly "prove" it was copied, must have missed my post where I cited several books which, using the same kinds of information, proves that the entire Bible was copied from pagan myths and legends.

I must have. Whew! am I ever glad that I did. copy/past. copy/paste continuously . . . . Do you not have one single idea or thought of your very own?

I especially like the Gilgamesh Epic which, just like your Lightfoot and Josephus, etc., "proves" that the story of the flood, Noah, and the ark, etc. were all copied from this pagan legend.[/quote]

Would it surprise you to know that you are not the only one who has read the "Gilgamesh Epic", and that this is not news to me, or probably not news to very many others either? I can not understand, for the life of me, what on earth you were trying to prove by posting this. ? ? ?

 

[Dottie]

Well let’s see what your so-called larger picture will show. We must remember you are trying to "prove," by quoting Lightfoot, that the Jews had a story about a rich man and a poor man dying and being taken to heaven/hell, or something like that, and this supposedly "proves" that Jesus did not speak the words of Luke 19:19-31, that according to your so-called "proof" they are an unscriptural Jewish legend, etc.

Here is your quote, in its entirety, I have highlighted every reference to Abraham. And what your so-called "larger picture" proves is that never once in all these quotes do the Jews ever use the term "Abraham’s bosom" NOT ONE TIME! In fact, the "Jewish" sources only mention Abraham four (4) times in the entire citation. Every time "Abraham’s bosom" is mentioned Lightfoot mentions it, NOT the Jewish sources he is supposedly quoting.



And as I pointed out to you before, and you conveniently ignored, I provided you the link

[Here!], to the Babylonian Talmud, online, and asked you to find me any of the Lightfoot’s so-called Talmud quotes. They are NOT in the Talmud!

But you are not interested in the truth, are you? You have your copy paste from Lightfoot, which proves absolutely nothing, and you have your quote from Josephus, written, AFTER the crucifixion and ascension, of Jesus, where Josephus claims some fanciful notion about what Jews believe. Let us remember he was turncoat Jew, who betrayed his own people.

Der, I can only say here that when someone {Staff edit} presumes to debate with such a learned man as was John Lighfoot, they are verily playing out of their league. {Staff Edit-flame ad hom}

You don't have a case! All you have is a bunch of assumptions and presuppositions. I do NOT have to prove that God is and was able to preserve His word. Anyone who claims that God is so weak and powerless that He could not preserve the Bible, the burden of proof is entirely on them. So far all I have seen is trash and rubbish. A piece of this and a piece of that and NOT one shred of indisputable evidence.

I am going to ignore your silly inuendo which implies that I do not believe that God is strong enough and powerful enough to preserve His written word, for certainly I do see and do believe that God's hand has surely preserved His written word down through the ages. But it would be men, not God, who preserved the writings that were not originally in the text.

Isaiah 55:10. " For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

News flash: It was not the written word that came down to us as rain or snow from heaven. And neither is this the word that He speaks of here. For the word that proceeds out of His mouth is not written with pen and ink, or a printing press, but is that word which is written on the fleshy tables of our hearts,

i.e. Jer.31: 33. " But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Heb. 8:6. " But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Heb. 10: 15. "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

And I believe this so firmly, that I will say that even if I had never even read one page of the New Testament, even if I had never heard of Jesus Christ, this would not change the fact of His redemptive work on the cross, or that He has lifted me up from the filth and the degradation of this present world, and has translated me into His heavenly kingdom, by his LIVING word which He has written in my heart and mind for all eternity.

So please hurry and send along the PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, ETC, that the New Testament scriptures are without alterations, additions, or changes from the original text.

 

[gort]

Here's a good one from L Ray Smith:

Dear Tommy:

Your feelings are not that different from most people. Most, however, are not honest enough to admit they have such feelings. Paul says that, "the carnal (natural fleshly) mind is enmity against God; it is not subject to the laws of God, neither is it able" (Rom. 8:7).

When God opens your understanding that there is as much evil in YOU as there is in the world, then you will begin to understand this scripture. EVERYONE sins, and EVERYONE is LOST before he can be SAVED!

You have NOT committed the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. Besides, those who DO, will also be SAVED! Yes they will! Not in this age, or the millennial age to follow, but at the resurrection of judgment, even those who have sinned against the Holy Spirit will be saved. There is no such thing as an "unforgivable sin". The ones that Christ said committed this sin, will not be pardon (and come up in the first resurrection), but they will be forgiven in the resurrection of judgment and be saved.

God will deliver all creation from all evil. It is only here temporarily. It serves a needful purpose.

May God continue to open your mind to understanding His Word.

Sincerely,

Ray

http://bible-truths.com/emails.html#existence


Ray has lost all credibility



<><

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]What kind of madness could possess anyone to even hint that Josephus or his constituents would base any of their beliefs on the sayings of Jesus, whom they rejected and refused to believe was the promised Messiah? And if they didn't base it on Jesus' sayings and teachings, where in the world do you think it came from?[/SIZE]

What kind of madness would possess anyone who claims to be a Christian to constantly trash the Bible, claim that it is full of lies, and pagan legends and myths, but post stuff written by a turncoat Jew and accept it, without question, as the absolute truth?

[SIZE=-1]Oh, I see. Now it is an "insignificant little point", whereas earlier you were telling me that I might want to paste your statement to the effect that you never quote things you can't back up, to my computer. Yeah, right. LOL[/SIZE]

You claim that the Bible is full of lies, there are lies around here but they aren't in the Bible. You are misrepresenting what I said. But that is to be expected, you can't back up anything you claim, so to divert attention away from your own pitfully weak argument, you clamp onto this and blow it out of proportion, as if this somehow will add credence to your story.

I don't care what you believe about the Bible, you have not proved anything to anyone but other universalist who, like you will believe anything, written by anybody, just as long as it trashes the Bible. You have absolutely NO credible evidence of any kind. So just keep on harping on Lightfoot.

And neither did I claim that there was any EVIDENCE, PROOF, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION, that the Jews, or any other society, had a story like the rich man and Lazarus in any of their writings. But you have been given ample evidence in both John Lightfoot's commentary, and Josephus' discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades, that it was commonly believed among the Jews that both the just, and the unjust went to Hades when they died, but were retained in separate divisions of this mythical place.

Garbanzo beans you have presented ample evidence of nothing, no such proof. NONE! NADA! You are still saying the Bible is full of lies and Josephus is the absolute truth.

In the O.T. when the king of Babylon died what was all the moving, shaking, rising up, and the dead in sheol calling to him? How will punishing a child prevent him from dying and going to sheol?

[SIZE=-1]The just going to Abraham's bosom, while the unjust were retained in that place of discomfort, that was described by Josephus. And you are waiting for evidence, because you WANT to wait, not because you haven't been given it.[/SIZE]

I'm not the one claiming the Bible is full of lies, pagan legends and myths and that Josephus is the absolute truth. You still have not proved anything about Luke 16:19-31. NOTHING! Not in your Gospel according to Lightfoot, not in your Gospel according to Josephus.

[SIZE=-1]By the phrase, Abraham's bosom, an allusion is made to the custom at Jewish feasts, when three persons reclining on their left elbows on a couch, the person whose head came near the breast of the other, was said to lie in his bosom..[/SIZE]

Where is the pagan legends and myth part of this? Granted, this was the custom in Jesus' time.

[SIZE=-1]Abraham's bosom was a phrase used among the Jews to signify the paradise of God. (from A. Clarke's commentary on Luke 16:19-31)[/SIZE]

I am still waiting for any kind of EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, etc. that shows the Jews called paradise "Abraham's bosom" or had any reference to "Abraham's bosom," whatsoever. Nobody called paradise, "Abraham's bosom."

[SIZE=-1]So yes, you are correct when you say that Abraham's bosom was a position and not a place, for most all of the eminent Bible scholars of antiquity attest to this. So where do you think your position will be in relation to Abraham? [/SIZE]

I'm not Jewish. I have no expectation regarding Abraham. I wonder if Jesus really talked to Abraham on the mount of transfiguration or if that was that all lies, myths, and legend too?

[SIZE=-1]First, no doubt. For the impression you have made on me is, that you would probably bludgeon the first one that tried to beat you to it.[/SIZE]

I don't respond to garbage! You can't back up your false doctrine with credible, verifiable, evidence so you resort to attacking and insulting me. Sure sign you have no argument.

[SIZE=-1]No, Bullfinch and Lightfoot did not write the Bible. But I am not so sure that Clement and Papiasdid not write at least part of it. Especially Luke 16:19-31. And maybe Clement should have taken your advice and spent more time reading the Bible rather than Egyptian myths[/SIZE]

So if Bullfinch and Lightfoot did not write the Bible and nothing you have posted, from them, proves anything about the Bible, they are of no value to this discussion.

I don't give a rat dropping what you are not so sure about. I believe that God was able to preserve His word, just as He said. I will stick with God's word, it has stood for 2000 years plus, and it has NEVER been proven to be in error.

You have posted a bunch of garbage trying to prove your false religion and nothing you posted proves diddly squat about the Bible. Just your assumptions and presuppositions.

Let me look at your assumptions. We have none of Papias' writings, only a few quotes in some of the early church fathers. For example, Irenaeus said, essentially, "I was not there but Papias said the Lord said thus and so.. . . " Irenaeus did not say it was true or false.

Clement, said something like, "Even the Egyptians believe in the resurrection, they have a legend about the Phoenix. . ." He doesn't say it is true or false.

Paul quoted Greek poets three times to illustrate his teachings. I even remember reading somewhere about a talking serpent and a talking donkey, do you think maybe those are pagan myths too. And the O.T. is full of talking angels, angels leading armies, angels going through Egypt and Jerusalem killing God's enemies, etc.

[SIZE=-1]Would it surprise you to know that you are not the only one who has read the "Gilgamesh Epic", and that this is not news to me, or probably not news to very many others either? I can not understand, for the life of me, what on earth you were trying to prove by posting this. ? ?[/SIZE]

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I explained why I posted that. I can produce several books, just as credible as anything you posted, showing that virtually everything in the Bible was supposedly copied from pagan myths and legends.

So you can do like you are doing, post pieces of this and that supposedly showing that only part of the Bible was copied from paganism, or you can go all the way as some people do and try to prove that everything in the Bible was copied from paganism. And those who trash the entire Bible and the entire Christian faith their evidence is just as credible as anything you have posted. In other words not worth diddly.

 

[Dottie]

What kind of madness would possess anyone who claims to be a Christian to constantly trash the Bible, claim that it is full of lies, and pagan legends and myths, but post stuff written by a turncoat Jew and accept it, without question, as the absolute truth?

You know what? I'm getting pretty weary of your false accusations that I have constantly "trashed the Bible" and "have claimed that it is full of lies, and pagan legends and myths.
Reasonable evidence has been shown, that the possibility is great that men, not God, have added to, taken away from, or otherwise skewed the original text. But your answer to this, in effect is, that "this is not possible because God has preserved the (written) word, and would not allow this to happen." My view of that theory is, that anyone who believes such, would be putting faith in the infallibility of man rather than in the infallibility of God.

You claim that the Bible is full of lies, there are lies around here but they aren't in the Bible. You are misrepresenting what I said. But that is to be expected, you can't back up anything you claim, so to divert attention away from your own pitfully weak argument, you clamp onto this and blow it out of proportion, as if this somehow will add credence to your story.

I don't care what you believe about the Bible, you have not proved anything to anyone but other universalist who, like you will believe anything, written by anybody, just as long as it trashes the Bible. You have absolutely NO credible evidence of any kind. So just keep on harping on Lightfoot.

Garbanzo beans you have presented ample evidence of nothing, no such proof. NONE! NADA! You are still saying the Bible is full of lies and Josephus is the absolute truth.

This rhetoric is clearly the rhetoric of an angy, frustrated individual, and adds nothing of value to this discussion. Though I do admit that the term "Garbanzo beans" to be of a little more refined speech, than the term, "rat droppings".

In the O.T. when the king of Babylon died what was all the moving, shaking, rising up, and the dead in sheol calling to him?

Well, I'm sure I don't know. But when I find out how the fir trees and the cedars of Lebanon went about rejoicing, and actually spoke "saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us." then maybe I will have a clue. Do you know what a proverb is? . . . . . a pithy maxim, usually of metaphorical nature; hence, a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - Strong's Exhaustive Concondance.

How will punishing a child prevent him from dying and going to sheol?

Punishing a child will never prevent him from dieing and going to his grave. Is this supposed to be a trick question, or what? Or, are you trying to get me to quote Thayer on this particular passage, so you can ask me what I ask you earlier pertaining to your constant copy and paste routine; the question to you being: "Don't you have any ideas or thoughts of your own?" I strongly suspect the latter. But though I will not quote Thayer, I will say that it would be wise for you to take into consideration his view on this subject. But then, I do not expect that you would, for I think his comments on the subject would be much too enlightening for you to accept.

I'm not the one claiming the Bible is full of lies, pagan legends and myths and that Josephus is the absolute truth.

And neither have I claimed such a thing as this. Basically my claim is that no PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION. ETC, that we have the original text of the N.T. writers without alterations, substractions or additions to it can be given. And to the contrary, I do not claim that Josephus did have the truth. My claim is that in his discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades, he gives the prevailing view of what the Jews believed concerning the matter.

You still have not proved anything about Luke 16:19-31. NOTHING! Not in your Gospel according to Lightfoot, not in your Gospel according to Josephus.

More of your incessant rambling, rumbling rhetoric which proves absolutely nothing except that you are a very angry man.

By the phrase, Abraham's bosom, an allusion is made to the custom at Jewish feasts, when three persons reclining on their left elbows on a couch, the person whose head came near the breast of the other, was said to lie in his bosom..

Where is the pagan legends and myth part of this? Granted, this was the custom in Jesus' time.

The concept that there is such a place as Hades, as described by the Greeks, is a myth. For we can make no more out of Hades or Sheol than its simply being the GRAVE, And of which, a wise man once said, "There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest." And this same wise man also said:

" For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,

With kings and counsellers of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;

Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:

Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

There the prisoners REST together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor."

And another wise man said: " For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."

It is too bad that the Jews of a later day than these men, did not hearken unto those wise words, but became entangled in Greek mythology and lore.

Abraham's bosom was a phrase used among the Jews to signify the paradise of God. (from A. Clarke's commentary on Luke 16:19-31)

I am still waiting for any kind of EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, etc. that shows the Jews called paradise "Abraham's bosom" or had any reference to "Abraham's bosom," whatsoever. Nobody called paradise, "Abraham's bosom."

See Josephus's account of the Maccabees. You do know who the Maccabees were, don't you? And you do know that Flavious Josephus, the Jewish Historian, is our main source of secular history which fills in the 400 year gap between the writing of the prophet Malachi and the writing of Matthew, don't you? I find it hard to believe that anyone who has "studied at the postgrad level of theology", would not be at least a little familiar with Josephus' writings.

I'm not Jewish. I have no expectation regarding Abraham.

Let me get this straight now. Only Jews can expect to go to Abraham's bosom when they die, but us Gentiles don't get to go there because there is another place for us. I see. No, on second thought, I don't see. LOL

I wonder if Jesus really talked to Abraham on the mount of transfiguration or if that was that all lies, myths, and legend too?

You may doubt that. But I don't. I believe that He did.

So if Bullfinch and Lightfoot did not write the Bible and nothing you have posted, from them, proves anything about the Bible, they are of no value to this discussion.

I don't give a rat dropping what you are not so sure about. I believe that God was able to preserve His word, just as He said. I will stick with God's word, it has stood for 2000 years plus, and it has NEVER been proven to be in error.

You have posted a bunch of garbage trying to prove your false religion and nothing you posted proves diddly squat about the Bible. Just your assumptions and presuppositions.

More ramblings and rumblings from the wizzard of Der Land.

Let me look at your assumptions. We have none of Papias' writings, only a few quotes in some of the early church fathers. For example, Irenaeus said, essentially, "I was not there but Papias said the Lord said thus and so.. . . " Irenaeus did not say it was true or false.

No, Irenaeus in his Adv. Hær., v. 33, 3, quotes the fourth book of Papias as authority for our Lord’s saying:-

["The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and in every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes; and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five metretes (i.e., two hundred and twenty-five English gallons). And when any one of the saints shall lay bold of a cluster, another shall cry out, ‘I am a better cluster: take me. Bless the Lord through me.’ In like manner lie said that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples and seeds and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and he in perfect subjection to man."]

Clement, said something like, "Even the Egyptians believe in the resurrection, they have a legend about the Phoenix. . ." He doesn't say it is true or false.

Oh I think Clement pretty well believed it was true, since in the very next paragraph he writes this:

"Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? . . . . "

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I explained why I posted that. I can produce several books, just as credible as anything you posted, showing that virtually everything in the Bible was supposedly copied from pagan myths and legends.

I see. Its okay for your to post things that are of no value to the discussion, but not okay for anyone else to do that.

Re: your earlier quote, "So if Bullfinch and Lightfoot did not write the Bible and nothing you have posted, from them, proves anything about the Bible, they are of no value to this discussion."

quote=Der Alter]So you can do like you are doing, post pieces of this and that supposedly showing that only part of the Bible was copied from paganism, or you can go all the way as some people do and try to prove that everything in the Bible was copied from paganism.[/quote]

Its gracious of you to grant me permission to do that, but really I think I'll just pass on that one.

So surely you can see my dilemma here. For I keep wondering when the PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION. ETC., that we have the New Testament text as it came from the pen of its writers, without any alterations, subtractions, or additions to it, is going to be sent.

 

[john14_20]

Garbanzo beans



Synonymous with chickpeas, the delicious nutlike taste and buttery texture of garbanzo beans provides a good source of protein that can be enjoyed year-round; they are purchased either dried or canned.



Health Benefits

Garbanzos (also called chickpeas) are a good source of cholesterol-lowering fiber, as are most other beans. In addition to lowering cholesterol, garbanzos' high fiber content prevents blood sugar levels from rising too rapidly after a meal, making these beans an especially good choice for individuals with diabetes, insulin resistance or hypoglycemia. When combined with whole grains such as rice, garbanzos provide virtually fat-free high quality protein. But this is far from all garbanzos have to offer. Garbanzos are an excellent source of the trace mineral, molybdenum, an integral component of the enzyme sulfite oxidase, which is responsible for detoxifying sulfites. Sulfites are a type of preservative commonly added to prepared foods like delicatessen salads and salad bars. Persons who are sensitive to sulfites in these foods may experience rapid heartbeat, headache or disorientation if sulfites are unwittingly consumed. If you have ever reacted to sulfites, it may be because your molybdenum stores are insufficient to detoxify them.

Lower Your Heart Attack Risk

In a study that examined food intake patterns and risk of death from coronary heart disease, researchers followed more than 16,000 middle-aged men in the U.S., Finland, The Netherlands, Italy, former Yugoslavia, Greece and Japan for 25 years. Typical food patterns were: higher consumption of dairy products in Northern Europe; higher consumption of meat in the U.S.; higher consumption of vegetables, legumes, fish, and wine in Southern Europe; and higher consumption of cereals, soy products, and fish in Japan. When researchers analyzed this data in relation to the risk of death from heart disease, they found that legumes were associated with a whopping 82% reduction in risk!!

A study published in the September 8, 2003 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine confirms that eating high fiber foods, such as garbanzo beans, helps prevent heart disease. Almost 10,000 American adults participated in this study and were followed for 19 years, during which time 1,843 cases of coronary heart disease (CHD) and 3,762 cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were diagnosed. People eating the most fiber, 21 grams per day, had 12% less CHD and 11% less CVD compared to those eating the least, 5 grams daily. Those eating the most water-soluble dietary fiber fared even better with a 15% reduction in risk of CHD and a 10% risk reduction in CVD.(December 3, 2003)



Iron for Energy

In addition to providing slow burning complex carbohydrates, garbanzos can increase your energy by helping to replenish your iron stores. Particularly for menstruating women, who are more at risk for iron deficiency, boosting iron stores with garbanzos is a good idea--especially because, unlike red meat, another source of iron, garbanzos are low in calories and virtually fat-free. Iron is an integral component of hemoglobin, which transports oxygen from the lungs to all body cells, and is also part of key enzyme systems for energy production and metabolism. And remember: If you're pregnant or lactating, your needs for iron increase. Growing children and adolescents also have increased needs for iron.

Manganese for Energy Production and Antioxidant Defense

Garbanzos are an excellent source of the trace mineral manganese, which is an essential cofactor in a number of enzymes important in energy production and antioxidant defenses. For example, the key oxidative enzyme superoxide dismutase, which disarms free radicals produced within the mitochondria (the energy production factories within our cells), requires manganese. Just one cup of garbanzo beans supplies 84.5% of the DV for this very important trace mineral.

Protein Power Plus

If you’re wondering how to replace red meat in your menus, become a fan of garbanzo beans. These nutty flavored beans are a good source of protein, and when combined with a whole grain such as whole wheat pasta or brown rice, provide protein comparable to that of meat or dairy foods without the high calories or saturated fat found in these foods. And, when you get your protein from garbanzos, you also get the blood sugar stabilizing and heart health benefits of the soluble fiber provided by these versatile legumes.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=58

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]You know what? I'm getting pretty weary of your false accusations that I have constantly "trashed the Bible" and "have claimed that it is full of lies, and pagan legends and myths.
Reasonable evidence has been shown, that the possibility is great that men, not God, have added to, taken away from, or otherwise skewed the original text. But your answer to this, in effect is, that "this is not possible because God has preserved the (written) word, and would not allow this to happen." My view of that theory is, that anyone who believes such, would be putting faith in the infallibility of man rather than in the infallibility of God[/SIZE].

Do I look like I care what you are weary of? I am tired of someone who claims to be a Christian, constantly claiming that the Bible has been corrupted, that it has lies and pagan myths and legends in it. And you have not posted reasonable evidence of anything. NOTHING.

The only thing you have is one quote from Josephus. OBTW, your quote from Lightfoot, you are so proud of, and your meaningless ramble about the Talmud. You supported my argument. A 400 year old quote from sources that can not be reasonably verified, mean diddly squat. You want to spend $400-$500 and buy the complete Talmud go on ahead. Until then all Lightfoot's quotes are worthless.

"[SIZE=-1]Reasonable evidence has been shown, that the possibility is great that men, not God, have added to, taken away from, or otherwise skewed the original text.[/SIZE]" Rubbish, trash, and nonsense. You can't even make up your mind just what has been corrupted or how. Show us the orginal documents and PROVE exactly what has been added, omitted, or skewed.

According to you, God stood by for 2000 years and did nothing while, evil men simultaneously went into every church, school, and home, all over the Christian world, Africa, Rome, Greece, Asia, Israel, etc., that had copies of the scriptures and corrupted them, adding things, taking things, out, twisting things, and there was not one Christian in the entire world that knew about it or did anything about it. And nobody discovered this until Dottie and her bunch came along.

How in the world can I be putting faith in man, fallible or otherwise, when I say that God, has preserved His word? Man has tried to corrupt the Bible, you are doing it now, trying to make it fit your assumptions and presuppositions. But despite all your quoting of universalist nonsense the best you can do is say "possibility."

There is a Biblical penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word. Was God lying, would God allow generations of Christians to believe a lie? Or would He do exactly as He said He would?

The concept that there is such a place as Hades, as described by the Greeks, is a myth. For we can make no more out of Hades or Sheol than its simply being the GRAVE, And of which, a wise man once said, "There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest." And this same wise man also said:

" For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,

With kings and counsellers of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;

Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:

Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.

There the prisoners REST together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor."

And another wise man said: " For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."

It is too bad that the Jews of a later day than these men, did not hearken unto those wise words, but became entangled in Greek mythology and lore.

Still posting your same old nonsense about Greek mythology which you have NOT proved, yet. Just the same old broken record over and over and over. The Bible is full of lies, pagan myths and legends but ANYTHING you can find that you can attack the Bible with is the absolute truth.

Pay particular attention to the red highlights.

Previously:
I wonder if Jesus really talked to Abraham on the mount of transfiguration or if that was that all lies, myths, and legend too?​

You may doubt that. But I don't. I believe that He did.

If as you posted above, "There the prisoners REST together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor," "the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten, neither have they any more a portion [size=+1]for ever in any thing[/size] that is done under the sun," who was Jesus talking to on the mount of transfiguration? I won't even mention Saul and Samuel in the O.T.

Previously:
I believe that God was able to preserve His word, just as He said. I will stick with God's word, it has stood for 2000 years plus, and it has NEVER been proven to be in error.​

Your response.

[SIZE=-1]More ramblings and rumblings from the wizzard of Der Land.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]No, Irenaeus in his Adv. Hær., v. 33, 3, quotes the fourth book of Papias as authority for our Lord’s saying:-[/SIZE]

This is a quote from CCEL, Irenaeus said nothing about Papias as "authority" for anything. Can't you think for yourself and actually read the source? Or is the only thing you are capable of is follow the universalist leader and look for any little piece of this or that you can quote to trash the Bible? READ IT!

Irenaeus says he was not there but "Papias said this. . . " He didn't say it was true or false. Unlike you quoting Josephus as if he was the fifth apostle and everything he said was the absolute truth, without even attempting to verify what he said from any other source

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Well, I'm sure I don't know. But when I find out how the fir trees and the cedars of Lebanon went about rejoicing, and actually spoke "saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us." then maybe I will have a clue. Do you know what a proverb is? . . . . . a pithy maxim, usually of metaphorical nature; hence, a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - Strong's Exhaustive Concondance.[/SIZE]

Do you know what a typical Christian Unorthodox Later Theology copout is? Anything that contradicts your assumptions and presuppositions, is either symbolic, figurative, allegorical, parabolic, etc.

One allegorical verse, out of a narrative which begins in verse four and continues through verse 32. There was an actual king of Babylon, he did rule cruelly, and oppress and slay the people, and he did die. Allegories have meaning, what is the meaning of this 28 verse allegory?

Keil-Delitzsch commentary -Isa 14:7-8 -

“The whole earth rests, is quiet: they break forth into singing. Even the cypresses rejoice at thee, the cedars of Lebanon: 'Since thou hast gone to sleep, no one will come up to lay the axe upon us.'” The preterites indicate inchoatively the circumstances into which the whole earth has now entered. The omission of the subject in the case of pa&#770;tz'chu (they break forth) gives the greatest generality to the jubilant utterances: pa&#770;tzach rinna&#770;h (erumpere gaudio) is an expression that is characteristic of Isaiah alone (e.g., Isa_44:23; Isa_49:13); and it is a distinctive peculiarity of the prophet to bring in the trees of the forest, as living and speaking beings, to share in the universal joy (cf., Isa_55:12). Jerome supposes the trees to be figuratively employed here for the “chiefs of the nations” (principes gentium). But this disposition to allegorize not only destroys the reality of the contents, but the spirit of the poetry also. Cypresses and cedars rejoice because of the treatment which they received from the Chaldean, who made use of the almost imperishable wood of both of them for ornamental buildings, for his siege apparatus, and for his fleets, and even for ordinary ships - as Alexander, for example, built himself a fleet of cypress-wood, and the Syrian vessels had masts of cedar. Of the old cedars of Lebanon, there are hardly thirty left in the principle spot where they formerly grew. Gardner Wilkinson (1843) and Hooker the botanist (1860) estimated the whole number at about four hundred; and according to the conclusion which the latter drew from the number of concentric rings and other signs, not one of them is more than about five hundred years old.
(Note: See Wilkinson's paper in the Athenaeum (London, Noverse 1862).)​

[SIZE=-1]So surely you can see my dilemma here. For I keep wondering when the PROOF, EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTATION, SUBSTANTIATION. ETC., that we have the New Testament text as it came from the pen of its writers, without any alterations, subtractions, or additions to it, is going to be sent.[/SIZE]

I don't care diddly about your dilemma, you cannot prove a negative. You are the one claiming that the Bible has been corrupted, has lies, pagan myths ,and legends, and can't be trusted. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

Both God and Jesus said God's word would stand forever. It has stood these few thousand years, and it has NEVER been proven to be false. And you have not proved one jot or one tittle to be added, omitted, or changed.

Despite all your attacks you have not proved anything about the Bible. NOTHING! I don't care if you believe it or not, God has preserved it, and God has ensured that His people always have a sure word from Him. You want to follow Lightfoot, Josephus, and any other so-called great Hebraist, you care to name, go head on. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

 

[lsholes]

When Jesus said The Kindgom of God is within you, do you think that means we have the ability to create, by will and unfaltering faith that whatever we ask will be given (as promised) our heaven or hell. Does quantum physics support this idea? Is this what the Isaiah scroll also supports?-

 

[Dottie]

Do I look like I care what you are weary of? I am tired of someone who claims to be a Christian, constantly claiming that the Bible has been corrupted, that it has lies and pagan myths and legends in it. And you have not posted reasonable evidence of anything. NOTHING.



The only thing you have is one quote from Josephus. OBTW, your quote from Lightfoot, you are so proud of, and your meaningless ramble about the Talmud. You supported my argument. A 400 year old quote from sources that can not be reasonably verified, mean diddly squat. You want to spend $400-$500 and buy the complete Talmud go on ahead. Until then all Lightfoot's quotes are worthless.

No comment here except to say, thank you for giving me permisssion to pay $400-$500 for a complete Talmud.

"Reasonable evidence has been shown, that the possibility is great that men, not God, have added to, taken away from, or otherwise skewed the original text." Rubbish, trash, and nonsense. You can't even make up your mind just what has been corrupted or how. Show us the orginal documents and PROVE exactly what has been added, omitted, or skewed.

According to you, God stood by for 2000 years and did nothing while, evil men simultaneously went into every church, school, and home, all over the Christian world, Africa, Rome, Greece, Asia, Israel, etc., that had copies of the scriptures and corrupted them, adding things, taking things, out, twisting things, and there was not one Christian in the entire world that knew about it or did anything about it. And nobody discovered this until Dottie and her bunch came along.[/quote]

I have to ask here how man copies do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John made of their writings? How many copies of Paul's letters do you think he made? Before they were compiled and made into one common canon, do you have you any idea how many times these writings were copied and re-copied as they were circulated among the early churches and were passed along from generation to generation? When you tell me to "show us, the original documents", you have actually supported my argument. For there are none of the original manuscripts in existence.

Accoding to the Encarda Enclyclopedia, there is about 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with some of those being complete, partial or framentary. The oldest that is in existence is a fragment of the Gospel of John, dated about AD 120-40. But none of these are an original from the writer. These mss. are very similar to what we have now in our N.T., but they do involve omissions, additions, terminology, and different ordering of words.

Have you ever thought about just what one fly speck or one minute fracture would do to a manuscript which was being copied from?

Adam Clarke, the ardent Trinitarian, makes the following remarks in his commentary on 1Tim.3:15-16.

"Though all this makes a very plain and consistent sense, yet we are perplexed by various readings on the first clause, qeov efanerwqh en sarki, God was manifest in the flesh; for instead of qeov, God, several MSS., versions, and fathers, have ov or o, who or which. And this is generally referred to the word mystery; Great is the mystery of godliness, WHICH was manifest in the flesh.

The insertion of, qeov for ov, or ov for qeov, may be easily accounted for.

In ancient times the Greek was all written in capitals, for the common Greek character is comparatively of modern date. In these early times words of frequent recurrence were written contractedly, thus: for pathr, pr; qeov, qv: kuriov, kv: ihsouv, ihv, &c. This is very frequent in the oldest MSS., and is continually recurring in the Codex Bexae, and Codex Alexandrinus. If, therefore, the middle stroke of the q, in qv, happened to be faint, or obliterated, and the dash above not very apparent, both of which I have observed in ancient MSS., then qv, the contraction for qeov, God, might be mistaken for ov, which or who; and vice versa. This appears to have been the case in the Codex Alexandrinus, in this passage. To me there is ample reason to believe that the Codex Alexandrinus originally read qv, God, in this place; but the stroke becoming faint by length of time and injudicious handling, of which the MS. in this place has had a large proportion, some person has supplied the place, most reprehensibly, with a thick black line. This has destroyed the evidence of this MS., as now it can neither be quoted pro or con, though it is very likely that the person who supplied the ink line, did it from a conscientious conviction that qv was the original reading of this MS. I examined this MS. about thirty years ago, and this was the conviction that rested then on my mind. I have seen the MS. several times since, and have not changed my opinion. The enemies of the Deity of Christ have been at as much pains to destroy the evidence afforded by the common reading in support of this doctrine as if this text were the only one by which it can be supported; they must be aware that John 1:1, and 14, proclaim the same truth; and that in those verses there is no authority to doubt the genuineness of the reading. We read, therefore, God was manifested in the flesh, and I cannot see what good sense can be taken out of, the GOSPEL was manifested in the flesh; or, the mystery of godliness was manifested in the flesh. After seriously considering this subject in every point of light, I hold with the reading in the commonly received text."

Again we have this remark from another Bible scholar regarding Luke 23:43.

"This verse was wanting in the copies of Marcion and other reputed heretics; and in some older copies in the time of Origen; nor is it cited by Justin, Irenaeus, or Tertullian; though the two former have quoted almost evey text in Luke which relates to the crucifixion; and Tertullian wrote concerning the intermediate state."

Again on the 16th chapter of Mark, "From this verse, (9) to the end of the chapter is wanting in the Vat. MS., and in many other ancient copies. Griesbach marks the whole passage of very doubtful authenticity, but retains it it in the text. Tischedorf rejects the whole clause."

The fact that we have some manuscripts showing one thing while another shows something else, is evidence to show that we do not have the New Testament writings as they came from the pen of the writer.

My reasoning on Luke 16:19-31 is this: No. 1: I do not believe that Jesus built a parable or any of His teachings on any false belief or precept of the Jews, such as their belief that they literally went to bosom of Abraham when they died, or any where else but to the grave to await their resurrection. For He said that He was "the way, the truth and the light" (John 14:6). No. 2. Luke 16:19-31 presents confusion and an interruption of the fluidity in the flow of the previous verses. For Jesus' discourse is broken off abruptly after the 15th verse and the three verses after it are neither connected to what came before or what follos them. Also it is not directly said, that Jesus did say this, as all of his other parables are introduced with "And He said" or "Jesus said".

And that opinion which I have stated on these particular passages is a far cry from what you have accused me of, i.e. " According to you, God stood by for 2000 years and did nothing while, evil men simultaneously went into every church, school, and home, all over the Christian world, Africa, Rome, Greece, Asia, Israel, etc., that had copies of the scriptures and corrupted them, adding things, taking things, out, twisting things, and there was not one Christian in the entire world that knew about it . . . . " For you have conjured up in your own small mind that I have said this ridiculous thing.

 

[Dottie]

How in the world can I be putting faith in man, fallible or otherwise, when I say that God, has preserved His word?

Because you are putting your faith in these men who decided which of many writings that were existent in their day, should be considered the inspired word of God, and fit for canonization. Also you put faith in men that they did not add or subtract from them. GOD has preserved every writing of antiquity. Even the epic of Gilgamesh, because if He had not intended that these ancient writings still exist, He would have seen to it that they were destroyed. But that does not mean that He intends that we should believe any such as this.

Man has tried to corrupt the Bible, you are doing it now, trying to make it fit your assumptions and presuppositions. But despite all your quoting of universalist nonsense the best you can do is say "possibility."

Nothing that I have quoted is Universalist nonsense, for out of all the men whom I have quoted, there is only one that would qualify for what you are calling a Universalist. That man was Thayer, and what he had to say was far from being nonsense. And at best all any human can say about anything, is that "it is possible", or "perhaps". For man does not know anything for sure. Only God does.

There is a Biblical penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word. Was God lying, would God allow generations of Christians to believe a lie?

Did God not allow many generations of Christians to be bound up in the lies and hypocricy of the apostate Roman Catholic papacy? And is He not still allowing this for some? Or, are you saying that Catholics are not Christians? If you are saying this, I would have to call you a liar, for I know some very fine Catholics who are good Christian people.

Still posting your same old nonsense about Greek mythology which you have NOT proved, yet. Just the same old broken record over and over and over. The Bible is full of lies, pagan myths and legends but ANYTHING you can find that you can attack the Bible with is the absolute truth.

Would you be surprised to know that I think that you are the broken record.

Pay particular attention to the red highlights.

Previously:
I wonder if Jesus really talked to Abraham on the mount of transfiguration or if that was that all lies, myths, and legend too?

If as you posted above, "There the prisoners REST together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor," "the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten, neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun," who was Jesus talking to on the mount of transfiguration? I won't even mention Saul and Samuel in the O.T.

If God is able to call into existence things that are not, if He is able to raise up children unto Abraham from stones, if He is able turn the dust of the earth into lice, if He was able to create everything that is in existence, if Jesus was able, by the power of God, to walk on water, heal the sick, and raise the dead, then surely, oh surely it would not be a problem for Him to bring Abraham, Moses or Isaiah from death to the presense of Jesus.

And if you believe that God gave the witch of Endor the power to do the same thing that He did at what you have called the Mount of transfiguration, in that she actually brought Samuel up for Saul, then I wouldn't know what else to say to you. And if you are going to try to tell me that it was the devil, not God, who gave her the power to do this, don't bother. Because I will tell you that the devil's power is limited to only decieving us when we want to be decieved, and letting man see what man himself wants to see. And if Saul had not wanted to see Samuel, he never would have. Yes, as the saying goes, the witch of Endor "saw old Saul coming" just like our soothe sayers and fortune tellers of today do. Soothe saying and fortune telling is probably one of the oldest con games in the history of civilization! And to think that many of God's people really believe that these people have these mystic powers, is ever so sad.

"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee." (Isa. 26:3)

And I really don't think that Saul's mind was exactly stayed on God when he went to see the witch of Endor. Do you?

Previously:

I believe that God was able to preserve His word, just as He said. I will stick with God's word, it has stood for 2000 years plus, and it has NEVER been proven to be in error.

Your response.

This is a quote from CCEL, Irenaeus said nothing about Papias as "authority" for anything. Can't you think for yourself and actually read the source? Or is the only thing you are capable of is follow the universalist leader and look for any little piece of this or that you can quote to trash the Bible? READ IT!

Irenaeus says he was not there but "Papias said this. . . " He didn't say it was true or false. Unlike you quoting Josephus as if he was the fifth apostle and everything he said was the absolute truth, without even attempting to verify what he said from any other source

? ? ?

Do you know what a typical Christian Unorthodox Later Theology copout is? Anything that contradicts your assumptions and presuppositions, is either symbolic, figurative, allegorical, parabolic, etc.

One allegorical verse, out of a narrative which begins in verse four and continues through verse 32. There was an actual king of Babylon, he did rule cruelly, and oppress and slay the people, and he did die. Allegories have meaning, what is the meaning of this 28 verse allegory?

Looks to me like even your commentator believe it was an allegory.

I don't care diddly about your dilemma, you cannot prove a negative. You are the one claiming that the Bible has been corrupted, has lies, pagan myths ,and legends, and can't be trusted. The burden of proof is entirely on you.

Both God and Jesus said God's word would stand forever. It has stood these few thousand years, and it has NEVER been proven to be false. And you have not proved one jot or one tittle to be added, omitted, or changed.

Despite all your attacks you have not proved anything about the Bible. NOTHING! I don't care if you believe it or not, God has preserved it, and God has ensured that His people always have a sure word from Him. You want to follow Lightfoot, Josephus, and any other so-called great Hebraist, you care to name, go head on. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

More repetitive senseless drivel. Would you be surprised to know that I think you are a broken record?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]When Jesus said The Kindgom of God is within you, do you think that means we have the ability to create, by will and unfaltering faith that whatever we ask will be given (as promised) our heaven or hell. Does quantum physics support this idea? Is this what the Isaiah scroll also supports?[/SIZE]-

[SIZE=+2]????[/SIZE]

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Accoding to the Encarda Enclyclopedia, there is about 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with some of those being complete, partial or framentary. The oldest that is in existence is a fragment of the Gospel of John, dated about AD 120-40. But none of these are an original from the writer. These mss. are very similar to what we have now in our N.T., but they do involve omissions, additions, terminology, and different ordering of words.

Have you ever thought about just what one fly speck or one minute fracture would do to a manuscript which was being copied from?[/SIZE]

Still attacking the Bible, now using a secular encyclopedia. Anything, written by anybody, anywhere, as long as it trashes the Bible is the absolute truth, but the Bible has lies, omissions, additions, and pagan myths and legends.

Here is a quote from a Christian educational site, with links to The Schaff-Herzog Bible Encyclopedia, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and other Christian resources.

"CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS"

Manuscript Attestation For The New Testament

INTRODUCTION

1. In an effort to demonstrate the RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AS
A HISTORICAL DOCUMENT...
a. We considered evidence which confirms that the New Testament was
WRITTEN AND BEING CIRCULATED SOON AFTER THE EVENTS TOOK PLACE;
e.g.:
1) The internal evidence
2) Papyri fragments
3) Patristic writings
b. We noted that ARCHAEOLOGY CONFIRMS THE NEW TESTAMENT RECORD (as we have it today) in those areas which can be checked; e.g., references to:
1) People
2) Places
3) Events

2. But ONE MORE QUESTION REMAINS in order to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the historical reliability of the New Testament:

"What assurance is there, that what we have today in the form of the New Testament, is that which was penned by its original authors?"

3. In other words, since we don't have the original "AUTOGRAPHS" (the manuscripts penned by the authors), how do we know...
a. There hasn't been SIGNIFICANT CHANGES OR ERRORS made in the process of copying over the years?
b. There hasn't been COLLUSION (secret cooperation for deceitful purposes) among those who possessed the early copies of the originals?

4. This is where "THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST" in attesting ancient manuscripts can be applied to help answer such questions!

[The answer this "test" gives to the historical reliability of the New Testament is an amazing one! But first, it may help to briefly explain...]

I. THE "BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST"

A. THIS TEST IS APPLIED TO ALL ANCIENT HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS...
1. Such as:
a) Julius Caesar's "Gallic War"
b) "Histories" of Tacitus
c) "Annals" of Tacitus
d) The New Testament
2. In an effort TO ESTABLISH THE LIKELIHOOD THAT WHAT COPIES WE HAVE:
a) Are faithful representatives of the originals
b) And have come to us free of changes, errors, or collusion

B. QUESTIONS RAISED IN THIS TEST...
1. "How many copies of the document in question are available?"
a. In order to compare them with one another
b. The more, the better
2. "Where were the copies found?"
a. If they all came from one place, collusion is possible
b. But if they are from places far removed by time and location, collusion is unlikely
3. "What length of time passed between the original and the earliest copies?"
a. If the earliest copies we have were written hundreds of years after the original, a lot of changes could have been made and we would not know it
b. But a short interval of time would increase our assurance in the reliability of the copies
4. "What variances exist between the copies?"
a. If the copies of a document are filled with significant differences, then it would not be possible to know what the original author wrote!
b. But if the variances are few and minor, then the process of copying over the years has been faithful to the original!

[What answers do we find when these questions are applied to the New Testament? And how does the New Testament compare with other
historical documents of antiquity?]

II. THE "BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST" FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT

A. HOW MANY COPIES OF NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS ARE AVAILABLE?
1. Over 4,000 Greek manuscripts; 13,000 copies of portions of the New Testament in Greek!
2. Compare this with other ancient historical writings:
a. Caesar's "Gallic Wars" - only 10 Greek manuscripts
b. "Annals" of Tacitus - 2
c. Livy - 20; Plato - 7; Sophocles - 100

B. WHERE WERE THESE COPIES FOUND?
1. Various places: Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy
2. Such varied locations would make COLLUSION very difficult

C. WHAT LENGTH OF TIME PASSED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE EARLIEST COPIES?
1. We saw in the previous lesson that several PAPYRI FRAGMENTS have been dated to within 50-100 years
2. We have several nearly complete New Testament GREEK MANUSCRIPTS which were copied within 300-400 years, for example:
a. Codex Sinaiticus, found near Mt. Sinai
b. Codex Alexandrinus, found near Alexandria in Egypt
c. Codex Vaticanus, located at the Vatican in Rome
3. But COMPARE THIS WITH MANUSCRIPTS OF VARIOUS CLASSICAL
HISTORIES:
a. "Histories of Thucydides" - earliest copy is 1300 years removed from the original
b. "Histories of Herodotus" - earliest copy is 1350 years removed from the original
c. Caesar's "Gallic War" - 950 years
d. Roman History of Livy - 350 years (and the earliest copy is only a fragment)
e. "Histories" of Tacitus - 750 years
f. "Annals" of Tacitus - 950 years (and there are only two manuscripts)

D. WHAT VARIANCES EXIST BETWEEN THE COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?
1. It is true that there are SOME VARIATIONS between the many thousands of manuscripts available.
a. But the vast majority are very minor (spelling, differences in phraseology, etc.; modern translations often note the differences in footnotes)
b. Only 1/2 of one percent is in question (compared to 5 percent for the Illiad)
2. Even then, it can be stated: "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading...It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: especially is this the case with the New Testament."
-- SIR FREDERICK KENYON (authority in the field of New Testament textual criticism)

CONCLUSION

1. In regards to the "BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST" in attesting the manuscript evidence for the New Testament:
a. The New Testament not only passes with flying colors...
b. It does better than ANY other historical document come down to us from antiquity!

2. "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be as beyond all doubt." -- F. F. BRUCE

3. JOSH MCDOWELL makes some interesting comments:

"After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the
Scripture, I came to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity."

"One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and other to the Bible. One needs to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious."

"Having done this, I believe one can hold the Scriptures in his hand and say, 'The Bible is trustworthy, and historically reliable.'"

4. Why then would anyone question the New Testament record concerning Jesus?
a. It is because reference is made to miracles, such as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead
b. In our next study, we shall consider whether it is reasonable to believe that the New Testament is a LIE when it speaks of such things...

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm

1. There are over 24,000 old manuscripts, that is hand written copies, of portions of the New Testament (NT) today. Over 5,000 of these old manuscripts are in Greek, the language the NT was written in. Many manuscripts are in Latin, Syriac, or another language.


http://www.trustbible.com/testament.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html

http://www.bible-researcher.com/schaff01.html

http://www.katapi.org.uk/BibleMSS/Contents.htm
​

 

[Der Alte]

Previous Post:
According to you, God stood by for 2000 years and did nothing while, evil men simultaneously went into every church, school, and home, all over the Christian world, Africa, Rome, Greece, Asia, Israel, etc., that had copies of the scriptures and corrupted them, adding things, taking things, out, twisting things, and there was not one Christian in the entire world that knew about it or did anything about it. And nobody discovered this until Dottie and her bunch came along.​

[SIZE=-1]I have to ask here how man copies do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John made of their writings? How many copies of Paul's letters do you think he made? Before they were compiled and made into one common canon, do you have you any idea how many times these writings were copied and re-copied as they were circulated among the early churches and were passed along from generation to generation? When you tell me to "show us, the original documents", you have actually supported my argument. For there are none of the original manuscripts in existence. . .[/SIZE]

First please read your own post quoted from Encarta, about 5000 manuscripts. Then read my post about the thousands of manuscripts. Pay particular attention to the geographical sources, scatered all over the Christian world. Did all those copies materialize out of thin air?

Just as you said, the manuscripts were,"copied and re-copied as they were circulated among the early churches and were passed along from generation to generation." The churches in Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonika, ALexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Philippi, etc. did not sit around doing nothing, they preached and taught from something. Handwritten copies of the gospels, and epistles. Do you suppose they did not treat those copies with the utmost dignity and respect, and guard and protect them? Do you think they left them lying around where anyone could get their hands on them?

Now go back and read my "Previous Post," quoted above. In order for the Bible to be corrupted, containing lies, pagan myths and legends, that is what had to have happened. Did the early Christians all across the Mediterranean basin, sit and do nothing while, according to you, corrupted scriptures were substituted for the genuine?

Read about authenicating the scriptures, about the abundance of manuscript support. Now tell me how much mansucript support do you have for your one paragraph from the gospel according to Saint Josephus?

 

[Soul Searcher]

There is a Biblical penalty for adding to or taking away from God's word. Was God lying, would God allow generations of Christians to believe a lie? Or would He do exactly as He said He would?

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:[/SIZE]

Ah, it never fails, the ever present Christian Unorthodox Later Theology knee jerk out-of-context proof text.

What do the words, "And for this cause" refer back to, what do they mean, and whom specifically are they addressed to? Does it mean that God would permit His word to be corrupted for 2000 years, to be filled with lies, pagan myths and legends as is being claimed here, and the majority of Christinity to believe a lie? Let's see shall we?

2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.​

This was NOT addressed to the church, and it does not refer to God's Word. Nothing in scripture even comes close to saying God would permit His Word to be corrupted with lies.

 

[Der Alte]

Isa 14:4 That thou shalt take up this proverb [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]] against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!​

Well, I'm sure I don't know. But when I find out how the fir trees and the cedars of Lebanon went about rejoicing, and actually spoke "saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us." then maybe I will have a clue. Do you know what a proverb is? . . . . . a pithy maxim, usually of metaphorical nature; hence, a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - Strong's Exhaustive Concondance.

One allegorical verse, out of a narrative which begins in verse four and continues through verse 32. There was an actual king of Babylon, he did rule cruelly, and oppress and slay the people, and he did die. Allegories have meaning, what is the meaning of this 28 verse allegory?

[SIZE=-1]Looks to me like even your commentator believe it was an allegory.[/SIZE]

Misrepresenting the source I cited, and proof once again all you can do is attack the Bible. Since you claim Isaiah 14 is an allegory what does it mean? All scripture is profitable. What spiritual truth are we to gain from this passage.

While you are trying to come up with a plausible answer to that question, and attacking the Bible, trying to find lies, corruption, pagan myths and legends in it. Read these verses which all use the word mashal. Were David, King Zedikiah, all Israel, etc., changed into a proverb, a pithy saying, etc? It would appear from scripture that when used of actual persons, mashal means accounts or history of the actual persons will be told as a proverb, etc. Back to Isaiah 14, it refers to an actual person, the king of Babylon, and actual events.

If you want to throw out Isaiah 14, the entire chapter, because you claim it is an allegory, then we should also throw out a lot of what Jesus said because He once said "even the stones would cry out."

H4912 [size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size] mashal maw-shawl'
Apparently from H4910 in some original sense of superiority in mental action; properly a pithy maxim, usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb.

Deu 28:37 And thou [Israel] shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]] and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.

1Ki 9:7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]] and a byword among all people:

2 Ch 7:20 Then will I pluck them [my people vs. 14] up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it [to be] a proverb [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]] and a byword among all nations.

Psa 44:14 Thou makest us [Israel] a byword among the heathen, a shaking of the head among the people.

Psa 69:11 I [David] made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]] to them.

Jer 24:8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt
9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for [their] hurt, [to be] a reproach and a proverb [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]], a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.

Eze 14:7 For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to a prophet to enquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself:
8 And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb [[size=+1]&#1502;&#1513;&#1473;&#1500;[/size]], and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.​