The Bible is true?

Hitler was a pawn of the agenda of the elite ruling class in Europe at the time (now they're worldwide), a large portion of which were European Jews. These are the people who hated Christianity, but more than that, they love material riches and wealth. Look up 'red symphony' on your favorite search engine. Hint: it has nothing to do with music.

Hitler was fascinated with a spear in the musuem in Prague, I think it was. It was said to have been the spear that lanced the side of Jesus at the crucifixion. The first thing he did when the Nazi's invaded that city was go into the museum, and take that spear for himself. I think he had some sort of wierd obsession with Jesus and Christianity, but the main reason for his megalomania stems from an unhappy childhood with a mean stepfather and a mother whom he nursed as she died of breast cancer when he was not yet 20 years old. Add to that the failed ambition to be an artist, and you've got all the makings for a despot. Hitler was probably Jewish himself, and was fascinated with the Aryan genetic traits. It was more a denial of his own ethnicity than it was about Christian stuff, IMO.


Only humans have free will. Angels, and all other forms of humanity have no free will. The reason for free will is so that we can choose Christ, or we can reject him. That way all who receive the kingdom of heaven are there voluntarily, of their own choosing. G-d wants companions, that's why we're here, so that we realize what we have when we finally get to be with Him up there, in comparison to here in Hades. Yes, that's right. We live in the abyss. Read my post below, the long one, #73. That's why the world sucks, because it's not G-d's world, it is Satan's. The bible states that plainly enough. We must realize the glory that is G-d, before we receive the glory of heaven, otherwise, we'll make the same mistake as Satan, and think we are equal to G-d, and get kicked out. We're being spared the mistake of Satan by living in his neighborhood for a while.

Does that make any sense? That's one thing I'd rather learn not by my own mistake, for sure.

We feel like puppets because the world is evil and our hearts are good. Those that love the world have a place in it. Those that hate it have a place in heaven. I've never liked this place. It's superficial and plastic. Now I realize why. It seems real, but its an illusion and a place for evil to rule.

 

Just me jumping into this thing with some thoughts....


Amazing to me when I see agnosticy leftiest types .. lol.. actual compare Hitler to Christianity or even 'Right Wing American' Christianity!?

Hitler was so many things that most of the liberal minded 'Hippies' of today would be VERY PROUD OF.

Hitler was a very staunch gun control advocate.

Hitler was a strong supporter and innovator in 'Liberal Theology' (many of the 'Higher Critisism and Liberal Theology he condoned is spoken by the 'Liberals' in these forums daily - most not realising where they get it from lol!)

Hitler was a commited Evolutionist and promoted the 'Science' zealously

Hitler was a believer in Occultism, Paganism and even Astrology.

Hitler was an Anti-Smoker by the way.. long before it was trendy too!

Hitler was educated at one of the worlds most 'Elite' Universities for that time. He was especially interested in the 'Liberal Arts' at which he excelled.

Hitler was a up-and-coming young Artist who was invited to many of the hot social parties and gatherings you could hope to 'be seen' at.

Hitler organised various young people (himself still younger too) and they decided to 'fight the power' and 'rage against the machine' with a new counter-culture political party aimed at breaking down the 'Old White Men' and their 'Old Traditions'.

LMAO.. It would be hilarious (if it wasnt so scary) at how many Liberal Arts Anti-Establishment, Pro Gun Control, Liberal Theology loving Young people dont even realise that HITLER WAS ONE OF THEM!

Just some thoughts for ya

 

BTW.. for those of you who want to know 'my sources' on the preceeding info....


Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler.

 

mein kampf is a very conflicting account. he says about the many liberal ideas he has but also his incredible nationilist pride. He may have had many liberal ideas, but nazi part was still an exrtreem right wing organisation. he put down christianity, yet he also spoke of huge love for lord and god and christ and teh church.


he was borna dn raised a catholic btw.

and ivefound sources that say that he beleived nohting in paganism and occultism, but borrowed ideals and used them in his political campaigning./ im not saying my souces are more correct, or less correct, its jsut showing that everyone can find different accounts.

 

Queenannie this is what you said here.
"This is the deal: I don't need proof of the bible. I know without a doubt, 100% completely, no torture or any temptation would get me to change my heart, I know that THE BIBLE IS TRUTH. THE BIBLE IS TRUE."

And this is what you said on your previous post.
"I believe, without a doubt, the canonized bible has been altered to suit the political agendas of man, namely the Jews and then the Catholics."

So on this post you say, "THE BIBLE IS TRUE." and on the last post you say, "the canonized bible has been altered " If the bible has been altered it is not true, if it is true it has not been altered. So which is it?

You stated that Jesus spoke in parables. I don't have any problem with Jesus doing that. My problem is that you claim that the whole bible is a parable and that is untrue. In your last post you stated, "the bible is a parable of parables even the O.T." You said you back up your statements with scripture. Could you give me a chapter and verse that states the Old Testament is written in parables?

So Mathew 28:19-20 happens to be your favorite.
Yes I should of used the word teach rather than preach, when you have been a Christian as long as I have, it is sometimes hard to differentiate between the two. According to webster's new collegiate dictionary, preach means to proclaim, and teach means to impart knowledge of. I believe preaching does spread knowledge and teaching results in the same.

You ask where does it say prove. Well you will find that in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I stated that the bible teaches that the heart is desperatly wicked.
And your responce was. "Where does it say that, besides the book of Genesis, in the flood story? Show me, I'm from Missouri." You will find this verse in Jeremiah17:9 which is a considerable time past the flood. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can now it?"

The bible is either Gods pefect truth or it is a detestable lie. The Old Testament does not read as a parable, but as a history of the Jewish people.
Your responce. Then does that mean it is a detestable lie? If I believed as you have stated that the Old Testament was a parable then surly it would be a detestable lie. According to Webster's dictionary a parable is a short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle. The Bible is not a book of fabrications, the God that created the universe does not need to fabricate stories. Today we call the Isrealites Jews, but they are from the same race of people. God is bringing the Jews back to Israel, to lay a trap for the world. When the nations unite to push the Jews out of their land, God will rise up to shake the earth. This will be a day of terror, not of parables. God have mercy on those who do not know you in that day. The world today does not know the prophecies, they do not know what God has planned for
them. As the bible teaches, as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be in the last days.

 

What kind of deductive reasoning is that? It’s like saying ‘My mom had plastic surgery, and now she’s not my mom,’ when you really mean ‘My mom had plastic surgery, and now she doesn’t look like my mom.”

Here’s some contradictions that are farther from reconciliation than what you think I said (which BTW, is spelled out like this: The canonized bible has been altered, by man. The chief translator of the bible by the HRCC was ‘St.’ Jerome, read this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/JEROME.htm

Here’s another good site for general information on early ‘christianity’: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm You will find it says,‘The Church regards him as the greatest of all the doctors in clarifying the Divine Word.’ and ’ We have seen that already while at Rome he had made a revision of the current Latin New Testament, and of the Psalms.’ and ’In 1907 Pope Pius X entrusted to the Benedictine Order the office of restoring as far as possible the correct text of St. Jerome's Vulgate, which during fifteen centuries of use had naturally become altered in many places.’
Why would a direct translation from the original text ever need to be ‘revised’? Isn’t that essentially ‘revising’ the bible, itself? Have you ever compared two or more translations of the bible side by side, to compare the differences in random verses? There is a lot lost in the ‘revision’ of the KJV to the NIV, mainly from the differences in our english language. Are you familiar the the Hebrew language at all? Have you ever compared the English translations of the Torah to the Latin Vulgate OT? There’s no doubt there’s been unintentional alterations which affect literal meaning. Does that mean that the bible isn’t true?

Now I ask you, if the bible is literally true, without qualification, then why would Christians need the history and law of the Jewish people? Their laws no longer apply, we are told. Jesus pretty much tells the Pharisees and Sadducees that they have a father who is not His father, in other words, he’s saying that they are not children of G-d. Either you can take many statements from the Gospels, attributed to Jesus, and say yes, they are truly what he said, and whether you take them literally or figuratively, they pretty much say the same thing. So either you are faced with the problem of what Jesus said conflicts with the Jews being the Children of G-d as the Isrealites because He clearly says they are not children of His G-d, or you can reexamine your view that the bible is 100% true, unaltered, and to be taken literally unless specifically instructed that you are a reading a parable.

Parable is defined as an allegorical relation, an analogy, in the dictionary, so same thing, basically. With that in mind, read Galatians 4: 22-31.

I’m sure He’d be relieved to know that you don’t disapprove of His methods.

How do you know? You’ve shown me, without even realizing it, I’m sure, that you’re not all that familiar with the bible.

continued

 

Okay, since you're obviously wanting to tell me, just how long have you been a Christian? --And I’m assuming you’re counting from the time you were baptized, right? How old were you?

So you do have a dictionary. It’s not doing you much good, because I don’t see how one can assume that proclaiming something is the same as imparting knowledge. Preach also says ‘to advocate by or as by preaching, urge strongly or persistently, or to deliver a sermon’, in my dictionary, which, BTW, is also Webster’s, New World in this case. In that same dictionary when I look up ‘teach’ I find that it is defined as ‘to show or help a person to learn (how) to do something, to give lessons to (a student, pupil, or class); guide the studies of; instruct, help someone to develop (a skill or trait), to give instruction as or in (a place). Oh, but I see you qualified that with ‘I believe’, which must mean it doesn’t matter what it says, if you believe otherwise? I guess the same holds true of the bible, but only for you, not me or anyone else?

In another translation that same verse says ‘. But examine all things; hold fast to what is good’, while the NIV says ‘Test everything, hold onto the good.’
Okay, we’ve got ‘prove’ and ‘examine’ and ‘test’. All very similar, but there are nuances of difference in those words. The original greek text is translated as ‘prove…’, so that is the one we’ll go with. Still, that’s not specific enough, prove what? All things. This is inclusive and not specific. To say this is telling you that you are to prove the truth of the bible to others is assuming. We can’t assume this or else we can assume many more things. Which do you prefer?

And you give me examples from the OT, which was before Jesus came anyway, after which we are told that when the spirit is within our hearts no longer is it evil or wicked. I don’t know about anyone else, but my heart is not wicked, and hasn’t been as long as I can remember, since I have more evidence in my life for the presence of the spirit, than I do for wickedness. And you can’t serve two masters.

What does it say about after Jesus leaves us the Holy Spirit?
The New Testament makes the OT not applicable to Christians, only Jews, right? And Jesus said that His Father is not the Father of the Jews. Now, he didn’t preface those statements by any qualifier. So we know what He says is true. Therefore, how is proof of the goings-on of the Jewish people suitable for a Christian to use when witnessing that Jesus is the Son of G-d, backed up by the written word of G-d, the bible, which is definitely true, because you can prove it by showing that the Jews existed and the did cross the red sea. In the bible we also find that the Pharisees told Jesus that he was not their messiah, they knew of no messiah coming from the land of Galilee from their scriptures and prophesies, yet Jesus tells us he is the fulfillment of such prophesies, such as in the book of Isaiah. Now that’s conflicting, and to say that the bible is 100% true and to be taken literally only in its use for our instruction, presents an ever bigger conflict in regard to the belief system you have faith in.

Do you see where I’m going with this? Your reasoning is not only assumptive, it’s faulty and self contradicting.

It does? Mine doesn’t say anything about fictitious, it says ‘a story in which people, things, and happenings have a hidden or symbolic meaning: allegories are used for teaching or explaining ideas, moral principles, etc., the presenting of ideas by means of such stories, and any symbol or emblem.’ I have a Webster’s, too. Any dictionary I’ve ever looked that word up in has never said that allegory also defined something as being fiction. Can you prove that your dictionary is true? I can’t. Let’s go to a online dictionary. How about dictionary.com ?
I’ll make it easy for you:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0207600.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0620700.html
Http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0505800.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0505800.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/t/t0393300.html

Okay, the Isrealites are G-d’s chosen, who became the Jews, who mobbed on Pilate to crucify Christ per the bible, who they say was not their Messiah, although Christ says different. Now, someone is lying—who is it? Or is the bible untrue?

Why?-- in a grand gesture of ‘thank you for killing my only son in a barbaric and humiliating fashion in the grossest display of ingratitude man’s ever seen?’ That is the biggest contradiction in the bible, that the Jews are still gods chosen people, which can’t be true of either the OT or NT, if you read it as literal, or even symbolically, for that matter.

For whom? Are you Jewish? Where do you fit into all this? Is G-d going to lay a trap for you? Who, then? The Christians who believe in the Christ He sent? That the jews say believe in a lie in regard to Christ?

What? On those that don’t know me, as in Annie? What does this refer to?

I agree, totally. But do you understand them? So when would you say the last days will be here? How will we know?


I said the bible is Truth, and I hold to that. As well, it has been altered. I also said that it's not a literal historical account, and I hold to that, too. Can you prove every single thing in the bible without your proof in one passage conflicting with what's said in another, not to mention in the worldly means such as scientific findings? Can you prove it's true according to your own standards of truth and proof, which mine obviously don't measure up to any more than your own do? At least my beliefs and reasonings are consistent with themselves, as well as the bible and the words of Jesus, which are also found to be consistent in this mode of application.

Is the bible, then true by the standards of the world or of the kingdom of G-d?

 

What kind of deductive reasoning is that?

It is the deductive reasoning that if the bible has been changed, how would one know that what he is reading was not part of that change? Who is to say what is right or what is wrong. And who is to determine the extent of those changes. Suggesting the bible has been altered sounds sinister. I believe the bible has been translated into other languages, yet the integrity of the scriptures has remained intact.


Now I ask you if the bible is literally true, withour qualification, then why would Christians need the history and law of the Jewish people?

1 Corinthians chapter 10,1 to 6. Paul states that the bible stories were our examples, that point out to the Christians how not to live.

Luke 24:44 Jesus said everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms.


Their laws no longer apply, we are told.

Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus never said the law does not apply. He said he came not to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfil.

Jesus pretty much tells the Pharisees and Sadducees that they have a father who is not His father, in other words, he's saying that they are not children of God.

Where did u ever get the idea that the bible states that the Jews were the children of God? The Jews were the race that God picked to do his bidding, but that was it. No where in the bible does it state that the Jews were the children of God. When Jesus told them they have a father who is not His father he spoke correctly. The bible clearly teaches that even though the Jews were Gods hand picked people, few of them will be saved because they rejected Gods blood sacrifice.


I don't see how one can assume that proclaiming something is the same as imparting knowledge.

1. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Proclaim- Bearer of news.
2. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. News---- New information of any kind.
3. Webster"s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Information-Knowledge derived from study experience, or instruction.

And that is how one can assume. It's called a logical conclusion.


Prove all things. Still, that's not specific enought, prove what? All things. This is inclusive and not specific.

It should be obvious, that when the bible states we should prove all things it is telling us not to take everything at face value. The religions of the world depend totally on blind faith. Christians should not only have faith but should be fortified with knoweledge. Wise men lay up knoweledge. Pr. 10,14

 

Could you give me a chapter and verse that states the Old Testament is written in Parables?

Abraham had two sons one by a bondmaid the other by a freewoman. The verse askes the question, which things are an allegory? In the text we see how Abraham's sons symbolically represent the two covenants.
Which I understand.
Yet because of this one verse, you now conclude that the entire Old Testament is a parable?

The Jews, God's people.
It was prophisied that the Jews would reject Christ when He came. God states that in the latter days He would bring the Jews back to the land that He gave them, Israel. He said he was not doing it for their sakes. In the Old Testament, God said where ever the Jews wandered they polluted My name. God stated He would return them to Israel when He was ready to reveal Himself to the world. God's entrance into our evil world, will trigger such cataclysmic events, that it will bring earth to the edge of extinction. God is not allowing the Jews to return just for the purpose of a homeland. He is doing this to infuriate the nations. When God's judgement falls, everyone who is covered by the blood of Christ will be rescued by God's holy angles. Everyone who has been truly born again, will receive God's protection. Those who donot know God will be left behind. God will demonstrate His power in the years ahead, when the nations try to end the controversy with the Jews. They will try to destroy the State of Israel. God will not forget His promise to the Jewish people, and He will not allow it. Not since the time of Pharaoh has God worked in such ways. With the real church gone, the man of sin will then be revealed. In that day, earth will become like hell. Gods second coming will be 7 years away.

 

You believe some things, but must prove other things less important. Is it more important to believe that the red sea parted for the israelites, and drowned the Pharoah's army than it is to know the words originally used when the first biblical texts were put down by the scribes? One little change such a different word being substituted due to changing semantics can make quite a bit of difference. Especially in regard to names among others. Like spirit vs. wind. vs. breath.

Have you studied the Hebrew or Greek languages, or the Hebrew culture at all? There is a lot more to be learned there about the truth of the bible than archeology.

We don't have to destroy a law not be subjected to it ourselves.
Jesus also said On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.Matthew 22:40

 

No, because in that reference, if you can see the symbolism, then you can see it throughout the entire bible

Where???

It's not about 7 years! That's just the main interpretation. If everyone would stop being so literal and egocentric with respect the modern man, it would be understood. What's the 'real' church?

Who did god make the promise to? The jews or the isrealites? Do you think they are the one in the same? Isreal is not a land, nation, or place, it is a people! And it is not the jews. There were no such thing as jews when god gave that promise to Abraham, and Jacob, and then again to the isrealites at the time of the exodus. Jews didn't exist until the tribes split up.
The paragraph above does not make sense with what is said all throughout the bible, OT and NT. Unless you're selective I guess, in taking some of it as symbology and some of it literally. That's nothing but confusion. That really confuses the issue of the jews vs gentiles as far as the reason Jesus was said to have come here.

 

There is some truth found in the gospel books. But there are some lies in there as well. The rest of the books to the bible are by far some crafty lieing with an obviuos intent to decieve. I say don't let the deception control your life.

 

well as it was written by people and passed down and much of what has been omitted will never be seen...we can to an extent assume that at least 40% is false or inconclusive.


but much has been proved...the existance of jesus,the opening of the sea at moses feet...or at least the splitting of the sea

scientists have proved all of it bar the "stories"that are only supposed to be symbolic.

yes much of it may seem far fetched and what not but i'd say a good 60% of it is true.

the rest is up to faith.

some people think its far fetched because the demands of the faith were very great[hooj] and hard....they are not in fact. they are not demands but acts od devotion and self disciplin and the strive to decency which is expected of humanity as a species regardless of ethos. they are only great to those who do not follow them. to christians they are what is expected. that does not render it otiose in anyway.


anyway...as i said its not 100% because its a spiritual book. it can't be fully proved till we are seated at the right hand of the father laughing at all those people who give out about our book.

 

I missed where they proved that the sea parted for moses, is that furhter back in this thread?

 

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

-1 Timothy 4:3,4

You guys fit this verse quite well except you must not have very good teachers or you don't have very good sources because all you write are vague statements.

Prove the Archaeologic, Scientific, and Prophetic proof wrong but that will never happen because you guys seem to say is the Bible is stuff like this:

"scientists have proved all of it bar the "stories"that are only supposed to be symbolic."

ok... show me where...

"we can to an extent assume that at least 40% is false or inconclusive."

40% ay? Where did you get that? Your own study?

Guys if you are going to talk negative about the Bible please know or some what know what you are talking about.

 

I too would be interested to see the evidence for these startling conclusions.

50% is 'proven false'?
The 'Other Books' outside the Gospel are full of lies?
Science has something to do with this, huh?

Let me guess - you read somewhere on the internet that it was 'a known fact' that Romans changed all the scriptures to glorify themselves?
Or..
You read a book saying Jesus was Buddha or married with children?

 

no not in this thread at all.


a year or two ago i watched a documentary on the "prince of egypt" thing. and they had studied the concept of the sea splitting. it was found that the possibility of it ever happening was in fact very large because similar displays of a tide pulling back and retreating from the shore were like that of a tsunami but there was only one possibility for that happening and the onle tidal wave that could have been caused was by a volcano a few hundred miles away by sea however on searching the aparent place that the sea split they found volcanic rock that was as old as the time when the river splitting ooccured and it also had to have been carried by sea to get to the area...so they figured the force of the volcano could actually have set off the tidal wave and as time went on would have built momentum and what not [i assume thats how it got so big cos i actually can't remember what he said but something about speed increase and then the increase of size i think]. eventually upon reaching the banks the wave would have had to pull the sea back providing safe passage onto what is actually now an island and would have been a safe distance for them to travel.




sounds a bit farfetched and the piece of volcanic rock was a result of the volcanic erruption that did happen thousands of years ago around the same time moses freed the slaves...but it really could have been coincidence. ad could have had no impact on the sea but it would explaine a hell of a lot about that whole thing.


but i figure is really is possibility and yes the documentry does exist but i don't remember the name of it...i think it was on during some jesus week on discovery and im not sure how accurate they are.

its all down to a matter of faith i suppose until they prove it 100% tho.



and now to the rest which i assume directed at me.



and the 40% was in fact a random number. being a believer in the majority [hence the choice of statistic that first came to mind for sake of point] of the bible doesn't mean that i am pretentious enough to think i know everything about it thank you very much. i think it has as many loose ends as the believers and non-believers claims to proof and disproof alike. the thing that assures it in my eyes though is my belief in the existance of god which was perpetuated by the existance of jesus.whom they have proven to exist through countless documentries. the only thing no-one has proved is in fact the existance of god. and that's the divide. and why can't we prove he is real? because we cannot prove he isn't. until the day we do...it all comes down to faith. some have it some don't but demanding proof of a book that derives from "divine intervention" will get no-one nowhere fast.



and by the way the 60% i refer to is nothing to do with the divinity aspect but the actual story and prophecy and the ability for humans to mishandle truths to manipulate others and the fact that much has been ommitted.

however if in fact one could statistically "prove" the bible was mostly lies...which they can't i'd be all ears.i never offered it as truth because i can't. neither could you. that would be just as pretentious, but as a belief i feel some of the bible has some sketchy parts on reading it. that doesn't mean i know nothing about it.it does mean however i am willing to learn but until i learn EVERYTHING i can only offer opinion on that which i do understand and that which i have studied.i have only found my faith since i was 17 so i will admit i might not know as much as you who has probably been a christian all their lives.but we can only be expected to judge within what we understand. when we understand more...our minds open more to possibilities.which is where others come in and help and not criticse how we know nothing and i think one knows the implications of that.

and whats wrong with sayin you can't prove symbolic stories to be truth? i don't believe they're truth.but i thought thats the point. that they're just an interpretation of truth. doesn't mean the symbolism should be discounted at all. and only a small few are symbolic like for example...and to be cliché and obvious,the whole garden of eden thing being symbolic of temptation and the outcome of sucuming to it.


but i do agree on that thing about our teachers though.our teachers do not teach religion over here in indepth ways because a lot of schools are non-denominational so its not really required.or we have have pathetic teachers who are awarded their profession on the basis of being christian. they can't offer a class much in the way of teaching because most of them can't really explaine anything.offering answers like..because i said so really doesn't suffice for me.


maybe documentries on the bible and the proof of the stories of the bible aren't the way to go...then again...if they are not...and the professionals are not to be trusted what is?


*hears answer of "the bible" being played out *


and btw...all you guys? im a bloody christian thank you very much if you were impluying otherwise.

 

Check this out: http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/contra.htm Actually, I just realized that you said the 'integrity' of the scriptures. No, I don't believe it has, either. Still, check out that link, it's interesting.

I'm talking about the laws of the OT! The difference between the Levitical priesthood vs the order of Melchizedek.
The fundamental change which makes the Old testament 'old' and the new testament 'new'.

Romans 7:6 *But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Galatians 2:16 *Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 5:14 *For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:18 *But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Ephesians 2:15 *Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Even if it's not based on a foundation of faith, and may not be lasting? What good is that?
Romans 14:23 *And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
2 Corinthians 5:7 *(For we walk by faith, not by sight
Hebrews 11:1 *Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is defined as 'unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence' and 'complete trust, confidence, or reliance'

This is a crucial point of salvation--believing in things unseen!!!!

You can't get anyone into heaven by proof! You can't get anyone else, there, besides yourself, anyway. The thing is, unless you help someone toward faith (which doesn't require proof, so using proof in your persuasion disqualifies), you're not doing them, you, or G-d any favors!

And I told you that never had I seen that, and the link I posted did include the word fictitious in the definition, but did not say that was absolutely true every time. Allegory and parable does not mean the same as fiction! Fiction or fact is a descriptor of the noun, and Allegory and parable are descriptors of the use! Not once did I say the OT was fiction. I said it is best applied when used as an allegorical lesson!!!!

Yes, Christ's mission was to shepherd the lost sheep back home, these were the isrealites! He came to remind the 144,000. But this is not the jews, since they could never go 'back' to heaven, since He said they'd never been there in the first place!
The jews could only go if they accepted him as the son of G-d, but the 144,000 had their spots reserved since the beginning! Gentiles were also extended the offer of a new home in the New Jerusalem, and that is called the dispensation of grace. The true 'Isreal' is not about a piece of land or a world recognized 'nation'. This is a big hoax based on the story of Exodus. There was a interruption of history during the times of captivity of the isrealites, in which they were scattered and also they finally intermingled genetically with other races, and the people that emerged saying they were isrealites were not necessarily the true 'flock'. Why do the jews speak yiddish, when the hebrew isrealites spoke hebrew? Genetic testing has been done lately which is showing the proof of there being a difference.

Right, this means that the jews are not the true descendants of Jacob, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have said what he did about them not coming from heaven, therefore they could not return.

Revelation 7:4 *And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

This is not about current political events or the hoax of the 'Isreal Nation' being perpretated so successfully by the Jews!! What does it say in Revelation?

Revelation 2:9 *I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 *Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Revelation 21:27 *And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Do you see the contradiction when Jews and Isrealites are assumed to mean the same people? It is impossible!

It never says the jews are the nation of isreal. Who says that? The Jews.

 

You can't prove something is not true (or is a lie), you can only prove it is true. The only way to 'prove' an untruth is to prove the opposite is true. I don't see how that could be done in this case.

The 'proof' of the truth found within the symbolic stories of the bible is, for now, faith.