Legitimacy of the bible as a historical document?

That single sentence says it all, doesn't it. That is, fuck the truth of the matter; believe what the obviously biased Hebrew Scribes say!

 

It wasn't a single sentence, it is half of a sentence he wrote.

 

i feel the sense of the Word is all of life speaks . it's
a conciousness and of creation . it's an idea and
that's why it's given a big W in the bible .

might one talk talk it with a dijeridoo ? sure , have a go .

 

If we apply that same reasoning to everything, then we have to throw out a lot of what is accepted ancient history.
Cuneiform?, WTF, that's a bunch of triangles and variations of triangles, yet it is generally accepted that the interpretations offered are accurate, and that is a language that there is no way any modern scholar would have a clue as to the original dialects and such.

The point is we daily accept as legitimate and valid historical events and accounts that probably wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny people like put the Bible under.

 

this could also be interpreted that one has to abandon their family in order to become a disciple.

but not all history says that the son of god came to earth for our salvation. it's a little easier to believe history that says that in 1500 BC this civilization was invaded by this civilization that it is to believe history that says that divine will was being enacted on earth.

 

Oh Mea Fucking Culpa! :banghead::banghead: Fancy me trying to put one over on The All Seeing Dope!!

How will I ever live it down (...dresses in sackcloth, sprinkles ashes on head and self flagellates!!)

 

I think you mean Tok Tok, which is PNG Pidgin.....

 

Tok Tok , thank you whether or not i am even
as sensible as a pidgeon and i shan'ti think to
be more .

 

Would God say love when he really means hate or are they inclusive statements? Is it contradictory? I see that verse as a reference to choosing Jesus' will over that of our own friends and family. If say, a disciples' parents ask a disciple to murder, then as the verse seems to imply, a disciple should instead choose Jesus' will over that of even their own family.

Here's an example:
Matthew 8:22 (18-23) – Allow the dead to bury their own dead

This verse is usually understood as the father being spiritually dead.

Sincerely
Mike

 

Another way to look at this story is,
Leave the dead to bury the dead is talking about the past and about procrastination.

I'll follow you but first I just have to take care of these outstanding commitments, to my family, to tradition, etc.

No, leave those commitments that lead only to death and decay and seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added.

Spiritually dead is a meaningless term. You cannot be spiritually dead and still be corporal.

 

You do like to sensationalize.

 

And you like to nitpick "It wasn't a single sentence, it is half of a sentence he wrote" because you can't argue with what I say.

 

I prefer not to. Beliefs don't argue with the truth, only each other.
I question statements that are inconsistent of themselves or demonstrable facts, or that are based on too small a sampling.

 

I guess it is possible for it to be corrupted, Due to Apostle Paul writing something like 31% of the new testament.

 

to keep on topic,yes,i believe the bible is corrupted.its like this.... Romans were Pagans.The Romans hated Christians,fed them to the lions and hung them in their yards like lawn ornaments.When they realized they couldnt stop the christians,i forget which emperor it was at the time,my mind is fuzzy at the moment,this emperor made it ok to worship as a christian but the christians had to worship as the romans did.On Sunday instead of Saturday and had incorporate pagan rituals into their worship that roman catholics still do to this day.

this pagan emperor also dictated what went into the christian bible.

if memory serves me right (and sometimes it does) i think i remember something about a book of Christ being found in a cave in the middle east sometime in the 80s. i remember hearing the vatican took it for study and that was the last i heard about it.

 

You're probably thinking of Constantine, but I've heard very contradicting accounts of how much he actually affected Christianity.
I've heard two stories: he wanted to convert Rome, changed this and that, to make it more appealing to the Pagans.
But I've also heard he was just trying to protect Christians, as his aunt was a Christian, and he just made it so that there was freedom of religion

 

Constantine in no way dictated canon.

 

That's what I think; but it seems pretty common of a claim that he did. I think 'Jitterbug Perfume' even says so.

But one could definitely argue that the Roman Catholic church corrupts the legitimacy of the Bible (and always has) by determining meanings of passages, and definitely corrupts the beliefs of their members through the papal system.

 

Why should their be another way of saying that? I'm not sure what you are referring to? I don't mean to be rude, just not following.

In my experience, we don't need any formal education to understand what the Bible says. For myself, I only had high school education and I gave up college, and I don't consider myself very bright. This depends whether or not you believe in the holy spirit and whether or not it can guide people into truth, no brilliance necessary. For me, I always went with this guideline while reading scriptures: God is love and wants the best for us. God is perfect. If both are true, rest of scripture follows from this. Basically, an attitude I hold about the character of God and his motives and I go from there. It makes scripture much simpler. It's like Jesus once said, straining a gnat yet swallow a camel.

I don't doubt that the list of interpretations of scripture are numerous, but I do doubt that scripture is all that complicated.

 

"I'll follow you but first I just have to take care of these outstanding commitments, to my family, to tradition, etc."

I got something like this from it also. What I also got out of it was that the father of a disciple was holding his son back from living up to his convictions, so in that situation a disciple should ultimately choose their conviction in Jesus over that of their own father. Jesus was calling him dead because he refused to allow his son to follow, as scripture says, God's messenger and instead cared more about human traditions then to see his son be a part of the ministry.

"No, leave those commitments that lead only to death and decay and seek first the kingdom of god and all things will be added."

Another very interesting thing you said. In Ezekiel it writes, “Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign Lord. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live." and proverbs " The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, turning a person from the snares of death." so it seems to follow that certain commitments would lead to death and that God of the Bible wants people to stray from those commitments.

As for your last statement, it does appear, from my interpretation anyway, that it is possible to be spiritually dead. If a house is closed, shoeing away visitors, then wouldn't that place be empty?