How To Get To Heaven When You Die (3 Viewers)

[joffer]

Religious people don't budge.

What does this mean? Should people budge for the sake of budging?And are you suggesting religious people don't budge, regardless of topic? Or is that people don't budge when religion is the topic?

I'm referring to THIS

Truthfully, that's what a lot of non Christians do when presented with evidence that supports Christianity. They won't even look at it or consider it. I have heard the other side. I learned about evolution all of my life in School. How much have you studied Creationism?

how would one study Creationism?

 

[Politician Spock]

Religious people don't budge.

What does this mean? Should people budge for the sake of budging?And are you suggesting religious people don't budge, regardless of topic? Or is that people don't budge when religion is the topic?

I'm referring to THIS

Truthfully, that's what a lot of non Christians do when presented with evidence that supports Christianity. They won't even look at it or consider it. I have heard the other side. I learned about evolution all of my life in School. How much have you studied Creationism?

I defended creationism for 30+ years. I was "all in" as an evangelical Christian. Went to seminary school, where it was made clear to me that it was NOT a place for critical thought. Which of course motivated me even more to think critically about Christianity. The only place critical thinking about Christianity is allowed is outside of Christian circles. Inside the circle, things should just not be questioned.

 

[Politician Spock]

Religious people don't budge.

What does this mean? Should people budge for the sake of budging?And are you suggesting religious people don't budge, regardless of topic? Or is that people don't budge when religion is the topic?

I'm referring to THIS

Truthfully, that's what a lot of non Christians do when presented with evidence that supports Christianity. They won't even look at it or consider it. I have heard the other side. I learned about evolution all of my life in School. How much have you studied Creationism?

how would one study Creationism?

One doesn't. Instead the art of apologetics is used.

 

[SameSongNDance]

Zoroastrianism had a pretty large influence on Judaism (and thus Christianity) as it was the first religion to create the dichotomy of good and evil/heaven and hell. The aforementioned duality is one of several Zoroastrian elements Christianity would eventually adopt via religious syncretism. There's nothing inherently special about Christianity, or the Abrahamic religions really. They're just a hodge-podge of incorrect and/or bad ideas.

 

[Paddington]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

 

[Politician Spock]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

That isnt even debatable.

 

[Zow]

If my New Testament theology teacher is correct, Jesus was most likely born in June-July of 4 B.C.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Religious people don't budge.

What does this mean? Should people budge for the sake of budging?And are you suggesting religious people don't budge, regardless of topic? Or is that people don't budge when religion is the topic?

I'm referring to THIS

Truthfully, that's what a lot of non Christians do when presented with evidence that supports Christianity. They won't even look at it or consider it. I have heard the other side. I learned about evolution all of my life in School. How much have you studied Creationism?

And this is the part we say "What evidence?" and you don't provide any. Thanks for playing!

 

[matuski]

If my New Testament theology teacher is correct, Jesus was most likely born in June-July of 4 B.C.

That there is any question regarding when a god was born is curious.

 

[Scoresman]

What was with the hitler guy giving that over-acted speech to all the stormtroopers. Aren't stormtroopers conditioned from birth to be loyal to their leaders? Isn't his speech kind of preaching to the choir?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

2. God had conversations with people and they wrote the bible

My response: 1 and 2 are NOT impossible, but it wasn't the first one, it was the second one. Also, they are moved by the Holy Ghost to write what they wrote. You wouldn't understand that unless you have the Holy Ghost inside you. I understand it because I DO have the Holy Spirit inside me.

From where do you get the belief that God had conversations with people and from those conversations we got scripture?

Splitting hairs aren't we?

Conversations with god... conversations with a man who says he is god?

I'm more likely to believe someone who claims they have talked to a god in visions than one who claims to be a god himself. OK, not really, I'd laugh at both... but less at the visions than the deeming oneself a god or son of a god.

God finally gets around to talking to humans...takes the form of a burning bush.

lol

 

[Paddington]

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time}

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Zow]

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time}

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for

correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Wat

 

[BeaverCleaver]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

Do you or any of the others that liked this post celebrate Christmas?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

Do you or any of the others that liked this post celebrate Christmas?

Yes.

 

[Politician Spock]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

Do you or any of the others that liked this post celebrate Christmas?

I do. It's great!

 

[matuski]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

Do you or any of the others that liked this post celebrate Christmas?

Why wouldn't I?

 

[Politician Spock]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

Do you or any of the others that liked this post celebrate Christmas?

Why wouldn't I?

Exactly! Pagan traditions, rituals and festivities are fun. If they weren't, Christians wouldn't do them every single year.

Don't take my word for it. Take Pat Robertson's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FvT2wzKTmo

 

[McGarnicle]

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. {in old time: or, at any time}

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

'Twas once upon a time, when Jenny Wren was young,So daintily she danced and so prettily she sung,

Robin Redbreast lost his heart, for he was a gallant bird.

So he doffed his hat to Jenny Wren, requesting to be heard.

"Oh, dearest Jenny Wren, if you will but be mine,

You shall feed on cherry pie and drink new currant wine,

I'll dress you like a goldfinch or any peacock gay,

So, dearest Jen, if you'll be mine, let us appoint the day."

Jenny blushed behind her fan and thus declared her mind:

"Since, dearest Bob, I love you well, I'll take your offer kind.

Cherry pie is very nice and so is currant wine,

But I must wear my plain brown gown and never go too fine."

 

[Politician Spock]

It's Christmas time. What a great time of year to give your life to Christ. Please take the time to read this first post.

It's a great time of year to remind everyone that the origins of this great time of year had nothing to do with Christ... The Catholic church decided to hold a special mass so that believers would be less likely to partake in the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities of the holiday season. The church wanted the mass to be so special that they called it Christ's mass. The believers attended the mass and it became an annual tradition. Unfortunately the believers also continued doing the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities that having the mass was supposed to keep them from doing. The church's plan failed... So over time Christ's mass, or Christmas as it became to be called, became the tradition of going to mass as well as doing all the pagan traditions, rituals and festivities we know and love today. Christians stole the holiday... which should be expected given many of the stories and claims about Jesus were stolen from pagan concepts that were centuries old prior to time of Jesus. The whole religion is a collection of stolen beliefs and traditions. Very little about it is unique at all.

Merry Christmas!!!

Do you or any of the others that liked this post celebrate Christmas?

Why wouldn't I?

Exactly! Pagan traditions, rituals and festivities are fun. If they weren't, Christians wouldn't do them every single year.

Don't take my word for it. Take Pat Robertson's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FvT2wzKTmo

lol @ uncle Pat

"but the intent of the heart is what it's about"....

The mental gymnastics of christian apologetics should be a sport in the special olympics.

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post.

 

[joffer]

Please take the time to read this first post.

done. now what?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Please take the time to read this first post.

When will divine intervention correct that double pasting mess?

 

[Politician Spock]

Please take the time to read this first post.

done. now what?

Link

 

[matuski]

I am thinking Paddington = XXXFRODOBAGGINSXXXX

Or he plagiarized from him.

Link

Link - apparently started this over and over again here and got locked/banned.

Link

Link

Link

Yea.. I'm leaning plagiarism.

 

[Politician Spock]

I am thinking Paddington = XXXFRODOBAGGINSXXXX

Or he plagiarized from him.

Link

Link - apparently started this over and over again here and got locked/banned.

Link

Link

Link

Yea.. I'm leaning plagiarism.

Being a good parrot is a tenant of evangelical christianity.

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Paddington has given up on any thoughtfulness or reason-ability to support his position.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Paddington has given up on any thoughtfulness or reason-ability to support his position.

Paddington is the MCGasMoney of Jesus.

 

[matuski]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

I am thinking Paddington = XXXFRODOBAGGINSXXXX

Or he plagiarized from him.

Link

Link - apparently started this over and over again here and got locked/banned.

Link

Link

Link

Yea.. I'm leaning plagiarism.

 

[Christo]

Have we figured this out yet?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Have we figured this out yet?

Iceland apparently has.

 

[Politician Spock]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

Please take the time to read all the responses to your posts if you haven't yet.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Paddington is a computer algorithm programmed to bump this thread every 3-13 days.

 

[matuski]

Instead of recipes, maybe we could just post long lists of links from the yoga pants thread?

To help you decide whether young women in yoga pants are too distracting, here's a gallery of young women in yoga pants:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Yeah, you can keep those flat butts. I'll take the following...

1

2

3

8

10



I found these when doing research on the topic:

http://img.fark.net/...hQ&f=1412568000

http://cdn.rsvlts.co...ga-Pants-21.jpg

http://shechive.file...jpg?w=600&h=600

http://i1212.photobu...ga-pants-24.jpg

http://wac.9ebf.edge...-19-480x640.jpg

http://gnosticbent.f...d-the-chive.jpg

For Christo:

http://cdn.ebaumswor...04/81393414.jpg



More research

and more

umm

I'll be back in a minute

How does she stay upright?

Maybe she doesn't



Ah, what the hell, more Pros...

A

C

D

E

Yoga Pants Farm on Facebook (From Finless on 10/5/2014, RIP)

Yet more yoga pants (Special Edition)...

Brady

Gronk

Edelman

I

feel

like

this

thread

has

gotten

off

track

I would have for people to think I have only taken without having given.

http://yogapants-leg...age/97823609396

http://yogapants-leg...age/96968108711

http://yogapants-leg...age/96537784041

pollardsvision, on 06 Oct 2014 - 1:05 PM, said:

http://i.imgur.com/IWwAQog.jpg

Somebody say something about volleyball shorts?

Yoga shorts?

http://www.girlsinyo...aylie-noire.jpg

http://www.girlsinyo...shorts-damn.jpg

http://www.girlsinyo...ogashorts-2.jpg

http://www.girlsinyo...acement-###.jpg

No yoga pants discussion is complete without paying tribute to an FFA legend



Ode to the volleyball shorts:http://i.imgur.com/hmcur9n.png

http://underwearidea...if-obercb7t.jpg

http://todaysbighit....l-9-12-0079.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com....jpg?imgmax=800

https://ircimg.net/8C1kjDc.jpg

http://www.picdescri...s/pdimg_458.gif

Forward thinking here:

http://www.cherryplu...l-shorts-16.jpg

And one for Christo:

http://therackup.com...tts-500x331.jpg

Fall is here. How about an ode to yoga pants and boots.

http://hazmeelfin.ne...s-y-botas-5.jpg

http://suvhighlight....st-jeil1xst.jpg

http://24.media.tumb...0xwvo1_1280.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/54ITFXP.gif

http://media-cache-a...7139331d375.jpg

http://media-cache-e...96359168412.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/TAXqg.jpg

Al O'Pecia, on 07 Oct 2014 - 2:19 PM, said:

Celebrity Yoga Pants...

Kate Beckinsale

pollardsvision, on 08 Oct 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Billy Bats, on 08 Oct 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

Ned, on 08 Oct 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

pollardsvision, on 08 Oct 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

Pony Tail. Biel?

My Link

Top 3 ### of all time.

Not yoga pants, but this comment leaves no choice.

Emma Watson rocking the second skin

http://www.imgism.co...-watson-gifs/2/

Not sure how she got these on but god bless her for doing it

http://www.hgiyp.com...c7a24a6e438.jpg

It is arguably her best feature, especially for a small girl.

http://i.imgur.com/bLWeD.jpg

http://m.quickmeme.c...bd6142dc3e2.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kZVH04Q.jpg

Even the cat seems to like them

http://www.fadedindu...-in-kitchen.jpg

Not bad at all

http://www.fadedindu...-great-butt.jpg

Having a ball

http://www.fadedindu...agram-photo.jpg

3 mighty nice booties

http://www.fadedindu...rfect-butts.jpg

Yes please

http://www.fadedindu...t-and-shoes.jpg

Clean and jerk anyone?

http://i95.photobuck...ga-pants-40.jpg



http://t3.gstatic.co...qbfwfDAMRcK1AVZ

And it keeps getting better

http://i95.photobuck...ts-part22-9.jpg



http://muscleandbraw...=1&d=1394521836

Assie the new trend?I certainly hope so!

http://i95.photobuck...ts-part3-31.jpg

Oh my!

http://media-cache-c...4e91b115000.jpg



http://cdn.rsvlts.co.../01/b7Tqvee.gif

http://www.seriousfi...s-13feb7-11.jpg

http://cdn-www.i-am-...inguggsgirl.jpg

https://33.media.tum...66xllo1_500.jpg



Old School Booty keyra augustina

New booty

Upside-down pose

Booty in training.

Ready for another round?

http://i.imgur.com/TAu0kaU.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MRZenKk.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/hdzQBQt.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/zdTTPFv.png

http://i.imgur.com/XaawpJS.png

http://i.imgur.com/WJleQDC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/j2m00eK.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/SO4SFE0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4S0U5ai.jpg

A few more

http://i.imgur.com/d0KsNea.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/J8D7laY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/aJ1L6oD.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MFCGj2T.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AX3bGXq.jpg Jen Selter

http://i.imgur.com/I7otd2l.jpg



another

one more



More Caitlin Rice

http://i.imgur.com/pNxBjbY.png

her instagram for those who want more

http://instagram.com/caitlinricefit

F me

http://instagram.com...s53/?modal=true



oops

supergirl

coy

benched

si

ms armstrong

light

primp

http://www.cavemanci...oga_pants_6.jpg

http://www.cavemanci...ga_pants_17.jpg

http://www.cavemanci...oga_pants_3.jpg

http://media-cache-e...7fdd8604570.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.co...AOff-.jpg:large

http://3.bp.blogspot...oga-pants-1.jpg

More please

stay thirsty

mocha

sheer

one

(first 10 pages, I'm spent)

 

[timschochet]

Looks to me like some of you guys are already there.

 

[Paddington]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

 

[cstu]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

The Koran says that Jesus was not the son of God and was not crucified. What secular source proves that either of these happened?

Also, Paul never saw Jesus crucified and there were no DNA test done on Jesus.

 

[matuski]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

more plagiarism.

at least change the font.

 

[Politician Spock]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible.

Pointing out other sources of bull#### doesn't make your source of bull#### any less smelly.

The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not.

The bible contradicts itself many times. There's also a lot of stuff in the bible that there is absolutely no secular evidence for.

The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were.

In some cases it is true that a biblical author was an actual eyewitness to events they describe. But many of the important books were not written by eyewitness authors. For example, no one knows who wrote the gospels. The gospel books got their names from tradition. And most modern scholars, even biblical ones, accept that not all the books attributed to Paul were written by Paul. The two books of Peter were written by different authors, and it's very unlikely that the Peter that was an apostle was one of those two authors.

Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar.

I think that's safe to say as well. It's also safe to say it regarding biblical authors too.

It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

Thank you for articulating exactly why no one should believe a thing you say about what happened two thousand years ago.

 

[Mister CIA]

Not really keeping up with the dialogue here, but it dawned upon me that God can't write (and presumably can't spell).

Your God is Illiterate!! ... would make a snazzy bumper sticker.

 

[Quint]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

what are your thoughts on Marcion of Sinope and the current edition of the Bible?

feel free to discuss the Apocrypha and how it relates to the "...actual eyewitness to the events..."

 

[timschochet]

Just for the record, it was some dude named Paddington who referred to the Prophet Muhammad as an idiot, OK? It wasn't the rest of us in this forum.

 

[Paddington]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

what are your thoughts on Marcion of Sinope and the current edition of the Bible?

feel free to discuss the Apocrypha and how it relates to the "...actual eyewitness to the events..."

I don't consider the Apocrypha part of Scripture, so I don't care what it says. The Biblical Manuscripts in the Original Languages has not been altered. The Translations are just that, translations of the Bible, hence you have variations in those.

 

[Ladsud]

Just for the record, it was some dude named Paddington who referred to the Prophet Muhammad as an idiot, OK? It wasn't the rest of us in this forum.

I always figured you for an atheist.

 

[Politician Spock]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

what are your thoughts on Marcion of Sinope and the current edition of the Bible?

feel free to discuss the Apocrypha and how it relates to the "...actual eyewitness to the events..."

I don't consider the Apocrypha part of Scripture, so I don't care what it says. The Biblical Manuscripts in the Original Languages has not been altered. The Translations are just that, translations of the Bible, hence you have variations in those.

First of all, no one knows what the original writings said, as we don't have the originals of any writing. The closest we have is a copy of a copy of a copy. And it is clearly evident from the copies we do have that they were being altered over time. For example, the entire story of Jesus telling the crowd that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone, doesn't appear in copies until around the 10th century. There are thousands of changes that have been found to the writings in their original language, a lot of which has significant doctrinal influences. The variations that come from translations only adds to it. To suggest that we can believe the writings are unaltered is insane. I used to believe that. But I was delusional. Anyone who believes that is delusional.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

what are your thoughts on Marcion of Sinope and the current edition of the Bible?

feel free to discuss the Apocrypha and how it relates to the "...actual eyewitness to the events..."

I don't consider the Apocrypha part of Scripture, so I don't care what it says. The Biblical Manuscripts in the Original Languages has not been altered. The Translations are just that, translations of the Bible, hence you have variations in those.

First of all, no one knows what the original writings said, as we don't have the originals of any writing. The closest we have is a copy of a copy of a copy. And it is clearly evident from the copies we do have that they were being altered over time. For example, the entire story of Jesus telling the crowd that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone, doesn't appear in copies until around the 10th century. There are thousands of changes that have been found to the writings in their original language, a lot of which has significant doctrinal influences. The variations that come from translations only adds to it. To suggest that we can believe the writings are unaltered is insane. I used to believe that. But I was delusional. Anyone who believes that is delusional.

For clarity, you are referring to John 7:53-8:11.

Regarding that specific passage, and general thoughts on inerrancy, I found this response from gotquestions.org to be useful:

Question: "Does John 7:538:11 belong in the Bible?"

Answer: The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 7:538:11. This section of Scripture, sometimes referred to as the pericope adulterae, has been the center of much controversy over the years. At issue is its authenticity. Did the apostle John write John 7:538:11, or is the story of the adulterous woman forgiven by Jesus a later, uninspired insertion into the text?

The Textus Receptus includes John 7:538:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery.

The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:538:11 was not originally part of Johns Gospel. No church father commented on the section until the twelfth century, and, even then, his comment was that accurate Greek manuscripts did not contain it. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53).

There is internal evidence, too, that John 7:538:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of these verses breaks the flow of Johns narrative. Reading from John 7:52 to John 8:12 (skipping the debated section) makes perfect sense. Also, the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to the scribes anywhere in his bookexcept in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in Johns Gospel.

It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story of Jesus into Johns Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long timeit was an oral traditionand a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).

Those who favor the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery point to the sheer number of Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. They explain its omission in early manuscripts as an attempt by overzealous church leaders to prevent misunderstandings. Here is the theory of those who favor inclusion: John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later church leaders deemed the passage morally dangeroussince Jesus forgives the woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So, the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem soft on adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place.

The fact, however, remains that John 7:538:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. Thus, there is serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible. Many call for Bible publishers to remove these verses (along with Mark 16:920) from the main text and put them in footnotes.

Because were talking about certain editions of the Bible being wrong in certain ways, we should include a few words on the inerrancy of Scripture. The original autographs are inerrant, but none of the original autographs are extant (in existence). What we have today are thousands of ancient documents and citations that have allowed us to (virtually) re-create the autographs. The occasional phrase, verse, or section may come under scholastic review and debate, but no important doctrine of Scripture is put in doubt due to these uncertainties. That the manuscripts are the subject of ongoing scholarship does not prove there is something wrong with Gods Word; it is a refining fireone of the very processes God has ordained to keep His Word pure. A belief in inerrancy underpins a reverent, careful investigation of the text.

Commentary by Gary Burge

© Copyright 2002-2016 Got Questions Ministries

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Jayrok]

At least you're persistent. Kudos for that. But attacking the Koran and/or those who may hold it dear is not a good strategy for winning souls for Christ. Love and tolerance, not slander and condemnation... remember?

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The koran wasn't written until hundreds of years after the events in the bible. The koran CONTRADICTS the actual secular history of the biblical events, the bible does not. The bible was written by the actual eyewitnesses to the events, the koran was not. Mohammad wasn't there, the biblical writers were. Since what he says grossely contradicts the biblical, eyewitness accounts, I think it's safe to say that mohammad is a liar. It's like someone telling you that George Washington wasn't really the First U.S. President, he was a shoe salesman. That person lives today. Who are you going to believe the actual people who were there and/or lived in his time or some idiot who came along hundreds of years later refuting history and eyewitnesses to the events?

what are your thoughts on Marcion of Sinope and the current edition of the Bible?

feel free to discuss the Apocrypha and how it relates to the "...actual eyewitness to the events..."

♫♫♫ JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN, ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD....

RED AND YELLOW, BLACK AND WHITE, THEY ARE PRECIOUS IN HIS SIGHT!

JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN OF THE WORRRRLLLLLLLLDDDD ♫♫♫