Hypocrite

Originally posted by black beetle
I have no issue to resolve;

The contradictions, the problematic verses, the available translations and the differ linguistic and doctrinal interpretations of the Bible are so many, that they caused a huge number of denominations. And any single one of all of these denominations is nothing but a product of a purely human criticism according to "reason ...[text shortened]... ; and this is what all the Christians have to resolve as regards the so called "Word of G-d"
😵

I agree with much of what you said.

Christianity, as it appears to the senses, in this world, is exactly as you described, and maybe worse than you think.

I've navigated through much of it over the years and have arrived in a safe location. You may want to reconsider why you have concluded why things appear as they do. It just may be, based on the conditions of life as we know, that the Bible is so misunderstood because it is true.

Ask yourself why it is that when the offer of eternal life is made by what is written in the scriptures that it met with so much opposition? Can you really find anything like it anywhere else? A free gift of God's grace!

Who in their right mind would refuse such a gift?

I think the Truth is outrageous. Impossible to believe. Imagine how impossible it is to conceive of the things expressed in the Bible. If the things that are taught in the Bible are true, then how does one begin to believe them?

And if one is so confident that God is a myth, then why even think about it, much less waste one more moment in debate over it. It would seem quite immature to me to do so. 😵

Originally posted by JS357
I'm fine with it being pointless for either of us to debate the other.

Debating isn't a bad thing. But a debate can be bad.

For example: Two people arguing, and both of them are wrong.

Both can be wrong, but both can't be right.

Originally posted by josephw
I agree with much of what you said.

Christianity, as it appears to the senses, in this world, is exactly as you described, and maybe worse than you think.

I've navigated through much of it over the years and have arrived in a safe location. You may want to reconsider why you have concluded why things appear as they do. It just may be, based on the cond ...[text shortened]... ch less waste one more moment in debate over it. It would seem quite immature to me to do so. 😵

I really know not if the Bible is true; I only know that if Eve (OK Freaky, Chava) was Chinese, she would have eaten the Snake and everything would be fine😵

Originally posted by josephw
Both can be wrong, but both can't be right.

That depends on the positions in question. Sometimes both are right, sometimes both are partially right and partially wrong. Sometimes one of them must necessarily be right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on the positions in question. Sometimes both are right, sometimes both are partially right and partially wrong. Sometimes one of them must necessarily be right.

Yes, it depends on the topic of debate and how answers are framed within the context of discussion.

But we're not talking about opinions here. We are debating whether a thing is true or false.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That being said, it is quite tiring (and boring) when a person brings out the oafish laundry list of elementary-level "challenges" and acts like they've just stolen the Mona Lisa from Musée du Louvre.
At least put some thought into it!

Okay, I lol'ed at this... pretty good.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I just thought you were horribly ignorant and might want to brush up a bit so I was giving you some pointers as a starting point.

[b]Did you hope to sway opinion on the basis of its content?
No.

Were you relying on it to provide credence to your position?
No.

I already have.
But not the contents I was pointing to.

R ...[text shortened]... usion when in reality it is little more than the opinion of an anonymous poster on the internet.

Oh.
Now I get it: you're just having a laugh, right?
You reference Wikipedia, when you could have easily told me to consider the yellow Post-It notes sitting on the desk next to my monitor.
Now it makes so much more sense.
If you don't understand that when we refer people to something for information, we are are attempting to make a case for a particular point of view then there's really no where to go with you.
You post links, you refer others to them, you say such things as "But it does show..." and yet you aren't relying on the information to which you point as proving your point or giving it credence??
What world does that nonsense exist in, exactly?

You still haven't figured out what the discussion is have you? I suggest you go back and read through my posts, it'll come to you eventually.
Gee, I would, but none of your posts are connected to this point now are they?

All I am saying is that the Bible is well known to be highly inaccurate as a historical document...
[emphasis added]
Thus sayeth... you.
If something is well-known, we should be able to see evidence supporting the claim, right?
For instance, if you typed the following sentence in your search bar:
"who is Beyonce married to?"
the first 100+ results will get you some form of the same response, namely, the marketing genius known as Jayz.

Likewise, if you typed either of the following sentences in your search bar"
"is the Bible reliable?"
or
"is the Bible accurate?"
the first 100+ results will yield an overwhelming amount of sites which espouse an affirmative.
Between the two latter questions, you might see as many as six to ten total of sites which consider the Bible as either unreliable or inaccurate, all depending upon the search engine you use.
Throwing a bone to the naysayers, let's put the number as ten out of 200 who consider the Bible either unreliable or inaccurate.
That's a whopping 5% of "well-known."
Not so much, huh.

Now don't try to say the voice of the public is not the voice of the non-existent God.
Remember: you're the one who said it was "well-known."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Hmm, I count only one account that says Jesus carried his own cross.

And there's the small matter of who carried the cross for that final leg of the trip that ended at Golgotha. 3 say it was Simon, the other says it was Jesus. You have not addressed this. One of the accounts must be wrong on this detail.

John talks about the Christ being led from the palace bearing His own cross.
M/M/L account for when He had become so weary from carrying the cross (just out of the city), that Simon was pressed into service.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
John talks about the Christ being led from the palace bearing His own cross.
M/M/L account for when He had become so weary from carrying the cross (just out of the city), that Simon was pressed into service.

MML never say he carries his own cross. Actually, they provide an excellent alternate reason that Jesus was tired; they had just beaten the crap out of him.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
MML never say he carries his own cross. Actually, they provide an excellent alternate reason that Jesus was tired; they had just beaten the crap out of him.

He'd been beaten repeatedly prior to the procession.
Simon being forced to bear the cross He could no longer carry Himself is not a logical impossibility.

Matthew has Him being beat, worshiped mockingly while donned with a crown of thorns and a scarlet robe, and then when they were done, led away from the common hall for the intended spot of crucifixion, Golgotha.
Who was carrying the cross at that point?
Does Matthew indicate where Simon was forced to take the cross?
Does Matthew indicate from whom he took the cross?
Is it likely that any of the soldiers were carrying the cross, looking for someone to press into service?
Is it possible that the Christ was carrying the cross from the common hall, only able to make it to the edge of the city, where Simon was picked from the passers-by?

Mark, Luke, and John all call the robe used by the soldiers purple, whereas Matthew alone calls it scarlet.
Being somewhat color challenged myself, I can still see the difference between these two colors in normal light.
A garment cannot be both, can it?

In the case of only John not mentioning Simon, there are no contradictions and none of the accounts reveal anything resembling an objective, exacting manner. The nature of a narrative is not to relay a real-time perspective or to record every fact possible.
Had each of them been immediately deposed by a lawyer from today's legal system, there would still be differing perspectives no matter how much care was put into each question asked and answered.

"And then..." doesn't have as exact a meaning as some readers project onto it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
He'd been beaten repeatedly prior to the procession.
Simon being forced to bear the cross He could no longer carry Himself is not a logical impossibility.

Matthew has Him being beat, worshiped mockingly while donned with a crown of thorns and a scarlet robe, and then when they were done, led away from the common hall for the intended spot of crucifixio ...[text shortened]... and answered.

"And then..." doesn't have as exact a meaning as some readers project onto it.

I understand all that.

If you ask different witnesses in a court case to describe the same sequence of events, they will differ on some details.

But if one of the witnesses says "Jesus carried a cross out to Golgotha" while 3 others say "Simon carried it to Golgotha", he's going to have to explain that discrepancy.

That doesn't mean his whole testimony will be thrown out. It does mean that people will think his memory failed him or some such on that point. They have to explain it somehow. The 4 witnesses can't all be right.

Originally posted by josephw
Yes, it depends on the topic of debate and how answers are framed within the context of discussion.

But we're not talking about opinions here. We are debating whether a thing is true or false.

So was your claim that I responded to true or false, now that you admit that 'it depends on the topic of debate'?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oh.
Now I get it: you're just having a laugh, right?

No.

You reference Wikipedia, when you could have easily told me to consider the yellow Post-It notes sitting on the desk next to my monitor.
I did not know about the post-it notes. How could I? I thought Wikipedia was the easiest source to refer you to.

If you don't understand that when we refer people to something for information, we are are attempting to make a case for a particular point of view then there's really no where to go with you.
The problem is, that you misunderstood what point of view I was making a case for.

Likewise, if you typed either of the following sentences in your search bar"
"is the Bible reliable?"
or
"is the Bible accurate?"
the first 100+ results will yield an overwhelming amount of sites which espouse an affirmative.
Between the two latter questions, you might see as many as six to ten total of sites which consider the Bible as either unreliable or inaccurate, all depending upon the search engine you use.
And you think you are so clever using manipulated Google search results as support after dissing Wikipedia? Ha ha.

Now I am still waiting for answers to those questions you avoided by attacking Wikipedia. Since you have probably conveniently forgotten them here they are again:

What do you mean by 'withstanding'? Do you mean you simply deny an 'tests of time' that do not give the results you want? Or are you saying you have never heard any criticism of the Bibles historical accuracy? Or are you saying there are good rebuttals to such criticism? And who makes the final judgment as to which criticism is valid and which isn't?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I understand all that.

If you ask different witnesses in a court case to describe the same sequence of events, they will differ on some details.

But if one of the witnesses says "Jesus carried a cross out to Golgotha" while 3 others say "Simon carried it to Golgotha", he's going to have to explain that discrepancy.

That doesn't mean his whole te ...[text shortened]... or some such on that point. They have to explain it somehow. The 4 witnesses can't all be right.

But if one of the witnesses says "Jesus carried a cross out to Golgotha" while 3 others say "Simon carried it to Golgotha", he's going to have to explain that discrepancy.
And what appears to be a discrepancy disappears once the whole picture comes into focus.
If there were multiple places to come out of, i.e., the palace, the hall, the city, etc., it's not hard to connect the dots and realize three of the accounts focused on at that moment in time when Simon began to carry the cross of the weary Savior, whereas one account either missed that leg of the procession or left it out purposely, instead keeping his narrative only on the actions of the Christ.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No.

[b]You reference Wikipedia, when you could have easily told me to consider the yellow Post-It notes sitting on the desk next to my monitor.
I did not know about the post-it notes. How could I? I thought Wikipedia was the easiest source to refer you to.

If you don't understand that when we refer people to something for information, we are ...[text shortened]... icism? And who makes the final judgment as to which criticism is valid and which isn't? [/quote]

And you think you are so clever using manipulated Google search results as support after dissing Wikipedia? Ha ha.
No, I don't think I am clever.
Read it back.
You claimed the inaccuracy of the Bible was a "well known" fact.
I tested your claim (didn't use Google, but I'm sure the results would be similar if used), and threw a dart at a topic to see what the "well known" results would be, and then compared that sample group to the results of your claim.

Your claim of the wide-spread knowledge of the Bible's unreliability is crap.