Indeed, its not old a book. Its not even that old a belief system. These quotations are worthless. Bother me not with them. Try to think for yourself instead.
You have the option of opting out of this thread. No one is forcing you to continue viewing and posting. You can also add me to your Ignore List. Old is relative. It matters not how old a belief system if it's the Truth.
Paul wrote most of the NT and he never claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus, only in visions which we could all presumably have, but not the actual physically resurrected Jesus that is only mentioned briefly in any of the gospels, excluding John which is vastly different from the other three anyway and seems to have been written with a specific doctrinal agenda. So to say it is "full of testimony" when in reality, Paul only briefly mentions a few hundred ANONYMOUS people who he (Paul) says told him they saw Jesus, is pretty dishonest. Since the writers of the New Testament don't seem to take the resurrection seriously, I don't either. And of course, we have the curious case of the Gospel of Mark. Mark was an associate of Paul's and also never met the real Jesus nor saw the resurrected Jesus. But as an associate of Paul's, if the resurrection story had been true or EVEN BEEN INVENTED in the decade or so after Jesus's death, Mark would have certainly mentioned the resurrected appearances of Jesus in his gospel. Mark does not. The resurrected appearances of Jesus were later added by an unknown source to the Gospel of Mark. This shows that the literal Resurrection is not only false, but was not even a belief of the very early church. It would be plausible if an actual disciple had written a gospel that was missing the resurrection because it could be said that the gospel was written before the resurrection or before that disciple had knowledge of it. But since this was written by Mark, it is impossible that he would not have heard of the resurrection by the time he first learned of Jesus, since it was all history by that time. I know these things because there was a time in my life when finding out the truth about Jesus was the most important thing in the universe to me. It hurt me greatly to find that so much dishonest had been woven into my religion which was so much a part of how I defined myself. But no one hides the fact that the end of Mark is a later addition that the original author did not write. And the consequences of that fact are undeniable. But please, deny away.
It doesn't take a fool to refuse to act like a coward. I alone am responsible for my own behavior. You can relinquish responsibility onto Jesus if that is what suits you but you are nevertheless a coward. And Christianity a religion of cowards.
Well, I don't know where you got your third party info, but the cross symbolizes divine suffering. The greatest trick the Devil ever did to you, is getting you to believe he didn't exist.
The time span covered in the Old Testament books ranges from the beginning of the world through the beginning of the fourth century B.C. My understanding none of the originals of any of the books has survived.
You are anonymous, we don't know you from schmo, so why should anyone take your findings with anything but a grain of salt? You're just another biblical revisionist because you don't accept the Holy Bible as the Word of God. You've turned your back on the writers of the Gospel pretending you are so wise, but you do a disservice to all who are Believers and you share a false testimony that is different than Paul's. The Word warns us of such frauds as you. I stand on the Holy Bible, you stand apart from Jesus. Talk about denying!!!
Then you deny the Crucifiction of Jesus, the burial and the resurrection. Woe to you, follower of satan.
Indeed I have that option, as do you. But I wont accept biblical quotations unless you accept quotations from various other texts. Thats a fair deal right? The only reason you can think to tell me why I should take seriously what you say about God is that you happen to believe in the bible - thats it. Youve no powers of prophesy, or logical argument. All you can say is...I believe in the bible etc etc. You might as well be a christian barking dog.
Your own Study Bible will likely inform you of the fact that the ending to the Gospel of Mark was a later addition. If you can't find it there, there are numerous sources where you can find that information. I bet your preacher/priest will also tell you this if you ask. The question is why would Mark not include a resurrection in his original gospel. The fact that he is a companion of Paul's and had nothing to do with the real Jesus of Nazereth rules out any possibility that he would not yet have heard the story if it were true.
I deny it because even Mark did not believe in a literal resurrection and he actually lived back in those times and would have known. So I have good reason. However, just because I have been given a means to transfer my sins onto an innocent man doesn't mean I have to accept it. Pride is only an illusion but it nevertheless prevents me from allowing someone else to assume responsibility for my own actions.
The difference between you and I is I believe the Holy Bible is the Word of God, you believe in other books that you know are not the Word of God. For you to think that the Book and other books hold similar substance and weight is not only laughable, but even more serious is you reject Jesus as your Savior. I cannot in good faith extend to you any deal for you waste precious time and resources manufacturing false testimony that leads you and others to an eternity without God. Perhaps this is as you wish. In any case, I'll not continue the tit for tat with one so ignorant of the Truth. Bye.
You mention time span, however the issue was the times when it was written. The originals do in fact exist. May I remind you of the dead sea scrolls for one.
You actually have no choice in the matter of allowing or having prevented an innocent someone assume your sins and punishment. It's already been done, long before your parents delivered you.
Oh, I have had many referrals for a dentist. But you know, I'm waiting for that free dental plan of Obamacare. Let's see, I think it kicks in around 2015 or so. By then I won't have need for a dentist. Now I could use a haircut, a little dab of deodorant, maybe a new set of clothes. Send your check to POB 555, Havana, Cuba.
The word of god is not given in books. But dear barking christian dog. what you speak of are mere religious texts, contradictory and patchy works such as the bible are just part of the milieu of human creation. Theres nothing you can say against this point except that you dont think so, you have nothing but your proclamation of your own twisted creed. Now repeat after me Jesus is my saviour three times, itll make you feel better. What is it you want from us here by the way?
Are you also willing too work hard on a commune? Are you also willing to be judged as too whether your worth is contribute enough on this earth to be worthy of living? If so, you are ready for progressives... Marx says in his book, just change the word of the movement too the opposite of what it is.... Think about that... The opposite, is slavery, reinvented....
Questions: Are you saying homosexuality is immoral? Why? Are you saiyng Jesus died for my sins? How is that possible when I wasnt born yet? Why should I care about what you just said, I mean, why should I consider half the things you mention "sinful" let alone follow Jesus?
...?... Nice try Jollee but no. Marx's idea was communally orientated sense of ownership and collective property. This isnt slavery, since it is designed to be voluntary to the extent you earn your keep and for general prosperity - not a master, slave relationship. This is actually a Biblical concept btw. It is discussed and ENCOURAGED in Acts.
