Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
so did the cops come? did they catch the robbers? What happened?
If you don't believe Jesus Christ was/is God...
- Thread starter ceo
- Start date
so did the cops come? did they catch the robbers? What happened?
Yeah the cops came. The guys heard me and ran out the back door, they parked their car in the field behind my house and got away (I live in a new subdivision with empty lots and woods/fields behind my house) the police took a report, and checked the house to make sure no one else was left inside hiding or anything and then they left.
damn. too bad. Time to get a permit and carry a gun in your purse!
A friend's dad has some crazy stories of people breaking into his house (on multiple occasions) and him basically holding them at gunpoint while the cops came. LOL! The guy is crazy!
Crazy! Wow. Yeah, that's not going to be me.
lol @ the idea of me carrying a gun in my purse. There are two areas of my life in disarray, my desk and my purse. Its especially worse now that I refuse to carry a diaper bag so I have more stuff. I could see me pulling out my makeup bag, my cellphone, a random toy, a sippy, my ipod, everything before I could get to my gun lol
Okay after years of JG telling me to read Misquoting Jesus (and me ignorning him) I have finally bought it and I'm reading it right now. I'm not done, I have just a little bit left it took me longer to read through because of its smarty pants scholarly feel. 
We should be able to explain not just what we believe or why, and if we can't its probably not worth believing. 1 Peter 3:15
First, reading the introduction made me sick to my stomach. This wasn't some man on the outside of our faith looking in, but someone who had had the experience and who had turned his back on it. I can't believe a God that exists couldn't preserve His words, I just can't believe in THAT God. If the bible is not infallable, I have to abandon my faith in the Christian God, I have to because my whole faith is around that book, a holy book, my experiences have not been seeing spiritual miracles, its been life changing moments that have happened while I was reading. As I started to read, I began to relax, I knew that this wasn't new information and I had been taught already how to deal with people like him.
Ehrman starts off by assuming that those that believe in the bible as being infallable believe that the Greek texts are infallable. We can't believe that the original Greek texts are infallable because that bible never existed. It has never existed, never been seen, never been placed together in one book. They teach that in some bible colleges that the oldest original manuscripts are the best, thats a mistake. Ehrman believed Lie - the original greek text is infallable inspired word of God
It is no secret that there is not some mystical original Greek text. I'm so glad that I was taught in a true bible believing church when I was a kid, the megachurch that I left, by the pastor that I told to fuck off because he told my parents I was a lost cause..it is because of him I have a room full of books on church history..and some of the stuff I had forgotten
ANYWAY, moving on.....The Best Texts Say...
Erasmus has a manuscript sitting in his lap, Ehrman is telling me that what Erasmus has at that moment, it is unreliable, faulty. While I was reading this book, I had out every translation of the bible I had, the ones I used the most were the NIV and KJV. The big additons that Ehrman found were noted in the footnotes or before the verses in every translation I had besides the KJV and NKJV. People should know this and know how to deal with this. Ehrman does not know how to deal because he believes the best texts are what? I should have faith in what he says are the best texts? The only way I can access the infallable Word of God is by piecing together a book that never existed ever at any point?
How to deal: There may be 5,000 or so different pieces of manuscript but they all fall into 3 (in my mind ealier in another thread I thought two, but it is actually 3) categories
1. Alexandria
2. Rome
3. Antioch
The bible ends in 90 AD (Rev) but it does not leave us to be guideless up until today, the book of Acts lays out the manuscripts in advance. This is a direction I don't have time to go down right now, but I can
So we move on to another lie that Ehrman has accepted: inspriation is only in the originals.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works
Did Timothy have the original bible? Does anyone really think that he was reading the original copy? No. But it syas that he had the scripture and it was holy. People think this book is just a text book but it's not, its a living thing, its ALIVE. It is the only book I've read that when I begin to read it, it begins to read ME.
What good is a God that might inspire some original document but can't preserve it? What good is that God to me? Did God not use a human being to bring his son into the world, and even though he used a human being, I believe that Jesus was God even though he came from a human. How could He not do that with His Word?
We should be able to explain not just what we believe or why, and if we can't its probably not worth believing. 1 Peter 3:15First, reading the introduction made me sick to my stomach. This wasn't some man on the outside of our faith looking in, but someone who had had the experience and who had turned his back on it. I can't believe a God that exists couldn't preserve His words, I just can't believe in THAT God. If the bible is not infallable, I have to abandon my faith in the Christian God, I have to because my whole faith is around that book, a holy book, my experiences have not been seeing spiritual miracles, its been life changing moments that have happened while I was reading. As I started to read, I began to relax, I knew that this wasn't new information and I had been taught already how to deal with people like him.
Ehrman starts off by assuming that those that believe in the bible as being infallable believe that the Greek texts are infallable. We can't believe that the original Greek texts are infallable because that bible never existed. It has never existed, never been seen, never been placed together in one book. They teach that in some bible colleges that the oldest original manuscripts are the best, thats a mistake. Ehrman believed Lie - the original greek text is infallable inspired word of God
It is no secret that there is not some mystical original Greek text. I'm so glad that I was taught in a true bible believing church when I was a kid, the megachurch that I left, by the pastor that I told to fuck off because he told my parents I was a lost cause..it is because of him I have a room full of books on church history..and some of the stuff I had forgotten
ANYWAY, moving on.....The Best Texts Say...
Erasmus has a manuscript sitting in his lap, Ehrman is telling me that what Erasmus has at that moment, it is unreliable, faulty. While I was reading this book, I had out every translation of the bible I had, the ones I used the most were the NIV and KJV. The big additons that Ehrman found were noted in the footnotes or before the verses in every translation I had besides the KJV and NKJV. People should know this and know how to deal with this. Ehrman does not know how to deal because he believes the best texts are what? I should have faith in what he says are the best texts? The only way I can access the infallable Word of God is by piecing together a book that never existed ever at any point?
How to deal: There may be 5,000 or so different pieces of manuscript but they all fall into 3 (in my mind ealier in another thread I thought two, but it is actually 3) categories
1. Alexandria
2. Rome
3. Antioch
The bible ends in 90 AD (Rev) but it does not leave us to be guideless up until today, the book of Acts lays out the manuscripts in advance. This is a direction I don't have time to go down right now, but I can
So we move on to another lie that Ehrman has accepted: inspriation is only in the originals.2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works
Did Timothy have the original bible? Does anyone really think that he was reading the original copy? No. But it syas that he had the scripture and it was holy. People think this book is just a text book but it's not, its a living thing, its ALIVE. It is the only book I've read that when I begin to read it, it begins to read ME.
What good is a God that might inspire some original document but can't preserve it? What good is that God to me? Did God not use a human being to bring his son into the world, and even though he used a human being, I believe that Jesus was God even though he came from a human. How could He not do that with His Word?
Okay after years of JG telling me to read Misquoting Jesus (and me ignorning him) I have finally bought it and I'm reading it right now. I'm not done, I have just a little bit left it took me longer to read through because of its smarty pants scholarly feel.
First, reading the introduction made me sick to my stomach. This wasn't some man on the outside of our faith looking in, but someone who had had the experience and who had turned his back on it. I can't believe a God that exists couldn't preserve His words, I just can't believe in THAT God. If the bible is not infallable, I have to abandon my faith in the Christian God, I have to because my whole faith is around that book, a holy book, my experiences have not been seeing spiritual miracles, its been life changing moments that have happened while I was reading. As I started to read, I began to relax, I knew that this wasn't new information and I had been taught already how to deal with people like him.
Ehrman starts off by assuming that those that believe in the bible as being infallable believe that the Greek texts are infallable. We can't believe that the original Greek texts are infallable because that bible never existed. It has never existed, never been seen, never been placed together in one book. They teach that in some bible colleges that the oldest original manuscripts are the best, thats a mistake. Ehrman believed Lie - the original greek text is infallable inspired word of God
It is no secret that there is not some mystical original Greek text. I'm so glad that I was taught in a true bible believing church when I was a kid, the megachurch that I left, by the pastor that I told to fuck off because he told my parents I was a lost cause..it is because of him I have a room full of books on church history..and some of the stuff I had forgotten
ANYWAY, moving on.....The Best Texts Say...
Erasmus has a manuscript sitting in his lap, Ehrman is telling me that what Erasmus has at that moment, it is unreliable, faulty. While I was reading this book, I had out every translation of the bible I had, the ones I used the most were the NIV and KJV. The big additons that Ehrman found were noted in the footnotes or before the verses in every translation I had besides the KJV and NKJV. People should know this and know how to deal with this. Ehrman does not know how to deal because he believes the best texts are what? I should have faith in what he says are the best texts? The only way I can access the infallable Word of God is by piecing together a book that never existed ever at any point?
How to deal: There may be 5,000 or so different pieces of manuscript but they all fall into 3 (in my mind ealier in another thread I thought two, but it is actually 3) categories
1. Alexandria
2. Rome
3. Antioch
The bible ends in 90 AD (Rev) but it does not leave us to be guideless up until today, the book of Acts lays out the manuscripts in advance. This is a direction I don't have time to go down right now, but I can
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works
Did Timothy have the original bible? Does anyone really think that he was reading the original copy? No. But it syas that he had the scripture and it was holy. People think this book is just a text book but it's not, its a living thing, its ALIVE. It is the only book I've read that when I begin to read it, it begins to read ME.
What good is a God that might inspire some original document but can't preserve it? What good is that God to me? Did God not use a human being to bring his son into the world, and even though he used a human being, I believe that Jesus was God even though he came from a human. How could He not do that with His Word?
Maybe, as MM suggested, God isn't as involved as some would like us to think he is?
Is it perhaps the prospect of eternal punishment vs. eternal life that makes it so important to want to believe a certain way? Interesting that the "eternal" state of the soul is not a concept found in the original hebrew or greek. There are single words in the Hebrew, that have been translated as many as sixty or more different ways in the KJV for example. Perhaps the only word in english that versatile is the word, "Fuck" as it can take on so many different meanings.
(that was a lolz, btw).The Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion have basically the same meaning. Literally, they are "age" or "age during". NIV, KJV, NASB...most popular translations, translate them as, "eternal," "everlasting," or "forever".
Matthew 25:46 -
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV)
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV)
However, literally it is:
And these shall go away to punishment age-during [or, age], but the righteous to life age-during [or, age].
So, is hell everlasting? Or was the earlier idea of a temporary purgatory more correct?
When your kid does something wrong do you punish them for a short period of time, or do you decide to punish them forever?
If god is more loving than we could even fathom, why would he want to punish us to an extent so horrible we couldn't imagine, for a term of eternity? I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!
Many people have believed that God simply set things into motion and is mainly an observer. Can he intervene? Sure, he's god! Does he as often as some people think? I dunno. Why would he? If everything is predetermined, he wouldn't have to (Plato's fatalism - our fate is predetermined - the "it must just be god's will" crowd). If we have free will he wouldn't necessarily want to (but still could). We're not puppets controlled by god or the "holy spirit" (the "I'm waiting on the holy spirit to move me" crowd). God gave us free will and self-determination to act for ourselves. The bible/scriptures should be viewed merely as a good guide on how to act (don't kill, don't steal, do good, etc.) on that free will god gave us.
Isn't the idea with kids to raise them in the right way, give good instructions for life, teach them how to act and live, then eventually let them go out and DO what you taught them? Would there be a need to constantly interfere? Hopefully not! LOL! Would there be a need to help out sometimes? Most likely. Some more than others. Is god a control freak? I wouldn't think so. That doesn't sound like a perfect god to me.
Isn't the idea with kids to raise them in the right way, give good instructions for life, teach them how to act and live, then eventually let them go out and DO what you taught them? Would there be a need to constantly interfere? Hopefully not! LOL! Would there be a need to help out sometimes? Most likely. Some more than others. Is god a control freak? I wouldn't think so. That doesn't sound like a perfect god to me.
lolz ceo, maybe God does not exist at all? That would be easier for me to acceptI have to answer the rest later
I don't understand why the idea of a god that is more like the ideal earthly parent would be less possible or harder for you to accept over the idea that he doesn't exist at all.
Do you think you need god to be constantly enacting in your life? Did your parents do that? If they did, did you like it? Do you think you needed it? Do you think you may have learned more without it? If not, do you wish they would have? Did you not turn out ok after all? Would you have possibly missed out on some of life's important lessons if they had?
What I have described should be more of a mainstream idea of god IMO. It makes the most sense. It's how things ideally are done in the natural. Should god be so different and confusing that we couldn't follow his example?
I think it's easier to believe in the god I described than a constantly meddling, control freak, who punishes his kids for all eternity if they mess up.
Similar threads
