A religion history lesson needed

[breadnbutter]

No - the problem is that you do not understand what the book which you call The Bible is.

know one knows every thing in the bible,,no one ever will, its wisdom and knowledge, is never ending. knowing the bible is good, but knowing Jesus is the most important. that's number one.
then once you know Jesus, a living faith whith him, then the bible comes alive.

the reason we expose certain religions, is because they prevent people knowing Jesus.

 

[breadnbutter]

Here's a quote from another book:

“It is time we admitted, from kings and presidents on down, that there is no evidence that any of our books was authored by the Creator of the universe. The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology. To rely on such a document as the basis for our worldview-however heroic the efforts of redactors- is to repudiate two thousand years of civilizing insights that the human mind has only just begun to inscribe upon itself through secular politics and scientific culture. We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself.”
― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

no surprise when I read these links. opinions of men that do not know God
you need to meet the author. unless someone comes to faith in Christ, your going to attack, be skeptic, doubt, unbelieve. scenical.

 

[breadnbutter]

Give me one, for a start.

I am not avoiding your request its just it takes a lot of time to explain, that is why I do links.

ok lets look at salvation.

the roman catholic church canon says salvation is by faith and works. catholics think that they have to earn salvation, by doing , but scripture says you do good works because you are saved, not to get saved.

http://justforcatholics.org/a14.htm

what does the scripture say
Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[EddieM]

Lets substitute BAS's signature with pertinent synonyms.

"The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the representative. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.'

Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament."

In other words, total gibberish. But then whilst Winnie was considered a great orator, he wasn't very bright, as his poor academic record shows. Should also consider he was an alcoholic wife beater.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I guess it only seems like gibberish to people who do not understand the difference between "representative" and "delegate".

 

[JohnD]

the roman catholic church canon says salvation is by faith and works. catholics think that they have to earn salvation, by doing , but scripture says you do good works because you are saved, not to get saved.

http://justforcatholics.org/a14.htm

what does the scripture say
Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

So you disagree with, for example, Matthew 25:41-46 :

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. "

 

[JohnD]

Does Luke say that words are enough?

No.

Luke 18:18-23

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

 

[EddieM]

I guess it only seems like gibberish to people who do not understand the difference between "representative" and "delegate".

Synonymous

ADJECTIVE

• 1(of a word or phrase) having the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.

NOUN
Pronunciation /ˈdɛlɪɡət/

• 1A person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.
  

 

[breadnbutter]

So you disagree with, for example, Matthew 25:41-46 :

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. "

there is plenty of none Christians who visit people in prisons, feed the poor, do lots of good, so why do they still need faith in Christ to be saved. if this good works is enough.

Notice that in Matthew 25:34 Jesus said, “the kingdom prepared for them.” This means that the people are already believers. In verse 37 Jesus says, “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink?'" They are righteous. They are believers who have the righteousness of God (Philippians 3:9). It is the righteous, the believers, who do the good works. It isn't doing the good works that makes you Christian or righteous. Those who are already saved are doing the good deeds, and they inherit eternal life.

Furthermore, inheritance is for those who are children of the King - by birth; hence, they are already born again and don't become born again by doing good works. They do good deeds because they are sheep. Jesus said that his sheep follow him (John 10:27). That is, they follow him because of what they are - sheep. In so doing, they feed the poor, visit prisoners, etc. Doing these things are works of charity which is covered in the Old Testament Law, such as feeding the poor (Lev. 25:35); giving to the needy (Deut. 15:11); showing love for the stranger (Deut. 10:19); bearing another’s burden (Ex 23:5); to wrong no one when buying and selling (Lev. 25:14). Jesus is not teaching righteousness by faith and works. He is teaching on the coming judgment, and that those who are truly sheep will have done the things that are right, and they will inherit eternal life - because they are already his. Those who don’t will be judged by that law and be damned.

 

[EddieM]

there is plenty of none Christians who visit people in prisons, feed the poor, do lots of good, so why do they still need faith in Christ to be saved. if this good works is enough.

Notice that in Matthew 25:34 Jesus said, “the kingdom prepared for them.” This means that the people are already believers. In verse 37 Jesus says, “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink?'" They are righteous. They are believers who have the righteousness of God (Philippians 3:9). It is the righteous, the believers, who do the good works. It isn't doing the good works that makes you Christian or righteous. Those who are already saved are doing the good deeds, and they inherit eternal life.

Furthermore, inheritance is for those who are children of the King - by birth; hence, they are already born again and don't become born again by doing good works. They do good deeds because they are sheep. Jesus said that his sheep follow him (John 10:27). That is, they follow him because of what they are - sheep. In so doing, they feed the poor, visit prisoners, etc. Doing these things are works of charity which is covered in the Old Testament Law, such as feeding the poor (Lev. 25:35); giving to the needy (Deut. 15:11); showing love for the stranger (Deut. 10:19); bearing another’s burden (Ex 23:5); to wrong no one when buying and selling (Lev. 25:14). Jesus is not teaching righteousness by faith and works. He is teaching on the coming judgment, and that those who are truly sheep will have done the things that are right, and they will inherit eternal life - because they are already his. Those who don’t will be judged by that law and be damned.

There is no doubt the bible sometimes offers some sound moral advice, but unfortunately it doesn't alter the fact that it was just written by some blokes (esses)

 

[breadnbutter]

Does Luke say that words are enough?

No.

Luke 18:18-23

18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

In His conversation with the rich young ruler, Christ did not teach that we are saved by the works of the Law. The Bible’s message is that salvation is by grace through faith (Romans 3:20, 28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:9). Rather, Jesus used the man’s love of money to show how the man fell short of God’s holy standard—as do we all. The rich young ruler needed the Savior, and so do we.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

the reason we expose certain religions, is because they prevent people knowing Jesus.

You have no right, absolutely none whatsoever, to assume that your groundless beliefs are superior to any others, or more correct, nor to criticise or "expose" other religions.

know one knows every thing in the bible,,no one ever will, its wisdom and knowledge, is never ending. knowing the bible is good, but knowing Jesus is the most important. that's number one.
then once you know Jesus, a living faith whith him, then the bible comes alive.

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of, and reflect the episcopal structure of, the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of divinely ordained royal supremacy Exodus 1:19, where the Geneva Bible notes had commended the example of civil disobedience to the Egyptian Pharaoh showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous 'mother', Queen Maachah (Maachah had actually been Asa's grandmother, but James considered the Geneva Bible reference as sanctioning the execution of his own mother Mary, Queen of Scots)

Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently), but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word equivalence.


In obedience to their instructions, the translators provided no marginal interpretation of the text, but in some 8,500 places a marginal note offers an alternative English wording. .. Some of the annotated variants derive from alternative editions in the original languages, or from variant forms quoted in the fathers. More commonly, though, they indicate a difference between the literal original language reading and that in the translators' preferred recent Latin versions.

For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5), but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.

[In places] Scrivener found that they used an unidentified Latin manuscript.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that - like the Codex Bezae - would have been readily available to them. In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions, the Rheimish New Testament which in their preface they criticized); they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient Syriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573. In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.

A number of Bible verses in the King James Version of the New Testament are not found in more recent Bible translations, where these are based on modern critical texts. In the early seventeenth century, the source Greek texts of the New Testament used for the production of Protestant bible versions depended mainly on manuscripts of the late Byzantine text-type, and with minor variations contained what became known as the Textus Receptus. With the subsequent identification of much earlier manuscripts, most modern textual scholars value the evidence of manuscripts belonging to the Alexandrian family as better witnesses to the original text of the biblical authors, without giving it, or any family, automatic preference.
​

In other words, the book you want to rely on, and want to use to suppress the beliefs of everybody who believes something different to you, is a pick-and-mix of translations of translations of translations, of interpretations of interpretations of interpretations, all overlaid with political direction from a despotic monarch who believed he had divine rights.

If you really want to rely on what "scripture" says you must learn the original languages, and go and read the original texts.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Synonymous

ADJECTIVE

• 1(of a word or phrase) having the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language.

NOUN
Pronunciation /ˈdɛlɪɡət/

• 1A person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.

I'm afraid you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our representative democracy. Delegate is not synonymous with representative, and MPs are not their constituents' delegates.

 

[breadnbutter]

There is no doubt the bible sometimes offers some sound moral advice, but unfortunately it doesn't alter the fact that it was just written by some blokes (esses)

the gospel is not just words but power, a lot of people doubted Jesus, until they saw his maracles. when lazarus died, they told Jesus, Jesus waited four days, before he raised him from the dead, when they opened the tomb, it stenched of a decomposing body, then Jesus said lazarus arise,and he came out alive. no one could say it was a trick, they knew he was dead 4 days.

John 11

 

[EddieM]

I'm afraid you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of our representative democracy. Delegate is not synonymous with representative, and MPs are not their constituents' delegates.

I know what you think you mean by it, but the quote is gibberish. I'm afraid the OED disagrees with you.