Why believe in a religion created by Politicians?

a reply to: Deetermined

God may be worthless to you, but not me.

God is Love and Love never fails.

Politicians benefit from people believing in a jealous war god.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Deetermined

God may be worthless to you, but not me.

God is Love and Love never fails.

Politicians benefit from people believing in a jealous war god.

God isn't worthless to me. I just chose not to make up my own God like you did. You can't say that Jesus is your God when you deny practically everything he ever said and everything written about him, including that which was written in the Old Testament. The reality about God is that we can't mold him into who we want him to be. We have to accept him as he is. He's a loving God and a righteous judge all at the same time.

a reply to: Deetermined

Jesus' Words are Jesus' Words not moses/yahweh/and whoever else.

If your god is an angry destroyer who says to murder and sacrifice animals or humans, then that is not Love/God.


The real God brings Freedom because Truth sets you Free. Not death and darkness.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Deetermined

Jesus' Words are Jesus' Words not moses/yahweh/and whoever else.

If your god is an angry destroyer who says to murder and sacrifice animals or humans, then that is not Love/God.


The real God brings Freedom because Truth sets you Free. Not death and darkness.

Guess what? Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and said that he came to fulfill the scriptures that were written about him in the books of Moses, the Psalm, and the prophets, so your idea that some other God must be Jesus' father is pointless.

a reply to: Deetermined

It's pointless to you anyway, because you already have your belief. This is not the first time we debated about this and it always ends the same.

Those who believe in an angry human sacrificing god are following the devil.

I believe in The Pure Light of Love, not suffering and darkness; and that Jesus revealed the Light to lost souls following yahweh/jehovah's destructive darkness.

But you have your god and I have mine.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Deetermined

It's pointless to you anyway, because you already have your belief. This is not the first time we debated about this and it always ends the same.

Those who believe in an angry human sacrificing god are following the devil.

I believe in The Pure Light of Love, not suffering and darkness; and that Jesus revealed the Light to lost souls following yahweh/jehovah's destructive darkness.

But you have your god and I have mine.

I do not follow the devil. I follow the Word of God (Jesus). You know, the one you keep quoting from yet deny all at the same time!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Exactly. We're indoctrinated into believing many things as children, including political party affiliations. Our parents have a lot of power to create a life long impression on their children, some positive and some negative. The majority of us simply follow their lead.

a reply to: coomba98

'Why believe in the Bible when there are other earlier versions that almost totally contradicts it? The Bible created by Roman Politicians, politicians, politicians.'

I personally am agnostic...but still have "faith" in a creator...what that makes me...I don't know....but I'll say this....

People I personally know, don't necessarily believe in "the bible"....the few christians that still associate with me believe more in the teachings of Christ than the entirety of the bible...and I think that's the main reason they are willing to believe. They believe in these teachings because they "work" for them...meaning that when they apply the laws and "suggestions" mentioned in the bible, that it benefits their lives...they see change or growth or whatever substantiates their belief system...which is what it's all about if you ask me....becoming a better person is always the goal, regardless of the mechanism used to achieve said goal....

A2D

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

People do not "choose" to believe in religion t

I was indoctrinated to nothing as a child and came to
believe in Jesus Christ. I'd follow him anywhere. Despite
religion.

Nonsense, you were indoctrinated to all sorts of things, and later found this that appeared to set you free from your other indoctrinations.

Face it, most people who grow up with Christianity care about Jesus a hell of a lot less than you do ,

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: coomba98
Emperor Constantine was a politician who had senators, aka politicians.

But there is no evidence whatever that they either created or changed the Bible.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the "Bible" existed at that time.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Nonsense, you were indoctrinated to all sorts of things, and later found this that appeared to set you free from your other indoctrinations.

I didn't think Scooby doo and the Archies counted. Sorry.



You can't go around challenging people on the personal truth
of their own lives, unless you are God. But if you were half as smart
as seem to think you are? I guess you would be.

a reply to: ParasuvO
That still amounts to an absence of evidence that politicians made any changes.

What if debating about whatever happened thousands of years ago is a WASTE OF TIME?

a reply to: yosako
If you think it's a waste of time, that gives you a good motive for staying out of the debate.

a reply to: DISRAELI

If you think it's a waste of time, that gives you a good motive for staying out of the debate.

Mmm, no.
It's not a waste of time if some readers realize that there are outside (of the Bible) sources worthy of investigation. It's not a waste of time to discuss the things you bring up. Presumably we're all looking for the truth - not just 'your interpretation of the Bible'......we're actually looking beyond that stuff. You do a really nice job, though, of the Sunday School Bible-Class lesson-building curriculum thing. But,

see --- not everyone thinks "The Bible" is anything more than literature open wide to interpretation.


I know. I know, DISRAELI!!! You hate that!!!

So sorry for your discomfort with that......But still....
open forum.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Yosako's post appeared on my list as a reply to one of my own, and that was the only reason I bothered responding.

And all I was doing this time round was commenting on the bizarre logical paradox of "I think taking part in this debate is a waste of time, therefore I will take part in this debate".
Still, it gave you a reason to get on your high horse again.

Why believe in the Bible when there are other earlier versions that almost totally contradicts it? The Bible created by Roman Politicians, politicians, politicians.'

The Torah and New Testament are very different. One teaches circumcision, the other baptism by water.

We know from Flavius Josephus that John the baptist existed and was revered by all the people. John the Baptist used water to baptise so wasn't a Jew. He may have practised a form of Zoroastrianism which includes baptism by water, pacifism, good and evil, heaven and hell, a savior born of a virgin, a final judgement/resurrection, devil and God and the celebration of the Sun God on December 25th. More info

Flavius Josephus also mentions Jesus but many suspect that they were added centuries latter. Its obvious that Rome was trying to suppress any uprisings so they would have suppressed discussion of any Jewish messiah. So all we have as proof that Jesus existed is the gospel of Mark which many suspect is the oldest and original gospel.

The Gospel of Mark doesn't have a virgin birth and the oldest version of Gospel of Mark doesn't have the resurrection. So it appears that the three other Gospels were later written to elevate Jesus to the prophesied Zoroastrianism Messiah, to empower Rome as Gods spokesman on earth. A political entity that has nothing to do with the message of Jesus as told in the Gospel of Mark.

I believe a fully enlightened Yeshua existed, not the son of God, as defined by Rome.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Still, it gave you a reason to get on your high horse again.

My "high horse"?

Sheesh. Can you just have a conversation without pouting?

by Deetermined,


"The Gnostic Gospels is a collection of about 54 ancient texts based upon the teachings of several spiritual leaders, which were written from the 2nd to the 4th century AD." You do know what AD stands for, don't you? You're the one who mentioned "Gnostic texts", not "Gnostic way" in your original comment.

Deetermined,

Incorrect.

en.wikipedia.org...
66 Gospels are noted here.
But don't forget there are other sects that had there own gospels, such as Platonism, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism.
Then you have The Sethians who also had:
* The Thought of Norea
* The Trimorphic Protennoia (Codex XIII)
* The Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians
* Zostrianos
* Three Steles of Seth
* Marsanes
* Allogenes
as well as the multiple books within the Nag Hammadi library, not going to go back and forward between pages to confirm the exact number but its quiet a few.

In truth there are hundreds of gnostic manuscripts, with thousands more destroyed by new age Christians.

by Deetermined,
Oops, sorry! I forgot that we were using Gnostic texts as the basis for this discussion since the question was asked as to why do some people believe the Bible. I think that question has already been answered. Politicians did not rewrite the Bible

Um, do you even read what I type?

By Coomba98
My question is this:
'Why believe in the Bible when there are other earlier versions that almost totally contradicts it? The Bible created by Roman Politicians, politicians, politicians.'
...
Ok, now im going to talk as if the Gnostic teachings are correct. (dare I say it, Devils Advocate)

You have to take into account the context of what im writing and responding too. Im sure you have the intelligence to know if my response is taking into account Gnostic views (which are 'Christian' views as the Gnostics called themselves 'Christians') or if the person im responding to is purely on the Bible view.

The Israel and it being the centre of history for thousands of years, well that is obvious. Its a freakin Holy Land to the Abrahamic religions. Such as Judaism, Islam and finally Christianity. With the Bahá'í Faith coming much later.
Daa Dah DAR! (a meerkats head turns towards you with a serious look, mouth slightly open).

by Deetermined,
You're babbling and you still haven't proven that the Romans changed the Old Testament, not to mention the many other verses in the Bible that discuss Jesus' death as a means to wash away our sin so that we would be clean enough to enter heaven and stand in the presence of God.

Ok when I went to Church I was told it was a Sin to even change one word of the Bible.

Proverbs 30:5-6
'Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.'

or;

Deuteronomy 4:2
'You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.'

or;

Deuteronomy 12:32
“Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.'

or;... k that's enough examples, and yet it has gone through many changes of the Bible through out the ages:

www.nola.com...
www.businessinsider.com.au...

So not only did the Roman politicians create the Bible (not the books within it the actual Bible that did not exist at the time), politicians and religious people in power have also changed the words within the Bible. Not to mention the mistranslations from one language to another as well as misinterpretation of the texts.
Why was the KJV created?
www.christianity.com...
I like this part:
'King James Sets the Tone
Like Constantine at the opening of the Council of Nicea, James delivered the opening address. He immediately set the tone and gave clear cues of what to expect. The doctrine and polity of the state church was not up for evaluation and reconsideration.
James immediately proceeded to hint that he found a great deal of security in the structure and hierarchy of the English church, in contrast to the Presbyterian model he witnessed in Scotland. He made no effort to hide his previous frustration in Scotland.
...James warmed to a new translation because he despised the then popular Geneva Bible....
Also the King James version contains several mistranslations; especially in the Old Testament where the knowledge of Hebrew and cognate languages was uncertain at the time.

How many forms of Christianity are there? Close to or a little over a hundred. Most are modifications of the original manuscripts.
en.wikipedia.org...

I really think you need to study your religion more.

Ohh and for people who rely on religious scholars, well;
www.independent.co.uk... tml
This guys a religious scholar? Is he correct? And if not would there be a chance, a possibility that some of the other religious scholars were wrong?

We are just humans. Even an super intelligent genius can get obvious things wrong, or are wrong a good deal of the time.

Agree2Disagree,
Although im not religious, if someone wanted to follow Christianity I would recommend they follow Yeshua and not the teachings of a Bible created by politicians. Even a modified one.

Coomba98

post continued:

DISRAELI,
Like ParasuvO said, there was no Bible at the time 'it was being created'. Only individual manuscripts.
With regards to there being no evidence that they either created or changed the Bible. Like I said to Deetermined above. I think you need to study your religion more, and not take the words of the priest nor the words of the Bible which again was created by politicians and corrupt priests.

Even the Pope created a Bible.

In 1943 Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter, Divino afflante Spiritu, which encouraged Roman Catholics to translate the Scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek texts, rather than from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. As a result, a number of Dominicans and other scholars at the École Biblique in Jerusalem translated the scriptures into French. The product of these efforts was published as La Bible de Jérusalem in 1956.

This French translation served as the impetus for an English translation in 1966, the Jerusalem Bible. For the majority of the books, the English translation was a translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts; in passages with more than one interpretation, the interpretation chosen by the French translators is generally followed. For a small number of Old Testament books, the first draft of the English translation was made directly from the French, and then the General Editor produced a revised draft by comparing this word-for-word to the Hebrew or Aramaic texts.[3] The footnotes and book introductions are almost literal translations from the French.

I emphasise this part; "in passages with more than one interpretation, the interpretation chosen by the French translators is generally followed."

If a passage has more than one meaning and you cannot translate it correctly due to language barrier then to abide by gods word you either have to:
1. forgo the translation to that particular language; or
2. write down all the meanings, but then that would change and modify the word of god which is a sin. So by rights if someone wanted to really learn the true bible (this is excluding gnostic text as we are just talking about the Bible), then they must learn Septuagint or the Masoretic Texts. That way there is no modification or misinterpretation.

glend,
thanks for your response. I have read that John the Baptist was into Gnostic materials.
Gnostics are pretty much Christians who's beliefs are disbelieved and blasphemous to the new age Christians.

randyvs,
lol nice one. I like your posts, everytime I see your name I think of Randy from Southpark at his computer.
So PC man its Awesome! (not saying your PC just a Southpark joke.)

Coomba98