Misquoting Jesus in the Bible

a reply to: Seede

Remember Seede if they can get you not to accept God's word is preserved in English, then you have to go back to dead languages and become god in God's stead. And when that happens men create over 350 English versions as they have over the last 186 yrs that cause nothing but doubt and confusion.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God

You know where that quote comes from?
If you want to revere the bible, good on you
I havnt read in my bible where I am to worship it or hold it up as perfect, that honour goes to Jesus

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Remember Seede if they can get you not to accept God's word is preserved in English, then you have to go back to dead languages and become god in God's stead. And when that happens men create over 350 English versions as they have over the last 186 yrs that cause nothing but doubt and confusion.

Totally agree with you ChesterJohn. The entire purpose of most all who attack the word of God is the hatred of Jesus and in order to denigrate Jesus they attack His word or His Apostles and disciples. I noted that this professor attacked Luke as his primary target and most people do not have any idea why he did so. Luke and Acts comprise 27.5 % of the NT while Paul comprises 29 % of the NT. Most all enemies of Jesus will attack either Luke's or Paul's accounts to drive that wedge of doubt. I do feel for those who do not understand and come out of our universities as very uneducated in almost all avenues of both theological and secular education. We have a very serious problem in this country and it lays in this type who are professors of ignorance trying to teach our people. We need Jesus again in our schooling. My opinion of course
God Bless ---

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Remember Seede if they can get you not to accept God's word is preserved in English, then you have to go back to dead languages and become god in God's stead. And when that happens men create over 350 English versions as they have over the last 186 yrs that cause nothing but doubt and confusion.

Totally agree with you ChesterJohn. The entire purpose of most all who attack the word of God is the hatred of Jesus and in order to denigrate Jesus they attack His word or His Apostles and disciples. I noted that this professor attacked Luke as his primary target and most people do not have any idea why he did so. Luke and Acts comprise 27.5 % of the NT while Paul comprises 29 % of the NT. Most all enemies of Jesus will attack either Luke's or Paul's accounts to drive that wedge of doubt. I do feel for those who do not understand and come out of our universities as very uneducated in almost all avenues of both theological and secular education. We have a very serious problem in this country and it lays in this type who are professors of ignorance trying to teach our people. We need Jesus again in our schooling. My opinion of course
God Bless ---

So really
Your whole faith in Jesus relies on the fact that the bible has to be perfect?
Are you saying that if there are faults in the bible, you cant, wont love Jesus
That Jesus is fake because the bible is erroneous

You know thats insanity
I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, you have a relationship to Christ through a book, a good book, but a book
its almost like your book is a priest, access to God
Almost like it has taken Christs place

So a christian only if the book is right?

The whole purpose of attacking the bible is to destabilise a weak persons relationship with Jesus. A weak person who doesnt have a relationship with Jesus, but with a book
I am not saying you hate Jesus, just sounds like you dont know Him

Funny, the Jews had the law, in scripture form, it meant Jesus had to come and end the law because the Jews stuffed it up.
The Jews put the law before love, they missunderstood the law and made it far more difficult to come to God.
You are the same, you make it about a book, not about the God who came to earth and walked with man

You say this

"We need Jesus again in our schooling. My opinion of course"

But what you really mean is

"We need the bible again in our schooling."

I no longer need the bible to get to Jesus, I have His laws on my heart
Love God, love each other.

a reply to: Akragon

actually i have watched a couple of the debated you mentioned... such as the one with D'Souza who did not bury him in intelligence... he like many others fell back on theology and personal opinion rather then what is said in the gospels... same thing happened when he debated Craig, which personally i thought Dr. Ehrman ruined Craig in that debate. Perhaps you might show us what you're talking about when you called him "misguided or ignorant"?

If you had indeed watched Ehrman vs D'Souza then you would understand that a man who knows what he is talking about needs no teleprompter or written speech to stand there and read and stammer with an "UH" in about every so many words. You should also take note that D'Souza used nothing in that respect and buried Ehrman in both science and theology. Ehrman is a hot shot professor with a PHD and a very poor one at that when he stands before an audience and reads his debate with his stammering and constant uh.

Another fact you seem to overlook as you say that D'Sousa fell back on theology is that the entire debate is theology. What in the world do you think you were watching? Ehrman used OT and NT literature to prove his point and then condemns the very literature that he used as being unreliable with no autographs. What in the world would you call that? Ehrman actually tried to prove his point with scripture and then tried to disprove the very scriptures as not reliable literature. I believe you need to re evaluate what you call brilliant people. Regardless of your or my opinions you need to realize that the entire matter is theological and that if this is the best that can be presented then atheism is in big trouble.

a reply to: Seede

SO you're basically calling me a liar...

i've watched many debates with Dr. Ehrman but its been a while since i've watched the one in question

this is it i believe...



Though i don't remember it in detail... i wouldn't say that he lost said debate because quite frankly i can't remember ever seeing him lose a debate let alone being humiliated by anyone as you suggest

I think you just don't like Dr Ehrman, and would likely side with anyone pro Christian... regardless of the outcome

In any case i'll watch it again... because im sure you have no idea what you're talking about

a reply to: Raggedyman

When you say the Bible has faults, do you mean the many translations, or do you also mean the original documents (which are no where to be found at the moment)?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Raggedyman

When you say the Bible has faults, do you mean the many translations, or do you also mean the original documents (which are no where to be found at the moment)?

Who cares, not me
I believe Jesus, is the Word of God, is faultless, the bible merely points to our faultless God, Christ

I believe in 6 day creation, Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, the miracles, I believe what many christians call allegory in the bible, that they dont believe as literal truth, is literal truth.
I believe the bible is a great book that points to Jesus, I dont believe its faultless, I believe Jesus is faultless

What are you missing.
Whats so hard to understand about that

Why cant you accept that I can see faults in the bible and still love Christ, why cant you do that
Why do you need the bible to be perfect to accept Christ

a reply to: Raggedyman

I just asked you to clarify your position. Why are you so defensive about it?

This is why I asked.

Jesus said in Matt 5:18

“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.

My position is that not one jot or tittle has passed. Its all just scrambled in the thousands of manuscript copies, and needs sorting.

Then if we take into account John 1:1...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

We can then verify your statement, that Jesus is the Word.

So lets put this together:

1) Jesus is the Word.
2) Jesus is infallible.
3) Jesus promised that not one jot or tittle of the Word would pass.

The only conclusion is that the original words of the Bible constitutes the infallible mind of Christ. Therefore, as a Christian, when you say that you believe Christ is infallible, and that He is the Word, yet claim the Bible has faults, you're creating a theological paradox.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Defensive, maybe because someone earlier stated
"The entire purpose of most all who attack the word of God is the hatred of Jesus and in order to denigrate Jesus they attack His word or His Apostles and disciples."
and thats not true
I just dont need the bible to be perfect to accept Jesus is perfect

You position to mine is different

1) Jesus is the Word. 2) Jesus is infallible. 3) Jesus promised that not one jot or tittle of the LAWwould pass.

Is Jesus the law? No, i think thats not accurate. Jesus is the Judge, the advocate, the Messiah.
The law? not that I have seen anywhere, from a biblical perspective anyway.

So the law still stands today for those outside of Christ
Christ is Christ, still the same, just became human

Now if you need the bible to be perfect to allow Christ to be Christ, its fine by me. I dont need a perfect bible to know Christ is perfect
This whole world became broken after Adam and Eves sin, that includes the bible. Thats my opinion
Jesus was perfect, not the book.

Why cant you understand I dont need the bible to be perfect to accept Christ as perfect

a reply to: Raggedyman

I am a little confused.

With all respect, can you tell me why or how 'Jesus is the Word.'

You started from there and did not provide any evidence. It seems to be just a statement.

I grant that you believe this ... but where does it come from?

Thanks

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Wouldn't it come from Johns Gospel?

Ye know, the whole "word became flesh and dwelt among us" thing?

a reply to: Raggedyman

So what part(s) of the Bible do you consider corrupted?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: pheonix358

Wouldn't it come from Johns Gospel?

Ye know, the whole "word became flesh and dwelt among us" thing?

Well, Raggedyman is telling the story so ... maybe ... but I would like some proof.

I think it is like all of the utterly devout that call alcohol the Devil's drink.

So Peter walks up to Jesus and says, "We just ran out of wine!" So Jesus said, "Hold my beer, Peter," and went and used magic to make up another barrel of the Devil's own brew ... out of plain water!

That is so bent out of shape, as to be just plain stupid.

P

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Raggedyman

So what part(s) of the Bible do you consider corrupted?

I didnt say it was corrupted, just that it is not perfect.
I dont think its corrupt at all, just that it contains some simple errors, errors that dont effect the message.

originally posted by: pheonix358

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: pheonix358

Wouldn't it come from Johns Gospel?

Ye know, the whole "word became flesh and dwelt among us" thing?

Well, Raggedyman is telling the story so ... maybe ... but I would like some proof.

I think it is like all of the utterly devout that call alcohol the Devil's drink.

So Peter walks up to Jesus and says, "We just ran out of wine!" So Jesus said, "Hold my beer, Peter," and went and used magic to make up another barrel of the Devil's own brew ... out of plain water!

That is so bent out of shape, as to be just plain stupid.

P

John describes Jesus as the word
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

www.keyway.ca...

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
God used words to create


I dont believe alcohol is the devils drink but if consumed recklessly it sure can be.
In Israel wine was not as potent as wine is today, it didnt have the alcohol content

Wine Strength During this Era
Another question that often arises in regards to wine in the Bible and Christ's consumption is its alcoholic strength. If the wine was in fact wine and not grape juice, then it obviously had some sort of alcohol content. However, the wine of the Biblical era was much weaker than the wine we know today. While one reason for this was the addition of water, another reason was naturally fermented wine (wine that does not have additives) was the only wine available during this time. Because sugar and yeast were not yet added to wine, its alcohol content remained lower than modern day spirits.
www.savoreachglass.com...

a reply to: Raggedyman

So... Jesus drank Sh!t wine?

watered down...

Even though he spoke of good wine in parable

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

So... Jesus drank Sh!t wine?

watered down...

Even though he spoke of good wine in parable

How you arrive at that Ak is beyond my capacity to think
Is only the wine that has lots of alcohol in it the best wine, does that make pure alcohol the best wine that can be made

Your logic is a little beyond my reasoning

a reply to: Raggedyman

im sorry you don't understand... you don't water down wine

a reply to: Akragon

Yeah you do, if you want to water down wine that's fine, maybe not sparkling wine
In fact I almost always do

I still don't get your comment on the wine being as you described
How do you reason that.