The Nature of Sin.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It says most, not all. That still leaves some of them as being earlier.

What matters to my discussion, and the topic of this thread, is how old is the Law or Torah, that some people believe defines "sin".

Care to address any of my other points?

It takes me a few minutes to write out answers.
Can you hold on that long, for me to type an answer before attacking me?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Do you believe the gospels are 100% accurate? If so, how do you explain Jesus quoting the OT to get some of his points across?

Why do the authors frequently reference OT scripture to point out prophecy being fulfilled through Jesus? If the OT is a complete fraud (which I'm not saying it's not), then why do the books you believe in reference it so much to state its case for Jesus being the Messiah?

How could the writers of the gospel not know the OT was a fraud, and if they were referencing a fraud, what makes you so sure the NT isn't a continuation of that fraud? That's a slippery slope you're getting on my friend.

By the way, it would be easier if you waited to reply until you addressed all of my points instead of breaking it up into different posts. I'm not attacking you, it just seems like you're answering parts of my post and ignoring other parts.

Because the authentic New Testament books are writings that literary experts can look at and tell that it was written by a particular person.
The Torah and other Old Testament books can be determined to have been written by multiple different persons.

And what exactly would they be comparing these writings to? Mark never wrote anything outside of the bible, neither did Matthew, Luke, or John. So how exactly can they be so sure they are who they say they are when the only evidence of their existence is the book they are reading from to make that conclusion?

Are you telling me I could write a letter today and never write anything else and 2,000 years down the road, people could somehow link that letter to me without anything else to compare it to? You can't be serious.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Do you believe the gospels are 100% accurate? If so, how do you explain Jesus quoting the OT to get some of his points across?

Not Luke which I think was written by a fraud who claimed to have information from eyewitnesses, when really they were all long dead by then.

If so, how do you explain Jesus quoting the OT to get some of his points across?

Those were the official religious documents of his time and culture.

Why do the authors frequently reference OT scripture to point out prophecy being fulfilled through Jesus?

They aren't strictly speaking prophecies. God could have little hidden messages in scripture that you could look at after the fact matching things that actually happened, which somehow links Jesus to a divine will and foreknowledge.

If the OT is a complete fraud (which I'm not saying it's not), then why do the books you believe in reference it so much to state its case for Jesus being the Messiah?

There are certain profound truths that can be illustrated by the selective use of OT stories.

How could the writers of the gospel not know the OT was a fraud, and if they were referencing a fraud, what makes you so sure the NT isn't a continuation of that fraud? That's a slippery slope you're getting on my friend.

The NT writers do not rely on the OT for the authentication of the truths presented by them.

By the way, it would be easier if you waited to reply until you addressed all of my points instead of breaking it up into different posts.

Don't you have other things to do, you know like go heat up a kettle and make some tea, rather than jumping immediately on what I posted 45 seconds ago? It's 2:00 AM where I am, so I feel like I can post at my leisure, in a more casual sort of way.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I guess I have just as much to do as you do, huh?

So you think the other gospels are accurate? What is different with Luke's gospel? He tells the same exact story as the others.

John 5
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

So since Moses and his books were a complete fraud, I guess Jesus was a complete fraud too, because he equated himself with Moses and said Moses wrote about him. Since you don't believe Moses, that means you shouldn't believe Jesus?

If Jesus was god, why did he not know the OT was a complete fabrication? Why would he not tell people that if he did know?

You've opened a can of worms.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

And what exactly would they be comparing these writings to? Mark never wrote anything outside of the bible, neither did Matthew, Luke, or John. So how exactly can they be so sure they are who they say they are when the only evidence of their existence is the book they are reading from to make that conclusion?

Are you telling me I could write a letter today and never write anything else and 2,000 years down the road, people could somehow link that letter to me without anything else to compare it to? You can't be serious.

I am serious and it is not my fault that you cannot understand these things. I get a little annoyed having to say the same thing over and over. Notice in my earlier post the word "experts".
These are people who have devoted their lives to studying writings and analyzing them.
What you can do or what I can do has nothing to do with it.
If you really wanted to know, you can read books where these experts walk you through it to explain it. I can not do that, otherwise I would be writing my own books rather than posting on a forum.
You don't see anyone disproving what I write because I study the people who really do know what they are talking about.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So you think the other gospels are accurate? What is different with Luke's gospel? He tells the same exact story as the others.

They are accurate according to whoever wrote them.
Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts which can be dated by certain references, to the second century.

So since Moses and his books were a complete fraud, I guess Jesus was a complete fraud too, because he equated himself with Moses and said Moses wrote about him. Since you don't believe Moses, that means you shouldn't believe Jesus?

"Moses" was a term that was synonymous with Torah.

If Jesus was god, why did he not know the OT was a complete fabrication? Why would he not tell people that if he did know?

Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.
That means here was an attempt at the salvation of a people that was generally a good idea but it needed a divine person to actually pull it off.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What exactly are these experts basing their conclusion on though? How do they know who really wrote the gospels when the authors wrote absolutely nothing else outside of their respective gospels? ANYONE could have written the gospels, and they could have been attributed to ANYONE and we would be none the wiser. For all we know, Jim Bob could have written a gospel and we'd never know otherwise.

Could I write one letter without naming myself and never write anything else and someone 2,000 years later could attribute it to me? How would they know I wrote this letter when they have nothing else from me to compare it to? Your explanation makes no sense at all.

reply to post by jmdewey60


So Jesus really said if you believe the Torah you would believe him? Did he call the Torah a "he"? How does this prove your point exactly? You're still stuck with the Torah being a fraud and Jesus saying to believe the Torah is to believe him. Do you not believe in Jesus since you do not believe in the Torah?

So Jesus came to fulfill the fraud. Sure, makes total sense.

You're really stretching it here, I mean seriously. You have such contradictory beliefs. You're basically creating your own doctrine just to justify your beliefs and erase the contradictions. You cannot have the NT without the OT because the NT is an extension of the OT and heavily relies on it, basically all the way through in every aspect.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

----------------------

You're really stretching it here, I mean seriously. You have such contradictory beliefs. You're basically creating your own doctrine just to justify your beliefs and erase the contradictions. You cannot have the NT without the OT because the NT is an extension of the OT and heavily relies on it, basically all the way through in every aspect.

edit on 15-9-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

3NL1GHT3N3D1

I just have to say you have to realize who you are discoursing with.Someone who's logic is so twisted north is southeastwest. He only knows what he "reads" and expects everyone to read what he has read and distort it with the same twisted logic.That is his God he believes in.It's futile to get a straight thought out of a bunch of twisted lines going nowhere however by all means continue .....this is the funniest stuff I've ever read at ATS.I can't wait to hear about all the other things that don't exist because they can't be proved like .....ALL Of history!!

reply to post by Rex282


I know who I'm talking to, this isn't the first time we've crossed paths.

I just like to point out how backwards his logic is, if you can even call it logic.

Even though I agree with him that the OT isn't historically accurate, I think his reasons behind believing so are really strange especially since the books he considers god's word are almost entirely reliant on it, at least from the "Jesus was god" perspective.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Rex282

 

I know who I'm talking to, this isn't the first time we've crossed paths.

Yes I ...know.....

3NL1GHT3N3D1
I just like to point out how backwards his logic is, if you can even call it logic.

??"really.... .notice didn't I

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Even though I agree with him that the OT isn't historically accurate, I think his reasons behind believing so are really strange especially since the books he considers god's word are almost entirely reliant on it, at least from the "Jesus was god" perspective.

I agree..with you...If you want to know about quantum physics I suggest reading some books by people that do then do some experiments....lots of experiments.

If you want to know God.... experts (and twisted logic theologians) on books about God are completely useless...now enough about sanity..... on with the futility!!! there's more nothing to be believed!!!

reply to post by jmdewey60


This is a very interesting discussion between you and 3NL1GHT3N3D1. Which books of The New Testament do you believe is trust worthy? I heard there were forgeries in many, including Mark which is supposed to be the oldest, about 6 lines or something was added at the end.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


The mark that man is missing is the present moment. Man is lost in time - time implies birth and death - so one suffers from the ideas in mind.

There is only presence but man does not realize this because the mind (the talking serpent) is concerned with before and after. All the stories the talking serpent speaks is lapped up and believed.

It is only when it is seen that there is just what is happening now always that you will know that this is life - you are life - there is only timeless being.

The original sin is to believe that you are separate to anything - that there can be anything without the presence of the lord.

The sin (misunderstanding) just causes you to believe you are a person in time - God is just playing hide and seek with himself by pretending there is something outside himself. In doing so a whole world is imagined for God to get lost in.
I once was lost but now am found.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

ANYONE could have written the gospels, and they could have been attributed to ANYONE and we would be none the wiser.

That's right and a reasonable description of the situation we find ourselves in.
My original point was that reading the Bible in Greek to me is preferable to only reading what can be highly interpretive translations into the English.
The part that I am getting criticism for is saying that this also applies to the Old Testament.
Some people believe that there is a language that is "Hebrew" that magically is what God spoke in creation, when that idea to me is completely ridiculous.
Most likely Jewish scholars sat down with some great Egyptian historical books written in Greek, and came up with a version that made them look good, and then wrote a version in an archaic language to make it look like it predates the writings that they basically plagiarized, all the while really depending on the Greek version of it.

Could I write one letter without naming myself and never write anything else and someone 2,000 years later could attribute it to me? How would they know I wrote this letter when they have nothing else from me to compare it to? Your explanation makes no sense at all.

The people who are the top experts in the field could take an extensive writing by you and determine if you wrote the whole letter yourself or if someone else took your letter and doubled the size of it by adding their own content.

reply to post by jmdewey60


No, that's not what most likely happened. There is no basis in reality of the OT being first written in Greek, at all. It is only in your imagination that it's possible.

If the OT wasn't written when it's said to have been written, it undermines the entire NT and all of the gospels, books you seem to believe are the word of god.

If church tradition named the author of Mark as Bartholomew, we would be calling it the Gospel of Bartholomew to this day and we wouldn't know any better, because we have absolutely nothing else to compare the author's work to to verify the author's identity.

reply to post by arpgme

This is a very interesting discussion between you and 3NL1GHT3N3D1. Which books of The New Testament do you believe is trustworthy? I heard there were forgeries in many, including Mark which is supposed to be the oldest, about 6 lines or something was added at the end.

There is probably at least a line added to every book of the New Testament.
I look at things like how early the writings are as a way of gauging how much to trust them.
Revelation I would probably put first as the earliest of the NT books, then 1 Thessalonians.
Last I would put Acts and Luke and 2 Peter and Jude and Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy.
In the middle would be Matthew, Mark, and John, Galatians, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians and Hebrews.

reply to post by jmdewey60


that is news to me... where did you get this theory from?

Akragon
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

that is news to me... where did you get this theory from?