The Contradictions (and complete misunderstandings) of Christianity

reply to post by azza5540


Well I don't believe the Genesis story is a bastardized copy of the Sumerian texts. I believe it's a completely new story. Genesis is actually pretty long. Only a small portion of it has anything to do with the creation story. I think for the most part Genesis is a new story that simply referred back to some historical events in certain places. Like they may have refereed back to some Sumerian historical events, but the purpose of Genesis was not solely to retell the Sumerian stories.

For example if I was writing a biography about someone living today I may refer back to the civil war when one of their ancestors was born to give you more information about that person, but my purpose isn't completely to retell the story of the civil war. It's simply to give some backdrop to what's going on now so we can tell the story of what happens after that.

Originally posted by azza5540
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Does it really matter that people get one council confused with the other if the point they are trying to make is " A Council was convened to take the bible apart and put it back together the way they wanted it, not how God had it? and then destroy all books they didn`t want, or anyone else or their religious beliefs if they had those said books? If they can`t read it, they can`t believe it.

Actually it does matter because the council of Nicaea was in 325 where the council of Trent was in 1545. By the time either council happened the Canon was basically already decided anyway. The Canon basically formed organically with believers just keeping the books they wanted and over time there was sort of a rough consensus.

When the council of Trent finally happened and they started debating it, all the books they were debating on taking out actually got left in as far I know. They're called the Apocrypha and the Catholics consider them Canon where Protestants do not. It's the Protestants that ended up taking the books out.

As far as I know the Catholics never did up removing any. They just debated about it forever, and then, ended up keeping them in, but calling them Apocrypha.

THE sUMERIAN INFLUENCE ON ADAM AND EVE FABLE

The subsequent tale, with similarities to the Biblical story of the forbidden fruit, repeats the story of how fresh water brings life to a barren land. Enki, the Water-Lord then "caused to flow the 'water of the heart" and having fertilised his consort Ninhursag, also known as Ki or Earth, after "Nine days being her nine months, the months of 'womanhood'... like good butter, Nintu, the mother of the land, ...like good butter, gave birth to Ninsar, (Lady Greenery)". When Ninhursag left him, as Water-Lord he came upon Ninsar (Lady Greenery). Not knowing her to be his daughter, and because she reminds him of his absent consort, Enki then seduces and has intercourse with her. Ninsar then gave birth to Ninkurra (Lady Fruitfulness or Lady Pasture), and leaves Enki alone again. A second time, Enki, in his loneliness finds and seduces Ninkurra, and from the union Ninkurra gave birth to Uttu (weaver or spider, the weaver of the web of life).
A third time Enki succumbs to temptation, and attempts seduction of Uttu. Upset about Enki's reputation, Uttu consults Ninhursag, who, upset at the promiscuous wayward nature of her spouse, advises Uttu to avoid the riverbanks, the places likely to be affected by flooding, the home of Enki. In another version of this myth Ninhursag takes Enki's semen from Uttu's womb and plants it in the earth where eight plants rapidly germinate. With his two-faced servant and steward Isimud, "Enki, in the swampland, in the swampland lies stretched out, 'What is this (plant), what is this (plant). His messenger Isimud, answers him; 'My king, this is the tree-plant', he says to him. He cuts it off for him and he (Enki) eats it". And so, despite warnings, Enki consumes the other seven fruit. Consuming his own semen, he falls pregnant (ill with swellings) in his jaw, his teeth, his mouth, his hip, his throat, his limbs, his side and his rib. The gods are at a loss to know what to do, chagrinned they "sit in the dust". As Enki lacks a womb with which to give birth, he seems to be dying with swellings. The fox then asks Enlil King of the Gods, "If i bring Ninhursag before thee, what shall be my reward?" Ninhursag's sacred fox then fetches the goddess.
Ninhursag relents and takes Enki's Ab (water, or semen) into her body, and gives birth to gods of healing of each part of the body. Abu for the Jaw, Nintul for the Hip, Ninsutu for the tooth, Ninkasi for the mouth, Dazimua for the side, Enshagag for the Limbs. The last one, Ninti (Lady Rib), is also a pun on Lady Life, a title of Ninhursag herself. The story thus symbolically reflects the way in which life is brought forth through the addition of water to the land, and once it grows, water is required to bring plants to fruit. It also counsels balance and responsibility, nothing to excess.
Ninti, the title of Ninhursag, also means "the mother of all living", and was a title given to the later Hurrian goddess Kheba. This is also the title given in the Bible to Eve, the Hebrew and Aramaic Ḥawwah (חוה), who was made from the rib of Adam, in a strange reflection of the Sumerian myth, in which Adam — not Enki — walks in the Garden of Paradise.[1

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by azza5540

 

For example if I was writing a biography about someone living today I may refer back to the civil war when one of their ancestors was born to give you more information about that person, but my purpose isn't completely to retell the story of the civil war. It's simply to give some backdrop to what's going on now so we can tell the story of what happens after that.

edit on 30-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Then you would not have a true account of what happened in the Civil war. Which is what some people are hanging on to with creation V`s evolution, How Adam and Eve where Created, Why Incest must have been approved etc etc, why believe what was written at least 600 years later after it has happened as Gospel, it would be like me writing historical factual data of what was happening in the 1400 on my family history, relying on the stories that my Grandparents told me. But then add that to that a council then takes my stories and pulls it apart and puts it back together to show it how they think it should go together? hmmm. No I will stick to what I have researched on my own for now

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by azza5540
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

As far as I know the Catholics never did up removing any. They just debated about it forever, and then, ended up keeping them in, but calling them Apocrypha.

edit on 30-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Then you don`t know that much do you. Just one source, I really do hate quoting though. en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by azza5540


I never said don't do your own research. You just don't seem to be very good at it. Getting very simple facts and dates wrong.

reply to post by azza5540


Did you read that link? It says exactly what I said, the Canon developed over time and the only real mention of removing any books in that article you linked to was done by the protestants. Not the Catholic councils. Seems virtually every time the Catholics got a chance to discuss the Canon they ended up ADDING books.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by azza5540

 

Did you read that link? It says exactly what I said, the Canon developed over time and the only real mention of removing any books in that article you linked to was done by the protestants. Not the Catholic councils. Seems virtually every time the Catholics got a chance to discuss the Canon they ended up ADDING books.

edit on 30-7-2013 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Did you read it? it says a lot more than that, also www.bibleufo.com... The Church View:
In the Catholic Church the version used is the Douay-Rheims Bible consisting of 73 books. In the Protestant church only the 66 books approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885, which today is known as the Authorized King James Bible, are used. No other books, neither the Apocrypha, which was included in the original King James Bible, nor the 22 books mentioned or quoted in the King James Bible, are considered inspired.

reply to post by spannera


interesting, a bit different to what i have read in the past, if you read about a lot of other religions and even the australian aboriginal dream time stories you will see that there is a lot of cross correlation regarding the creation of man and the universe, also very interesting is this story. www.british-israel.ca...

reply to post by azza5540


We're not discussing if the Catholics think the books are inspired or not. Your original claim was that they took them out, not that, they didn't really like them, but left them in.

If you pick up a Catholic Bible, regardless of who thinks they're inspired or not. You'll find that the books are still IN THERE. However, they are missing from the PROTESTANT Bibles. Like I said, it was mostly the protestants that removed books. Not the Catholics at their councils.

If you now wanna make a weak watered down claim that the Catholics may have thought some books uninspired, that's okay. But that's a long ways away from your original claim. How far are you gonna back off before you realize you got it wrong?

Also, just in case you're wondering what you're doing is called moving the goal post and is considered a logical fallacy and not an effective form of debate.

reply to post by azza5540


I mean, just consider the absurdity of your argument for a sec. You claim that the Catholics removed all these books. Which books? I want to read them. Oh they're not in the Protestant Bible. To read them, you have to pick up a Catholic Bible.

Oh wait? What? Yeah, that doesn't make any freaking sense.

reply to post by tinfoilman


sounds like you are trying to take the Catholic point of view, " we never took any books out, we just didn`t add them in the first place"

Catholic Forum Elder "There are dozens of "books" the Church did not put in the offical cannon. it didnt take any out-it just never included many, many books". you seem to be playing on semantics. If you want to believe the bible is a full and complete bible then keep your mind closed.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 81 (Even more, according to some) books in their canon.

My understanding is that the Roman Church has declared that the 73 books in the bible are inspired and none are to be excluded. Other Churches can have more. Some Eastern Catholic Churches have more.

Are there any implicit or explicit Orthodox teachings that come from the books not included in the Roman canon?

Lets call a spade a spade here, the bible is full of holes and contradictions if you try to read it literally, Just one example.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Hmm but then:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

What? he created 2 men and 2 women???

reply to post by azza5540


Well now you're just being disingenuous. We were only discussing the council of Nicaea and and you were wrong about that. You used the word delete, implying they were trying to cover something up. There were just books not everyone agreed on.

While I never claimed the Canon to be perfect, it's got more books than the Protestant Bibles. The notion of a big Catholic conspiracy to remove books is completely disproven. Like I said, the Canon formed mostly organically.

But see, you don't care that the books were removed in the Protestant Bibles. It only shows you care about your bias and opinions and don't care about real research because you're still ranting about the Catholics to try and prove yourself correct.

However, if you actually cared about research and not your bias, you would say, oh I've gathered new information, I found out I was wrong, and now you'd be REALLY TICKED at the Protestants.

You'd be saying. Whoa! It's the Protestants that removed the books! While the Catholic Canon may not be perfect, there definitely wasn't any Catholic conspiracy to remove books! However, THERE WAS A PROTESTANT CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE BOOKS!

But you don't care about that or facts. You just care about being right. That's why people like you shouldn't be doing your own research.

reply to post by tinfoilman


well you may see it as me being wrong but I see it as you who is wrong.

Ecumenical councils
First Seven Councils
recognized by the Roman Catholic,
Eastern Orthodox and partly by other churches*

Nicaea I (325)
Constantinople I (381)
Ephesus (431)
Chalcedon (451)
Constantinople II (553)
Constantinople III (680–81)
Nicaea II (787)

Later councils partly recognized by
Eastern Orthodox Churches

Quinisext Council (692)
Constantinople IV (879/80)
Constantinople V (1341/51)
Synod of Jerusalem (1672)
Synod of Constantinople (1872)

Later councils recognized by the
Roman Catholic Church

Constantinople IV (869/70)
Lateran I (1123)
Lateran II (1139)
Lateran III (1179)
Lateran IV (1215)
Lyon I (1245)
Lyon II (1274)
Vienne (1311–1312)
Constance (1414/18)
Basel/Florence (1431/45)
Lateran V (1512/14)
Trent (1545/63)
Vatican I (1869/70)
Vatican II (1962/65)

Of the first seven Councils, the Assyrian Church of the East recognizes the first two councils, Oriental Orthodox churches recognize the first three.
Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists and some other Protestants recognize the first four of those councils, and in some cases the first seven. Other Protestants have various views

Old Catholics recognize all Councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church up to Trent, excluding Vatican I and Vatican II.

but hey anyone who wants to nit pick on semantics just makes me laugh at how hard they try. you are refusing to look at the big picture in order to justify your own beliefs by picking on small fraudulent things,
lets just pick on one small thing from the bible that has been changed hey.


Ads by Google
Is God a Trinity? www.ucg.org.au
Why theologians can't explain the Trinity; the answer might surprise!
So many to choose from...
So many to choose from...
Ads by Google
All those gods they never told you about...

Just for starters, I’ll share Psalms 82:1: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods…” and Psalms 86:8: “Among the gods [there is] none like unto thee, O Lord; neither [are there any works] like unto thy works.” *

Read these with care. And read them, if you must, in as many translations of the Bible as you wish. You will be hard pressed to interpret away the fact that these two passages of Scripture clearly refer to other gods.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let "US" make man in "OUR" image

"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them." (Exodus 18:11)

What, you have more than one God.

or Elohim in its original writings is Plural for El, El is God

Originally posted by azza5540
reply to post by tinfoilman


Yeah, looks like we're not talking about Nicaea anymore. See, there's this game people do where they're wrong, and when shown in error, instead of just saying yeah I was wrong, thank you! I'm now smarter. They just want to move onto the next point like nothing happened and just keep hammering point after point until out of desperation they finally get one right, and somehow use that as an excuse to say they were right all along.

Now you wanna bring up all these other councils where Canon wasn't even debated.

Yeah I don't play that game. Like I told a previous poster. I'm not here to debunk every thought you ever had. I'm sure SOME of your thoughts are right.

But your thoughts about Nicaea weren't and as far as I'm concerned that's as far as the debate needs to go. Anything else you post I'll either not have an issue with, or if I do I'll comment on that then at that time.

or Elohim in its original writings is Plural for El, El is God

Yeah, God the father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Duh. It's almost like the writers of the OT knew hundreds of years prior to Jesus' coming that God was more than one.

I'll give you another hint. The OT may make other references to Jesus if you look.

And as for the Trinity, well it's s paradox and nobody understands it? So what's to say about something that can't be understood?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, not to get too deep into 5th grade Health class on you, but Adam had a penis and Eve had a vagina. Had Eve been a "clone" of Adam she would have likewise had a penis.

I'm sorry to see you wasting time on this digression instead of dealing with the OP; I'm keen to see how he fares at the hands of a Christian apologist who really knows his stuff. He hasn't done too well with the science types, so it should be an interesting comparison.

Now, about clones: they are genetically, not physically identical to one another.

In biology, cloning is the process of producing similar populations of genetically identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually. Wikipedia

Their phenotypes – their physical forms, including the forms taken by their sex organs – may vary due to post-conceptual mutations or epigenetic factors. Naturally-conceived identical twins are clones, even on the rare occasions when one twin is female and the other is male.

Normally due to an environmental factor or the deactivation of different X chromosomes in female monozygotic twins, and in some extremely rare cases, due to aneuploidy, twins may express different sexual phenotypes, normally from an XXY Klinefelter syndrome zygote splitting unevenly. Wikipedia

The article you posted earlier does not disprove any of this, by the way. It indicates that there are some genetic differences between identical twins, probably due to copying errors during life. Unfortunately, it is not possible to analyse the DNA of a zygote without destroying it, so we cannot say with absolute certainty that these differences are due only to copying errors, but that would be the most likely explanation.

ha ha ha ha ha.

You've just reinforced my belief this is a humor site. Your really really funny.

reply to post by tinfoilman


Again Nicaean, again being a Bigoted narrow minded fool looking for excuses. bye

reply to post by azza5540


I'm not "Bigoted" because I pointed out a factual error in your research lol. You are however now making an ad hominem attack against me, which isn't really a good way to debate.

All that's important is the debate. My current position is you were wrong about one thing, however I'm sure you're right about some stuff, I just don't wish to address every thought you ever had or will have.

Don't you agree with me? If not then is your position.

A. You're never wrong about anything?
B. You're never right about anything?
C. That I'm wrong and I should debate you about every thought you ever have even though I believe many of them are right. Just not the one I'm addressing?

I hope it's not C, I really don't have time for that. But you'd think you'd agree with me that you are at least SOMETIMES right. I don't know why anyone would disagree with that opinion.

But you've gotten so mad you've twisted yourself into disagreeing with me that I think you're right sometimes. Wow, that's, that's a piece of work right there.