Is the Holy Spirit Misleading You?

[Astonished]

I was raised in Protestant evangelical Christianity.  I love the quote by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, "A single friar who goes counter to all Christianity for a thousand years must be wrong. I have decided to mobilize everything against Luther: my kingdoms and dominions, my friends, my body, my blood, and my soul."

Protestant Christianity is a joke.  John Calvin taught that God had predestined some (the Elect) to everlasting bliss while he had predestined others (the Reprobate) to everlasting torments, infants included.  The Roman Church taught that infants who died without Baptism were forever consigned to Limbo, the uppermost level of Hell, while others said that infants are covered by The Atonement, and those who die are in Paradise.

Christianity is a man-made religion where no one can agree on anything.  I used to have arguments, while in college, if there was going to be 1,000 years of peace ("the Millennium") after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  We used to argue if The Rapture would happen at the beginning of The 7-year Tribulation, or during the middle or at the end.

So, sorry!  I SHOULD have been studying during this period of my life, preparing for graduate school; instead, I blew my studies on religious nonsense, and I will go to my grave regretting how much time I wasted in non-productive bullshit.

 One thing you can't prove protestant Christianity is a joke, it's helped millions through life's crisis. Calvin taught something the Bible doesn't teach and it is unfortunate. When God told us Christ died for the world we need to pay attention. I thought you were Catholic.

GC

Okay, from the mouths of babes (in South Park), you are hereby officially declared a full-fledged retard. It was never, ever the only means of helping anyone with anything and is one of the most inferior of methods on offer even if you don't consider all the negative consequences that come with it. Fuck you for even suggesting this is a good thing. I don't give half a fuck if Calvin taught something the bible doesn't teach, because secular humanism does too, namely how to be a good, thinking person and not follow blind authorities, lie to oneself constantly and attempt to deceive others, among other things. And your piece of shit god and his piece of shit bastard son can suck a cock if they have managed to convince you that the condition requiring salvation is anything to do with us to begin with. They injected you with the poison and for some reason you're just begging to let you suck the cure out of their dicks when you can't trust that you'll get it even then. What a pathetic existence you must live with that mentality. Truly a waste of human flesh, at this point it's more disgusting than sad.

[Minimalist]

Have any of the christian fans of the king James bible ever bother to read the "author's" other works?
His demonologie was quite illuminating.

The 1611 KJV follows the original 692 Bible.

There is some dispute on that.....( he said politely.)

http://newlife.id.au/7-things-about-the-...mes-bible/

4. The translators of the KJV 1611 were untrained in Koine Greek. 

Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament. Koine Greek had been a dead language for over a thousand years when the KJV was published for the first time in 1611. The KJV translators of the New Testament were scholars of Classical Greek, but they didn’t even know what Koine Greek was. Some believed that the Greek language of the NT was a unique, Spirit-inspired dialect.[5] It was not until the late 1800s and early 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyri documents were discovered, many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the language more fully.[6] Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek.

(5) The KJV translation of the NT is based on relatively recent Greek manuscripts.

As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611 edition of the KJV relied on critically edited Greek texts that were “for the most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts (none earlier than the 12th century AD).”[7] The Greek texts included five printed editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus,[8] as well as Robert Estienne’s (a.k.a. ‘Stephanus’) edition (1550) and Theodore Beza’s edition (1598). Unfortunately, one of the manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their Greek editions contained a few “corrections” that downplayed the importance of women in the church.[9]

(6) The early editions of the KJV are not based on the Received Text.

Many KJV advocates claim that the KJV was translated from a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and that the TR is especially accurate and inspired. However, the TR did not exist in 1611 when the first King James Bible was published. The first TR was written in 1633. The current version of the TR was produced in 1894 by Scrivener. Conversely, most modern translations of the New Testament are based on critical Greek texts which take into account much more ancient and much less handled Greek manuscripts. A few of these Greek manuscripts date from as early as the third century.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The 692 A.D. Bible was the original Bible and it was written in Latin. All of the Greek language Bibles ae translations. None of the Greek language Bibles were written in any of the ancient regional Greek alphabets. They are all written in the Modern Greek alphabet, which was created after 1453. They try to sell the Greek idea so that they can backdate the Bible to the early centuries. You will never, ever, see an authenic Bible or ancient manuscript with the name "Jesus" in it because the name didn't exist before 1632. It was pulled out of a hat by two con men who got sued for writing "bad Bibles". People liked the name and rebranded Yeshua to Jesus.

[Minimalist]

I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from.



Note the amazing paucity of first and second century works.  Causes jesus freaks to shit bricks.

[Astonished]

I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from.



Note the amazing paucity of first and second century works.  Causes jesus freaks to shit bricks.

But that contradicts their mythology, therefore it is not true.

[Brakeman]

Have any of the christian fans of the king James bible ever bother to read the "author's" other works?
His demonologie was quite illuminating.

The 1611 KJV follows the original 692 Bible.

I was referring to additional books written/attributed to KJ.

[Minimalist]

I really don't know where you are getting this stuff from.



Note the amazing paucity of first and second century works.  Causes jesus freaks to shit bricks.

But that contradicts their mythology, therefore it is not true.

How much do I care about their mythology?  Let me think it over for a moment.

[Astonished]

Yet that still won't discourage them from proselytizing. Or getting them to improve their arguments.

[*Deidre*]

Nothing in the NT nullifies the killing of witches. In fact, Jesus says...

I'm not texting from an alternate universe, so apparently heaven and earth haven't passed yet. This thing about witches seems to be one of those little jots and tittles that some Christians wish would pass.

That verse does not mean what you think it means. 

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

It is clearer in context with the surrounding chapters (5-7) and has a different meaning to a person raised in Judaism (the original audience) than to one that was not.  In light of the previous verses, Jesus was assuring them their sacred Law still had value. The word 'fulfill' in verse 17 does not mean perpetuate, it means complete. But to understand what that means, you then have to understand the purpose of the Law. Jesus was teaching in these three chapters that the law was impossible to fully follow so in fact, no one was righteous. To illustrate that even more, he went on to expand the laws throughout the rest of the chapter 5--further illustrating that it is impossible to live up to the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of it--and therefore cannot ever be the means of salvation. This fits in perfectly with the message that Jesus claimed to be the only means of salvation.

We have to understand that:

1. No one (except for Jesus) has ever succeeded in keeping the law (Acts 15:10)!
   
2. The law was delivered to Israel - One nation of people (Exodus 20:1-2; Deuteronomy 4:1-2).
   
3. It is One Law containing the whole package of rituals and sacrifices as well as the Ten Commandments (Galatians 3:10-11; Galatians 5:3)
   
4. The law cannot bring salvation (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:8-10, 16; Galatians 3:1-5).
   
5. As Paul makes clear, the law's job was to act as a schoolmaster in order to bring us to Christ (Galatians 4:1-7).
   

You also have to ask the meaning of the phrase at the end of verse 18. It is clear in the larger context that this as the purpose for which Jesus came--the sacrifice was made to make it possible to bridge the gap back to God--providing a new (and better) way to God and the only means of salvation--which the law failed to do. 

Here is a good (thorough) article on this issue: http://www.ukapologetics.net/Jesusandthelaw.html

How do you know though, that your interpretation of Scripture is the right one? There are literally over 30,000 denominations of Christianity today, which means every ''church'' is interpreting things its own way, right down to the followers, all interpreting Scripture their own way. Including you. Including me. Including anyone who is a theist or not. I left faith, was an atheist, and returned to faith, and now don't consider myself a Christian per se, anymore. But, I'm at a cross roads with it all, I guess you could say. That said, I've never liked that the Bible creates this chaos and confusion in the mind of its reader. An atheist should be able to read the Bible, and grasp its meaning, and the truth is...most atheists do. (Thus, the need came along for ''apologetics'') The Bible isn't a hard book to understand. The problem is, it's a very straight forward book that many theists feel the need to ''explain'' with ''you're not understanding that passage the right way.'' No, the truth is, there are many horrible passages in the Bible, whereby depraved men wanted to convince the masses, that a god is ordaining all of their own depravity. There are of course beautiful verses and passages too that coexist with those horrible ones, but it's funny...those never need ''explaining.''

[Minimalist]

That verse does not mean what you think it means.

And I bet it sure as fuck doesn't mean what you want it to mean.  The typical apologist.  When it says to "stone queers" it means exactly what it says but when it is embarrassing to xhristard shits it means something else.

You're so transparent, Steve.