Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
You can not offer me, an atheist, any reason to believe that the New Testament is a credible souce of ancient history, much less a credible attestation for miraculous events. All the evidence points to regurgitated storytelling with subsequent embellishments.
John 18:10 "Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear." Again and as expected you do not know what is in the Bible, so anything you say about it and I mean anything can't be trusted one bit.
You are wrong about the Bible being a fairy tale, but all the Bibles I'm aware of do present the same stories more or less the same. However a paraphrased Bible is not translated from the oldest and best transcripts, they are written from the existing translations to make reading easier. Well of coarse they do id they were written in the oldest English few would be able to understand what they are reading. The NASB is translated out of the oldest and best text we have, most if not all comes from the Hebrew and Greek and they used the Latin too, this combination gives use the best chance at an accurate translation. Your lack of Biblical knowledge just makes conversations with you so hard, that and your arrogant nature.
GC
Good point about Peter being the slasher but I'm more of a Matthew guy than a John guy.
The fairy tale says in Matthew 26:51 (KJV) = "51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear."
That version is repeated in Mark 14:47 (KJV) = "47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."
And Luke 22:50 (KJV) = "50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear."
As you pointed out in John 18:10 (KJV) = "10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus."
So in all four versions the victim was one of the high priest's lackeys.
John names the victim but it's a throwaway name that's not related to anyone in the Bible.
Three of the Gospels say that a bystander whipped out a sword a sliced off the ear. Luke and John said that it was the right ear. John said Peter was the perp.
So what's one of the points that the story is telling?
Consider Exodus 15:26 (KJV) = "And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the Lord that healeth thee."
The servant may not have heard Yeshua's message before with his useless ear but after getting it cut off and restored I would bet that he became a very attentive listener. And notice that Yeshua became the Lord that healed, which indicates that he forgave the servant's sins. That showed that Yeshua had the power to forgive sins as mentioned in Matthew 9:6 and elsewhere. The servant didn't receive additional punishment.
So what's the significance of the right ear?
Remember the ritual Aaron did in Leviticus 14:14 (KJV) = "And the priest shall take some of the blood of the trespass offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot:"
Now while the story doesn't mention the right thumb or the right big toe it does mention the bloody right ear of the one who is to be cleansed, which is what happened to the servant.
That's how you tie one story to another one. One story might set the scene and another story will show the application.
Did you know that trees can talk just like snakes and donkeys? They also like to have a king to rule over them.
Judges 9:1-15 (CEV) =
8 Once the trees searched
for someone to be king;
they asked the olive tree,
“Will you be our king?”
9 But the olive tree replied,
“My oil brings honor
to people and gods.
I won’t stop making oil,
just to have my branches wave
above the other trees.”
10 Then they asked the fig tree,
“Will you be our king?”
11 But the fig tree replied,
“I won’t stop growing
my delicious fruit,
just to have my branches wave
above the other trees.”
12 Next they asked the grape vine,
“Will you be our king?”
13 But the grape vine replied,
“My wine brings cheer
to people and gods.
I won’t stop making wine,
just to have my branches wave
above the other trees.”
14 Finally, they went
to the thornbush and asked,
“Will you be our king?”
15 The thornbush replied,
“If you really want me
to be your king,
then come into my shade
and I will protect you.
But if you’re deceiving me,
I’ll start a fire
that will spread out and destroy
the cedars of Lebanon.”
Quote: Surely you do not believe that was a real event, if so I can't help believe you understand little from the scriptures. It was a story told as a curse and God upheld the curse on the men it was pronounced. Justice was served. Now explain what that story has to do with proving God was the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden. I'm going to say this one last time to you, the serpent was not a snake, it had legs and snakes do not have usable legs. If you mention this again I'm going to take it that you really do not care acting stupid.
GC
While we all have our faults the only one being stupid on this thread is you. You believe in an ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish deity named Yahweh and in an imaginary Jewish zombie with the alias of Jesus who will save your soul and give you eternal life. You're nuts.
The talking snake or serpent in the story was the Egyptian pharaoh. Noah's flood is a war story, most likely about the Egyptian invasion and conquest of the Levant area. Moses' exodus is about the Egyptian withdrawal from the Levant. The biblical God character was simply the series of crazy men who ruled the dominant empire in the ancient Middle East and kept the Hebrews under their thumbs. The last one bit the dust around 530 B.C. with the collapse of the Babylonian Empire. He is never, ever, coming back.
The Saul/Paul created the Jesus character as a way to sell his resurrection religion. He even said that it was bull shit. Later writers wrote prequels (the Gospels) to show why the Jesus character should be worshiped as a deity. They also included some political acts by the three main rebels and wrote them as religious stories involving Paul's Jesus character.
While there may have been various scraps of manuscripts floating around the area the Bible didn't exist in any form until a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists produced three master copies in Latin in the 690s to counter Uthman's Koran from the 640s. Christianity existed from the First Century but it didn't have an unified written fairy tale until the 690s.
And despite all of the bull shit you can throw at the wall you simply can't produce an original legitimate Bible written before the 690s.
And remember, even the Bible says that it's just a fairy tale written for entertainment purposes and that people shouldn't believe in Jewish fairy tales.
(February 16, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: While we all have our faults the only one being stupid on this thread is you. You believe in an ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish deity named Yahweh and in an imaginary Jewish zombie with the alias of Jesus who will save your soul and give you eternal life. You're nuts.
Prove I'm wrong in my knowledge of God and that my salvation through Jesus is not real.
WoG Wrote:The talking snake or serpent in the story was the Egyptian pharaoh. Noah's flood is a war story, most likely about the Egyptian invasion and conquest of the Levant area. Moses' exodus is about the Egyptian withdrawal from the Levant. The biblical God character was simply the series of crazy men who ruled the dominant empire in the ancient Middle East and kept the Hebrews under their thumbs. The last one bit the dust around 530 B.C. with the collapse of the Babylonian Empire. He is never, ever, coming back.
You have enlightened the biblical scholars about these events and how about the history scholars I'm sure they would rewrite history with this new found evidence.
WoG Wrote:The Saul/Paul created the Jesus character as a way to sell his resurrection religion. He even said that it was bull shit. Later writers wrote prequels (the Gospels) to show why the Jesus character should be worshiped as a deity. They also included some political acts by the three main rebels and wrote them as religious stories involving Paul's Jesus character.
You ever consider writing mystery novels, because no one would be able to figure out what you were doing, it would be a true mystery.
WoG Wrote:While there may have been various scraps of manuscripts floating around the area the Bible didn't exist in any form until a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists produced three master copies in Latin in the 690s to counter Uthman's Koran from the 640s. Christianity existed from the First Century but it didn't have an unified written fairy tale until the 690s.
We have copies of a book that dates back to 300 BC and they show that hardly a word was changed even into modern times. We accept that the writings of Shakespeare, that is the copies are the same as written by someone that is said to be Shakespeare, but there's no proof that a man named Shakespeare wrote those works.
WoG Wrote:And despite all of the bull shit you can throw at the wall you simply can't produce an original legitimate Bible written before the 690s.
And remember, even the Bible says that it's just a fairy tale written for entertainment purposes and that people shouldn't believe in Jewish fairy tales.
The books of the Bible were written long before they were put together as one book and the Torah was put together long before Jesus time. The disciples preached from the Torah and the Prophets because they tell of Jesus, something I'm sure you have missed. You need to prove the bold statement (bold by me). if you can't bring these proofs including the bold about Paul then we have nothing else to talk about.
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
February 17, 2018 at 8:24 am (This post was last modified: February 17, 2018 at 8:25 am by Jehanne.)
GC,
I would like to know your thoughts from the following passage from the Acts of Peter. Do you believe it to be historical; in other words, did it actually happen, and if not, why do you believe that?
Quote:IX. As Peter spake thus with great sorrow of mind, many were added unto them that believed on the Lord. But the brethren besought Peter to join battle with Simon and not suffer him any longer to vex the people. And without delay Peter went quickly out of the synagogue (assembly) and went unto the house of Marcellus, where Simon lodged: and much people followed him. And when he came to the door, he called the porter and said to him: Go, say unto Simon: Peter because of whom thou fleddest out of Judaea waiteth for thee at the door. The porter answered and said to Peter: Sir, whether thou be Peter, I know not: but I have a command; for he had knowledge that yesterday thou didst enter into the city, and said unto me: Whether it be by day or by night, at whatsoever hour he cometh, say that I am not within. And Peter said to the young man: Thou hast well said in reporting that which he compelled thee to say. And Peter turned unto the people that followed him and said: Ye shall now see a great and marvellous wonder. And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed.
February 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm (This post was last modified: February 17, 2018 at 6:56 pm by Wyrd of Gawd.)
(February 17, 2018 at 2:14 am)Godscreated Wrote:
(February 16, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: While we all have our faults the only one being stupid on this thread is you. You believe in an ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish deity named Yahweh and in an imaginary Jewish zombie with the alias of Jesus who will save your soul and give you eternal life. You're nuts.
Prove I'm wrong in my knowledge of God and that my salvation through Jesus is not real.
WoG Wrote:The talking snake or serpent in the story was the Egyptian pharaoh. Noah's flood is a war story, most likely about the Egyptian invasion and conquest of the Levant area. Moses' exodus is about the Egyptian withdrawal from the Levant. The biblical God character was simply the series of crazy men who ruled the dominant empire in the ancient Middle East and kept the Hebrews under their thumbs. The last one bit the dust around 530 B.C. with the collapse of the Babylonian Empire. He is never, ever, coming back.
You have enlightened the biblical scholars about these events and how about the history scholars I'm sure they would rewrite history with this new found evidence.
WoG Wrote:The Saul/Paul created the Jesus character as a way to sell his resurrection religion. He even said that it was bull shit. Later writers wrote prequels (the Gospels) to show why the Jesus character should be worshiped as a deity. They also included some political acts by the three main rebels and wrote them as religious stories involving Paul's Jesus character.
You ever consider writing mystery novels, because no one would be able to figure out what you were doing, it would be a true mystery.
WoG Wrote:While there may have been various scraps of manuscripts floating around the area the Bible didn't exist in any form until a committee of story tellers, writers, and artists produced three master copies in Latin in the 690s to counter Uthman's Koran from the 640s. Christianity existed from the First Century but it didn't have an unified written fairy tale until the 690s.
We have copies of a book that dates back to 300 BC and they show that hardly a word was changed even into modern times. We accept that the writings of Shakespeare, that is the copies are the same as written by someone that is said to be Shakespeare, but there's no proof that a man named Shakespeare wrote those works.
Quote:Wo Wrote:
And despite all of the bull shit you can throw at the wall you simply can't produce an original legitimate Bible written before the 690s.
And remember, even the Bible says that it's just a fairy tale written for entertainment purposes and that people shouldn't believe in Jewish fairy tales.
The books of the Bible were written long before they were put together as one book and the Torah was put together long before Jesus time. The disciples preached from the Torah and the Prophets because they tell of Jesus, something I'm sure you have missed. You need to prove the bold statement (bold by me). if you can't bring these proofs including the bold about Paul then we have nothing else to talk about.
GC
Please read your favorite religious fairy tale at least once in your life.
2 Maccabees 15:38-39 (CEB) = "38 If the story was told effectively, this is what I wanted. But if it was told in a poor and mediocre fashion, this was the best I could do. 39 Just as it is harmful to drink wine or water alone while wine mixed with water is delightful and produces joy, so also may the writing of this story delight the ears of those who encounter this work.
The end."
Titus 1:14 (CEV) = "Don’t pay any attention to any of those senseless Jewish stories and human commands. These are made up by people who won’t obey the truth."
And speaking of Paul and his bull shit, have any of your dead relatives paid you a visit lately?
"1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (CEV) = 12 If we preach that Christ was raised from death, how can some of you say that the dead will not be raised to life? 13 If they won’t be raised to life, Christ himself wasn’t raised to life. 14 And if Christ wasn’t raised to life, our message is worthless, and so is your faith. 15 If the dead won’t be raised to life, we have told lies about God by saying that he raised Christ to life, when he really did not.
16 So if the dead won’t be raised to life, Christ wasn’t raised to life. 17 Unless Christ was raised to life, your faith is useless, and you are still living in your sins. 18 And those people who died after putting their faith in him are completely lost. 19 If our hope in Christ is good only for this life, we are worse off than anyone else."
February 19, 2018 at 3:51 am (This post was last modified: February 19, 2018 at 4:13 am by Godscreated.)
(February 17, 2018 at 6:49 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(February 17, 2018 at 2:14 am)Godscreated Wrote:
Prove I'm wrong in my knowledge of God and that my salvation through Jesus is not real.
You have enlightened the biblical scholars about these events and how about the history scholars I'm sure they would rewrite history with this new found evidence.
You ever consider writing mystery novels, because no one would be able to figure out what you were doing, it would be a true mystery.
We have copies of a book that dates back to 300 BC and they show that hardly a word was changed even into modern times. We accept that the writings of Shakespeare, that is the copies are the same as written by someone that is said to be Shakespeare, but there's no proof that a man named Shakespeare wrote those works.
The books of the Bible were written long before they were put together as one book and the Torah was put together long before Jesus time. The disciples preached from the Torah and the Prophets because they tell of Jesus, something I'm sure you have missed. You need to prove the bold statement (bold by me). if you can't bring these proofs including the bold about Paul then we have nothing else to talk about.
GC
WoG Wrote:Please read your favorite religious fairy tale at least once in your life.
I've read it through and studied it for many years and you know nothing about it other than what you glean from other websites.
WoG Wrote:2 Maccabees 15:38-39 (CEB) = "38 If the story was told effectively, this is what I wanted. But if it was told in a poor and mediocre fashion, this was the best I could do. 39 Just as it is harmful to drink wine or water alone while wine mixed with water is delightful and produces joy, so also may the writing of this story delight the ears of those who encounter this work.
The end."
The Maccabees are not in any of the Protestant Bibles that I know of, that is a Catholic thing they added.
WoG Wrote:Titus 1:14 (CEV) = "Don’t pay any attention to any of those senseless Jewish stories and human commands. These are made up by people who won’t obey the truth."
Titus 1: 13-14 (ESV) ...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
This is for Christians who are listening to wrong teaching. When you use the related verse it makes sense.
This one is for you.
Titus 1:15 (ESV) ..... but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and consciences are defiled.
WoG Wrote:And speaking of Paul and his bull shit, have any of your dead relatives paid you a visit lately?
"1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (CEV) = 12 If we preach that Christ was raised from death, how can some of you say that the dead will not be raised to life? 13 If they won’t be raised to life, Christ himself wasn’t raised to life. 14 And if Christ wasn’t raised to life, our message is worthless, and so is your faith. 15 If the dead won’t be raised to life, we have told lies about God by saying that he raised Christ to life, when he really did not.
16 So if the dead won’t be raised to life, Christ wasn’t raised to life. 17 Unless Christ was raised to life, your faith is useless, and you are still living in your sins. 18 And those people who died after putting their faith in him are completely lost. 19 If our hope in Christ is good only for this life, we are worse off than anyone else."
However you got that out of those verses just befuddles me, your understanding of scripture is completely deplorable and useless.
GC
(February 17, 2018 at 8:24 am)Jehanne Wrote: GC,
I would like to know your thoughts from the following passage from the Acts of Peter. Do you believe it to be historical; in other words, did it actually happen, and if not, why do you believe that?
Quote:IX. As Peter spake thus with great sorrow of mind, many were added unto them that believed on the Lord. But the brethren besought Peter to join battle with Simon and not suffer him any longer to vex the people. And without delay Peter went quickly out of the synagogue (assembly) and went unto the house of Marcellus, where Simon lodged: and much people followed him. And when he came to the door, he called the porter and said to him: Go, say unto Simon: Peter because of whom thou fleddest out of Judaea waiteth for thee at the door. The porter answered and said to Peter: Sir, whether thou be Peter, I know not: but I have a command; for he had knowledge that yesterday thou didst enter into the city, and said unto me: Whether it be by day or by night, at whatsoever hour he cometh, say that I am not within. And Peter said to the young man: Thou hast well said in reporting that which he compelled thee to say. And Peter turned unto the people that followed him and said: Ye shall now see a great and marvellous wonder. And Peter seeing a great dog bound with a strong chain, went to him and loosed him, and when he was loosed the dog received a man's voice and said unto Peter: What dost thou bid me to do, thou servant of the unspeakable and living God? Peter said unto him: Go in and say unto Simon in the midst of his company: Peter saith unto thee, Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And immediately the dog ran and entered in, and rushed into the midst of them that were with Simon, and lifted up his forefeet and in a loud voice said: Thou Simon, Peter the servant of Christ who standeth at the door saith unto thee: Come forth abroad, for thy sake am I come to Rome, thou most wicked one and deceiver of simple souls. And when Simon heard it, and beheld the incredible sight, he lost the words wherewith he was deceiving them that stood by, and all of them were amazed.
You should include at least a part of a post of mine because I usually only respond to Alerts, I just happened to read this one. First of all the Acts of Peter are not in the canonized Bible so I've never read them and would not respond to something that I haven't read fully and I respect those who put the canonized Bible together and do not doubt their work through God. I will answer this because you asked but this doesn't mean I will answer all that does not come from the Bible.
First of all I doubt Peter was ever in Rome, he was mainly in Jerusalem and the surrounding area doing work with the Jewish people. Second there is no time line established for these verses so it would be impossible to say if Peter was somewhere else when this supposedly happened. are you trying to get me to comment on the dog speaking, I believe that God did use a donkey and caused it to speak, but as for this dog I can't say the story is outside of what I accept as God's word. Why did you even bring this up it seems it has no real purpose in my view?
GC
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
February 19, 2018 at 1:24 pm (This post was last modified: February 19, 2018 at 1:26 pm by Wyrd of Gawd.)
(February 19, 2018 at 3:51 am)Godscreated Wrote:
Quote:
WoG Wrote:Please read your favorite religious fairy tale at least once in your life.
I've read it through and studied it for many years and you know nothing about it other than what you glean from other websites.
WoG Wrote:2 Maccabees 15:38-39 (CEB) = "38 If the story was told effectively, this is what I wanted. But if it was told in a poor and mediocre fashion, this was the best I could do. 39 Just as it is harmful to drink wine or water alone while wine mixed with water is delightful and produces joy, so also may the writing of this story delight the ears of those who encounter this work.
The end."
The Maccabees are not in any of the Protestant Bibles that I know of, that is a Catholic thing they added.
Titus 1:14 (CEV) = "Don’t pay any attention to any of those senseless Jewish stories and human commands. These are made up by people who won’t obey the truth."
Titus 1: 13-14 (ESV) ...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.
This is for Christians who are listening to wrong teaching. When you use the related verse it makes sense.
This one is for you.
Titus 1:15 (ESV) ..... but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and consciences are defiled.
WoG Wrote:And speaking of Paul and his bull shit, have any of your dead relatives paid you a visit lately?
"1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (CEV) = 12 If we preach that Christ was raised from death, how can some of you say that the dead will not be raised to life? 13 If they won’t be raised to life, Christ himself wasn’t raised to life. 14 And if Christ wasn’t raised to life, our message is worthless, and so is your faith. 15 If the dead won’t be raised to life, we have told lies about God by saying that he raised Christ to life, when he really did not.
16 So if the dead won’t be raised to life, Christ wasn’t raised to life. 17 Unless Christ was raised to life, your faith is useless, and you are still living in your sins. 18 And those people who died after putting their faith in him are completely lost. 19 If our hope in Christ is good only for this life, we are worse off than anyone else."
However you got that out of those verses just befuddles me, your understanding of scripture is completely deplorable and useless.
GC
GC,
You are just too damn funny!!
Please get a clue before discussing the Bible because your ignorance makes you look like you're an imbecile.
The Apocrypha was an integral part of the Bible until the 1880s when two Englishmen, Westcott and Hort, decided to dump it. So, as routinely happens, their malcontent group wrote a new Bible version and did not include the Apocrypha books. Your precious Protestant Bible is essentially a fake Bible because it omits a significant portion of the original Bible that had been used by everyone since its inception in the 690s.
The Protestant Bible that you like has only been in existence for about 132 years.
Now there's a couple of ways you can discover that fact for yourself. The first is to read news articles and the other way is to read old Bibles written before the 1880s and the Bible history.
You may not do it but will you please stop including every damn post in your replies? It's a pain in the ass to respond to your rambling posts that include a lot of junk. Part of the problem is the way the forum software works but sometimes it's a good idea to wait until another poster comments before adding on to your first comment.
(February 17, 2018 at 8:24 am)Jehanne Wrote: GC,
I would like to know your thoughts from the following passage from the Acts of Peter. Do you believe it to be historical; in other words, did it actually happen, and if not, why do you believe that?
You should include at least a part of a post of mine because I usually only respond to Alerts, I just happened to read this one. First of all the Acts of Peter are not in the canonized Bible so I've never read them and would not respond to something that I haven't read fully and I respect those who put the canonized Bible together and do not doubt their work through God. I will answer this because you asked but this doesn't mean I will answer all that does not come from the Bible.
First of all I doubt Peter was ever in Rome, he was mainly in Jerusalem and the surrounding area doing work with the Jewish people. Second there is no time line established for these verses so it would be impossible to say if Peter was somewhere else when this supposedly happened. are you trying to get me to comment on the dog speaking, I believe that God did use a donkey and caused it to speak, but as for this dog I can't say the story is outside of what I accept as God's word. Why did you even bring this up it seems it has no real purpose in my view?
