About other gods-question for theists

[orangebox21]

Judaism doesn’t give a crap what Romans says, seeing as it’s part of the NT.

Your question was why am I not a Jew.

You said that the Bible was logically consistent internally (debatable). So is the Torah. You can’t use a part of your religion as “internally consistent” as then use it to invalidate another religion which doesn’t use that part at all.

Christianity does not invalidate Judaism, but rather fulfills it.

@ Orangebox

(1) You said:

From a spiritual perspective, God has elected me, regenerated me, and given me belief. This is nothing I did on my own, nor nothing I deserve, but rather it is the work of God that no man may boast.

What external confirmation do you have of that? Being "given belief" is an internal feeling and not an external confirmation. It is exactly what believers in other religions have. So why not Islam? Surely their internal confirmation is just as valid as yours. Your choice is cultural nothing more.

Someone giving something to me is by definition external (it is an external entity operating upon me). If I were to give something to myself, that would be internal. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your definition of 'external', please define.

(2) As for Biblical contradictions, there are whole articles devoted to that:

[email]http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html[/email]
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/b...radictions

There are whole books (Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Haley, John) and webslte articles (carm.org, apologeticspress.org, etc) devoted to debunking so-called Biblical contradictions.

Read the Gospels side-by-side sometime. You'll find they don't agree. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Shred...ospels.htm

Read: One Perfect Life by John MacArthur. You'll find they do agree.

What does that have to do with whether the Old Testament is largely negated by the New Testament?

Not negated, fulfilled.

(4) Lets try your syllogism again:

A says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
B says there is a god and some of his truth is found in X.
A and B contain some internal contradictions and also sometimes contradict X.
X does not contradict itself.
Therefore X is true.

Better? It still doesn't follow logically.

You continue to misrepresent my argument by adding your own philosophical bias ("contain some internal contradictions') to my argument. I did not include this proposition in my argument. Please represent my argument accurately or if you don't understand it, ask for clarification.