The Genesis Fraud

[Drich]

What about the proto-evangelium?

In that He will strike at the Heel and God will deliver a death blow to "him?"

what about it? It was a promise to established in the beginning Hence the "proto"

I disagree. The two (OT and NT) have been bound by the doctrines of Christianity for centuries, but for a few attempts by the likes of Marcion and his followers.

I disagree with your disagreement. As Judism was an established religion for several thousand years before the establishment of Christianity and for the majority of that time Genesis was apart of that system of belief.
Thus seperating Genesis from Christianity and placing it in the Corner of Judism first. Meaning Jewish interpertation must and will take percedent over a simply traditional Christian interpertation of the book.
(This includes but not limited to the orgins of the books and stated timelines)

Oooh, Oooh, I do, I do. Christianity hijacked the legitimacy of the Jewish religion to attain successful propagation.

Oooh, Oooh!! thus sealing the arguement to my side in that Judism was a well established religion long before christian historeans messed up the interpertations and traditional readings of books like Genesis. Which again points to the futility of the OP. Why address a flawed christian interpertation of another's Religious corner stone text? Why not speak to the orginal interpertations of the texted in question?

Again at best all you efforts point to are mistakes made by earily church historeans.

Which beggs me to ask again: So what?

Whether you are aware of this fact or not, Christianity is built upon Judaism, and in reality quite a large sprinkle of "Paganism" as well. So, if you manage to demonstrate that the foundations of a given religion, or idea are built on less than solid foundations...what does that guy say happens to those who build things on sandy foundations?

and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall
Matthew 7:27

Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

So again what does it matter that he has found flaws in a Christian interpretation of a Jewish text. This literally changes nothing.

---

"Not doctrinal"..lol, complete bullshit Drich. Which god was christ again? What is christ coming to save us from again? When did that happen again? Are you going to start blathering on about "not doctrinal" but "true enough"? Give me a fucking break. You shouldn't be so willing to come off like a snake in service of christ, if you want to spread that message. That's just my opinion.

But hell, let's run with it. God did not create us (or anything else in this world), there was no garden, no original sin, no sin at all, no fall of man, and death isn't some sort of curse placed upon us. I love your doctrine (or lack thereof) Drich.

again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."