Why there are so many denominations

[The Grand Nudger]

People have been working on exegesis of the bible for many centuries. Strangely they keep reaching different conclusions, ergo, schisms...your personal exegesis added to this long list of competitors adds precisely what sort of weight to the bible as an authority?

[Drich]

I did not wake up one morning and decided to come here and start arguements as some have suggested. I have been working on the exegessis of the bible for the last 10 or more years. I am here because I am in a position to give what some of you are looking for.

You didn't reference the additions each "prophet" and "disciple" made. If they made additions whats to stop them making changes? Infact wouldn't it be extremely probable that over 2000 years a great deal many changes would be made to the extent it'd distort the original message beyond recognition?
Remember I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking you what is probable. What is more likely, a text remained largely the same after much tampering by many different people, religions and civilizations over two millenia or that as a result it changed to become very different from its original?

you are aware we have portions of Scripture that are more than 2000 years old correct? We also have original Greek manuscripts from the second century as well. http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scrip...ripts.html
aside from grammatical and spelling errors God has preserved His word.

So no it is not possible for there to have been the changes you have suggest because the manuscript we have are much older than any translation you have suggested effected "change."

---

People have been working on exegesis of the bible for many centuries. Strangely they keep reaching different conclusions, ergo, schisms...your personal exegesis added to this long list of competitors adds precisely what sort of weight to the bible as an authority?

Nothing to anyone who does not seek it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Original greek manuscripts? Would that make your religion greek? There you go again, dismissing those who ask questions which lead to inconvenient answers. Troll.

[Drich]

Original greek manuscripts? Would that make your religion greek? There you go again, dismissing those who ask questions which lead to inconvenient answers. Troll.

again basic understanding failure, the root cause being information was missing from your understanding of the origins of Christianity more over the origins of the bible itself. so rather than ask what Greek had to do with the bible, you pushed what you wanted to believe.
This is what happens when I present complete intact concepts without any ground work that supports the final conclusion. That is why I spend so much time focused on definitions, and trying to bring basic concepts to light. Subsequently this is also the reason conversations stop and you reach for the troll label every time we can not push past basic comprehension.
(Why you do not think I do not understand or can communicate what it is i believe)

Here is your missing ground work: 1st century Israel was under the rule of Rome in the time of Christ (and for several hundred years after.) The written language of Rome was Koine Greek. The original manuscripts that the bible were compiled from were written in Koine Greek. It wasn't till the 3rd or 4th century that they were translated into Latin (So the church leadership could "interpret" in secret scripture in away conducive to their doctrine. Because no one outside of the 'church' could read or write that dead language.) That means if we are using the original Greek to interpret scripture. then none of the changes the Ralphie suggested are possible. Why? Because the texts were completed before any of the suggested changes were made.

[radorth]

Remember I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking you what is probable. What is more likely, a text remained largely the same after much tampering by many different people, religions and civilizations over two millenia or that as a result it changed to become very different from its original?

Somebody probably messed with it is not a rational argument, and will only keep you from testing it yourself. (Not that a fraction of the church has tried Christianity). Such a rationale keeps you from understanding even why Jefferson so admired the wisdom of Jesus and learned from it. He could see the results of employing that wisdom, or he would not so advocate Jesus' teachings. Ghandi called Jesus' sacrifice "the perfect act" of love. Any idea why he said that? Do Ghandi and jefferson believe in pink unicorns too?

I do not need the Bible to be even 80% accurate to glean from its relatively infinite wisdom. It just works. I only need half of one Gospel to be true to be saved. Jesus' teachings have wrought miraculous changes in people's lives, restored marriages, made drunks sober, gave judges in revival-racked Wales nothing to do for years. It made Franklin call the effects of Whitefield's preaching "wonderful to see." It inspired people from Locke to the abolitionist Quakers to the antebellum suffragettes to seek justice and equality for all, something Jesus taught from day one. What on earth makes you think Franklin would be his thrifty, wise, inventive self if he had not had Bible-addicted Quaker parents? Obviously they did him no harm!

This is just historical fact, whether some Christians did evil things or not. Another historical fact is that when you actively shut Jesus and Christianity out, within 50 years you are living in the most oppressive, hopeless, murderous societies in world history. But go ahead, try it again.

---

Fuck the holy spirit...and all of your other hallucinations.

I know your trying but this is not what an example of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is all about. Your going to have to read your bible to find out what that is yourself.

Heh heh. Yeah nice try Minimalist. If you are determined to commit the unpardonable sin, get a theology degree in a legalistic denomination. You would have a shot

[The Grand Nudger]

again basic understanding failure, the root cause being information was missing from your understanding of the origins of Christianity more over the origins of the bible itself. so rather than ask what Greek had to do with the bible, you pushed what you wanted to believe.
This is what happens when I present complete intact concepts without any ground work that supports the final conclusion. That is why I spend so much time focused on definitions, and trying to bring basic concepts to light. Subsequently this is also the reason conversations stop and you reach for the troll label every time we can not push past basic comprehension.
(Why you do not think I do not understand or can communicate what it is i believe)

Here is your missing ground work: 1st century Israel was under the rule of Rome in the time of Christ (and for several hundred years after.) The written language of Rome was Koine Greek. The original manuscripts that the bible were compiled from were written in Koine Greek. It wasn't till the 3rd or 4th century that they were translated into Latin (So the church leadership could "interpret" in secret scripture in away conducive to their doctrine. Because no one outside of the 'church' could read or write that dead language.) That means if we are using the original Greek to interpret scripture. then none of the changes the Ralphie suggested are possible. Why? Because the texts were completed before any of the suggested changes were made.

Not sure if trolling or stupid.....

Sarcasm Drich, google it. The rest of your post is the same tired shit you've been pushing and failing at, and it has nothing to do with any lack of knowledge on my part, but presumptions on your own. You want to lecture somebody on the origins of the bible and the beliefs expressed therein do you? Would the conversation stop dead in it's tracks as soon as someone invoked all of the fun places the biblical narrative and its varied spiritual beliefs most likely came from? I'm betting money that it would. Nostly because it has nothing to do with your christ, or your god, and that's where you draw the line. That place where origins and fairy tales meet is as far as you can take me Drich. I've already been there, and I decided to go a little ways further down the road.

[radorth]

Virtually all Christians agree on the Apostle's Creed, which contains most of the important stuff.

Other than the need for genuine revival in the church, there isn't much disagreement that is spiritually life threatening. The most dangerous belief a Christian can have is that their denomination or pastor knows all they need to know and they don't need revival. Only revival in the church itself (or another Great Awakening) will make the world come knocking.

So atheists take heart!! The Christians aren't actually practicing Christianity. They are into mega-church attendence, and for the most part trying to grasp God with their minds like youselves, so not to worry.

[Faith No More]

Such a rationale keeps you from understanding even why Jefferson so admired the wisdom of Jesus and learned from it. He could see the results of employing that wisdom, or he would not so advocate Jesus' teachings. Ghandi called Jesus' sacrifice "the perfect act" of love. Any idea why he said that? Do Ghandi and jefferson believe in pink unicorns too?

If they were so gaga over Jesus, why weren't they Christians?

[Jackalope]

Oh, is that what we're doing?

[Faith No More]

They are into mega-church attendence, and for the most part trying to grasp God with their minds like youselves, so not to worry

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but what exactly should we be grasping god with?