Disproving the Bible

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[Jenny A]

The whole New Testament can be summed up with these verses:

1. Matthew 10:5 (ERV) <snip>
2. Matthew 15: 24 (ERV)<snip>
3. Matthew 19:28 (ERV) <snip>
4. Matthew 13:10-13 (ERV) <snip>
5. Revelation 21:10-12 (ERV)<snip>

Simply stated: Jesus doesn't give a damn about Gentiles. He said so.

You seem to have picked the one Gospel of the four most blatantly addressed to Jews only and left out the Epistles.

Besides, even in Mathew, the risen Jesus says:

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Mathew NIV 28:18-20

@SteveII: Even an atheist can quote scripture. Doesn't make the scripture true though.

[Mudhammam]

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

Yes.
And no, the vitriol was more or less borne from observing a world utterly damned and confused and realizing that the memorization of Scripture and worship of an imaginary deity that I was forced to partake in multiple times per week for the first 17 years of my life largely explains the reason why.

[Minimalist]

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

Yeah, actually a good point Stevie. The OT reads like political propaganda but as such it has a certain coherence if put into the context of the late 2d century BC.

The NT, on the other hand, except for the occasional warning to do what you are told, STFU and you'll get your "reward" in the NEXT life, reads like a pile of pious blather.

15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Abraham by a promise.

Absurdist shit.

But, when you have the power to burn someone at the stake for saying "WTF?" it tends to hang around as if it means something important.

Those days are gone.

[The Grand Nudger]

Have any of you actually read the New Testament? And if you did, did you read it with the filter of the vitriol and hate you put into your posts?

Of course. The "hate and vitriol" is an effect of having read the narrative. It (and narratives like it) are the only thing standing between me and a very generous view of humanity. Before I read the NT, I assumed that christians (and humans beings in general) were relatively decent. After having read it, I realized that I was mistaken. Thanks, I guess.

[Purplundy]

The Christian doctrine is specified in the Bible so therefore the Bible is the ultimate standard of what Christianity is and what it's supposed to be.

Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

Does he? I doubt that very much.

[Purplundy]

Simply stated: Jesus doesn't give a damn about Gentiles. He said so.

While I'm not particularly invested in whatever Steve's argument is, I can't just let you take your false argument to a new thread. The last one is still awaiting your response.
Jesus helped out a Roman centurion and told a story about a good Samaritan. There are plenty more citable counterexamples available upon request.
Jesus was Jewish and is the founder of Christianity, a religion that stems from Judaism. He spent more time with Jews because it would be easier to explain himself to them. He then gave his disciples the task of spreading the movement to the Gentiles and Samaritans, which they did (also citable).
But if not being able to listen to a 30 year-old hippie babble about religion to you strikes you as some sort of disadvantage, then I wonder why you're an atheist.

[Jenny A]

Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

Yeah. But how would you determine just what he said and did?---Assuming of course that there is a historical Jesus that is anything like the one worshiped by Christians.

The Jesus Seminar took a pretty serious wack at the problem, but they hardly came up with definitive results. And if you take their results as gospel, there's not much gospel left:

*Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
* His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
*Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
*Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
*Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
* He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
*Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
* He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
*The empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
*Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene.

[Purplundy]

Weird. I thought the guy Christianity was named after would be the standard for Christianity, especially considering that he predates the Bible.

Does he? I doubt that very much.

You can't write a claim that Jesus has resurrected if he isn't even dead yet.
Jesus allegedly lived before the Bible was complete, and much longer before it was composed.