• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turning against Jesus

You are off the mark. The Biblical Adam and Eve and Garden Of Eden story is a myth. They never existed. They are not a part of history. My mind is open to facts and evidence and all the facts and evidence point to Genesis being just another creation myth.
Indeed. We heard you the first 400,000 times you've said so since I came to DP four months ago. :)

We must agree to disagree, my learned colleague. We're well off topic anyway.
 
"Adam and Eve" were mythological, later messianic authors were notorious for borrowing the original texts and then betraying their context, and Jeremiah had a specific audience.


OM

I'm confused. Didn't you claim to be a Christian? If you're going to hold Jeremiah in validity, how can you then deny the validity of the rest of the Old Testament? Both the Old and New Testament authors are very clear that Adam and Eve were actual people, the first people, not myths like those of the Greeks
 
Circular logic.

Question: How do you know the Bible is inspired/authored by God?
Answer: "Because the Bible says so".
Question: How do you know then that what the Bible says is true?
Answer: "Because the Bible is the Word of God".
Question: How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?
Answer: "Because the Bible is God-inspired".


OM

The alternative is that there is no God. That concept is terrifying. If there is not a God (in general, not specifically Christianity), then from where does the concept of morality come from? Is it objective or subjective? And if it either, why is it either? Without a moral center--a god--to act as that center, then morality is all arbitrary.
 
I'm confused. Didn't you claim to be a Christian? If you're going to hold Jeremiah in validity, how can you then deny the validity of the rest of the Old Testament? Both the Old and New Testament authors are very clear that Adam and Eve were actual people, the first people, not myths like those of the Greeks

I used to be a Christian, "Adam and Eve" were mythological, later messianic authors were notorious for borrowing the original texts and then betraying their context, and Jeremiah had a specific audience.


OM
 
Let's see you show that the author or 2 Timothy spoke the truth. Also, why are you not putting that phrase in context?? The context changes things.

The author of 2nd Timothy was Paul, so either he is correct here in what he said, or our New Testament is made up of a majority of falsehood, seeing as he was author of much of it as well. And the context fits perfectly. If all Scripture is God breathed to then equip the servant of God for the good work (v17), then it doesn't change the fact that all Scripture is God-breathed, therefore, His word, rather than man's.
 
Indeed. We heard you the first 400,000 times you've said so since I came to DP four months ago. :)

We must agree to disagree, my learned colleague. We're well off topic anyway.

Wait you DO believe Adam & Eve existed based purely on the Bible?
 
I used to be a Christian, "Adam and Eve" were mythological, later messianic authors were notorious for borrowing the original texts and then betraying their context, and Jeremiah had a specific audience.


OM

May I ask why you rejected Christianity? I'll respect your decision not to if you don't want to.
 
Indeed. We heard you the first 400,000 times you've said so since I came to DP four months ago. :)

We must agree to disagree, my learned colleague. We're well off topic anyway.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve existed?
 
Wait you DO believe Adam & Eve existed based purely on the Bible?

If man created God, then man can rewrite God's word, as it is their word, including the sciences and mathematics, as they are man's.

However, if God created man, then anything that man "discovers" that is in opposition to His word, including the sciences and mathematics, is folly (Romans 1:22). And given that he seems to believe that God created man, yes, that seems to indicate he will believe the Bible before any other "evidence" to the contrary.
 
May I ask why you rejected Christianity? I'll respect your decision not to if you don't want to.

Because it is mired in betrayals and manipulations of the original texts, therefore it is artificial.


OM
 
Nope. Never been abducted by aliens or think the Earth is flat. But, Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden about 6,000 years ago give or take a couple of hundred years.

And your evidence is a ridiculous tale in the Bible?

Do you also believe created 400 billion+ galaxies in one day?

You don't believe the Earth is flat but the men wrote the Bible did...."climb to a mountain big enough and you can see the whole world"
They also belived the moon gave off light and the sun oes round the Eartg and from this book you're going to get your wisdom?

Why did god create River Blindness if he loves us?
 
Because it is mired in betrayals and manipulations of the original texts, therefore it is artificial.


OM

Also, what to you qualifies as "original texts"? I'd like to know your viewpoint so I know what I'm dealing with
 
If man created God, then man can rewrite God's word, as it is their word, including the sciences and mathematics, as they are man's.

However, if God created man, then anything that man "discovers" that is in opposition to His word, including the sciences and mathematics, is folly (Romans 1:22). And given that he seems to believe that God created man, yes, that seems to indicate he will believe the Bible before any other "evidence" to the contrary.

I think the case is closed on whether the Bible was man made.
 
How so? The only betrayal I know of is Judas's

Messianic authors were notorious for borrowing elements of the original texts, texts directed at specific audiences and about specific people and events, then magically turning them into some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in the attempt to justify newly established dogma. It's all artificial; and by description, artificiality is not based on truth.


OM
 
And your evidence is a ridiculous tale in the Bible?

Do you also believe created 400 billion+ galaxies in one day?

You don't believe the Earth is flat but the men wrote the Bible did...."climb to a mountain big enough and you can see the whole world"
They also belived the moon gave off light and the sun oes round the Eartg and from this book you're going to get your wisdom?

Why did god create River Blindness if he loves us?

The classic question. "How can there be suffering and a loving God in the same universe?"

The answer is that God did not create death. He created human beings to be immortal and infallible, but He gave them the choice to accept Him or accept sin. Through sin comes death (Rom. 6:23), meaning that before sin, anything that could cause death or pain simply did not exist, or if it did, it did not exist in a state to cause death or pain.
 
Messianic authors were notorious for borrowing elements of the original texts, texts directed at specific audiences and about specific people and events, then magically turning them into some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in the attempt to justify newly established dogma. It's all artificial; and by description, artificiality is not based on truth.


OM

That is a very broad statement. Can you give me a specific example?
 
Also, what to you qualifies as "original texts"? I'd like to know your viewpoint so I know what I'm dealing with

The original texts are the original texts. Taking elements of the original texts, placing them into the new texts (the "Gospel", for example), then completely skewing the context is a betrayal of those original texts.


OM
 
That is a very broad statement. Can you give me a specific example?

Religious tricksters from ancient oral traditions magically becoming "Satan", symbolic references to the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar magically becoming "the fall of Satan", symbolic references to a young woman from the Assyrian period magically becoming "the Virgin Mary", symbolic references to King Josiah magically becoming "Jesus", etc. etc. etc. etc.



OM
 
The original texts are the original texts. Taking elements of the original texts, placing them into the new texts (the "Gospel", for example), then completely skewing the context is a betrayal of those original texts.


OM

Again, those original texts are...? The Pentateuch? The entire Old Testament? Just the Prophetic books?
 
Religious tricksters from ancient oral traditions magically becoming "Satan", symbolic references to the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar magically becoming "the fall of Satan", symbolic references to a young woman from the Assyrian period magically becoming "the Virgin Mary", symbolic references to King Josiah magically becoming "Jesus", etc. etc. etc. etc.



OM

You don't believe that symbolism is important? You do realize that most of Jesus's ministry used symbolism through the use of parables, right?
 
The author of 2nd Timothy was Paul, so either he is correct here in what he said, or our New Testament is made up of a majority of falsehood, seeing as he was author of much of it as well. And the context fits perfectly. If all Scripture is God breathed to then equip the servant of God for the good work (v17), then it doesn't change the fact that all Scripture is God-breathed, therefore, His word, rather than man's.

2 Timothy is one of the pastorals, which is thought to have been written in Pauls name, but was not Paul (I.E. what is known as a pseudo graphical work)

From 2 Timothy

Now, let's take a look at the sentence right before your quote

3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Now, at the time of the writing of 2nd Timothy, most of the gospels were brand new, there was no Christian cannon, so the only thing that was considered Scripture was known as the Old Testament by the Christians. It would not include 2 Timothy.


Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith," has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.

The arguments that establish the inauthenticity of the pastoral epistles are expounded by Kummel in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 371-84. In addition to providing more detail to the arguments stated by Perrin, Kummel adds a few more considerations.

<much more at link>

THen, you didn't quote the words that surround that phrase, so it's an incomplete passage. Let's look at the COMPLETE passage.
 
Back
Top Bottom