If God wanted people to become X, why not write the bible properly?

[AV1611VET]

If I was deciding what legal tender was I'd pick them all.

Um ... what?

The analogy doesn't work as I would be able to tell what was already decided for me.

Bingo.

Those men didn't decide what books of the Bible were authentic.

That was already settled in AD 96.

Those mens' job was to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Genesis here.
Malachi here.

Thomas there.
Infancy I, II, and III there.

Luke here.

Baruch there.

Etc.

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

God doesn't care if you're a "Jew/Christian". Do you think it matters to Him? And you're assuming the bible wasnt written "properly" because you have found things in it that seem contradictory?

According to fundy Christians, the Bible is perfect for reproof and converting, and is proof of Jesus. If it's full of apparently contradictory things, then it's not written well, unless its God's intent to confuse people to truth, and lose all his converts, to Islam. However, what would I know. Maybe he just inserted hell in for a laugh, to make us take it seriously, but there's really no hell.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is 2 Peter authentic?

Yes.

 

[Furion]

Reformed theology is well represented by both the rich and the strong willed.

I'm not reformed so I wouldn't know.

But the Roman Catholic church makes even secularists look like paupers.

It's a dilemma for all groups and all men, because of the nature of man and his love of money. God or mammon.

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

Um ... what?Bingo.

Those men didn't decide what books of the Bible were authentic.

That was already settled in AD 96.

If settled in AD96, then why does Justin Martyr's first apology only have Matthew in it. (They say it has Luke, but I have scanned the text, and found only Matthean stuff. Still don't know what language he wrote in, and whether the New Advent Encylopedia is lying to me.)

 

[AV1611VET]

According to fundy Christians, the Bible is perfect for reproof and converting, and is proof of Jesus.

Yup.

If it's full of apparently contradictory things, then it's not written well, unless its God's intent to confuse people to truth, and lose all his converts, to Islam.

That's academia's job.

However, what would I know.

Academics?

Maybe he just inserted hell in for a laugh, to make us take it seriously, but there's really no hell.

Has He made you take it seriously? or do you have a college degree that protects you from doing so?

 

[5wize]

Um ... what?Bingo.

Those men didn't decide what books of the Bible were authentic.

That was already settled in AD 96.

Those mens' job was to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Genesis here.
Malachi here.

Thomas there.
Infancy I, II, and III there.

Luke here.

Baruch there.

Etc.

Bad history:
" Around the year 80 AD, the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin) decided to cut the books from the Hebrew Bible, but they stayed in the Christian Bible. Then soon after Christianity became the only religion of Roman Empire in the 4th century, the Romans decided to cut out all of the same books that the Sanhedrin had cut out, and they moved some of them to the "apocrypha"."

the ‘Apocrypha’ was in every Christian Bible until 1828. In 1828 these books were taken out of some Bibles. The translators of the King James Bible said that these books were written to prepare the people for Jesus, in the same way as John the Baptist did. They said that the apostles used these books. And modern day members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (sometimes referred to as Mormons) also have hints in the Book of Mormon.

Apocrypha - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

Yes.

Good, because I like the bit where Jesus claims to be the morningstar, same as Isaiah 14.

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

Yup.That's academia's job.Academics?Has He made you take it seriously? or do you have a college degree that protects you from doing so?

I take it seriously enough to find I can't believe in any of it, and those who do, don't seem to be any different. The main problem is that there are other religions out there that also threaten me with hell, that I can't be bothered looking at. Jainism is quite bad, at least according to wikipedia.

 

[Yakuda]

According to fundy Christians, the Bible is perfect for reproof and converting, and is proof of Jesus. If it's full of apparently contradictory things, then it's not written well, unless its God's intent to confuse people to truth, and lose all his converts, to Islam. However, what would I know. Maybe he just inserted hell in for a laugh, to make us take it seriously, but there's really no hell.

You didn't answer the first question.

You don't know but you speak as if you do.

You don't take it seriously but that's your choice. BTW I dont believe in God because there's a hell. Hell scares you more than it does me.

 

[AV1611VET]

If settled in AD96, then why does Justin Martyr's first apology only have Matthew in it.

Because Justin Martyr was an academian.

And for the record, qv please:

Flacius discovered "blemishes" in Justin's theology, which he attributed to the influence of pagan philosophers; and in modern times Semler and S.G. Lange have made him out a thorough Hellene, while Semisch and Otto defend him from this charge.

SOURCE

Blemishes in his theology, influence of pagan philosophers, thorough Hellene?

Yup -- Justin Martyr was an academian.

 

[5wize]

I'm not reformed so I wouldn't know.

But the Roman Catholic church makes even secularists look like paupers.

It's a dilemma for all groups and all men, because of the nature of man and his love of money. God or mammon.

Poverty leads to more sin than wealth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bad history:
" Around the year 80 AD, the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin) decided to cut the books from the Hebrew Bible, but they stayed in the Christian Bible. Then soon after Christianity became the only religion of Roman Empire in the 4th century, the Romans decided to cut out all of the same books that the Sanhedrin had cut out, and they moved some of them to the "apocrypha"."

the ‘Apocrypha’ was in every Christian Bible until 1828. In 1828 these books were taken out of some Bibles. The translators of the King James Bible said that these books were written to prepare the people for Jesus, in the same way as John the Baptist did. They said that the apostles used these books. And modern day members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (sometimes referred to as Mormons) also have hints in the Book of Mormon.

Apocrypha - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

Oh.

 

[AV1611VET]

... same as Isaiah 14.

Show me.

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

Because Justin Martyr was an academian.

And for the record, qv please:


SOURCE

Blemishes in his theology, influence of pagan philosophers, thorough Hellene?

Yup -- Justin Martyr was an academian.

But your assertion is that it was settled. Marcion and various Judaizers, plus the Muratorian Cannon, says it wasn't settled. Followed by numerous Gnostic cults. I'm sure I can find blemishes in orthodox Christianity that resemble pagan religions, such as a dying/resurrecting man, hades. Seriously, not much is known about Christianity prior to 150AD, and how many versions have been deleted.

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

Show me.

[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

Revelation, too
[16] I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

 

[CrowCross]

Is 2 Peter authentic?

I say yes... Biblichal scholars say yes. Now I'm sure you can find someone over the years whgo says no, but, if you need to believe 2 Peter isn't authentic, have at it pal.

Sounds like one of those handy catch-all statements like all "scripture" is inspired, without stating which bits they could be.

I think "all" means "all". Not a little bit here and a little bit there. But, if you need it to mean that, once again have at it.

It allows you to append it to any group of fake books.

It sounds like you are claiming the bible and all of its book are fake. If that's your view, go for it. But what I think really is happening is that you know the bible to be true...but don't want to live a liife under the direction and influence of your creator...so if you call it all fake you can eat drink and be merry.

Paul didn't know that John/Matthew/Revelation would be in the cannon, for example. I presume he would be egotistical enough to think his own epistles were scripture, though.

I don't know what Paul thought about His epistles as far as becoming scripture. Neither do you....so don't present it as you do.

 

[Furion]

Poverty leads to more sin than wealth.

Likely true, but it's not the focus of the concept, I think you know that.

It doesn't appear to me that God is afraid of or cannot account for sin.

But when a man becomes rich, he seems to settle into having little need of God, he can get along just fine in life without Him, amirite?

So a man is given gifts from God like life, skills, smarts. Even success and money.

And then the man decides he doesn't need God.

Kinda ironically hilarious.

 

[NeutralSoundingName]

I think "all" means "all". Not a little bit here and a little bit there. But, if you need it to mean that, once again have at it.

So, gnostic scipture? So, Quran? Book of Mormon?