Where Christianity Diverges from Scripture

[Base12]

One more thing...

The second video also discusses what the Forbidden Fruit was.

Long story short, the Forbidden Fruit is representative of Ovary. More specifically, they represent the Zygote.

The Fruit was fertilized by the Serpent.

Adam and Ishshah (not Eve) were given a choice as to what parents they would like to incarnate from. They chose...

• Mystery Babylon = Mother
• Satan = Father

THAT is where Mankind gets their DNA and Genetics from. The couple were given Reproductive Organs. That is the main theme of the story.

Reproductive Organs were supposed to be for Beasts only. Satan gave us that 'gift' lol.

After Adam and Ishshah partook of the Forbidden Fruit, they died on the spot. God re-created them as Adam and Eve as per the agreement (Deal with the Devil). The 'clothes' were the Skin and Flesh we have now...

Job 10:11
"Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews."

THAT is what is meant by being 'naked'. They did not originally have a physical Tabernacle Body like we have now.

Also worth noting is that the first Adam was created on the Third Day. The Second Adam was re-created on the Sixth Day. Those that actually read the text (WITHOUT CHANGING WORDS) will find this to be True.

Adam named his first wife 'Woman', or 'Ishshah'....

Genesis 2:23
"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Adam named the re-created Ishshah, Eve...

Genesis 3:20
"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

Eve did not show up until AFTER the fall!

Do you understand the significance of that? What did Adam call his wife before the Fall? Did you not even consider that? Of course not.

Quit parroting what the Profane teach and READ. Do not change 'Day' into 'long period of time' and do not change 'Surely Die' into 'Spiritual Death'... whatever that means.

• Day means Day
• Surely Die means Surely Die

Now go back and read...

Genesis 2:4
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"

The above is referring to the Third Day, BEFORE any plants and trees...

Genesis 2:5
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

What happens next?

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

God created the First Adam ON DAY THREE!!!

He died OK? So did his Wife Ishshah.

Now God recreates them...

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

God recreates them WITH REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS! Inherited from Mom (Mystery Babylon) and Dad (Satan). That is how ALL OF YOU got here.

You drank from the Golden Cup of Hot Mess...

Revelation 17:4
"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:"

Yep. That is the Forbidden Fruit right there in the Bible the whole time. It is the Zygote mixed with Love Juice. Drink it up! Nummy nums... lol.

What do you mean that is disgusting? That is not what you said that last time you partook during your Parents Moment of Conception!

Satan laughs at you all.

Anyhow...

OP can be all like 'Derp' to this. I could not care less. Again, this information is for those that wish to UNDERSTAND.

Base12 out.

 

[Lt. Columbo]

II COR 12: 7-10: God allowed Satan to give Paul a thorn in the flesh to keep Paul humble. It's almost like Satan's punishment, effected by his defeat at Calvary, is to be God's useful idiot.

So, what Satan intended as harm for Paul and to thwart God, God turned around and used for Paul's good.

Then the claim "Satan is just doing God's work" should not be understood to mean both work together for a comon cause. They have different purposes and outcomes in mind.

 

[Lt. Columbo]

Here:

Job 42:11 Then all his brothers, all his sisters, and all who had known him before came to him, and they ate bread with him in his house; and they sympathized with him and comforted him for all the adversities that the Lord had brought on him. ...​

It is quite clear that all the troubles Job suffered were brought on by God - Satan was merely acting as God's instrument.

I guess Job 1:8-12 is tripping me up. It shows God allowing Satan to bring on Job's troubles, rather than God himself instigating or bringing on Job's troubles:

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” (Job 1:8-12)

 

[The Pixie]

I guess Job 1:8-12 is tripping me up. It shows God allowing Satan to bring on Job's troubles, rather than God himself instigating or bringing on Job's troubles:

“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.” The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” (Job 1:8-12)

Job is an answer to why bad things happen to good people. It is God testing your faith. Job was testing to the extreme, and he kept his faith no matter what Satan, acting under God, threw at him.

 

[En Hakkore]

Okay... but they went on to live a long time.

If that is a reference to Gen 5:5, I would point out that the book is composite and these two sections are not the work of the same individual. Since the author of the antediluvian genealogy appears to be aware of and depend on the garden narrative (compare 5:29 with 3:17b-19a), the reverse cannot concomitantly be the case and we therefore have no idea how long the author of the garden narrative envisioned the man living beyond the infraction. The point being made is the certainty of a death sentence when the proscribed action was undertaken.

There were not immortal before eating the fruit, as they had not eating from the Tree of Life:

Gen 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take fruit also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—​

So in what sense did eating the fruit cause death, whatever the timescale?

Eating the fruit violated a prohibition that carried with it a penalty of death, which was carried out by expelling the man from the garden and thus having access to the tree of life... the progenitor of humanity was given a choice, represented by two trees --- in eating from the tree from which he was forbidden to consume he chose death and forfeited immortality. Having said that, is there circularity and conflict particularly with 3:22 when the story is bombarded with a set of modern existential questions about mortality? Certainly... one can poke holes in all sorts of biblical stories this way, but the point of my critique is not to defend the antique logic of the story or claim it free from minor tensions, but to point out that implicitly indicting the story's deity of error or duplicity is so thoroughly incompatible with its author's religious sensibilities that this cannot have been the intended meaning.

They do immediately become ashamed of their nakedness, I will concede that, but even that can be seen as a coming of age; they went from being children to being adults - and being able to tell right from wrong is elsewhere considered an indicator of progress to adulthood (Isa 7:16).

While the idea of adulthood as progress in the human life course may resonate strongly with many in our culture (and thus in their interpretation of the garden narrative), this is not a universal approach to how the relationship between childhood and adulthood is understood... the former seen in some cultures as a state of being much closer to the divine, adulthood viewed as degeneration from that. To the degree that the author of the garden narrative relies on the acquisition of knowledge of good and evil as a boundary marker between the two states --- this must be implied since he does not make this connection explicit --- his story falls broadly into this approach, contrasting the ideal of a naïve couple harmoniously tending to a garden negatively with a knowing couple at odds with each other and a harsh environment. Again, 3:22 creates some tension in linking such knowledge directly to the divine, but our own culture is hardly free from such contradictions... the idea of adulthood as the goal to which children are driven coexists with attempts to preserve their reputed state of innocence for as long as possible.

However, the other effects read as God choosing to inflict them on Adam and Eve as a punishment, and not as a direct consequence of eating the fruit.

Already addressed at the beginning of the second section above... all that befalls the couple after eating the proscribed food and acquiring the knowledge it imparts is the deity's doing, the death sentence included.

With regards to pain in child birth:

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said,​

“I will greatly multiply​

Your pain [g]in childbirth,​

You stopped in mid verse... what you cite in quotations is only the first half of a poetic stich that relies on parallelism:

I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.

The second half of the stich implies there would previously be no pain at all and governs interpretation of the first half as it seems unlikely the author has in mind painful childbirth just made more painful... at best the "increase" is from minor discomfort to something that could now be called pain. Is the poetic parallelism a bit clumsy and does it have the potential to be misunderstood? Sure, it is hardly alone in this as Matthew's rather humorous revision to Mark in having Jesus reclining on two donkeys instead of one in light of his (mis)reading of Zech 9:9 attests...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Howie]

This came up in a thread recently, and I was challenged to find some example. I have a few. If anyone wants to add more, then please do!

1 Satan is under God's control

Christianity tells us that Satan is working against God, but the Bible actually makes clear that Satan is just doing God's work - thus in the last chapter of Job, it makes clear that all the troubles that befell Job were due - ultimately - to God.

2 When you die you go to heaven

Christianity tells us that when we die, if we are good, we go to heaven right then. However, the Biblical position is that the dead are all in Sheol, and the righteous do not go to heaven until the day of judgement - and in fact, rather than go to heaven, the kingdom of God will come to earth

3 The Trinity

Christianity maintains the Trinity, but it is absent from the Bible. Sure, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the same sentence, but no where does it say they are the same thing.

4 Give up your wealth

Jesus was clear that his follower should give up their material goods, and trust in God to provide. Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. ... Christians (besides monks and nuns) do not do that.

5 Die that day

God told Adam if he ate the fruit, he would die that day. Christians pretend he meant something else, as Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.

Well if Adam didn't die in that day then of course something else was meant. Think, Pixie ... think!!!!!

 

[SteveB]

This came up in a thread recently, and I was challenged to find some example. I have a few. If anyone wants to add more, then please do!

Interesting collection of beliefs.
So, you don't actually know what you're talking about, but think that what others tell you makes it true?

1 Satan is under God's control

Christianity tells us that Satan is working against God, but the Bible actually makes clear that Satan is just doing God's work - thus in the last chapter of Job, it makes clear that all the troubles that befell Job were due - ultimately - to God.

Do you have any basis for this besides what someone else tells you?

2 When you die you go to heaven

Christianity tells us that when we die, if we are good, we go to heaven right then. However, the Biblical position is that the dead are all in Sheol, and the righteous do not go to heaven until the day of judgement - and in fact, rather than go to heaven, the kingdom of God will come to earth

Again, do you have any basis for this?

3 The Trinity

Christianity maintains the Trinity, but it is absent from the Bible. Sure, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the same sentence, but no where does it say they are the same thing.

Do you have any basis for this or are you just letting others tell you without doing a fact check?

4 Give up your wealth

Jesus was clear that his follower should give up their material goods, and trust in God to provide. Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. ... Christians (besides monks and nuns) do not do that.

Ah, finally got a basis for something.
Here's a novel question for you...
How do you know that we haven't?

5 Die that day

God told Adam if he ate the fruit, he would die that day. Christians pretend he meant something else, as Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.

Do you actually have any basis for this, or is that just another one of those things that you are taking the claims of others without actually doing a fact check?

6 Fulfill

Christians pretend "fulfill" has some weird meaning so that Jesus fulfilling laws means those laws no longer need to be observed.

Ok. Why don't you actually fact check this before you take it any further.

7 Generation

In a similar manner, Christians pretend "generation" has some weird meaning so that when Jesus said "This Generation Shall Not Pass", he was not wrong.

Do you actually have any basis for this, or is it something that you don't actually know, but think it is true?

8 Flat earth and firmament

The Bible is clear in numerous places that the earth is flat; the sun, moon and stars are just points of light on a solid dome.

Curious.... do you have any references for this, or is it just another one of those things that you forgot to fact check?

9 Snake in Eden

Christianity pretends the snake in the garden of Eden was Satan, but the text does not say that, and the fact that God cursed all snakes for what the snake did makes clear this was not Satan.

Wow... really?
Is that another one of those things?

10 References to Satan

In fact, Christianity claims many verses are about Satan, when this is simply not true. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19, for example, are purely about the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre respectively.

Hey! Another reference.
Let us know once you have actually fact checked these things.

 

[The Pixie]

If that is a reference to Gen 5:5, I would point out that the book is composite and these two sections are not the work of the same individual. Since the author of the antediluvian genealogy appears to be aware of and depend on the garden narrative (compare 5:29 with 3:17b-19a), the reverse cannot concomitantly be the case and we therefore have no idea how long the author of the garden narrative envisioned the man living beyond the infraction. The point being made is the certainty of a death sentence when the proscribed action was undertaken.

Good point.

Eating the fruit violated a prohibition that carried with it a penalty of death, which was carried out by expelling the man from the garden and thus having access to the tree of life...

An important point here is that this was God's punishment for disobeying him, rather than a direct consequence of eating the fruit.

Going back to the "day that day" issue, this then has God making a threat he fails to carry out.

While the idea of adulthood as progress in the human life course may ...

That is an interesting take that had not struck me before. It makes a lot of sense, and fits with, for example, Mat 18:3.

You stopped in mid verse...

My point with the quote was that the pain was what God chose to inflict by way of punishment, rather than some caused directly by eating fruit.

 

[The Pixie]

Do you have any basis for this besides what someone else tells you?

Again, do you have any basis for this?

Do you have any basis for this or are you just letting others tell you without doing a fact check?

I see you are not actually disagreeing with anything so far.

Ah, finally got a basis for something.
Here's a novel question for you...
How do you know that we haven't?

Well for one thing you have regular access to a computer.

But again, you are not saying I am wrong.

Do you actually have any basis for this, or is that just another one of those things that you are taking the claims of others without actually doing a fact check?

Ok. Why don't you actually fact check this before you take it any further.

Do you actually have any basis for this, or is it something that you don't actually know, but think it is true?

Curious.... do you have any references for this, or is it just another one of those things that you forgot to fact check?

Wow... really?
Is that another one of those things?

Hey! Another reference.
Let us know once you have actually fact checked these things.

And again and again and again. So far you have not actually stated I have got anything wrong, so I must be o a roll here.

Get back to me when you want to dispute any of them.

 

[4Him]

2 When you die you go to heaven

Christianity tells us that when we die, if we are good, we go to heaven right then.

No, that's not even remotely what Christianity tells us.

However, the Biblical position is that the dead are all in Sheol,

Were.

3 The Trinity

Christianity maintains the Trinity, but it is absent from the Bible.

The teaching isn't absent from the bible.

4 Give up your wealth

Jesus was clear that his follower should give up their material goods, and trust in God to provide. Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. ... Christians (besides monks and nuns) do not do that.

5 Die that day

God told Adam if he ate the fruit, he would die that day. Christians pretend he meant something else, as Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.

Spiritual death.

6 Fulfill

Christians pretend "fulfill" has some weird meaning so that Jesus fulfilling laws means those laws no longer need to be observed.

Not true.

7 Generation

In a similar manner, Christians pretend "generation" has some weird meaning so that when Jesus said "This Generation Shall Not Pass", he was not wrong.

8 Flat earth and firmament

The Bible is clear in numerous places that the earth is flat; the sun, moon and stars are just points of light on a solid dome.

9 Snake in Eden

Christianity pretends the snake in the garden of Eden was Satan, but the text does not say that, and the fact that God cursed all snakes for what the snake did makes clear this was not Satan.

10 References to Satan

In fact, Christianity claims many verses are about Satan, when this is simply not true. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19, for example, are purely about the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre respectively.

You don't know much about Christianity.

 

[En Hakkore]

An important point here is that this was God's punishment for disobeying him, rather than a direct consequence of eating the fruit.

My point with the quote was that the pain was what God chose to inflict by way of punishment, rather than some caused directly by eating fruit.

I've grouped these together since they are the same point and one on which we are in agreement. According to the story, the only thing the fruit itself could and did ever impart was knowledge of good and evil... the pain in childbirth, painful toil for daily bread and eventual death were all punishments by the deity for disregarding his prohibition.

Going back to the "day that day" issue, this then has God making a threat he fails to carry out.

This is the point on which we are not in agreement... in my initial response I pointed out that the phrase "on the day" (note the text does not say "that day") is idiomatic and carries the meaning of "when". Solomon threatened Shimei that when he left Jerusalem he would die and the deity of the garden narrative threatened the man that when he ate fruit from the forbidden tree he would die... neither authoritative agent fails to make good on their threat, they kill the offenders in their own good time --- Solomon orders his general Benaiah to strike Shimei down and the deity banishes the man from the garden and thus having access to the tree of life.

That is an interesting take that had not struck me before. It makes a lot of sense, and fits with, for example, Mat 18:3.

Yes, the saying found in Matt 18:3 fits within a tradition that sees something valuable in childhood vis-à-vis adulthood... this same author elsewhere lauds children's praise in response to Jesus healing in the temple and contrasts it with the obstinacy of the chief priests and scribes (21:14-16). Given historically-, culturally- and socially-contingent ideas about childhood, one must be careful in approaching texts that speak about children with one's own ideas about them, assuming these to be shared points of contact when they may not be.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Howie]

This came up in a thread recently, and I was challenged to find some example. I have a few. If anyone wants to add more, then please do!

1 Satan is under God's control

Christianity tells us that Satan is working against God, but the Bible actually makes clear that Satan is just doing God's work - thus in the last chapter of Job, it makes clear that all the troubles that befell Job were due - ultimately - to God.

Makes it clear to whom? Unbelivers such as yourself?

2 When you die you go to heaven

Christianity tells us that when we die, if we are good, we go to heaven right then. However, the Biblical position is that the dead are all in Sheol

Chapter and verse, please.

and the righteous do not go to heaven until the day of judgement - and in fact, rather than go to heaven, the kingdom of God will come to earth

Absent from the body, present with the Lord -- 2 Cor 5:8. Where is the Lord? In heaven, seated at the right hand of the father.

3 The Trinity

Christianity maintains the Trinity, but it is absent from the Bible. Sure, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the same sentence, but no where does it say they are the same thing.

Everyone knows the Father is God; in Acts 20:28, Paul says God purchased the Church with His Blood, that's Christ; in Acts 5 :1-4, the Spirit is called GOD.

That's a simple primer. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

4 Give up your wealth

Jesus was clear that his follower should give up their material goods, and trust in God to provide. Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. ... Christians (besides monks and nuns) do not do that.

That command was made to the Rich, young Ruler, not to the Church. The church is told to care its families andcthe poor. Can't take care of your family and poor if you've given your wealth away. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

5 Die that day

God told Adam if he ate the fruit, he would die that day. Christians pretend he meant something else, as Adam did not die the day he ate the fruit.

Already dealt with that.

6 Fulfill

Christians pretend "fulfill" has some weird meaning so that Jesus fulfilling laws means those laws no longer need to be observed.

Baloney. I 'm a Christian; Idon't think that at all. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

7 Generation

In a similar manner, Christians pretend "generation" has some weird meaning so that when Jesus said "This Generation Shall Not Pass", he was not wrong.

Rubbish. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

8 Flat earth and firmament

The Bible is clear in numerous places that the earth is flat; the sun, moon and stars are just points of light on a solid dome.

Rubbish. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

9 Snake in Eden

Christianity pretends the snake in the garden of Eden was Satan, but the text does not say that, and the fact that God cursed all snakes for what the snake did makes clear this was not Satan.

Clear to whom? Unbelieves such as you? I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

10 References to Satan

In fact, Christianity claims many verses are about Satan, when this is simply not true. Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19, for example, are purely about the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre respectively.

I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

But my bet is, you'll run away because you'd rather bicker then learn. 😉

 

[The Pixie]

No, that's not even remotely what Christianity tells us.

Looking back, I should have said those who accept Jesus. I was contrasting Christianity saying these people go straight to heaven, compared to, say, 1 Cor 15 saying they will be resurrected at the day of judgement at some point in the future.

The teaching isn't absent from the bible.

But you cannot tell me where?

I appreciate there are verses that list the three parts of the Trinity, but that is not the same as the teaching being in the Bible.

Spiritual death.

Right, that is what Christianity forces on to the text. But it is not what the Bible actually says.

Not true.

This is something that gets discussed with some frequency here, and every time Christians insist Jesus "fulfilled" the laws of the Bible, and that is why they do not need to be observed. A recent example here:

Why does Whatever feel we are under the OT law?

She says - OOPSSS still no evidence we're not under OT law - https://forums.carm.org/threads/i-think-christianity-may-be-indefensible.3030/page-15#post-252440 post 300 Why does she feel we under the OT law? Does she have evidence we are?

forums.carm.org

 

[The Pixie]

Makes it clear to whom? Unbelivers such as yourself?

Yes, apparently. Christians have been taught to ignore verses that disagree with the teachings of Christianity. The text is clear that all the trouble Satan brought on Job were due to God.

Chapter and verse, please.

As I just said to 4Him:
Looking back, I should have said those who accept Jesus. I was contrasting Christianity saying these people go straight to heaven, compared to, say, 1 Cor 15 saying they will be resurrected at the day of judgement at some point in the future.

Absent from the body, present with the Lord -- 2 Cor 5:8. Where is the Lord? In heaven, seated at the right hand of the father.

In that verse, Paul is looking forward to the day of judgement, which he believed would be within his lifetime:

2 Cor 5:6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7 for we walk by faith, not by [d]sight— 8 but we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for [e]his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.​

Everyone knows the Father is God; in Acts 20:28, Paul says God purchased the Church with His Blood, that's Christ; in Acts 5 :1-4, the Spirit is called GOD.

That is a wonderful illustration of how Christianity has to torture the text. You are obliged to take snippets from different books with different authors, and stitch them together in just the right way, and they if you try really hard you can convince yourself the Trinity is right there in the text.

The Trinity states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal. Can you find a verse that says that? I can find plenty that say Jesus is inferior to God.

Jesus was clear that his follower should give up their material goods, and trust in God to provide. Luke 12:33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. ... Christians (besides monks and nuns) do not do that.

That command was made to the Rich, young Ruler, not to the Church. The church is told to care its families andcthe poor. Can't take care of your family and poor if you've given your wealth away. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

WRONG! There is nothing about the rich, nothing about young rulers here. The command was made to all his followers. The verse I quoted was specifically directed to his disciples. Here it is in context.

22 And He said to His disciples, “For this reason I tell you, [n]do not worry about your [o]life, as to what you are to eat; nor for your body, as to what you are to wear. 23 For life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens, that they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds! 25 And which of you by worrying can add a [p]day to his [q]life’s span? 26 Therefore if you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about the other things? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither labor nor [r]spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 28 Now if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You of little faith! 29 And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. 30 For [t]all these things are what the nations of the world eagerly seek; and your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But [v]seek His kingdom, and these things will be [w]provided to you. 32 [x]Do not be afraid, little flock, because your Father has chosen to give you the kingdom.​

​

33 “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor does a moth destroy. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.​

Baloney. I 'm a Christian; Idon't think that at all. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

The I will ask. What do you understand this verse to mean:

Mat 5:17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.​

Rubbish. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

Rubbish. I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

Clear to whom? Unbelieves such as you? I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

I'm here to teach you, but you must come and ask.

Then I will ask: In what way am I wrong in any of these? Are you saying I am wrong about what the Bible says, or what Christians believe?

But my bet is, you'll run away because you'd rather bicker then learn. 😉

Actually, I would be fascinated to learn.

 

[Furion]

What are you talking about Furion,

What am I talking about?

You are a walking example of always coming out "of the same opinion still" in your discussions.

I started this thread because I was asked to. I am not gnashing my teeth over it at all. That is just your projection.

This is not about what Christian leaders do, it is about how Christianity sometimes makes claims that are at odds with the Bible.

So if you desire to criticize "Christianity", blame it like some sort of monolithic entity, then I can do the same.

In your rules it is perfectly consistent to start blaming atheism for every thing any atheist has done or claimed.

First up Stalin, you own that, atheist.

And I would say you deserve to be treated in that way.

 

[The Pixie]

What am I talking about?

I have no idea. I was hoping you might.

You are a walking example of always coming out "of the same opinion still" in your discussions.

I think most of us are on CARM. When was the last time you changed your opinion following a discussion here?

But, of course, this is just some non-Christians are expected to do.

So if you desire to criticize "Christianity", blame it like some sort of monolithic entity, then I can do the same.

Well, obviously!

In your rules it is perfectly consistent to start blaming atheism for every thing any atheist has done or claimed.

When I blame Christians for slavery, I do so only in response to Christians doing exactly what you describe here - and usually one specific Christian at that (not you, in case you were wondering).

But on this thread, what have blamed Christianity for?

First up Stalin, you own that, atheist.

And I would say you deserve to be treated in that way.

First you would have to show that I treated you like that.

But thanks for giving me number eleven.

11 Turn the other cheek

Jesus told his follows that they should not respond in kind to bad behaviour, but rather should turn the other cheek. Modern Christians, as exemplified by Furion, hold that actually you should respond in kind.

Even if that bad behaviour is all in your imagination.

 

[Furion]

I have no idea. I was hoping you might.


I think most of us are on CARM. When was the last time you changed your opinion following a discussion here?

But, of course, this is just some non-Christians are expected to do.


Well, obviously!


When I blame Christians for slavery, I do so only in response to Christians doing exactly what you describe here - and usually one specific Christian at that (not you, in case you were wondering).

But on this thread, what have blamed Christianity for?


First you would have to show that I treated you like that.

But thanks for giving me number eleven.

11 Turn the other cheek

Jesus told his follows that they should not respond in kind to bad behaviour, but rather should turn the other cheek. Modern Christians, as exemplified by Furion, hold that actually you should respond in kind.

Even if that bad behaviour is all in your imagination.

Oh it doesn't bother me that you try to make "furion" the poster child of Christianity, and then attack it.

That is what you do.

When I blame atheists, I have you in mind. lol

At some point you'll realize God looks at what you do and say, not others.

 

[Howie]

Yes, apparently. Christians have been taught to ignore verses that disagree with the teachings of Christianity.

Atheists have been taught to say what Pixie says.

The text is clear that all the trouble Satan brought on Job were due to God.

Agreed. God is sovereign, and man and Satan are responsible for their sin (Lk 22:22,).

As I just said to 4Him:
Looking back, I should have said those who accept Jesus. I was contrasting Christianity saying these people go straight to heaven, compared to, say, 1 Cor 15 saying they will be resurrected at the day of judgement at some point in the future.

Yes, the bodily resurrection is in the future.

In that verse, Paul is looking forward to the day of judgement, which he believed would be within his lifetime:

2 Cor 5:6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7 for we walk by faith, not by [d]sight— 8 but we are of good courage and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. 9 Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for [e]his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad.​

That is a wonderful illustration of how Christianity has to torture the text. You are obliged to take snippets from different books with different authors, and stitch them together in just the right way, and they if you try really hard you can convince yourself the Trinity is right there in the text.

It is right there in the text, as I showed you, and uou refuse to believe.

The Trinity states that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal. Can you find a verse that says that? I can find plenty that say Jesus is inferior to God.

Yes, I can.

WRONG! There is nothing about the rich, nothing about young rulers here. The command was made to all his followers. The verse I quoted was specifically directed to his disciples. Here it is in context.

22 And He said to His disciples, “For this reason I tell you, [n]do not worry about your [o]life, as to what you are to eat; nor for your body, as to what you are to wear. 23 For life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing. 24 Consider the ravens, that they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds! 25 And which of you by worrying can add a [p]day to his [q]life’s span? 26 Therefore if you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about the other things? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither labor nor [r]spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 28 Now if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You of little faith! 29 And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. 30 For [t]all these things are what the nations of the world eagerly seek; and your Father knows that you need these things. 31 But [v]seek His kingdom, and these things will be [w]provided to you. 32 [x]Do not be afraid, little flock, because your Father has chosen to give you the kingdom.​

​

33 “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor does a moth destroy. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.​

Context, Pixie. To whom is He speaking?

The I will ask. What do you understand this verse to mean:

Mat 5:17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.​

Just what it says. He came to keep the law perfectly, and teach what the meant. He did come to abolish it.

Then I will ask: In what way am I wrong in any of these? Are you saying I am wrong about what the Bible says, or what Christians believe?

Because your premise of life is wrong (God does not exist), you are wrong about everything.

Actually, I would be fascinated to learn.

Time will tell.

 

[4Him]

Looking back, I should have said those who accept Jesus. I was contrasting Christianity saying these people go straight to heaven, compared to, say, 1 Cor 15 saying they will be resurrected at the day of judgement at some point in the future.

The body will be resurrected....the spirit returns to the Lord at death.

But you cannot tell me where?

Of course I can....but the carnal mind cannot accept the things of the spirit...so regardless of what I show you, you cannot accept it.

I appreciate there are verses that list the three parts of the Trinity, but that is not the same as the teaching being in the Bible.

The teaching is in the bible...that's where it came from.

Right, that is what Christianity forces on to the text. But it is not what the Bible actually says.

That's what it teaches.

This is something that gets discussed with some frequency here, and every time Christians insist Jesus "fulfilled" the laws of the Bible, and that is why they do not need to be observed. A recent example here:

Why does Whatever feel we are under the OT law?

She says - OOPSSS still no evidence we're not under OT law - https://forums.carm.org/threads/i-think-christianity-may-be-indefensible.3030/page-15#post-252440 post 300 Why does she feel we under the OT law? Does she have evidence we are?

forums.carm.org

The old law was fulfilled.

 

[The Pixie]

Atheists have been taught to say what Pixie says.

What are you talking about?

Agreed. God is sovereign, and man and Satan are responsible for their sin (Lk 22:22,).

According to the book of Job, God was responsible for what Satan did.

Yes, the bodily resurrection is in the future.

Most Christians - and perhaps this is not true of yourself - say the dead (who accepted Jesus) are already in heaven. See here for example:

https://unlockingthebible.org/2020/09/what-happens-when-christian-dies/

It is right there in the text, as I showed you, and uou refuse to believe.

I saw the text, I just read it differently.

To me, Paul is talking about what will happen on the day of judgement. Read 1 Cor 15:

51 Behold, I am telling you a [w]mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [x]imperishable, and we will be changed.​

The dead will be raised when the last trumpet sounds. This is what Pauls refers to with "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive compensation for [e]his deeds done through the body, in accordance with what he has done, whether good or bad." Verse 51 I just quoted makes clear Paul expected this to be within his life time, as he says it will happen before some of those he is writing to will die (fall asleep).

Yes, I can.

Well let us see who can find more - your verses saying Jesus is equal to God, or my verses saying God is superior to Jesus. Here are some to get us going.

In this verse Jesus is tempted with the authory of all the kingdoms of the world; that makes no sense if he already had all the authority of God

Luke 4:5-8: "The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. If you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’"​

Here he prays to God, kneeing; clearly God is his superior.

Luke 22: 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.​

Again he pleads with God for something here:

Mark 15:34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ (which means ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’).​

Jesus makes clear that disowning him is neither blasphemy nor is it unforgivable, unlike blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (and presumably God).

Luke 12:8 ‘I tell you, whoever publicly acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before the angels of God. 9 But whoever disowns me before others will be disowned before the angels of God. 10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.​

Context, Pixie. To whom is He speaking?

To the disciples.

That is why I quoted the full passage, to make clear it starts "22 And He said to His disciples,".

Just what it says. He came to keep the law perfectly, and teach what the meant. He did come to abolish it.

So the word "fulfill" in that verses mean to keep the law perfectly?

Pretty much as I said in the OP: Christians pretend "fulfill" has some weird meaning so that Jesus fulfilling laws means those laws no longer need to be observed.

Because your premise of life is wrong (God does not exist), you are wrong about everything.

This is a great strategy for Christians avoiding having to support what they believe. Just declare non-Christians as wrong because the are non-Christians, and you can just ignore them when they point out how ridiculous Christianity actually is.