If God Made Everything, Who Made Him ?

[Truther 1,579]

Have to disagree with you there truther, I've thoroughly researched the bible an its origins, an I would say your wrong.

 

You think the elitevis behind the bible, no mate there trying there best to discredit it in every way possible, if they were behind it do you not think they'd be pushing it, they hate it with a passion,;

 

Could you answer me a question, what would the elite gain from giving us the bible?

 

I know you disagree with that QB, wouldn't expect anything else you being a believer mate, but the only debate worth having is an honest one, denying facts about the kjb is worthless, and builds my case, so think carefully

 

Here's where your'e getting it wrong, in the 1600's when the kjb was fabricated, times were much different, and at that time people didn't have anything else much to go on except religion, in other words, most people would believe and follow a religion, so the elite would gain a lot by promoting a certain version of a religion. Now religion has lost its value as a control tool to a large extent the goalposts have moved, the elite have gone the opposite way and are destroying society, not least by mongrelising us, and trying to stamp all over our identity, the old "divide and conquer" ploy...........if you can't see this then you can't see it, but its true.

 

My turn for a question i think? If one single thing in the bible is false, and you can prove it, does that mean all the bible is false, surely god couldn't get it wrong mate?

[Quarter bull 240]

Show me mate anything you say is false I'm waiting, an I'll say that to anyone else show me anything at all.

 

OK when the king James was translated it was a feat of expertise, it was a very detailed work every inch of it was done to a t, rechecked an done again, the scriptures were being burnt at every opportunity before that by the catholic church an the popery, the people were slaughtered, albigensis, aldensis etc they had the scriptures an they were slaughtered for not giving in to the catholic church, an would not come under the pope authority, only Jesus, this is what the crusades was about, the catholic church was an still is the supposed authority an is used by the you know who, mate I can't type all this info but your definatley wrong on this one, I'm all with you about the elite, but your wrong on this point.

 

If you want to find out info on it watch this

 

I'd like to share this video.

 

A Lamp In The Dark - The Untold History Of The Bible ~ Full Documentary

https://youtu.be/RmXBj2N9fhY

 

Powered by TubeMate (http://tubemate.net)

[ChrisJones 7,975]

As for the "God created death and evil and imperfection" argument, this is an odd one. The world as God originally created it was perfect. Death was not a part of the Garden of Eden. When man sinned, that's when he became mortal and started to suffer. That's when disease was created. It was a corruption of what God put in place for us. We were meant to exist in perfection, but ruined it for ourselves…darn Adam + Eve. Screwed us all.

 

If we were meant to exist in perfection why would a loving god immediately attempt to undermine it? Why wouldn't he have simply created a place that we couldn't screw up? More to the point is the Tree Of Knowledge a euphemism? From the writers of the religious texts? So that we're encouraged not to think for ourselves? But I digress...

 

The biggest problem I have with the text is it's origin. The way it's been written. Re-written. Changed. Translated. Redacted. Re-translated and written again. The current "correct" version was written in the 1600's. That's a 500 year margin of error.

 

But what about kids dying and the alike? What about natural disasters killing millions and the alike? The Bible says that man has dominion over all things on this earth. Within that it includes disease, sickness, health, famine, wars, and the alike. The issue is that we're too busy watching TV and stuff like that, to actually work together as one species to solve the issues we're facing. Okay, it's not just TV, it's loads of different things, e.g. wars, music, arguments, porn, etc. Could we stop world hunger, disease, and such, as a species, if we worked together? YES! Will we? NO. So why do babies get diseases and die early? Why do the innocent suffer? Firstly, we're looking at it as if this earth is the be all and end all. If there is a heaven, we'll be there for longer than on this earth, so we should really start changing our perspectives on people dying as being 'The End'. Oh, and as people we could have prevented these killer diseases, and still can, if we would only work together as one unified species. Secondly, the idea of things being 'fair' or 'just' are again wrong perspectives. They are views that this world is the be all and end all. If there is a heaven, then is it not more important that judgement be for an eternity than for 4 score and 10?

 

As I said earlier in the thread, regarding innocent kids. I take offense at a loving god that would refuse to intervene, when kids are involved. Humanity could work together but it won't. But what kind of a father could sit by and watch his kids opressed in such a way. Even more so when it's done in his name? There cannot be one homo sapien, on this forum, that can look at pictures of kids in war torn areas and not think why?

 

Who wouldn't want to ease the suffering of the world's innocent?

 

So if he can intervene, but refuses to, then what kind of "heaven" are we heading for?

 

Is it because of this future paradise that we're leaving the current world in the shit it's in?

 

Last but not least, "Religion has killed more people than both world wars added together." Well that's true…kind of. The killing in the name of God, and following the teachings of God are very different things. In fact, if you follow the teachings, you wouldn't be killing. If you're killing, then you're not following the teachings. So you can't really call yourself a Christian if you're killing people and saying "It's for Jesus". I'm not sure if any of those 'holy wars' were actually following the word of their perspective religion, to the letter…or even close to it. Thou Shalt Not Kill, seems to have been omitted from the preaching of those people, but is in pretty much every religion on earth. This means that it isn't the religion causing wars. It's the people falsely/wrongly/misguidedly 'following' the religion. All religions on the planet preach peace and love above other things…apart from maybe Viking religions. The murders/death's in the name of God should never have happened, and those people committing those sins will be held to judgement for their actions.

 

The bible I read is full of commandments to kill. Infact the Lord regularly breaks his own commandments. Leviticus tells the faithful to execute blasphemers. Deuteronomy tells the faithful to lay siege to cities. If it's inhabitants refuse to surrender they're to be put to the sword. Women, children and livestock are considered plunder. If they do choose to surrender then the faithful may use them as slaves, for forced labor. Deuteronomy also tells the faithful to stone to death women who cannot be proven as virgins.

 

So I'm at a loss. Which bit do we follow?

 

Thou Shall Not Kill was a commandment. But the lord broke it killing around 2million people according to the bible?! Satan is tributed with less than 20?!

 

Maybe I'm interpretting it wrong? Taking it out of context?

 

But can we now see how war, subjugation, and asset seizure, in his name, is possible?

 

Why is the whole thing so f***ing ambiguous?

 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Gentlemen,

 

If I may, I wish to share a joke I was told at Nantwich Theological college.

 

The Brotherhood of Biblical Copyists is a sect working in the Carpathians. Their order has been around for a millenia and the brotherhood's duty is to diligently keep the bible in circulation.

 

One morning Brother Benjamin is at his studies. He's is carefully copying a page from the New Testament where he finds that the ink has faded from the copy he is copying.

 

Moving the light on his desk he tries to see what words are missing but ultimately in vane. The words are faded beyond comprehension.

 

He summons Brother Simon. Explains his dilemma to which Brother Simon instructs him to go to crypt and to retrieve the original copy.

 

Brother Benjamin agrees and leaves his study.

 

Several hours pass.

 

Brother Benjamin hasn't returned, and Brother Simon is now worried.

 

He hurries to the crypt. Wondering what could have happened.

 

Upon opening the heavy oak door he hears a faint sobbing sound. Lighting his lamp he heads to the source of what is now uncontrollable crying.

 

He see's Brother Benjamin on the floor. Holding the original biblical manuscript. Tears rolling down his face. His shoulders jolting inbetween sobs.

 

He holds the pages of the manuscript up to Brother Simon and with a deafening wail he screams...

 

"It says celebrate..."

Edited March 24, 2015 by ChrisJones

[Quarter bull 240]

You are taking it out of context mate, read it again, you will find out how an why

[Truther 1,579]

The nativity is a totally faked story QB (just to point one thing out, its all a fake to me) the people that faked it never thought we would be able to cross reference with Roman records, like the Germans the Romans loved keeping records, now some 16th century peasant never had a chance of reading the Roman records, but we can, unlucky for them. Total fake...one idiot gave me the "its a human error" well if that's a human error what else is ? god didn't exactly pick the quill pen up himself mate did he?

 

Why would i watch a vid made by biased people? proves nothing, were they there?

 

Sorry mate, but you're totally deluded and closed minded.

[Quarter bull 240]

The men of that time had there own laws to deal with the people as yilou stated above, an they were wrong that's why God gave the commandments to Moses

 

The cities that were laid waste, they worshipped bahopmet the devil, they were doing such evil things it had to be done, paeodifiles, sodomy, raping children sacrificing children, cannabilism, read it again an you will see mate if not then that's up to you.

 

Im getting weary of this thread, I can't type an I'll just leave it up to you to decide, atb

[Quarter bull 240]

The nativity is a totally faked story QB (just to point one thing out, its all a fake to me) the people that faked it never thought we would be able to cross reference with Roman records, like the Germans the Romans loved keeping records, now some 16th century peasant never had a chance of reading the Roman records, but we can, unlucky for them. Total fake...one idiot gave me the "its a human error" well if that's a human error what else is ? god didn't exactly pick the quill pen up himself mate did he?

 

Why would i watch a vid made by biased people? proves nothing, were they there?

 

Sorry mate, but you're totally deluded and closed minded.

Sorry you feel that way truther an as I said, Roman records whatever show me the minerals of what you say instead of insults, as I said I'm open but your just insulting instead of putting up your argument, but i m fed up with this now, so I'm going to stop posting, cause I don't want no more arguments or bullshit, so do whatever you like mate Edited March 24, 2015 by Quarter bull

[Truther 1,579]

You are taking it out of context mate, read it again, you will find out how an why

 

A bit ironic when Chris has said "am i taking it out of context" don't you think mate If i had a fiver for every time a believer said that to me i could retire and just work my dogs

[iworkwhippets 12,624]

im off out in a min, last walk around the block wi dog, im just praying to god, Gladys at number 68 has put her teeth in

[Truther 1,579]

 

The nativity is a totally faked story QB (just to point one thing out, its all a fake to me) the people that faked it never thought we would be able to cross reference with Roman records, like the Germans the Romans loved keeping records, now some 16th century peasant never had a chance of reading the Roman records, but we can, unlucky for them. Total fake...one idiot gave me the "its a human error" well if that's a human error what else is ? god didn't exactly pick the quill pen up himself mate did he?

 

Why would i watch a vid made by biased people? proves nothing, were they there?

 

Sorry mate, but you're totally deluded and closed minded.

Sorry you feel that way truther an as I said, Roman records whatever show me the minerals of what you say instead of

 

 

The Roman records are there mate, factual, or did somebody fake them, like totally getting the name of the govenor at the time of the nativity wrong? No record of the census, that sort of defeats the point of a census don't you think? Like i said mate, only debate worth having is a factual/honest one, sometimes the truth hurts eh.........if you think believeing makes you a batter bloke, or makes your life better somehow i don't have any problem with that, you don't go round making threats like some, but pushing things that can't be verified or ignoring Roman documents from the time is plain stupid, or worse deception for your idea, only you can answer yourself on that score. I don't need to bend the truth because im not pushing anything, just questioning what others are saying/promoting........my conscience is totally clear mate.......can you say the same?

[Quarter bull 240]

Why would my conscience not be clear, I'm being honest here, an truthful, explain the Roman record thing what are you saying I'm not following you hear, actually I just thought of what your saying, check it out again you've missed something

[Quarter bull 240]

Tiberius was the emperor when Jesus was crucified by the procurator pinches Pilate, whatsvyour problem with that?

[Quarter bull 240]

I get you know you mean Luke got the name wrong of the govenor at the time of Jesus birth is that what you mean?

[Quarter bull 240]

Here you go truther, wouldn't be arsed to text it out so I found this, any more supposed, mistakes cause that's petty an proves nothing.

 

More than One Census

Although on its face we seem to have a difficulty here, there are several pieces that we must consider before jumping to the conclusion that Luke and Josephus were speaking about the same event. Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14 A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first" implies that more than one census happened.

On another occasion, an enrollment of all the people of the empire happened to swear an oath of allegiance to Caesar. In Chapter 34 of Res Gestae Augustus also notes, "When I administered my thirteenth consulate (2 B.C.E.), the senate and Equestrian order and Roman people all called me father of the country, and voted that the same be inscribed in the vestibule of my temple".3 Josephus also mentions a time "When all good people gave assurance of their good will to Caesar".4 These types of tributes would also require an enrollment of individuals from across the empire. Orosius, a fifth century Christian, links this registration with the birth of Jesus saying that "all of the peoples of the great nations were to take an oath".5

Taking all of this together, we have at least three censuses in the area of Judea - one in 8 B.C., one starting around 2 B.C. and one in 6 A.D. The only point that is really in question, then, is whether Luke was mistaken in ascribing this census to the time when Quirinius was in the role of Syrian Governor. Since Quirinius wasn't governor of the Syrian province until after Archelaus was deposed, critics claim Luke misidentified the census as the smaller one, which happened some 8-10 years after Herod died. Either Luke is wrong on his dating of Jesus' birth or Matthew made up the story of Herod the Great and the killing of the infants. Is this an accurate objection?

The Governorship of Quirinius

In studying this problem, there are two main solutions that Christian scholars offer, and each has some good merit. The first point is the terminology Luke uses when writing about Quirinius' governorship over Syria. In stating that Quirinius controlled the Syrian area, Luke doesn't use the official political title of "Governor" ("legatus"), but the broader term "hegemon" which is a ruling officer or procurator. This means that Quirinius may not have been the official governor of Judea, but he was in charge of the census because he was a more capable and trusted servant of Rome than the more inept Saturninus.

Justin Martyr's Apology supports this view, writing that Quirinius was a "procurator", not a governor of the area of Judea.6 As Gleason Archer writes, "In order to secure efficiency and dispatch, it may well have been that Augustus put Quirinius in charge of the census-enrollment in Syria between the close of Saturninus's administration and the beginning of Varus's term of service in 7 B.C. It was doubtless because of his competent handling of the 7 B.C. census that Augustus later put him in charge of the 7 A.D. census."7 Archer also says that Roman history records Quirinius leading the effort to quell rebels in that area at exactly that time, so such a political arrangement is not a stretch.

If Quirinius did hold such a position, then we have no contradiction. The first census was taken during the time of Jesus birth, but Josephus' census would have come later. This option seems to me to be entirely reasonable.