now you are making up bullshit answers to fill the gaps between logical parameters that you can not circumvent without compromising your contortionist cosmogonies. i'm done with this conversation until you master some fundamental methodologies of critical analysis and logical principles
No I was addressing a situation that was brought up. Making stuff up? Is it not true that is what is written in the Bible? That situation I was addressing. Plain and simple, or in Cam's words, simple and plain.
Jesus literally never said that, that is how you interpreted it. Jesus actually said in the sermon on the mount that the old laws were to be upheld. He specifically altered a few (eye for an eye, for instance, being changed to turning the other cheek). Jesus' crucifixion was solely about the blood sacrifice that was mandatory in the OT. No more sacrificing animals or virgins. The blood sacrifice was paid in Jesus. That is the story (as reported by MANY biblical scholars). The ten commandments came AFTER the fall...so obviously those laws didn't apply at the time.
What Jesus said was that He came to fulfill the Law. He also said that not one jot or tittle would pass away until everything was fulfilled. Jesus brought out the full intent of the Ten Commandments to us. That if you lust after a person, you committed adultery. That if you hated a person, you committed murder in the heart. You must keep the Law fully, both outwardly and inwardly. Inwardly is actually the key to keeping it outwardly, and there in lies the problem with us. So Jesus taught us another way. All that turning the other cheek stuff, is simply grace. That if we have grace on others who trepass against us, God would have grace on us for breaking His laws. He wasn't teaching a new thing contrary to the Law (as you say altering), He was teaching humility because the people couldn't keep the Law. Pardoning others.
Yet that is not the main reason why Jesus came. (Just teaching pardoning) Jesus came to fulfill the Law. Fulfill it for who, Himself? No, for us obviously. Ultimately God gave us grace and showed His love for us, and as a result we have grace on others. Jesus said Himself that He didn't come for the righteous, but sinners. He take on the sins of the world. This is clearly spoken on throughout the NT Gospels. Now think, was Adam without sin in the beginning? If Jesus want to take away our sin, and now we are sinless because of Him, if He fulfilled the Law for us, does that not restore things back to where they were in the beginning?
No, adding IS a form of altering. But the additions are not my point. The subtractions, the taking books OUT of the bible is the point. The rest you put here doesn't really make sense to that first sentence, but the very last sentence isn't NECESSARILY true.
When I said adding, what I mean is finding out something new concerning what is already there. Yet to your point about subtractions, no, that doesn't alter God's word either. If all I had were the first five books of the Bible, if all I had was the story of Genesis, that alone shows us what God intends to do. (The Seed of the woman crushing the serpents head, ie. Jesus. We know the man carries the seed of producing children, yet right there it's written the seed of the woman, indicating the man wasn't involved in this guy's birth. At the very least it's a special birth that would crush the serpent's authority.)
No, it's not. We KNOW, through science, the NECESSARY order of events. We know at one point the earth was entirely molten. We know that over time, it cooled, water formed, crust formed, and eventually, Pangea formed (or, the earth BEFORE it became how it is as far as continental placement). Science is based on observation and experimentation. "Of today" isn't necessarily true. We can study the remains of things from billions of years ago and learn things about them when they were actually alive back then. We never observed Pangea, but we know Pangea was a real thing before tectonic shifts occurred. And actually, we DO have evidence of cosmic inflation...and we KNOW it's still happening. The Higgs Boson sort of helps with the Big Bang theory as well. That is why it's a big deal that it got discovered. We don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang, and that is OK. Not knowing is OK. Not searching or accepting an assertion that does not have evidence to support it is not OK.
Certainly the original theorized cosmic inflation is not happening today. If it continued to happen since near the beginning, we wouldn't be here. No, there is no evidence to the original cosmic inflation, but for Big Bang theory to happen, cosmic inflation is necessary. Today, we say a type of inflation is happening with the growth of dark energy. My point however stands, how do we know the universe came from a point of energy? All we see is the universe expanding. It's all mathematical projection. It's like if I made a steady paycheck, I could project I will make a certain amount of money 2 years from now. I can also project that I had a certain amount of money less, 2 years ago in the past. I can come up with that information based upon my steady paycheck.
My projections however doesn't take into account that management is considering letting me go two weeks from now. So now I'm without a job two weeks from now and have no money coming in, yet does that make my projection wrong concerning the amount of money I would have 2 years in the future? No it doesn't make the projection wrong, it just means that didn't happen. It didn't take into account the fact I'm getting layed off. It was based on what was happening in the present. So it's that same principal with the Big Bang. We don't know what happened in the past, we just project based on what we see today. Many scientists believe there will be a day, as the universe continue to speed up in it's expansion, any lifeform alive within a galaxy, will no longer see the structure of the universe. All they will have is their island galaxy. So their science will not include the Big Bang. This is a proven projection based on our science, and can't be argued. This is what I'm saying on the limitations of science.
Now, I don't expect you guys to understand what I'm talking about when I refer to studying Genesis. Firstly, you all see it as a fairytale bedtime story. So you don't even read or take in what the account actually says. Secondly, it's talking about things that will be no longer observable. Just like scientists "KNOW" there are things that are no longer observable. (Example the original cosmic inflation) We really don't even know how old the universe is, because our age determination is based on the furthest galaxies we see. There could be more galaxies still further out, yet even in Big Bang theory, it's speculated that galaxies formed after hundreds of millions of years after the initial expansion. That is a lot of grey area. However all this stuff about plate tectonics, evolution, Pangea, etc, I have you know all that is involved in the book of Genesis.
Your last two sentences make no sense. We don't know everything about the entirety of the existence of the universe....but we DO know about things that existed and happened BILLIONS of years ago here on earth...yet we don't know about what occurred roughly 6000 years ago? Come on, now. That is patently absurd.
Actually, no scientist will tell you they know what happened billions of years ago. Infomation about the distant past is always accompanied by phrases like "It is believed" or "Scientists believe such and such happened". All of it is based on our observation and projections of today.
OK, first, no it doesn't. The OT has a messiah written all over it. It never mentions or alludes to Jesus. Just a messiah. The reason all these authors SEEMED to have the same central theme is because the NT authors wrote it WITH the knowledge of the OT. It's easy to fill in the gaps when you have the primary source material. This is why Jews still exist. They do not believe Jesus was the messiah the OT speaks of. They do not think he was divine in any way. Just a man. As far as inspired...again...every biblical author will tell you the idea is that the Christian god inspired men to write what he wanted in his book. So, the men who wrote it were supposedly writing what god was telling them to write. Again, it wasn't maintained. It was edited many, many, many, many times and it was translated many times over as well. It wasn't maintained. The NT authors, again, wrote the NT WITH the knowledge of everything in the OT. It's easy to keep the story flow with that knowledge.
Well I mentioned before about the Seed of the woman. Also look up the Passover lamb. Look at the story of Moses striking the rock, and water coming out of it. God Himself said He would stand before the rock, and told Moses to strike the rock with the rod Moses used to pronounce God's judgements on Egypt. Connect the dots, God standing before the rock, judgement striking the rock, and water comes out for the people to drink. What is that a picture of? Look at Moses interceding for the people because of their sin, telling God to blot his name out of His book for the sake of the people. What is that a picture of? I could go on and on with this, and you can clearly see this in the Hebrew. Yet here is one obvious piece talking about Jesus in the OT. Read Isaiah ch. 59 verses 15-16.
Um....men went in and re-established Israel. We do NOT know for certain (and have no reason to believe) that any god had any role in that. God also said Tyre would never be rebuilt. That was prophecy...and uh......Tyre is rebuilt. It's not hard for authors back then to say "Israel will EVENTUALLY be rebuilt". If I proclaim that the Panthers, someday, will win a Super Bowl...am I a prophet when they DO win one?
Men went in and re-built a nation after almost 2,000 years? Show me another example of this happening. As far as a prophecy concerning Tyre, I haven't done any research in that area. I'll look in to it.
We do not know for certain that Jesus, as portrayed in the bible existed. We don't even know a man named Jesus who was a Jewish carpenter existed. There isn't a single thing written about any crucifixion that can be paralleled to the biblical account of Jesus. The ONLY place we hear about Jesus is in the bible. That isn't good evidence, sorry. Might a man have existed who preached a message that differed from the typical Jewish/pagan traditions? Sure, that isn't too hard to concede. However, there is NO account of this outside of the bible. There are NO writings of Jesus, yet there are writings from others in the same time period and earlier and later. The 4 gospels were written DECADES (4, actually) after Jesus supposedly died. That doesn't help with the validity of the accounts. I can write about my roommates in 40 years, and write whatever I want, but it doesn't make it true. Even if I have a LOT of people in a LOT of different places in the world believe it.
The word spread as you said. It got big, it became "law of the land", and it was installed by force everywhere. The mere fact that it spread quickly doesn't prove it true, though. Spiderman is popular the world over. Is it true? The fact that many believe something doesn't make it true. 99.99% of the world's population in that time believed the world to be flat and the sun to be only a few miles away. Can we really trust THEIR judgement? The answer is no, we cannot.
Well let me clear some things up about this. Most of the writings of the NT likely were written 20 years after the event of the crucifixion and alledged resurrection. We know this because Luke and the Book of Acts were written before the destruction of the Jewish Temple. We know that Mark was written before Luke, and Matthew was written around the same time as Luke. Most of Paul's letters were likely written before Luke wrote his stuff down. So we are talking 50-60 AD when most of the NT was written. So those who knew Jesus, were most likely still alive. Compare that to other historical text, where our earliest accounts are written by guys who lived over a hundred years from the people who they are talking about. Other accounts are accounts, based on accounts that were lost over time. So the NT being written within 20 years of the event is pretty solid.
And again, I know Constatine forced people to become Christians, I know about the Crusades and all that stuff. (By the way, it was around this time the teachings of Christ really became muddled by man's traditions.) Yet I'm talking before that. It was spreading pretty good before that. My theory is it shouldn't have made it pass Jerusalem. We are talking about a jewish message, that was being delivered by mostly uneducated men. Men who don't have great status. There was a greater/more known Jewish message about God during that time period, which was judaism. That message didn't spread beyond Jerusalem to the kind of degree Christianity did. There were plenty of cats who claimed to be somebody during that time period, and every single one of them fell by the wayside, but not this one. So I'll continue to do research on this, studying the difficulty of the spreading Christian message prior to Constatine.
My overall point is that all these things come together, and gives me reason why there might be truth to what the Bible says, versus all the other religions out there. Of course I also want to say that looking at the world, and all the scientific theories and hypothesis about multiple universes, leads me to believe something different from natural laws had to form this place. Because every natural law seems to have a beginning. (This universe had a beginning. Many physicists are starting to believe there are multiple universes, based on mathematical estimations. At some point there had to be something that had no beginning, and as things are looking right now, all the laws we see had one)