Gen1

Sep 3, 2009
12,195
4,727
113
Florida
Major I totally agree with you, I was just saying, let him believe what he wants to believe, since this thread started we can now see his agenda, we know the Truth, you've given the correct Biblical response, ...so what's the point in arguing the point any further.

Blessings,

Gene
Gene.......as I said a long time ago about forums, there will always be those who come aboard who have an "Agenda". It is something that they feel passionately about and will persue it all costs. Sometimes that agenda is a good one.........say the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is a good agenda for one reason........IT IS BIBLICALLY THE TRUTH. Nothing has to be added or subtracted to make it the truth. It fits perfectly and works perfectly because it is TRUTH.

When an agenda is outside of the Word of God, then comes the problem of it NOT BEING THE TRUETH. I have no problem believing that ETU is expounding what he believes to be true to him, but when we read the Scriptures we find that there is indeed this PERSON who is identified as the DEVIL/SATAN by none other that God Himself in Christ.

Now we are called to decide not if Satan is real, BUT IS THE WORD OF GOD REAL AND REALIVANT????
 
  • Like
Reactions: th1bill
Apr 22, 2013
984
356
63
Tahiti
Major, I understand what you are saying, but personally, I think it would be better to report this unBiblical heresy, rather than have volumes of pithy diatribe.

We have rules here, we all agreed to them and this is definitely not Scriptural.

Blessings,

Gene
 
  • Like
Reactions: Etu Malku
Oct 15, 2013
56
0
6
59
Major, I understand what you are saying, but personally, I think it would be better to report this unBiblical heresy, rather than have volumes of pithy diatribe.

We have rules here, we all agreed to them and this is definitely not Scriptural.

Blessings,

Gene
JustPassingThru, I understand your concerns. There is a difference between being sheep with a Shepherd, and being sheeple who run away from confrontation . . . it is through Adversity that we find Wisdom.

Biblical scripture has always confounded me . . . in a good way :whistle:
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,195
4,727
113
Florida
JustPassingThru, I understand your concerns. There is a difference between being sheep with a Shepherd, and being sheeple who run away from confrontation . . . it is through Adversity that we find Wisdom.

Biblical scripture has always confounded me . . . in a good way :whistle:
Biblical Scripture has always convicted me and caused me to grow and learn and to be able to cast off Satanic doctrines and doctrines of demons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: th1bill
Sep 3, 2009
12,195
4,727
113
Florida
JustPassingThru, I understand your concerns. There is a difference between being sheep with a Shepherd, and being sheeple who run away from confrontation . . . it is through Adversity that we find Wisdom.

Biblical scripture has always confounded me . . . in a good way :whistle:
Job 28:28 says..........
"And this is what he says to all humanity: `The fear of the Lord is true wisdom; to forsake evil is real understanding.' "
 
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
There are too many contradictions and faults in the Christian bible for me to take it as the word of God
Give us one example. Just one, and maybe it can be discussed to see if it is a fault or not.
 
Oct 15, 2013
56
0
6
59
Certainly . . . I'll start with the birth and death of Jesus

Matthew 2:1
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem..."

Luke 2:1-2
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

** According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.


The earliest Gospel says that Jesus died on the day after the passover meal
Mark 15:25 . . . "and it was the third hour, and they crucified him"

But John says Jesus was crucified on the day before the passover meal
John 19:14 . . . "Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”
 
Last edited:
M

Mr. Darby

Guest
Ancient dating is uncertain, and you cannot pin too much on that. In some of my readings in ancient history I have found that there is much division among scholars on what dates ancient events occurred on.

Oops, got to go, get back to you later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major and th1bill
Sep 3, 2009
12,195
4,727
113
Florida
There are too many contradictions and faults in the Christian bible for me to take it as the word of God
And as I stated on your thread under "Conversation", that is the concern right there...........

Lets do some. One at a time...............GO!
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,195
4,727
113
Florida
Certainly . . . I'll start with the birth and death of Jesus

Matthew 2:1
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem..."

Luke 2:1-2
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

** According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria. This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.


The earliest Gospel says that Jesus died on the day after the passover meal
Mark 15:25 . . . "and it was the third hour, and they crucified him"

But John says Jesus was crucified on the day before the passover meal
John 19:14 . . . "Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”

Matt. 2...Luke 2
The problem is, Quirinius did not become governor until 6 AD - at least 10 or so years after Jesus was born!
While it is not at all impossible for Quirinius to have been governor a previous time prior to his 6 AD post, I think too much has been made of a verse that probably should have been translated differently. The Greek of Luke 2:2 allows the verse to be translated as something along the lines of, "This census being previous to Quirinius ruling Syria", and this variant translation is rightfully noted in the NIV. Luke places the birth of John the Baptist at the time of King Herod (Luke 1:5), and since Jesus was born about five and a half months later, his birth as well. Most likely Luke would have known that Herod died in 4 BC. This is also reflected by Luke 3:1, 23. Furthermore, Acts 5:37 shows that Luke probably knew about the time of the more famous census of Quirinius. Overall, with this evidence the burden of proof shifts heavily to those trying to claim Luke is in error. With these considerations, Luke 2:1-2 should be seen as referring to either a census before the one taken under Quirinius, or that perhaps Quirinius or someone else had been governor previously (but in my opinion most likely the former).
Mark 15 - John 19
Many have supposed that John is perhaps using midnight to midnight reckoning, which would make his time around 6 AM, not too far from the 9 AM that Mark and Matthew say. But in reality, 6 AM is just as far from 9 AM as is noon, and it is very unlikely John would be using a midnight to midnight day when everyone else started the first hour from roughly 6-7 AM. So with this understanding, we can see that John is approximating as John 19:14 shows. We can be sure that Mark is also approximating though does not say it. If we give a 30 or so minute deviation for both the third and sixth hour, we go from 8-9 AM (the third hour), and 11 AM - 12 PM (the sixth hour), becoming 7:30-9:30 AM and 10:30-12:30. Furthermore, one should remember that John is approximating to a degree where he can easily be implying ("it was about the 6th or 5th hour or so") without fully stating it.
 
Oct 15, 2013
56
0
6
59
Matt. 2...Luke 2
The problem is, Quirinius did not become governor until 6 AD - at least 10 or so years after Jesus was born!
While it is not at all impossible for Quirinius to have been governor a previous time prior to his 6 AD post, I think too much has been made of a verse that probably should have been translated differently. The Greek of Luke 2:2 allows the verse to be translated as something along the lines of, "This census being previous to Quirinius ruling Syria", and this variant translation is rightfully noted in the NIV. Luke places the birth of John the Baptist at the time of King Herod (Luke 1:5), and since Jesus was born about five and a half months later, his birth as well. Most likely Luke would have known that Herod died in 4 BC. This is also reflected by Luke 3:1, 23. Furthermore, Acts 5:37 shows that Luke probably knew about the time of the more famous census of Quirinius. Overall, with this evidence the burden of proof shifts heavily to those trying to claim Luke is in error. With these considerations, Luke 2:1-2 should be seen as referring to either a census before the one taken under Quirinius, or that perhaps Quirinius or someone else had been governor previously (but in my opinion most likely the former).
Mark 15 - John 19
Many have supposed that John is perhaps using midnight to midnight reckoning, which would make his time around 6 AM, not too far from the 9 AM that Mark and Matthew say. But in reality, 6 AM is just as far from 9 AM as is noon, and it is very unlikely John would be using a midnight to midnight day when everyone else started the first hour from roughly 6-7 AM. So with this understanding, we can see that John is approximating as John 19:14 shows. We can be sure that Mark is also approximating though does not say it. If we give a 30 or so minute deviation for both the third and sixth hour, we go from 8-9 AM (the third hour), and 11 AM - 12 PM (the sixth hour), becoming 7:30-9:30 AM and 10:30-12:30. Furthermore, one should remember that John is approximating to a degree where he can easily be implying ("it was about the 6th or 5th hour or so") without fully stating it.
"that probably should have been translated differently"
So you're explaining this off as a mistranslation? Ok . . . who can argue with that?
Good for the goose but not good for the gander? Am I not saying the same exact thing about the mistranslation of the word Lucifer?
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,195
4,727
113
Florida
"that probably should have been translated differently"
So you're explaining this off as a mistranslation? Ok . . . who can argue with that?
Good for the goose but not good for the gander? Am I not saying the same exact thing about the mistranslation of the word Lucifer?
I am going to have to agree with Intojoy in his comment #59. I think that right there pretty much means that we are never going to get past that problem to address the one of whether or not Satan is a real person.