V h o
Kage in the Making 👑
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 16,796
- Reaction score
- 815
Oh I see, then I disagree with your opinion. If the bible isn't credible then there would be no other book to use for Christianity.
[Debate] Is the Bible any credible source for a "main scripture"
- Thread starter KingHashirama
- Start date
- Status
Oh I see, then I disagree with your opinion. If the bible isn't credible then there would be no other book to use for Christianity.
KingHashirama
Legendary Shinobi 🐸
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 27,280
- Reaction score
- 1,690
yup and that causes a problem, where the bible has to be forced to be credible.
yet no one has been insulted.
insult:: to do or say something that is offensive to (someone) : to do or say something that shows a lack of respect for (someone)
You are the only one who seems to be offended..
Yusuke Urameshi
Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 8,146
- Reaction score
- 710
You can't really be a Christian if you don't believe the Bible is 100% true.
Christians = followers of Christ/God. The Bible = God's word. How are they not connected? It's like saying Quran = Muhammad =/= Allah. What's your point?
KingHashirama
Legendary Shinobi 🐸
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 27,280
- Reaction score
- 1,690
Muhammad isn't allah, to those who trully believe in Islam.
Remion18
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,057
- Reaction score
- 85
You sure do talk alot of noise for someone who believes in Islam. With your religion's reputation you have no right to talk about Christianity. Its okay though you like to ignore the bad sides of your religion yet you bring out the bad in theirs so easily.
KingHashirama
Legendary Shinobi 🐸
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2012
- Messages
- 27,280
- Reaction score
- 1,690
Yet i'm not islamic, or anywhere close to the middle eastern religions.
Remion18
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,057
- Reaction score
- 85
V h o
Kage in the Making 👑
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 16,796
- Reaction score
- 815
How is it being forced?
Also what would be the teachings of Christianity then? The ten commandments only?
I mean if you don't want to read the bible or live by it, there is always the possibility of changing religions.
Yusuke Urameshi
Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 8,146
- Reaction score
- 710
Yeah, I know. Allah didn't write the book himself. He had Muhammad do it. The same goes for the Bible, but in a much more concrete manner (more than one person affirming the same thing written by others).
sasukesworld
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,971
- Reaction score
- 280
Yup, this^^
Gyakusetsu
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,590
- Reaction score
- 368
Yeah, I know. Allah didn't write the book himself. He had Muhammad do it. The same goes for the Bible, but in a much more concrete manner (more than one person affirming the same thing written by others) and by the way I wrote this myself. I didn't copy Yusuke. Legit, yes?
Last edited:
Fresco
Jōnin Strategist 🧠
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,013
- Reaction score
- 215
Actually, no, that's hardly a compelling argument. According to most branches of Christianity, Jesus is God in human form, so there's little difference between Allah telling Muhammad something and Jesus saying something and his followers recounting it. In the end, neither instance is a direct source.
Sharingan King
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,120
- Reaction score
- 126
The bible has 00000 credibility. Reasons:
1) Numerous contradictions
2) Mistranslations
3) Left out/destoyed books
4) Historical inaccuracies
5) Modifies ancient folktales and older religions
6) Inability to prove any of the magical tales told in the bible
1) Numerous contradictions
2) Mistranslations
3) Left out/destoyed books
4) Historical inaccuracies
5) Modifies ancient folktales and older religions
6) Inability to prove any of the magical tales told in the bible
ministerC4
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,699
- Reaction score
- 269
I never really had the thought of ever calling the Bible credible.
I would speak about it, but I choose not to.
Because the typical response is "If so many people are following it, it proves this more so".
Or "Logic isn't applied to this".
I'm not the smartest f*cking guy in the world nor do I follow science like a religion.
But before you stone me, I can say those two things are simply ridiculous to say.
Here's simply why, to the first quote.
The religion itself was formed in an era that if we were to watch a documentary on, everyone would be calling them slow, dumb, and even retarded.
But then if I were to say these slow/dumb/retards had written the Bible my typical reply wouldn't be good.
But that isn't my big argument against that, it's like racism.
Regardless of evidence for generations whites believed blacks to be simply horrible.
It was a result of it working much like religion.
Racism was taught down, even if a black man saved their life, they'd ignore it.
Ignoring evidence blacks aren't bad.
And as to the second quote, it's literally saying "Regardless of how much proof you cough up, it's invalid".
That's blind trust, and is basically me saying "I don't give a f*ck that Marry hands were red and there was video tape of her murdering Sam, all I know is Hank murdered Sam and nothing you say can/should change that!"
I would speak about it, but I choose not to.
Because the typical response is "If so many people are following it, it proves this more so".
Or "Logic isn't applied to this".
I'm not the smartest f*cking guy in the world nor do I follow science like a religion.
But before you stone me, I can say those two things are simply ridiculous to say.
Here's simply why, to the first quote.
The religion itself was formed in an era that if we were to watch a documentary on, everyone would be calling them slow, dumb, and even retarded.
But then if I were to say these slow/dumb/retards had written the Bible my typical reply wouldn't be good.
But that isn't my big argument against that, it's like racism.
Regardless of evidence for generations whites believed blacks to be simply horrible.
It was a result of it working much like religion.
Racism was taught down, even if a black man saved their life, they'd ignore it.
Ignoring evidence blacks aren't bad.
And as to the second quote, it's literally saying "Regardless of how much proof you cough up, it's invalid".
That's blind trust, and is basically me saying "I don't give a f*ck that Marry hands were red and there was video tape of her murdering Sam, all I know is Hank murdered Sam and nothing you say can/should change that!"
Last edited:
Tartarus
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 4,076
- Reaction score
- 409
This thread is really incoherent, I can't even tell what points people are arguing :|
I'll try to shed some light on the topic if I can (and probably be ignored as usual)
1. Define the "Bible". Are you referring to the Apostolic scriptures (The "New Testament")? or the Tenakh(The Jewish Canon) or both?
Yeshua didn't write the Bible, most the scriptures existed LONG before he did. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. He was part of an already existing religion, Judaism
The problem with labeling the Bible as a single continuous book is that it was never meant to be read as such. It's a compendium of various books that were accepted as canon and authoritative about what their respective followers believe. A "best of" collection of sorts written by various authors who followed the same faith that's organized into a coherent canon. There are some inconsistencies, but I never claimed the Bible to be a perfect book. . It's a record of the of the Israelites' encounter with the divine, their God YHWH, their spiritual and physical journey. The problem is that a lot of Christians read it like some legal textbook given verbatim by God. I'm very confused by what you're saying. It was written by men, like the sacred writings of any other religion. What does it matter that we have multiple sacred authors? If you have no canon, you have nothing to base your religion. Simple as that.
If you're talking about the NT, then the epistles are most certainly pretty reliable since they're the most well preserved work of antiquity and written by the immediate followers of Yeshua, like his brother Jacob, and Peter. The Gospels are a bit of a shaky case since they do conflict in some events. John says Jesus celebrated the Passover cedar a day early while the synoptic claim he celebrated the cedar on the normal day. However, they agree with each other on most parts, and they're the only sources we have about his life that are close to reliable, even if not 100%. They at least give us an idea.
I'll try to shed some light on the topic if I can (and probably be ignored as usual)
1. Define the "Bible". Are you referring to the Apostolic scriptures (The "New Testament")? or the Tenakh(The Jewish Canon) or both?
Yeshua didn't write the Bible, most the scriptures existed LONG before he did. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. He was part of an already existing religion, Judaism
The problem with labeling the Bible as a single continuous book is that it was never meant to be read as such. It's a compendium of various books that were accepted as canon and authoritative about what their respective followers believe. A "best of" collection of sorts written by various authors who followed the same faith that's organized into a coherent canon. There are some inconsistencies, but I never claimed the Bible to be a perfect book. . It's a record of the of the Israelites' encounter with the divine, their God YHWH, their spiritual and physical journey. The problem is that a lot of Christians read it like some legal textbook given verbatim by God. I'm very confused by what you're saying. It was written by men, like the sacred writings of any other religion. What does it matter that we have multiple sacred authors? If you have no canon, you have nothing to base your religion. Simple as that.
If you're talking about the NT, then the epistles are most certainly pretty reliable since they're the most well preserved work of antiquity and written by the immediate followers of Yeshua, like his brother Jacob, and Peter. The Gospels are a bit of a shaky case since they do conflict in some events. John says Jesus celebrated the Passover cedar a day early while the synoptic claim he celebrated the cedar on the normal day. However, they agree with each other on most parts, and they're the only sources we have about his life that are close to reliable, even if not 100%. They at least give us an idea.
Last edited:
Gatsuuga
Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 6,239
- Reaction score
- 1,031
Nar, if the bible is to be beleived anyone that eats shellfish is going to hell. That's about 95% of Australia's poplutaion so looks like god hates us Aussies. Although the fires of hell probably aren't that different from Aussie summers and we have lots of wicked beasties already so it might not be that different.
Tartarus
Anbu Operative 🎭
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 4,076
- Reaction score
- 409
You do realize that the dietary restrictions are only meant for Jewish people right?
- Status