Does the Bible contradict itself?

In the church where I grew up, claiming that the Bible contradicted itself was the second-worst thing you could say (the worst thing was to suggest that everybody, not just our little branch of the Christian family tree, was going to heaven). Our primary strategy for dealing with sections of the Bible that didn’t exactly fit with one another was to ignore the problem. But once in a while someone would violate the unspoken rule that you left such questions unspoken (“hey, did you know that John says the crucifixion happened on the day of the Passover feast, but the other gospels say it happened the day after?”), and we would have to scramble to come up with an explanation. When that happened, we expended tremendous amounts of energy to insist that the Bible didn’t really say what it seemed to say, that any apparent disagreements or contradictions within the text were nothing of the sort.

A few years and more than a few hours reading and studying the Bible later I’ve come to see that such tensions and disagreements between one part of Scripture and another are not problems to be ignored or explained away; they are invitations to deeper study and understanding. Sometimes the disagreements are trivial and of concern only to those trying to hold on to particularly stringent understandings of biblical inerrancy. But others are more serious, and when they are they open the door to genuine moments of revelation.

Continue reading at www.ministrymatters.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

Vladimir

Does the Bible contradict itself? Not in any material way. The message that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all mankind comes through unequivocally load and clear.
- Despeville
  
  Mormon, your created "Jesus" is not the Jesus from the Bible to begin with. Additionally Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory and the Eternal God IS NOT a Savior of all mankind otherwise all mankind would be saved for He is indeed a PERFECT SAVIOR and not trying hard but frequently failing pseudo Savior… Jesus Christ the Lord of Glory and the Eternal God atoned for HIS SHEEP and HIS SHEEP only and none else. He died for HIS CHURCH and HIS Church only and none else as the true Scriptures teach:
  
  "just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the SHEEP."
  (John 10:15 ESV)
  
  "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for HER."
  (Ephesians 5:25 ESV)
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Calvinist, your Jesus is also a created Jesus. There is little difference between what the Mormons believe and what you believe. Both are based on fairy tales.
    - Esther
      
      Not so, Joseph Smith escaped the Calvinists with his entire family.
      
      Here is one possible characteristic of a certain saint that I know which may interest you, because it reeks of the the fact one does not have to believe anything that is not true:
      
      ex·is·ten·tial·ism (gz-stnsh-lzm, ks-)n.A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.
      - Despeville
        
        Are you also a spirit from planet Kolob?
      - Vladimir
        
        After that comment to Esther, I have to agree with Jeff Dixon on one of his points about you, Despeville. You really don't know what you are talking about.
      - Despeville
        
        Vlad the Impaler of the Word that was a joke about your beliefs and not a statement reflecting your theology. Pathetic attempt to smear again.
      - Esther
        
        You really missed a turn somewhere. Accusing Vladimir of "smear" is really ludicrous coming from you, and without a doubt I will surmise, many on The Forum know it.
      - Despeville
        
        Vlad the impaler your silence regarding "οι Χριστου" – "those of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 15:23 as a qualifier of "παντες" – a second "all" in 1 Corinthians 15:22 is very telling and I would worry about your utter inability to respond to that in any factual and meaningful manner just as you are unable to respond other clear qualifications for God's people from John 10:15 or Ephesians 5:25.
      - Esther
        
        Educate yourself, Despe.
      - Despeville
        
        Always and it will never end including this topic but it happens that I actually do know what I am talking about while you have no earthly idea. I know you will not pick up a book so please read this to learn how The Five Points came about and why Arminianism was from the beginning a sell out and cop out of the true Gospel:
        
        "How Did We Get the Canons of Dort?"
        ~ http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/09/14/how-did-we-get-the-canons-of-dort/
      - Esther
        
        I know VERY well the practical application of a VERY well educated, happens-to-be-also-a-"Reformed"-pastor colleague who lives by the 5 points of Calvinism and the contemporary John MacArthur, so I need education???? Despe? No! YOU need to realize the implications in the reality of living and making a living of these ridiculous rules that you and others perpetrate upon mankind!!! Do you understand? I have better things to do now. Go to your nearest reformed library, or better yet, find another colleague of such a reformed minister and harass them to discover the reality of what I am talking about. HEAL thyself!
      - Esther
        
        Actually I am reading a very good book on the burning of books, recommended by Jeff Dixon, where people like you while conquering countries saw to it that the libraries were destroyed in order that they might take over the religious nature of the people. Yes, I read. I already know about the Arminius, Pelagius, Melanchthon, Wesley, Finney versus the Reformed view. Why don't you start treating people with respect and stop your filthy mouth or I will ask the webmaster to delete them.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The idea of true gospel is absurd on so many different levels.
      - Esther
        
        Keep this up, Jeff. Please. You are coming in clearer all the time, especially in this environment.
      - petroskhan
        
        "You don't have to believe anything that is not true."? Really? Then why would ANYONE believe the Book of Mormon?
        
        It's nothing but a collection of nonsense, contradicting the Bible, itself, science, etc…
      - Esther
        
        You are the collection of nonsense
      - Vladimir
        
        Petroskhan, why would anyone NOT believe the Book of Mormon when the Lord stands ready to confirm it is true if the reader will only ASK?
      - petroskhan
        
        Well, actually, Vlad, based on Scripture, the Lord of the Bible "stands ready" to condemn your Book as a Collection of lies.
        
        The Bible is the inspired word of God. I accept it as true and rely on it as the source of information for the Will of God. The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible, and is therefore false. Joseph Smith contradicted the Bible, made prophecies which failed to come true, and uttered blasphemous statements regarding God, and was therefore NOT a prophet of God, but rather Satan.
        
        I have proven these statements with direct quotes from the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and the writings of Smith and other Mormon founders.
        
        Feel free to provide your proof that I am in error, or admit that you cannot. As I stated to your "friend" Esther, I challenge you and any other Mormon to prove that I am wrong. Accept or concede. I will construe any obfuscation and/or misdirection to be agreement with my statements and an admission that what I have stated is true and correct.
      - Vladimir
        
        Nice try petroskhan, but don't try to change the subject. Anything that anyone will tell you about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that is positive, is just another opportunity for you to pontificate on your hobby horse of pre-packaged half-truths, lies and laughable absurdities.
        
        You are caught between your desire to be respected among your assumed followship on this website and a nagging, but very tiny desire to really know the truth.
        
        I've read the Book of Mormon, you haven't. I've received wisdom and understanding from God upon prayerful requests, but you haven't. You even sidestep the very thought of walking that walk.
        
        So accuse me of anything you can manufacture, it means nothing until you are willing to put your salvation where your mouth currently is.
      - petroskhan
        
        "Nice try petroskhan, but don't try to change the subject." The subject is Mormonism, is it not? I've not tried to change it; perhaps you'd like to? Perhaps to something more defensible?
        
        "your hobby horse of pre-packaged half-truths, lies and laughable absurdities." Name a single lie I've told regarding Mormonism. ONE. Prove I've lied, or admit that you're a liar.
        
        "You are caught between your desire to be respected among your assumed
        fellowship on this website and a nagging, but very tiny desire to really
        know the truth." I get my "truth" from the Bible, which is reliable, provable and the inspired word of God. You get yours from a book more full of holes than a block of swiss cheese. I could find greater inspiration from a Cracker Jack box.
        
        "I've read the Book of Mormon, you haven't." As I've told you, I've read a great deal of it. Enough to know it's full of nonsense, self-contradiction, and tripe. I've shown where it contradicts the Bible, science and itself. Answer those statements, or admit you can't.
        
        "So accuse me of anything you can manufacture, it means nothing until you
        are willing to put your salvation where your mouth currently is." I accuse you of being blind. I accuse you of foolishly following something that a child could see is false. I will, and have, staked my salvation on refuting a ludicrous collection of nonsense penned by a man who has been proven to be a false prophet. Prove I'm wrong, or admit you can't.
        
        But most of all, I accuse you of being false. I accuse you of being a liar by omission. You fail, every time you post, to answer a single question, to provide anything resembling a response, to the most basic questions regarding a subject you claim to know so intimately, and believe in so fervently. An honest person, especially one of faith, would answer questions, not dissemble, avoid, and misdirect. THOSE are the actions of a deceiver, one who fears the truth, and attempts to hide that truth from others.
        
        I challenge you to answer a single question or allegation I've made, or to prove that I've posted anything regarding Mormonism that is untrue. How about you put some proof where your mouth is?
        
        The sad fact is, you know I'm right, but you're too stubborn to admit it. You know that every charge I've leveled against Mormonism is true, and you don't have a shred of evidence to contradict a single thing I've said. If you had the courage to admit that you're wrong, you would earn some respect. These constant, pathetic attempts to sidestep the issues only prove to me, and anyone else reading, that you have no answers, that you possess nothing even remotely resembling "truth", and simply can't admit it. You are the worst sort of deceiver, Vlad; one who knows the truth, but works diligently to hide it from others, to mislead them, to cause them to follow the same false path as he does, knowing that doing so robs them of their salvation.
        
        You call me a liar? Prove it. Show me where I've lied, or admit you lied.
        
        You claim I'm wrong about the things I've said regarding Mormonism? Prove it. I know you can't, and you will simply reply with more avoidance, but do try, for once, to actually demonstrate some knowledge of the subject, and a willingness to defend your position.
        
        Prove I'm wrong, or concede.
      - Vladimir
        
        Once again you carefully avoid the central point. You cleverly quoted and tried to respond to every point I advanced EXCEPT ONE. And why? Because you have no answer. You know that if you concede that God will settle the dispute it is over and you are finished.
        
        You look to the Bible for an answer and that is good unless you purposely select certain passages to ignore.
        
        You carefully ignore a very straight forward verse that invites you to ask God directly if you lack wisdom. I have followed James 1:5 and know that God does exactly what James promises. God does answer prayers and He does so very specifically to the requester.
        
        So, petroskhan, you certainly can select to ignore what I say, but it isn't wisdom to ignore James 1:5, "But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him."
        
        When God speaks, your argument ceases. But if you don't ask, then you can continue arguing. Eventually the whistle will blow and you can argue directly with God.
      - petroskhan
        
        "Once again you carefully avoid the central point."
        The central point, Vlad, is that the Book of Mormon is false. The central point, which YOU are avoiding, is that Joseph Smith was a fraud. The central point is that you have not answered a single question I've put to you regarding the proof I've given that your whole religion is a lie, based on lies.
        
        "You cleverly quoted
        and tried to respond to every point I advanced EXCEPT ONE. And why?
        Because you have no answer. You know that if you concede that God will
        settle the dispute it is over and you are finished."
        I find your response fascinating. You accuse me of not answering one question of yours (while stating that I did respond to the others), while you and every other Mormon refuses to answer a single question I've put to you? Glass houses…? Familiar at all?
        
        I would, however, point out, Vlad, that I have answered that question, multiple times. I've prayed (as I do every day) for guidance from God. EVERY DAY. And He has shown me that your Book is false. I have quoted your own book to you, and received no answer from you or any Mormon regarding these questions and contradictions. To quote you: "Why? Because you have no answer."
        
        Again, my questions go unanswered, Vlad. Why? What are you so afraid of?
        
        You called me a liar, and I challenged you to show one single lie I've told; you've failed to do so.
        
        You claimed that I've not answered you; another false statement.
        
        I've raised, several times, points of contradiction with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. You've failed to answer them, or even acknowledge them.
        
        I've quoted your own founder's blasphemous statements, and you refuse to even discuss them.
        
        With every post of yours, you provide further evidence of your own fear and avoidance. You prove, more eloquently that I ever could, that your so-called "religion" is nothing more than a collection of lies, hiding in fear of exposure. You fail to answer a single question, every time.
        
        I've challenged you, and ANY Mormon, to answer the questions I've raised. Thus far, all I've gotten is insults, avoidance and lies. But nothing that bears any resemblance to an answer.
        
        You stated it perfectly, Vlad. "Why? Because you have no answer."
        
        Prove me wrong, or admit you can't.
      - Vladimir
        
        You said you pray for guidance, but have you ever gone to God and asked specifically if the Book of Mormon is true?
        
        I have read the Book of Mormon and have ask God if it were true and I prayed with a sincere heart, real intent and faith in Jesus Christ. If you'll do the same, you'll get the same answer because God doesn't lie. There are millions of His children who have received revelation from Him that the Book of Mormon is true by doing exactly what I have done.
        
        When you know from God that the Book of Mormon is true, you realize where the attacks come from. And you realize that they will all fail. Your attacks are only designed to deride God's work. You aren't interested in finding out if it is true.
      - petroskhan
        
        You keep asking me questions, and expecting answers to them. I've answered your questions repeatedly, with no reciprocity thus far evidencing itself.
        
        Time for some quid pro quo. Answer mine, or admit you can't, and then we can move on with this discussion.
      - Vladimir
        
        Petroskhan, you are all quid without the pro quo. And no, I don't want to move on. Let's settle this first.
        
        My source that the Book of Mormon is true is God. Your source that the Book of Mormon isn't, is man. I've asked God if the Book of Mormon is true and He has revealed to me that the Book of Mormon is true. Just as James said He would in James 1:5.
        
        Since I cannot prove to you that the Book of Mormon is true based on God's revelation to me, I have encouraged you to following the same path. Read the Book of Mormon then go to God with a sincere heart, real intent and faith in Jesus Christ.
      - petroskhan
        
        "My source that the Book of Mormon is true is God. Your source that the Book of Mormon isn't, is man." Wrong, Vlad. My source is the Bible. The Book of Mormon contradicts it, and therefore shows itself to be in opposition to the expressed Word of God. Try again.
        
        And I have not forgotten any of the questions I've asked you, which you have failed to answer. A couple of them, to refresh your memory:
        
        You called me a liar. Name a single lie I've told.
        
        You accused me of not answering your questions. Name one.
        
        The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Prove me wrong.
        
        Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Prove otherwise.
        
        Joseph Smith and several Mormon founders espoused blasphemous doctrine, which was contrary to the Bible. Prove me wrong.
      - Vladimir
        
        Okay, now we are getting somewhere. I see your problem. You think God is the Bible. Why didn't you just say that in the beginning. God is not a book, He is the one who commissioned certain of His children to write the Bible. God is the creator of all that is good, the Bible is one of His many creations.
        
        If you have a question about a book or you are making conclusions based on a book coupled with your intelligence and want to know if you are right, you can contact the author and double check. That works if the author is willing to answer and is still alive. God is alive and He is willing to answer your prayers.
        
        I've been encouraging you to ASK God, not deduce something from His book, the Bible.
      - petroskhan
        
        Very funny.
        
        And you're still avoiding answering questions. I am forced to the inescapable conclusion therefore that you must be in agreement with everything I've stated, as you have failed to provide any sort of objection/answer to a single point I've raised.
        
        Just so we're clear:
        
        1 – You agree that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and a blasphemer.
        
        2 – You agree that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.
        
        3 – You agree that the Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate, and false.
        
        I'm glad we're finally on the same page.
      - Vladimir
        
        Wasn't meant to be funny, petroskhan. You jump to conclusions without exploring viable alternatives.
        
        And here you go again. Only this time it's an "inescapable" conclusion. Do you have other adjectives for your conclusions?
        
        I recommend exploring all viable alternatives, the best one being God. That's asking our Heavenly Father for a direct answer after you've done your homework. Works for me. I'm more comfortable knowing that my conclusions are in sync with God's plan.
      - petroskhan
        
        You have any idea how ridiculous all of you Mormons are making your religion seem? You all refuse to answer a single simple, direct question regarding a fundamental principle of your faith. All you can do is insult, and attempt to divert/distract, and do everything in your power to avoid answering any and all questions.
        
        You accuse me of being false, of lying to you, and when I call you out on it, you have nothing to say. You're a liar, and I've proven it. If you can prove otherwise, you are welcome to do so.
        
        I ask you simple questions regarding your own doctrine, and you refuse to answer a single one, and throw out baseless and pointless accusations, acting so "holier-than-thou", as though answering simple questions is beneath you. You're arrogant, deceitful, and craven. Again, if you have the courage to prove me otherwise, you are welcome to do so.
        
        Your so-called religion is a collection of lies, blasphemies and nonsense. I've challenged anyone of your faith to answer even ONE question I've raised, and you're all too scared to do so, because you know you're wrong.
        
        Yes, Vlad, the conclusion I've come to IS inescapable. I bring up several issues, and you have not, in dozens of postings, made anything even remotely resembling an answer, let alone a refutation. If this were a court of law, the jury would be wondering when (or if) you were actually going to challenge the accusations.
        
        Once again, show some stones, and actually answer anything I've posted about Mormonism or Joseph Smith. Answer a single issue I've raised, provide just one answer. I challenge you to show me wrong in just ONE instance, and you will have changed my mind; you will have demonstrated that you can actually defend your position, and your faith, against the minor scrutiny to which its been subjected thus far.
        
        But I know you wont'. I know that you're going to continue to hide behind your ridiculous facade of piety, pretending that you know something I don't, because God has whispered in your ear, and not mine. But the truth is far simpler, and we both know it.
        
        You're a coward and a liar, Vlad.
        
        I have proven every single thing I've said about you, and your faith. You have proven nothing. You haven't even disagreed with me.
        
        What other conclusion can I come to other than that you agree?
      - Vladimir
        
        There have been no proofs on this site, nor can there be. You know that, petroskhan. Our need to acquire and grow our faith precludes proof in these matters. Only when we are ready in God's eyes will He give us proof. So proof comes from God not petroskhan.
        
        But if you will exercise a particle of faith and go to God in humble prayer, He will help you out.
      - petroskhan
        
        LOL You're so full of it, and we both know it.
        
        "There have been no proofs on this site, nor can there be." You really want to stand by that statement, Vlad? You sure? Then how about these:
        
        I've quoted Joseph Smith's words, spouting prophecies that failed to come true. That's proof that he was a liar, and a false prophet.
        
        I've quoted passages from the Bible and the Book of Mormon that are plainly not in agreement. That's proof that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.
        
        I've shown where you yourself have made statements that are untrue. That's proof that you're a liar.
        
        You have failed to answer or even disagree with a single statement I've made regarding Mormonism. That is proof that you're a coward.
        
        "Our need to acquire and grow our faith precludes proof in these matters." Wrong, and contrary to the Bible, which instructs us, in 1 Thess 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
        
        Have any more inaccuracies you'd like to toss out there?
      - Vladimir
        
        Yes, pestroskhan, we have been admonished to prove all things. Now think real hard, where does the proof come from? Proof comes from God! How do you acquire God's proof? Answer: you pray for it. What comes from God is GOOD. Hold fast to that which is good.
        
        Class dismissed.
      - petroskhan
        
        Oh, my gosh, you just convinced me with that!! I'm in awe!
        
        So…we don't need the Bible, the Book of Mormon…we don't need ANYTHING!! We'll just pray, and EVERY SINGLE THING will be clear. Wow…
        
        No standards against which to compare one person's thoughts to another, no written word as our guide…we don't need anything!
        
        You are so wise, Vlad…thank you for sharing your wisdom with me.
        
        (Do note that the above post is filled quite liberally with heavy sarcasm.)
        
        Vlad, if I were a complete idiot, what you said might actually sound convincing. As I'm not, and I accept that God has chosen to give us something to show us His will, I will hold fast to what is good…the Bible.
        
        And I will use its guidelines to measure the truth of other doctrines. Like the false statements of Joseph Smith; the satanic nonsense of the Book of Mormon, and other works of evil.
        
        You've shown your true colors, Vlad. Don't worry. I've learned a great deal about Mormons from you.
        
        You are a coward.
        
        You're a liar.
        
        You have no honor.
        
        We're done.
      - Vladimir
        
        Stick a fork in petroskhan, yep he's done.
      - Esther
        
        You are the liar.
      - petroskhan
        
        Name one lie I've told here, dear. Just one.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Sorry Vlad ,, proof comes from His word, the Bible which God holds above Himself!!! You prove by going to the WORD of God the Bible. and even if you ASK God for wisdom, the answer God gives HAS TO LINE UP with His Word , the BIBLE.
        But you just having a """""head knowledge"""" of God could not possibally understand what I just said
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Vlad,,In case you haven't noticed, and you haven't , the Bible IS GOD"S WORD, God Holds His Word ( the Bible ) above Himself
        THAT is why you are so easily persuded, once again God never, never sent an Angel to preach His word! It is funny I know of this happening only twice , once to the future muslims, and once to the future mormons, and both cases resulted in a lie. We don't need a priesthood ( Jesus is my high Priest ), we don't need a Quarum of 12 !!! Jesus used 12 men to get His Church started and just because they died doesn't mean there is a need to get 12 more, Why' because their anointing was passed on from Church to Church , generation to generation !! Doing exactly what their Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ told them to do , take the Gospel, to the utter ends of the earth. Just because the RCC totally screwed up is no reason for a restoration. for there were 100s if not 1,000s of small Pentecostal type churches existing besides the RCC. therefore no need to restore, The eastern church was larger than all episcapalian sp. and RCC churches combined. No need for a restoration . The small Pentecostal Churches have done there job. The Word says the gates of hell will not stand against Jesus Church. By you saying there was a need for restoration would say the gates of hell have prevailed against Jesus' Church …. SHAME ON YOU FOR BELIEVING THE FALSE PROPHETS OF mormonism
      - Esther
        
        The central point is there are contradictions in the Holy bible, Since, you are not facing that fact, you are not an honorable person to claim any information on the subject of being a true follower of Christ.
      - petroskhan
        
        "The central point is there are contradictions in the Holy bible…"
        
        Name one.
      - Esther
        
        Again, Joseph Smith corrected over 2000 mistakes in the Holy Bible before he was killed by people like you.
      - petroskhan
        
        "he was killed by people like you."? Really?
        
        Hey, Skippy…he was killed trying to escape from jail, while awaiting trial for treason.
      - Esther
        
        Petroskhan, Who is following Satan if not you? You really must address your own ignorance. You prove yourself to be so needful. As I have said time and time again, who will trust you with the reality of the strength of our belief in Christ, which you nor anyone of you pseudo-Christianity can come close to, much less equal. Maybe your "friends" Evermyrtle and John Adams can rescue you from my humble opinion. Joseph Smith — who is more in line with Jeff Dixon — recognized over 2000 inaccuracies in the Holy Bible… the Holy Bible being your admitted your standard of conduct.
      - petroskhan
        
        Following Satan…really? That's your gambit now? Show how someone who follows the Bible is following Satan, would you?
        
        And you REALLY need to work on your grammar and syntax. "..rescue you from my humble opinion"? Is English your first language? Third, maybe?
        
        And what more could I say to prove MY point than what you've stated: "Joseph Smith — who is more in line with Jeff Dixon…" Yes, let's all use atheism as the barometer for religious proof. Let's make sure that any religious opinion meets with the approval of an atheist before we continue with any discussion of its merits/flaws.
        
        And as for those "2000 inaccuracies"…I say again, prove it, Esther.
        
        Every comment of yours proves that you are NOT a Christian, nor a Mormon. You are a fraud, Esther. A very poor one, a very ignorant one, and a very, very childish one.
        
        Just so we're clear, I only answer your posts because I find you entertaining, dear. You are not informative, logical, educated, or intelligent enough to present a challenge to my beliefs or education. You are entertainment. Pure and simple. You should read your own posts; you will find that you contradict yourself endlessly, and if you were a Mormon, you would be a great embarrassment to them. As you are not, as I have shown with ample proof, Mormons can feel safe that you will not, with your childish tirades and pointless insults, tarnish their reputation.
        
        Oh, and last note, long overdue. Esther, it simply doesn't look right, if you're trying to convince someone that you're a Christian, to lean so heavily on the words and opinions of an atheist. This sycophantic devotion to Jeff is entertaining in the extreme, but you should really reconsider being so devoted to someone who holds your professed faith in complete and utter contempt. It's sort of like a puppy following around a person who constantly beats it.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        That is so funny, 1, you don't ask, asking is what the devil wants you to do. 2. what you do is compare scripture with scripture. 3.. The book of mormon says God buried the city of Atlantis and surrouding in the ocean , "to hide their sin" from God. 4. now compare scripture, God says we can go to the utter ends of the earth, and behold God is there, we can go to the utmost heaven , God is there, we can go to the depths of the sea, GOD IS THERE!!!!! We cannot hide sin from God . God does not hide sin from Himself, So when reading the BOM it makes you want to PUKE!!!
      - Esther
        
        Affirm, this is true. :)
      - Esther
        
        Vladimir petroskhan • 23 days ago
        Petroskhan, why would anyone NOT believe the Book of Mormon when the Lord stands ready to confirm it is true if the reader will only ASK?
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        "You don't have to believe anything that is not true."
        Excuse me. What is so mind boggling about this advice Doc Esther? Was there another part to this quote (from this prestigious professor) that I am missing?
        Even you could have come up with such an arrangement of words.
      - Esther
        
        Again, Joe, why don't you confirm with the man, have you ever heard of references? You know the things I learned to do in the 5th grade? Tell the reader the source of information in order it can be confirmed … duh…
      - Evermyrtle
        
        IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO YOU SHOULD READ JOSEPH
        SMITH'S WRITINGS.THEY ARE SO OUTLANDISH i CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW ANY SANE PERSON WOULD EVER BELIEVE THAT TRASH. I ONLY READ A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS AND SINCERELY HOPE THE REST OF THEM ARE NOT SO RIDICULES
      - Esther
        
        So what? When you have no concept other than what you have — or the pastor whom you worship have — dredged up, you are hardly the person I would look up to for even a minor opinion. Again, you have no concept of the Saints, so just give up, Evermyrtle. Vladimir has been excessively kind to you and you have not budged to even ask an intelligent question.
        
        Now, we have the Muslim president once again as you and John Adams wanted … TRASH??? WHO IS IT YOU SAY IS PROMOTING TRASH Evermyrtle?
    - Despeville
      
      Dodo you are simply a gigantic ignoramus and you have no earthly idea what you rant about in your pablum.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You would be able to understand it if you were not so blinded by your desperate need to believe fairy tales.
      - Despeville
        
        The solipsistic, shallow pablum continues… That is all you can offer Jeff.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, I have offered much. You simply refuse to acknowledge it. But, please continue to offer more lies.
      - Despeville
        
        Sorry, Jeff. You did not. You really did not. Nothing beyond what was offered by others from tens to hundreds of years prior which all of that was refuted and published on… You refuse to read serious books out of your comfort bubble and henceforth keep on plastering long ago refuted shenanigans which to you appear so fresh and so convincing… :0)
        You are a slave, Jeff. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind and soul.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        And as usual you offer more nonsense. You have no idea what I have read. You have no idea what reality even means. Christians believe they offer actual rebuttals but they are merely preaching to choir.
        
        The only slave is you. You believe a myth and refuse to accept anything new information.
      - Despeville
        
        I know what you have read from what you plagiarize and I do know what you have not read (and that is a lot) from your continually displayed massive ignorance of facts, terms and even words. You have no information beyond pablum you have copied from other internet neophytes.That is why you rant your long ago refuted shallow shenanigans thinking you have something deep and original. You are a slave Jeff Dixon and on very short chain too.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You know what I have not read? Really, just what do you know that I have not read? Please tell me the books i should have read, you pompous loon. .
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo your ignorance does point to what you have not read. It is simply logical conclusion and so alien to your spasmodic and solipsistic mind.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, going through as a brain dead loon is a sad way to live.
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo you are simply too stupid to argue with about anything and particularly about the things to which your are blind, deaf and dead and read almost nothing about of value.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, I know you are brain dead, and logic is simply another concept that is beyond your grasp, but this is no argument. You have stated many times that you will not debate me on the bible. Your comments about the impossibility of evolution has been soundly refuted many times. But, please, continue on with the lies and nonsense.
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo the only thing you have ever refuted in your uneducated simpleton's raving mind were shadows and straw men you have erected for yourself. Don Quixote was a hard pragmatic comparing with your schizophrenic, solipsistic and spasmodic mind.
      - Esther
        
        Did you pass first grade, Despe?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, I show science from people who study the topic and have
        overwhelming agreement in their theories. You show nonsense from people who
        believe in talking snakes and donkeys. You have no idea what science consists
        of.
    - Joe Anzilotti
      
      Jethro, you will never succeed in "proving" that Jesus did not walk in Palestine and present us with His mighty words and teachings. You are spinning your wheels, as it were. Simply based on historical fact, with ample evidence, there is enough certainty. Of course if you wish further undeniable evidence look at the multitude of fulfilled prophecies by Christ in the Jewish writings. But, at any rate, you are the one being denigrated by denial. Despeville is/was correct–your solipsistic view will eventually be your downfall.
  - Vladimir
    
    Not sure what your bible says, Despeville, but mine says, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive." Christ's atonement covers all mankind. All shall be resurrected and those that accept Him and repent will have their sins washed away.
    
    Still can't verify your statement that Jesus atoned only for only a select group. How about a passage or two.
    - Esther
      
      The Calvinists are really hardshell about this Vladimir. All the best! Did you hear elder Holland speak today? It's online if you didn't. It was an awesome talk.
      - Vladimir
        
        Yes, he was indeed awesome!
      - Esther
        
        And they tell us we don't know what Christ would have us do!!!
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Is this elder equivalent to those "elders" that go on a, ahem, "missionary" trip in order to convert unsuspecting folks to the "Saints"' way of thinking, who are all of about 18 or 19 years old? That type of "elder" Doc, or another variety? Let us have a little clarification here. Certainly interesting at any rate.
      - Esther
        
        You tell me: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/the-first-great-commandment?lang=eng click the watch button
    - Despeville
      
      Passage or two? Are you blind or you assume I am? I just gave you two and you run away from them and ignored them completely. There is TONS of more passages but will any of them do you any good if you cannot deal with those two presented and instead go somewhere else to obfuscate what is CLEARLY visible? It is so symptomatic for your textual abuse to IGNORE what debunks your error and run to abuse another text pulled out from its context as you just did with 1 Corinthians 15:22. I should really ignore that evasion of yours but for the sake of others I will deal with it.
      
      "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, then at his coming THOSE WHO BELONG TO CHRIST."
      (1 Corinthians 15:22-23 ESV)
      
      See Vlad if one reads the Scripture in its actual CONTEXT there is no escaping its truth. The Second "ALL" from verse 22 is immediately QUALIFIED by: "THOSE WHO BELONG TO CHRIST" and therefore it is not a universal one as the first "all" from verse 22…
      
      Your are dead wrong and you are dead spiritually with your created "Jesus" and false gods and false gospel.
      - Vladimir
        
        Neither of your quotes, Despeville, support your theory that Jesus Christ's atonement was limited to a certain group instead of all mankind. Those passages do not make his atonement exclusive.
        
        The passage I quoted was not out of context as you charge. You just
        didn't quote the KJV which makes your theory more difficult. The KJV quote,
        "But EVERY man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they
        that are Christ’s at his coming". What part of EVERY don't you understand?
      - Despeville
        
        Your "argument" is those passages do not say what you say they say because I say so… :0) Hhahahhaaha how childish you can be or are you that senile already? Really, so how many subsets of goats there can be on the defined and meaningful group of SHEEP and how many non church members can be in clearly defined group of CHURCH? Your pap rhetoric is based on postmodernist deconstruction of language and irrational maceration of logical and reasonable approach to the terms contained therein. Deconstruction, obfuscation, evasion and manipulation is the essence of every cult on this planet does not matter if materialistic naturalistic like Dixon's or pagan polytheistic like your Mormon cult.
        It does not matter that much what KJV or NASB or ESV or NET is saying for it matters all what underlying GREEK is saying but even with KJV the same point stands" second ALL in 1 Corinthians 15:22 is not a naked, stand alone "all" but a qualified one and qualified by what is presented in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and that is "THOSE WHO BELONG TO CHRIST" or "they that are Christ’s". Same thing. Same qualification. Same group and therefore not "all" as you misread and violate the text by ignoring the quantification contained there. There is NO ESCAPING it Mormon. 1 Corinthians 15:23 makes that DISTINCTION and that QUALIFICATION which you and your cult refuses to acknowledge just like most leavenjellycals too:
        
        οι
        
        Χριστου
        
        those
        of Christ
        
        As in the Greek text:
        
        "Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ,"
        
        Aland, Barbara ; Aland, Kurt ; Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979, S. 468
        You are dead wrong for you are dead in your sins unless you repent and believe upon true Jesus Christ The Lord of Glory and Second Person of One YHVH.
      - Vladimir
        
        Despeville, believe me when I say that we are all very impressed with your ability to reference books by ancient theological folks.
        
        But, how much better it would be to sit in the presence of God's prophets and hear divine truth with your own ears.
        
        That is the privilege of all of God's children today, but mostly enjoyed by Mormons who have prayed to God and received confirmation who are God's prophets on the earth today.
        
        Rather than fighting against this marvelous blessing, humble yourself and go to God in prayer. If you shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
      - Despeville
        
        More deflecting, evading and obfuscating :o) How can you look at yourself in a mirror I wonder… How is any of your rant even pretending to be relating to the Scriptural argument presented and rebuking your error and falsehood? It does not and I do not care a shred what you or anyone else here is impressed with or not. That is completely besides any point just like the rest of your rant. In the end your all is not all but all who belong to Christ as referenced and proven from the text which you cannot honestly deal with but abuse and twist and then run to your rants. Pathetic and so cultist.
      - Vladimir
        
        Despeville, you state that my response does not relate to the "Scriptural ARGUMENT" you present.
        
        My response to you is that when God speaks, ARGUMENT CEASES. I encourage you to listen to God instead of the writings of ancient antagonists bickering with each other over points of doctrine.
        
        But you seem to like to argue your position without any interest in knowing the truth.
      - Despeville
        
        Mormon whether or not God speaks (of course true God and not Kolob god) is irrelevant to the argument and discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:22,23. You have been caught in the headlights and now you want to cover it up. Pathetic.
      - Vladimir
        
        God does speak and you, Despeville, need to listen.
        
        An endless argument among men of limited intelligence and resources trying to impress each other and kibitzers is what you keep begging for, but I have already found the way to tap the source of all truth and you won't let me share it with you.
        
        That is unfortunate for you.
      - Despeville
        
        Sure let's talk about the weather now, men, fashion or movies…:0) Mormon's "apologetics": lie, deceive and obfuscate and when caught in that mumble about generalities and play some crude put downs… :0) Pathetic Vlad. Truly pathetic despite your bosom burning the black on white historic fact stands debunking your error and heresy:
        
        "Ἕκαστος δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ Χριστός, ἔπειτα οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ,""οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ" – "belonging to Christ"Aland, Barbara ; Aland, Kurt ; Black, Matthew ; Martini, Carlo M. ; Metzger, Bruce M. ; Wikgren, Allen: The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. Federal Republic of Germany : United Bible Societies, 1993, c1979, S. 468
      - Vladimir
        
        I'm not sure what you just said, Despeville, but it is evident it came from someone who is desperate to impress others and gets angry when he can't.
        
        Quoting the wisdom of men doesn't impress someone who has been exposed to the wisdom of God.
      - Despeville
        
        Mormon, just to let you know The Word of God quoted is not a mere "wisdom of men"… your are confusing it with your Mormon's books of legends. What is evident to you is besides the point for it is outside of the scope presented argument with which you are unable to interact.
      - Vladimir
        
        Your attempts to limit the scope of this discussion is noted, Despeville. However, a lot of God's truth is outside of your desired scope. I don't think it is outside of your understanding, but you'll have to do two things in order to come to a knowledge of God's truth.
        
        1. Admit you don't yet know everything about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
        
        2. Be willing to ask God for wisdom.
      - Despeville
        
        Mormon, discussing a specific text as we started is logically limited to that text before one can move to something else. You are unable to answer to that specific text and argument made from it which rebukes your initial abuse of it. Yet you are so dishonest about it now that you will mumble about anything and everything but about that text and about that argument. So stop your pablum about your Kolob god and your fake bastardized "Jesus". Falsehood is just oozing from every word you plaster here.
      - Vladimir
        
        If you limit the scope of evidence you are willing to accept, any conclusion reached will only be valid within the scope you have set. Of what value then is that conclusion in the real world?
        
        In past discussions with you, you have interpreted the scriptures to fit your Calvinist arguments. To what authority do we turn to settle divergent scripture interpretations? Without accurate interpretations, there can be no hope of conclusively achieving a correct conclusion. Of what value is a possible incorrect conclusion?
        
        Do you argue to simply demonstrate your scholarship? If so, you need to know that you are also revealing unfavorable character qualities. Most of us favor good character over scholarship so to many you are a pariah and they will not engage you in conversation.
        
        Finally, your attempt to limit the scope of available evidence would exclude direct communication with God. I rely heavily on God, so I rather not engage in what is ultimately an exercise in futility. To proceed without His help would make me a poor competitor, indeed. So pick someone else to argue with inside the arena of your rules. I will continue to call upon God in the real world and accept His answers and guidance
      - Despeville
        
        Mormon, zero factual treatment of Scriptural argument provided and a load of ad hominem attack hogwash instead. Pathetic, you cannot even allow yourself to recognize that you have been caught in your lame universalistic assertion about second "παντες" – "all" in 1 Corinthians 15:22 as debunked by the group qualification of it in "οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ" – "they that are Christ’s". Just be honest once even if with yourself and recognize that what you have been taught and heard does not add up with the actual Scriptures despite your initial and bogus assertion that it does.
      - Vladimir
        
        Despeville, when you can't comprehend what someone is telling you, you call it "a load of ad hominem attack hogwash". Makes for short exchanges.
        
        By the way, honesty is not my problem, but manners are definitely your problem. You reflect badly on your parents skills in raising a child to be of good character.
        
        You have been caught in a squeeze between your desire to argue information that has been uncovered for you by Calvinist theologians and God's truth that is available to you directly. If you go to God and get the answer which is the rational way to understanding, you can't try and impress us anymore with your strangely selective understanding of religious history.
        
        You are not the only one that can dismiss others. You just do it very coarsely. Consider yourself correctly dismissed.
      - Esther
        
        All religions begin with miracles I remind you. And you can pile mountains of scholarly writ upon the non-evidence that is present in such cases, all of that doesn't make it any more true or false than the work done by the good man, Joseph Smith. Call us cultist if you like, we are prepared and cautioned by Joseph himself, Doctrine and Covenants 123, http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/123?lang=eng you are a cultist as well.
      - Despeville
        
        Vlad the impaler of the Word, your silence regarding "οι Χριστου" – "those of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 15:23 as a qualifier of "παντες" – a second "all" in 1 Corinthians 15:22 is very telling and I would worry about your utter inability to respond to that in any factual and meaningful manner just as you are unable to respond to other clear qualifications for God's people from John 10:15 or Ephesians 5:25. All it takes is one or two posts for you to run completely somewhere else or rant ad hominem only yet your Mormonism is so true… :0) So true that you have to evade and escape like that every single time. Amazing hypocrisy and inability to self reflect on your rampant inconsistency and failure to deliver what you otherwise assert…
      - Vladimir
        
        Let me say it again, Despeville. If you want an argument, join a debating society. If you want the truth, go to the source of all truth, God.
      - Despeville
        
        Mormon in case you have missed it this is a discussion forum…:0) How can you not self reflect on your evasions? :0)
      - Esther
        
        Your manners are as usual, atrocious, Despeville.
      - Esther
        
        Hear, Hear, Vladimir! Yet, the Calvin will not likely take your good advice.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        While I agree I do deconstruct your points, Humpty, I have to laugh at the idea that I have been engaging in obfuscation, evasion and manipulation.
  - Vladimir
    
    The Jesus Christ I worship is described in the Bible as the Son of God. I follow His instruction and pray to His Father who art in heaven. In many of my prayers I express my gratitude to my Heavenly Father for sending His only begotten Son to atone for the sins of the world.
    
    You express what you think I believe. Based on what you express, you don't know what I believe. You certainly don't understand what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches about Jesus Christ. Please go to mormon.org and see for yourself.
mallen11

Our church believes the Bible should be interpreted
strictly or literally from the original languages. Our Pastor-Teacher studies from the original
languages and teaches our congregation using Isagogics, Categorical and Exegesis
in every book of the Bible; word by word, phrase by phrase and verse by verse.

·
People ask why the Bible isn’t
plainer about certain things. Well, it
shows that we can’t JUST read the Bible and understand it and grow
spiritually.

·
Most churches today have become syncretistic:
mixing the spiritual way of life with religion (humanism) and the Bible is not taught.

·
When the Bible is taught correctly,
there are never any contradictions to be found.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
  
  then how can a king be both 21 and 41 when he becomes king? how could this same king be older than his own father and I am not talking about Jesus Christ for this king is in the Old Testament? it is really easy to explain, but why did Bible translators not correct it and then footnote it to be on the save side like some translations do with the number of the beast. the King James has the world biggest intentional translation error by translating elohim as angels in Psalms 8:5 instead of God where everywhere else it is translated when a noun. any strong's strong concordance would point that out. the saddest thing is that the New King James translators did not fix the text.
  - mallen11
    
    God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
    
    The KJV of the Bible was translated from the Latin into the English in 1611 by a variety of men; some not even believers. Since then there have been manuscripts found that were closer to the time when the canon of Scriptures were written and far more reliable in text than the KJV. My pastor teaches directly from the original Hebrew and Greek languages as the Bible was first written. He recommended the NASV since it is closest to the original languages. I grew up with the KJV and even to this day still quote memorized verses from it. I started studying under my pastor in 1972 and since most people had the KJV he used it but the amount of changes he had to make from the original languages took a lot of time. When he suggested we use
    the NASV there were less changes that had to be made. He taught word by word,
    verse by verse and it is the most enriched teaching of the Word of God that one
    could ever receive. God’s own complete and coherent message to man was
    recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The very words carrying Divine Authorship.
    
    The KVJ is not a "holy" translation and is not the only one that can be used.
    - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
      
      the King James was translated from the Hebrew and Greek and not the Latin Vulgate s you seem to think. only Revelation in the King James even has a link to Latin and that is just the Latin commentary which they used to help in the translation.
- Pastor Dwayne
  
  The Scripture is Spiritually discerned. With prob. 70-80% Of quote , unquote , Christians not being born again! Believe it or not many, many Bible college, Seminary professors are not born again! Many self righteous non-believing "" Christians "", and Bible professors try to discern scripture and tell us what it means, but they can't , being non-born again! They really screw up Dan. 9:24-27. For a prophecy to be fulfilled, everything in the prophecy has to be fulfilled!! ""Everlasting Righteousness "", everywhere I look, I see unrighteousness, """The seven year tribulation has already happened"" , They say, The Word says, immediately after the days of tribulation, the sun will be darkened, the moon won't give its light, and our Lord will then return. I have looked and looked, but can't find Jesus anywhere, I had a Roman Catholic tell me Jesus was in India. The word says like a flash of lightining Jesus will come . So apparently Dan 9: 24-27 hasn't been translated correctly!
  - mallen11
    
    You are absolutely correct, Pastor Dwayne, and here are some of my favorite passages regarding the Rapture and and 2nd Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ…
    
    At the Rapture we meet the Lord in the air and at His 2nd Advent He will touch down at the Mt. of Olives.
    
    I Corinthians 15:51-53 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
    
    I Thess 4:16-17 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
    
    The 2nd Coming or Advent is when Jesus’ feet will touch down to the Mt. of Olives
    and sets up His Kingdom after defeating Satan at the end of the Tribulation.
    
    Zechariah 14:3-4 Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. (Jesus Christ will then reign on the earth for 1000 years on the Throne of David and restoring Israel to their promised land. This info barely scratches the surface of so much more information in the Word of God.)
    None of these scriptures have taken place.
    - Pastor Dwayne
      
      Double Amen
      - Despeville
        
        Double wrong does not make it right nor "Amen"… None of those misread Scriptures speak about your eschatological fiction of "rapture" but only about Second Coming and the resurrection.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Des as usual is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other, you don't believe the truth of the scripture because it would blow your theory of the 70th week to kingdom come, as is your theory on God's salvation plan. I would tell you to read Dan 9:24-27 over and over but it would do no good , As a post on here long ago stated you can't tell a calvinist any thing because they insist they are right, and everybody else is wrong, When everybody else is wrong usually means that the one that thinks he is always right, in fact is wrong.
      - Despeville
        
        Deluded dispensationalist. It has been shown to you in the past that the first half of Daniel 9:27 speaks about CHRIST and not antichrist which is described in the SECOND HALF of the verse… That is a confirmed and a historic reading of this text by the Christian Church up until your Plymouth Brethren reinvented that new and blasphemous misreading in 1840s and blaspheme Christ which you do after them as well in your utter and unrepentant ignorance…
        
        "And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering…
        
        …and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
        
        (Daniel 9:27 ESV)
    - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
      
      why would Jesus have to return to reign when Paul tells us in Ephesians he cannot reign from any place than he is reigning already. the Old Testament needs to be read in the light of the New Testament.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        And they have to agree! The old testament can't say one thing, then the new testament refute what the old says. I guess a better way of putting it is, if you build a new testament doctrine, the old testament better back it up! I have heard a few say the old needs to be read in the light of the new, but as I have these peoples doctrine, it is a little more like they built an old testament doctrine and twisted not only new testament scripture but also old testament. Once again , everlasting righteousness , when is it going to happen, ad also when is Jesus going to show up, according to your version of the fulfillment Dan. 9 : 24-27???
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Read Revelation 22 18-19
        18. For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man should add unto these thing, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
        19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city,and from the things which are written in this book
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        it was fulfilled with Christ first coming through his ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension and then continue by his disciples with Steven's martyr concluding the 70th. the everlasting righteousness that you seem to not be able to see is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
      - mallen11
        
        Where in Ephesians does Paul say "he cannot reign from any place than he is reigning already"?
        It does say in Hebrews that He sat down at the right hand of the "Throne of God" but Jesus Christ in His humanity will sit on the Throne of David in Jerusalem during the Millennium and rule the earth for 1,000 years.
        
        Zech 14:9 And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one and His name the only one. Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Zech 14:9,,,, and Ever lasting Righteousness begins, at that point in time
      - mallen11
        
        Yes, what a great day that will be.
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        chapter 4 when Paul tells us he ascended so he could be in all things and fill all things.
      - mallen11
        
        Wesley, I am not sure what verse you are talking about in Ephesus 4 but am guessing it is this one:
        Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED INTO (the 3rd) HEAVEN, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES (OT saints from Hades to Heaven), AND HE GAVE (spiritual) GIFTS TO MEN." (Psalm 68:18) Following is a short explanation…
        Ten days after the Ascension of Jesus Christ the Church Age began and started the Royal Family of God for the Royalty of Jesus Christ. One of the things that happened was that with the Triumphant Procession of Jesus Christ, He led the captive host of OT saints into heaven. No believer permanently resided in heaven until the resurrection of Jesus Christ and until His great Triumphant Procession. He is the ultimate Imperator. The OT saints had been in a compartment of Hades called Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom (Luke 16:22) and He gave spiritual gifts to men for the Church Age as a victory – every believer has been given a Spiritual Gift.
        Aichmalutuo – take prisoners in a war and present them – this could only be accomplished after our Lord Jesus Christ was judged for our sins. The OT saints were saved by faith in Christ but their sins had not been judged until Jesus Christ bore them on the cross. When the veil in the Temple was split from top to bottom there was to be a triumphant procession from Paradise (Luke 23:43) to Heaven (II
        Cor 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a
        man is not permitted to speak.) from captivity to heaven when Jesus Christ
        ascended and was seated at the right hand of the Father.
        V9-10 are a parenthesis and explain things about Jesus Christ going to Hades after His physical death on the cross. His soul to Hades and spirit to Heaven and 40 days after His resurrection He leads the OT saints to heaven. In the Greek a
        parenthesis interrupts the thought before continuing the subject of spiritual gifts.
        9 (Now this doctrine, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also
        descended into the lower regions of the earth? [His human soul joined the souls of all OT saints in Paradise.] Trichotomous separation:
        Luke 23:50-53Our Lord’s body went into the grave.
        Luke 23:46, John 19:30 Our Lord’s Spirit went to the 3rd Heaven
        Acts 2:27, 31, Eph 4:9 Our Lord’s Soul went to Hades the lower regions of the earth
        10 He, our Lord who descended is (the Hypostatic Union) Himself (His human
        soul) also He who ascended (His human Spirit) higher than all the heavens, in order that He might bring to completion the all things.)
        Eph 4 has nothing to do with Jesus Christ sitting on the Throne of David in heaven.
      - Despeville
        
        Agree about NT being the greater light than OT but He is returning for He said so and His return is for three reasons:
        
        A.Receive His Bride.
        B.Judge all.
        C.Restore the entire universe.
  - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
    
    there is not problem in the translation but interpretation. the subject of the 70th week is the same as the 69th week Jesus Christ. Jesus preached the good news in the first 3.5 years and the disciple preach the gospel the last 3.5 years of the week. the gospel is the covenant made with many. the destruction of the temple and city fulfills the obvious. the everlasting righteousness is fulfilled in Jesus Christ for was the righteous sacrifice for mankind. as for the sun, moon, and stars are representation of Israel as in Joseph dream in Genesis. Christ came in judgment for he was returning to the father as Daniel 7:13-14 states. you are misinterpreting the prophecies you mentioned. Isaiah 66 predicted the birth of the church at Pentecost.
    - Pastor Dwayne
      
      WHICH NON- BELIEVING seminary professor did you learn this from??
      - Despeville
        
        Non believing in what Dwayne? Your eschatological fiction of dispensationalism? That is not a Gospel but a secondary issue…
      - http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton
        
        That's a false dichotomy. One does not need to be a dispensationalist to attest that preterism (which denies a literal Second Coming) is heresy. Preterism runs afoul of 1 Corinthians 15, for it denies a literal Second Coming and Resurrection of the Dead, which means that it denies that Christ is Risen, no matter how much they insist they believe that Christ is Risen.
      - Despeville
        
        I agree and I am not a preterist. Preterism is just as deluded as dispensationalism is with its rebuilt temple and renewed sacrifices… Complete denial and undermining of completed justification in Christ and by Christ. Given preterism's denial of future and coming eschaton it is not even an eschatological system per se.
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        i found it reading the Bible without inserting words that are not there like changing the single subject without the text indicating it for the prince to come is a descriptor of the people and never a subject. this is even a more historical view.
    - Pastor Dwayne
      
      Which week was Jesus and his disciples preaching, 69 or 70???
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        the 70th week. it is funny how the gap in dispensationalism is over four times as long as the entire prophecy itself and counting given the obvious fact that the "rapture" has not happened yet.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        I just believe what the Word says, speaking of the Word, what week does the Word in vs 26 say , Jesus would die?
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        the text says after the 7 and 62 weeks making 69 weeks to have already passed before the Messiah was to die. he was crucified before the end of the 70th week.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        As you stated in one of your posts above, Messiah preached 3.5 years into the 70th year. Since Scripture is razor sharp in accuracy , it should state, 7 and 62 weeks, and one half week , Messiah would die. You can blame dispensationalism all you want to, I trust the Word to mean exactly what it says!!
      - Despeville
        
        No you do not.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        ur a false prophet
  - Evermyrtle
    
    For many are called, but few are chosen. There is a reason that here are few chosen. It is because GOD would love to include everyone of us but only a few are able and willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. If you cannot practice what you preach the preaching will not produce, what it ought to
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods

only if you are a fundamentalist or dispensationalist. it sounds like the church the author was part of as a kid was a fundamentalist. as for dispenationalist is more or less the dispensational system making the Bible contradict itself. throughout the New Testament the Messiah's temple is built using the believers in the church. while they say the Old Testament teaches the Messiah's temple will be a literal temple in Jerusalem. their explanation is either there is a gap or the church age was unforeseen by the prophets who by chance could prophecy with such accuracy. the Biblical writers were writing with a purpose in mind creating the so called contradictions. Matthew writes his gospel showing Jesus as the greater Moses and greatest prophet. if I remember correctly Luke has the transfiguration on the eighth day while the other have it on the sixth day on the mount. eight is a symbol of new beginnings. Luke is showing that Jesus is starting something brand new. John has most of Jesus' teachings taking place in Judea while the others have Jesus only teaching in Judea during passion week. the only contradictions are created on how we read and interpret it and rarely with the text itself.
- mallen11
  
  You are absolutely incorrect about dispensationalism. Your explanation is so un-Biblical. Nothing you say is correct. I am absolutely appalled.
  - Pastor Dwayne
    
    Double AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    - Despeville
      
      Double wrong does not make any "amens"… Just more error and more confusion.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        On Calvinism's fault,, errors and confusion , remember all Calvin and Luther were , were non-born again catholics , and yes they saw man, not God in Roman Catholicism, and began the reformation process , which was just as much in error as RCC was, only in a different direction, for God will perform His Salvation process the way He intended, not the way of Calvin's theory , When you study out Calvin's teachings , the end result is just like Mormonism, You go to the restroom and PUKE!,,,,,,,,,,,,Remember, ALL scripture has to agree on any Doctrine man makes, and Calvinism is purely MAN MADE!
      - Despeville
        
        More rant of an ignorant and prideful man. You know zilch about those men of God whom God used so mightily and you know zilch about the Word which you twist and manipulate and that is why you are unable to answer this:
        
        f Daniel 9:27 speaks about CHRIST and not antichrist which is described in the SECOND HALF of the verse… That is a confirmed and a historic reading of this text by the Christian Church up until your Plymouth Brethren reinvented that new and blasphemous misreading in 1840s and blaspheme Christ which you do after them as well in your utter and unrepentant ignorance…"And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering… – CHRIST…and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” – antichrist
        
        (Daniel 9:27 ESV)
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Daniel, seal the vision til the end times ? 1840?,,,,,,, Remember the word was written to the mid east countries, in other words , Israel and surrounding countries. When any , Israel and the other countries would read Dan. 9:24-27 they automatically know there is a time frame brake between 69th week and the 70th week, they also know it is the antichrist that makes an agreement of peace with Israel and the muslim countries surrounding Israel! Dan 7;25 speaks of a 3.5 year time frame ( the time of Jacobs great tribulation) where the worst time of trouble hits since the world began , nor will happen after the tribulation! yes , 70ad was a time of BIG trouble but nothing compared to what is coming ! that time frame , ( whether you or calvin's doctrine says it isn't), is the last 3.5 years of the 70th week !! Remember Daniel said the antichrist is, "the little horn" Therefor the antichrist spends the first 3.5 years of the 70th week being a man of peace, building his strength, for he will have to have mighty power to do what he is going to do to Israel! Scripture says during this time frame , the last 3.5 years, 2/3 of Israel will die, with the 1/3 remnant being tried with fire will be saved.
      - Despeville
        
        What a delusion. The only think you forgot to throw in into this lame obfuscation is a kitchen sink… How about dealing with the text and what it says Dwayne? That you "forget" to do… :0) Yet it is there staring you in the face and then you turn your back on it and run to your legends and traditions:
        
        ""And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering… – THIS SPEAKS OF CHRIST AND THAT IS HOW CHRISTIAN CHURCH READ IT TILL 1840s
        
        …and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” – This speaks of antichrist
        (Daniel 9:27 ESV)
      - Despeville
        
        "think" should be "thing"
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        Vision sealed until the end of time, I would say the last 150 years qualifies for the end times. All of verse 27 deals with the antichrist contrary to your minimal belief system, Most Bible Professors that are Born from above, and baptized with the Holy Spirit, will say all of verse 27 deals with the antichrist..
        It was a born again Jew that told me, while I was in Israel in 1996 that told me what I have stated before , " when a Jew reads vs, 24-27 , he will tell you there is a time frame between the 69th week and the 70th week.
        What year did , if ever, did you believe that the decree went forth for Israel to leave Babylon , and go home to Israel to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem ??
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        of course Jews would insert a gap in the prophecy for they are still waiting for their Messiah and a only way to account for a 2000 year + delay. of course the Bible professors will continue to promote what promoted to them for the last century or longer for they hold their own professors in high esteem and would hate to preach contrary to what they were taught. dispensationalist have a track record of date setting when it comes down to the year and each have past. they have taught the Mussolini, Hitler, JFK, Ronald Reagan, Obama, and i here last night one who believes that Tony Blair is the antichrist. only Obama and Blair are even still alive and all have been within the last 100 years. the author of Hebrews state "these last days" meaning they were already living in the last days when he wrote it +/-10 years from 70 AD. he was talking about last days before judgment. the common use of the phrase "last days" deals with judgment not end of time. John 11 uses "on the last day" when Christ returns to resurrect the dead and judge them to either life or damnation.
      - Despeville
        
        ""And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering… – THIS SPEAKS OF CHRIST AND THAT IS HOW CHRISTIAN CHURCH READ IT TILL 1840s
        …and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” – This speaks of antichrist
        (Daniel 9:27 ESV)
        
        You are a blasphemer Dwayne for calling Christ an antichrist. The covenant mentioned in the first part is the the covenant of grace and the week is not seven years, not seventy but 7000 years with Christ coming in the middle of it and putting the end to sacrifices of animals by His one and perfect sacrifice as God and man.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        After , "your" end of the 70th week, and before 70 AD ,when did the Jews/Israel says ah , peace and safety???
        And what are you called for accusing Jesus of doing what the antichrist is GOING to do???
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        when Christ was on the cross for the Jewish leaders thought they were putting to death a popular leader of an insurrection. remember they accused Jesus of starting an insurrection before Pilate. anytime the Jewish leader thought they put to death any popular leader of an insurrection would keep the peace with the Romans. they knew the history of the Romans of destroying nations who came up against them. Carthage is a prime example for the city was leveled at the end of the third Punic War. dispensationalism preys on those with poor knowledge of ancient history.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        I must say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,MALARKY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      - Despeville
        
        By the way Jews have no special handle nor gnosis on the end times nor Gospel itself. DNA nor ethnicity does not schedule nor mandates the work of God the Holy Spirit. God is not respecter of persons for there is NOTHING in us to respect. Furthermore it is my experience that many Jews do not undertand the Gospel correctly even those so called "Messianic Jews" and operate in a form of a bastardized form of the Gospel and really a form of pseudo gospel which is for them a system of works righteousness in some ways similar to Roman Catholocism.
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        And you do????????????????????????????????????? That is a laugh
      - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=58215905 Wesley Woods
        
        Daniel's vision was sealed up until the Messiah came and released the vision to John the Revelator who wrote it down to seven churches that all were in modern day Turkey. the little horn in Daniel 8 is Antiochus Apiphanes and Daniel 11 is a detail description of the conflict between the Egyptian Ptolemies and Syrian Seleucids both who were heirs to Alexander the Great generals Ptolemy and Seleucid who would fight for power against each other until Romans defeated each kingdom and took control of the middle east at the request of the Jews. Daniel 7 the little horn could be any of the following Emperors, Vespasian or Diocletian for both were one of four pagan emperors fighting for control. most likely Vespasian who was the last of the year of the four Emperors and reigned during the Jewish revolt of 66-70 AD. Diocletian was one member of the Tetrarchy leading to the rise of Constantine who ended the persecutions of the Christians by the empire. the Roman empire consisted of 10 provinces being the ten toes of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and ten horns of the beast that Daniel and John visions. dispensationalism preys on people who have little to no knowledge of the history of the ancient world.
Evermyrtle

Only those who want and strive to discredit GOD'S WORD are worried about contradictions.There are none. The biggest problem is that people do not understand HIS WORD because that is what they want. They are not concerned with what GOD has to say and would like to see it done away with it. Well, I am here to say, that cannot be done. Parts of it has been around at least 6,000 and people have always wanted to destroy it, without success. The Bible will still be around, long after the anti-gods are long gone
- fliteking
  
  Agreed.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  The bible has hundreds of contradictions. It is impossible to read the book and not see this very obvious fact. However, Christians go through mental gymnastics to try and explain away these contradictions. For example:
  
  How should adulterers be punished? According to Leviticus 20:10, they should be executed. However, according to John 8:3-8, they should not be punished. And let us dispense with the rational that Jesus came along later and changed the laws of the OT god. Jesus IS god, eternal and the creator, according to YOUR story. Therefore, he was around when the OT laws were created. In fact, he had to have created them.
  - Despeville
    
    Dodo you keep on rumbling in your pathetic pablum…
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Someone needs to add a voice of sanity to this morass of nonsense. But now that you are here, you have ensured that the nonsense will be piled higher than normal.
      - Despeville
        
        Looks like you did not evolve in your pap at all Jeff… Would that be indicative of the true nature of your theory of evolution that also does not work mathematically as algorithmic analysis of the sample change always pulls back to the mean of DNA of analyzed samples never crossing expected standard deviation and never becoming an outlier? Well, I know you do not care about mathematics of logic but only the pablum the culture enforces on you and that is why you cannot offer anything different that cannot be found elsewhere.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Since the stories of the bible do contradict themselves, there is no need to evolve that argument. It stands on its own. And as far as your absurd statements about the math of evolution, that has been discounted as well. The only one needing to evolve is you, Humpty.
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo it is no coincidence that the more one is ignorant of the Bible the more contradictions therein he sees. As far mathematics disproving evolution your pap rant against those concrete and repeatedly proven findings is truly laughable given that you never ever read any single book or article about that. Nada. Zilch. You just smear those mathematical findings just as you smear the Word of God to keep a pretense of validity your idiotic, inconsistent,solipsistic and hedonistic worldview. There is no tighter prison in this world than a prison of a biased mind.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You are right, a biased mind is its own prison. And you have one of the most biased minds I have ever encountered. It makes no difference to you what is shown to you, you just keep babbling drivel. and telling lies.
      - Despeville
        
        Problem is that you cannot show anything that was not debunked and rebuked already and decades ago. All you can do is keep on posting those cliches and urban myths plagiarized from other internet neophytes who do not like to read real books just as you do not.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, sorry, old man. That is your problem, not mine. The bible stories have been discounted for years and the evidence for Evolution continues to grow. But, please, tell me more lies and fables. It is always good for a laugh.
      - Despeville
        
        Jeff you are more deluded than I thought. I am younger than you are and by years… :0) You are wrong even on that assertion of your solipsistic mind. You are a
        slave, Jeff. Like everyone else you were
        born into
        
        bondage,
        born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or
        
        touch. A prison for your mind and soul.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You are old in spirit. I have no idea how old you are in reality. But as far as your asinine views of life, you are brain dead.
      - Despeville
        
        If you have no idea 50 pushing Jeffo why do you plaster nonsense as if you would have an idea? Simple, because you are acting irrationally here 90% of the time and this is another symptom for that. Yes, your prison is non physical and that is your predicament which is also why it is driving you crazy…You know something but what you know you cannot really explain or put you finger on. You feel it Jeff. You have felt it your entire life. That there is something deeply wrong with this world. You cannot pin point it but you know it is there driving you mad…
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I did not say I have no idea. I said you are a delusional loon, which you are in spades. What is wrong with the world is idiots such as yourself expressing nonsense.
      - Despeville
        
        If it would not be for the internet I would not know how many dumb and under educated morons are out there just like you Dixon. You are a perfect sample of a dumb inertia of the human race.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No, you have the bible and that pile of nonsense shows just how many dumb and under educated people there are in the world. Last I heard there are over two billion.
      - Despeville
        
        Nope Dodo. I have a library of thousands of books which I read and that is just what I have here… You on the other hand have your dumb web sites with other dumbos plastering dumbness of yet other dumbos before them.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course you do. Which is why the only book you refer to is the bible. Is stupidity a requirement in your belief system?
      - Despeville
        
        I refer to plenty Dodo and you know it. In fact some of them you picked up like books about high mathematics and physics that I mentioned here long time ago. Not only you are under educated but also very dishonest about that.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Oh please, stop being absurd. You have lied so many times on this site, it is laughable for you to accuse someone else of being dishonest.
      - Despevill
        
        Dodo for your deluded irrational mind anyone who does not share your absurd stupefying nonsense of atheism is an automatic liar particularly when you know how much you lie and how much you perceive everyone else as yourself. You are a slave Dixon and one of the dumbest ones I have ever encountered and you can take that to the Swiss Bank.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Ha ha, automatic lying?? You just keep showing that you are a brain dead idiot, Your comments are more like Swiss Cheese.
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo I have not been here for a few months but thanks to that I can clearly see that your entropy progressed dramatically and with more devastating results that could be expected.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No one missed your brain dead posts.
      - Despeville
        
        :0) Jeff you are past being comical.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Not being comical. Besides your slobbering sycophant,
        Joe, there were few people on here who had anything positive
        to say about you.
      - Despeville
        
        Hhahahaha what a pathetic solipsistic numb nut you are Dodo. You are a slave and one on a very short chain too.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Given your inability to understand the meaning of words, it is humorous to hear you pretend any comprehension of the English language, Humpty.
      - Despeville
        
        Words? Hmmm hearing that from you who at the tender age or 48 did not know the difference between goads and gonads is rather special :0) but keep on making your pretense.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        As I stated before, Humpty, until you show that you know the meaning of every word in the English language, your comment is meaningless. Basically, everything you post is meaningless, but that idiotic comment is worth exploring. Besides, and as you know full well, I have had to correct your mistaken views on what words mean numerous times. There is a huge difference in not knowing a word and not knowing the meaning of a word. In my case, I simply had not run into the word before. In your case, you run into words and are incapable of grasping what it means.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Since I have science and history on my side of the issues, your views on my position are simply laughable. Speaking of which, found any talking snakes lately? Been noticing that the sun appears to have stopped in the sky? Found any women turned into pillars of salt?
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo as it was explained to your spasmodic, irrational mind and as you have been caught in the past not only you know nothing about real science beyond its popular version for dummies that you read about but more importantly you cannot account for science and its laws in your joke of a hallucination with matter, motion and chaos only. You are patronizing your stupidity and ignorance only.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, you give responses, but you have never
        "explained" anything. You offer silly and often rebutted Creationist
        nonsense. You offer responses about math that is full of absurdities. What is humorous
        is that you really think you are offering "scientific" rebuttals.
        What you offer and have always offered is a nonsensical view of the world.
      - Esther
        
        You are the one with the narrow, only 5 points simplistic view, Despeville, and the newly profound John MacArthur points to boot that promote that you must become the slave-on-a-short-chain. You have it exactly backwards. Are you expressing some innate fears here and using Jeff as your victim? 'just wondrin', but if you are you are wasting your time. Sorry.
      - Despeville
        
        Hhahahahhaahaaha another "expert" with a canard about five points which does not have a first clue how wrong and limited their canard really is… Would you read first to know how ignorant you are about this? Five points is nothing more but a short response to counter reformation movement staged and funded by Rome. It is not any compendium and by any means yet even as short as it is you are completely ignorant of its text and origins and purposes. Educate yourself for crying out loud.
      - Esther
        
        You are the ludicrous one, Despe. Little do you know of my knowledge that is the practice of putting into action the 5 points and the notion "discovered" in the scriptures by your John MacArthur. Educate yourself about the reality of the execution of these 5 points and MacArthur "for crying out loud." An outsider of your religion can detect the stringency and slave-nature of those which you and others like you would put in place. Call me ignorant again and I will expose you more, though I have much better things to do. I would suggest you instead go to your nearest library and look it up.
      - Despeville
        
        Five points was and is nothing more but a short concise response to counter reformation yet you voice it just like the rest of crowd as a sort of compendium…
        Here if you will not read proper history books:
        http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/09/14/how-did-we-get-the-canons-of-dort/
      - Esther
        
        You lack a sense of reality, entirely. Try to read what I said with understanding next time.
      - Esther
        
        Again, Despe, the essence is: I have seen and felt the ramifications of the practice of putting your philosophy in place, unfortunately, first hand! It reeks!
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Hey brother. Hope everything is going well there. Do you have the extant material of Justin Martyr? Great stuff. The 2 apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho. The first apology written about 136 or so. Working on Stephen Charnock at this point. Some more excellent stuff.
      - Despeville
        
        Thanks Brother. I have read only quotes from Justin. I have to check this out. Is his stuff on Kindle? We need to establish e-mail contact Joe.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I just purchased Justin's extant material–the works described above. However, I know that you can download all of it, as well, to your computer: the 2 apologies and the dialogue. Matter of fact, 2 days ago, I downloaded the entire Dialogue in Greek. Last year I was able to complete reading The City of God, by Augustine. Frankly that was the best reading outside of the Bible that I have ever done. Charnock is pretty close to Augustine's caliber. And Justin, just from the small amount of sampling I have done, is right up in that area. The basic idea behind the dialogue, is how pure reliance on the prophets of the Old Testament is sufficient to clinch that victorious savoring of Jesus' existence as the Messiah and Logos of the Universe. Stick to your library and pursue God brother–just like William Tyndale did. That way, possibly God will use us to make a difference in someone's life for God. Entropy, if you will, does not affect a believer in the Living Logos. We can see what it does otherwise, right here on this site, if you get my drift. God bless you in your efforts.
      - Despeville
        
        Joe, thanks for this. Your points are precisely on what is of value and truth. I realized long ago that anything of value that was ever written about the saving faith and the Gospel outside of the Bible was written long ago. All that is being published now days at best can only repeat what was written or published long time ago and frequently with the cost of more blood spilled than the ink. God bless you too and I am glad that you read those works. I have not read the entirety of "The City of God" yet and I will check Justin too. Tyndale was another great. I am reading John Bunyan now and he wrote much more than just "Pilgrim's". This guy was 12 years in prison for just for preaching the Gospel without the king's "permit"… Sounds familiar? We need to figure out how to exchange e-mail addresses. Through the moderator perhaps?
      - Esther
        
        I don't want any difference either of you would make in any life of me or my family. I already know the point of your philosophy.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is actually idiots such as yourself that shows how many morons there are in the world. Please tell me more about your absurd worldview. I have not had a chance to laugh as much I would like yet.
      - Despeville
        
        Dixon, you are a perfect sample of a dumb inertia of the human race.
      - Despeville
        
        'You are old in spirit."
        
        Dodo what do you mean by that…? Are you not in a position where you deny any spirit but affirm matter, motion and chaos only? Can you be consistent with your own position at least?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The term spirit can be used to describe the enthusiasm and energy of a person, you brain dead idiot. it does not have to mean the non-existent soul of a person. Is there anything you understand outside of the bubble of the bible that you have wrapped yourself in?
      - Despeville
        
        Numb neophyte, given this context here you would think you could use more precise descriptions in your rumbling but hey precision, logic and reason are foreign concept for you and your berserk "worldview" of matter, motion and chaos only. Chaos is indeed reflected so well in your spasmodic rantings.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Hmm, let us think about that. I am an atheist and do not believe in a soul. Therefore, if I use the term spirit, it would only make sense that I am using it in the context of something besides a soul. But, I would not expect logic to be something a brain dead idiot could employ or understand.
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo Dixon, you are one of the very few atheists here and certainly the only one who lives his miserable life on this site 24/7/365. Most here are confused and and equally lost theists with very few Christians in between. Given those obvious facts you assigning the entire context to yourself as you do with what is to be meant by the category of "spirit" on this particular site is another clear cut proof for your solipsistic and hedonistic irrational mind incapable of extending past itself and therefore a short circuited mind which validates and qualifies everyone and everything only by itself which is indeed a form of acute schizophrenia Dodo. This is precisely why you are a rabid and spasmodic schizoid.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, what it shows is simply how brain dead you are. The context was easily understood. But as is normal for someone whose entire life is wrapped up in nonsensical bible fairies, you simply made yet another wrong conclusion.
      - Esther
        
        Thanks, Jeff!!
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Patton/592034163 Andrew Patton
    
    The woman was guilty of adultery, but she was not convicted, because no one was willing to testify against her. Why? Because their testimony would convict them of sin, too. They would have to explain with whom she was committing adultery, and how it was they discovered this, and the adulterer had to be condemned to death beside her. Since none of them actually testified against her, the charges were dropped on the grounds of lack of evidence. Jesus knew she was guilty, but according to the Law, it was illegal to execute her unless there were two witnesses against her whose testimony was consistent and withstood cross-examination. No witnesses means you must acquit.
    
    God hates hypocrisy, and He's not going to tolerate arbitrary enforcement of the Law, condemning one accomplice to death while the other goes free, and having people with murderous intent execute people for adultery. God is also merciful, extending forgiveness to the repentant.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      That is a peachy keen explanation, however, it is not based on what the verses say. The verse says that the woman was caught in the act of adultery. If she was caught having sex, then the people who caught her would have known who the other party is. What Jesus said let him that is without sin cast the first stone. According to this book of fables, there is no one who is without sin except for ,of course, Jesus. it would be impossible for one of them to cast the first stone since there are no people who are without sin. Jesus also knows that all people are sinners. He is therefore, not permitting anyone to punish her which is the opposite of what Leviticus 20:10 requires to occur.
      
      Now, keep in mind two other points. First, Jesus is supposedly god and therefore all knowing. He is the judge of mankind. He could therefore punish the woman since he would know of her guilt and as god does not need anyone else to testify against her. Second, Jesus is without sin, and therefore COULD cast that first stone.
      
      All the verses show is that Jesus made a change in how adulterers should be handled. But that contradicts what Jesus said regarding the law. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17)
    - Evermyrtle
      
      Andrew, you are so right. JESUS told her as HE tell us "Go and sin no more,"If we repent and serve HIM by obeying HIS commandments, which are all for the good of man, HE will forgive us. It would be very difficult for woman to commit adultery without a man committing adultery, as well. Instead of being so ready to condemn we should pattern ourselves after JESUS CHRIST, be ready to forgive, as well.
      
      Another thing we should not b so ready to "put someone to death" look back over the things that we have done and condemn our own sins. We seem to always have plenty of people ready to condemn others for their sins and hide our sins away. We just need to remember that we will be judged with the same judgment we use to judge others. Remember when JESUS told the crowd who was passing judgment by preparing to stone the prostitute, "You with no sin cant the first stone!" The crowd disappeared!
      
      It is so common to have idiots calling other people idiots or other names that are not in GOD'S plan for HIS people.
  - M Siegel
    
    Jeff, it is sad for me to know that because of your rejection of Christ through the falsehood of "hundreds of contradictions" that you believe to be true, life on earth is as close as you will ever get to heaven. You can't take a verse here and there out of the bible (completely out of context) to prove a point. You probably believe in evolution to. Try as you may to take God out, he will still be here and your end result will be the same whether you believe or not.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Of course I believe in evolution. Unlike the fables of the bible, there is actual evidence supporting evolution.
      - pandeter
        
        Actually both Christians and Atheists both have no proof that either of their beliefs are true.. There is no difference. Though Christians have something called faith – believing in that which they do not have proof of existing.. There is no evidence of "evolution" Jeff.. If there is anything supporting evolution, it is a belief also, with no objective truth behind it.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Christians and Atheists both have no proof???Do you have any proof of anything? Perhaps you can prove that your were alive yesterday or that your mother and father, GOD having nothing to do with it, of course, produced you, can you prove you were born and not hatched, or evolved? How do you prove you did what you did yesterday and somebody else did not do it. By the way what is your point? You believe what you believe and we believe what we believe. Do you have a problem with that? I do not have a problem with what you believe, just as long as you do not try to push you belief on me. If you like, I will pass my opinion on what you believe, but if you don't want to hear I certainly won't say anything about it. I think a lot of us would interested in what you believe since you do not believe in Christianity or Atheists, so give us a clue, what do you believe?
      - pandeter
        
        I have faith.. Proof is not needed. In fact, If I had proof I wouldn't need faith..
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You have faith, I do not doubt that and I know what I have faith in, but what do you have faith in? You are condemning the faith of others, knowing where our faith lies, but where does your faith lie? We could possibly, want to pass judgment on your faith as you have ours
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You both have a belief in nonsense.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Thanks, I love you,too!!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        No you don't.
      - Guest
        
        LOL
      - Evermyrtle
        
        What does LOL mean, what I think it means or something else??. If is it what I think it is I would not use the term.
      - Esther
        
        LOL
      - Esther
        
        How true Jeff!
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Atheists do not need a "proof". We simply assert that there is no evidence to support a belief in a god. It is not up to Atheists to prove there are no gods. It is up to Theists to prove there is one. Faith is not a proof of anything except an acknowledgement that there is no proof. If there was a proof of god, one would not need faith.
        
        However, there is so much supporting evidence for evolution that to dismiss it is the same as dismissing that people need oxygen to live.
        
        http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence
        
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
        
        http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
        
        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
      - pandeter
        
        I don't disagree that there is no evidence. There is also no evidence of there not being a god. I simply said I have faith, which implies I do not have proof.. That is the essence of faith. If I had proof I wouldn't need faith.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I already said that.
      - Vladimir
        
        Jeff Dixon, because of the special nature of faith, we must first exercise a particle of it ON OUR OWN before we can receive enough faith from God to acquire a proof. You say you do not need a proof, but if you earned it, you would treasure it.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        So you believe in a god is so petty that he withholds information from a certain section of the population?
      - Esther
        
        Vladimir said one must earn it, Jeff, just as a child would earn something from his/her father. The Saints take the view that God is more like a father interacting with us and not just sitting on a throne in judgement of us.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        wouldbephd, one cannot "earn" anything with regards to any eternal relationship with God. It is a fact. The "saints" are those chosen by God prior to the foundation of the earth–it is in the Bible. Your self-aggrandizing ways are remarkable–but nothing I have not seen previously with the operation you claim membership with.
      - Guest
        
        idiot Joe
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Calumniation is not surprising.
      - Esther
        
        My Father who art in heaven will handle you from now on, Joe Anzilotti.
      - Esther
        
        Your manners as well as your grammar is atrocious. Also, no opinion of yours is of value to me..
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I did not expect any valuable remark from you wouldbephd. So rest easy.
      - Esther
        
        My Father who art in heaven will deal with you from here on out, Joe Anzilotti……
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I know that you really do like my grammar. Don't be bashful. It usually hits the spot. I can tell by your wonderful replies.
      - Esther
        
        My Father who art in heaven will deal with you from here on out, Joe Anzilotti….
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Let me put it to you this way, wouldbephd, "eternity" is not what you or your club fancy it to be. Furthermore, it is not what the atheists think it is. However, to be fair, you can knock yourself out with your silliness as to what you conceive it to be. It makes for great entertainment.
      - Esther
        
        My Father who art in heaven will deal with you from here on out, Calvinist.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        wouldbephd, I believe only in the Bible and what it says with regards to The Father. So don't get carried away there with the titles. I do not belong to any particular diabolical club or otherwise.
      - Esther
        
        My Father who art in heaven will deal with you from here on out, Joe Anzilotti.
      - Esther
        
        Meaningless tripe.
      - Esther
        
        The atheist is more right about you and your "club". By the way, Joe Anzilotti, do you have a doctorate in philosophy? You seem to think that insulting mine is going to diminish me in some way, is that right?
      - Vladimir
        
        That's not what I said, Jeff Dixon. We are all down here to develop faith in Jesus Christ, learn of and keep his commandments and repent when necessary. Our Heavenly Father's work is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of all His children.
        
        Everything He does is to further this this work with us. His treatment of each of us is different and precisely designed to provide the best opportunity to achieve eternal life. From our perspective, things may not seem fair, but everything that happens to us He has designed or allowed for our benefit.
        
        Most of us will blow it, but there will be many who won't. Of those who don't make it, none will be able to say they didn't get a fair shake.
      - Esther
        
        Vladimer, please note that the Calvinist has opined below.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Please note Vladimir, that wouldbephd feels that she needs your support in promoting club membership.
      - Esther
        
        Vladimir can read, Joe Anzilotti.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I know he can read, you are the one who can't. Get a life wouldbephd.
      - Esther
        
        IDIOT JOE ANZILOTTI— YOU ARE REALLY HUNG UP ON MY DOCTORATE
      - petroskhan
        
        As if you actually have one…LOL
      - Esther
        
        Clown petroskhan: I do.
      - petroskhan
        
        No, you don't. And no one on this forum will believe you, for some very simple reasons. Allow me to enlighten you.
        
        One: You write like a child, and a poorly educated, not terribly bright one at that. I'm not saying that's what you are, I'm just saying that's how your writing comes across.
        
        Two: You are petulant, insulting and illogical in the extreme. Your posts
        demonstrate all the logic and mental discipline of a bag of cats. No
        one who has the discipline and intelligence to earn a Ph.D would post a
        fraction of the nonsensical claptrap that you've tossed out there, nor
        would such a person act so inexplicably proud of it.
        
        Three: You can't debate with any skill whatsoever. Your command of the common rules of discussion is somewhat akin to a rabid wolverine's understanding of table manners. You can't even answer simple questions, and instead respond with petulant insults, avoidance and diversion.
        
        But let's play pretend…let's say you DO have a Ph.D. Okay…how would you have gotten one? Hmm…
        
        Option One: You stole it. You saw it hanging on someone else's wall, and thought you might like to have it.
        
        Option Two: You sent off in the mail for one. I've heard there are websites for that sort of thing. Never looked for one, since I've no need for it, but you never know what others will pay for, right?
        
        Option Three: You attended some Mickey Mouse, rinky dink diploma mill, paid a few bucks, took a couple of "classes", and they mailed you a Ph.D in underwater basket weaving, or something equally intellectually challenging.
        
        Final analysis? You don't have one, and you can't convince anyone otherwise. You have clearly shown with every post on this forum that you simply don't have what it takes. You can't answer questions, you can't prove anything you claim, and you run like a little girl whenever you're challenged to actually prove anything you've said.
        
        Heck, I've even shown proof that you couldn't actually be a Mormon, let alone a Christian, and you couldn't even prove any of that wrong.
        
        Ph.D? More like BS.
      - Esther
        
        Why wouldn't I share my religion with this idiot?
      - petroskhan
        
        YOU
        HAVE
        NONE
        
        We covered this, Esther. You are NOT a Christian. You are NOT a Mormon.
      - Esther
        
        THIS IS WHAT WE COVERED: WE DETERMINED YOU ARE AN IDIOT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER
      - petroskhan
        
        Someone disagrees with you, and you insult him. I'm sure that's your idea of Christian behavior, right?
      - millergroup2
        
        I love it when lies are exposed. Vlad is stuck in the Mormon Doctrine, trapped with no way out. His education is apparent, his logic keen. He knows he is wrong on all accounts. 40 years of cultist lies………buried! But, tis one….Esther is lost, confused, a wanna be, a follower, and a liar.
      - petroskhan
        
        Actually, as I have said, I do not believe that Esther is a Mormon. Too much of what she (?) has posted is in opposition to Mormon doctrine, and she (?) has even gone so far as to contradict Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many other early founders of that faith.
        
        Nor would I accept the contention that Esther is a Christian. Bashing the Bible, insulting others who have done no more than ask simple questions, and a sycophantic devotion to an atheist are proof of nothing even remotely resembling a relationship with Christ.
        
        Yes, Esther's lies are exposed, in a great many ways, and in great detail. As for Vlad…you're right, he is obviously educated, but I wonder how keen his logic is if he can't see the contradictions inherent within his own faith, and question it for himself. But at least you can have a civil conversation with him.
      - Esther
        
        LOL
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I do not believe that calumniation is a family value there Doc.
      - Esther
        
        It is you endeavour, not mine, that you are "hung-up" on my doctorate with an obvious continued quest to diminish it.
      - petroskhan
        
        In regards to you possessing a doctorate:
        "You don't have to believe anything that isn't true."
        Couldn't have said it better myself. Phony.
      - Esther
        
        YOU ARE TRULY AN IDIOT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER PETROSKHAN
      - petroskhan
        
        That's mighty Christian of you, Esther. Thanks for once again proving my point.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Actually, to be exact here, you are really hung up on your "doctorate."
        No Calumniation there Esther. As the Mormons would say, or one of those groups, "it is not a family value."
      - Esther
        
        Vladimir, here is what Joe Anzilotti the Calvin is promoting:
        
        – The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.
        – Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs — until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.
        – Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.
        – The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple.
        – Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches."
        – Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.
        – The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein 'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education.
        – When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        wouldbephd, how can you possibly say that I promote any of this? You don't even know me, and I certainly have never noted anywhere that I promote any of the above! You are short of a full load my friend.
      - Esther
        
        I DO NOT COUNT CALVINISTS AS FRIENDS
      - petroskhan
        
        How very Christian of you.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        all who say they are Christin are not Christians. Just take note of the hateful mean, and even vicious things these 'Christians' say to each other, and the hateful names that they call each other.
      - petroskhan
        
        Terrible, ain't it?
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        She is an exemplary "Saint"! Has her own Doctorate as well–it appears.
      - petroskhan
        
        Sure she does…
      - Esther
        
        You betcha'
      - Vladimir
        
        Esther, I think both of us have been casting pearls before swine. Just ignore them. They place their pride on the line and let the truth stare.
        
        They haven't any understanding of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ or His efforts to help them. This is one of those times that it must be turned over to Him completely.
        
        If they were interested in learning, they would ask probing questions not deriding ones. They would be interested in what a Mormon has to say about their beliefs rather than simply advancing their preconceived opinions acquired from published deceivers. But they haven't made any progress toward comprehension so if you want to continue, go ahead, but just expect more derision.
      - Esther
        
        Vlad, once again I am doubly resolved to do the work that I am called to do in my community with the RS, YW and Primary, and resist the temptation to attempt any good effect in this forum.
      - Esther
        
        What do you think of this blog. Vladimir? https://www.lds.org/youth/video/lift-us-up?lang=eng I'd say it is a cut above.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        "Faith is not a proof of anything except an acknowledgement that there is no proof." Care to explain what you mean by this? As it stands it has no meaning.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is very simple Joe. When you rely on faith, you have no evidence to support your belief.
      - pandeter
        
        Furthermore, as you believe in science you would agree to Newton's first law of thermodynamics: That nothing exists without having been produced.. Therefore evolution is impossible, as it posits something exists without having been produced by anyone.. That producer is God of course, but you use science in a manner that falsely proves evolution.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Newtons first law deals with the the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution works with existing energy sources. I suspect you are trying to equate the idea of life from lifelessness, but Newtons first law does not deal with that.
        
        So, even though you have now demonstrated you have no idea of what you are talking about, let us deal with the concept of life from lifelessness.
        
        Abiogenesis is the science that attempts to show how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. There are several theories about how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. However, what one needs to grasp is that life as we currently understand it does not mean that the first self-replicating molecules would exhibit the same behaviors that current life exhibits. We do not know how it happened yet, but at one time we did not know how atomic fusion occurred either.
        
        However, as with all scientific ideas, the theory of Abiogenesis will continue to grow in knowledge and support.
      - pandeter
        
        The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. I suggest you actually learn a concept before you espouse it..
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        This is what you stated. pandeter • 2 hours ago • parent−
        Jeff Dixon: The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. I suggest you actually learn a concept before you espouse it..
        
        This is what I stated. "Newtons first law deals with the the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed."
        
        Since I stated matter cannot be created or destroyed, on what basis are you assuming I said something different?
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You certainly can see that he does not believe in JESUS CHRIST. But I can tell you he will one believe one day, because the WORD says that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess the JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.
      - Esther
        
        I appreciate your point of view actually, Jeff. It is a breath of fresh air, in comparison even to many theologians like the Reformed ones, whose practice of religion is actually the tearing down of the sentences bit-by-bit from the original languages and reconstructing them in various ways to get at the meaning. While many in this forum seek to enlist you, condemn you, enlighten you, not a one has shown an iota of knowledge that they have performed this kind of analysis which I believe you would appreciate a great deal more than those stagnant views with which you are continually bombarded.
        
        Do you feel like Dawkins at all, that the scriptures are a good source of stories?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        There are some good stories in the bible. There are some good stories in Aesop's Fables as well. But there are some atrocious stories in the bible and it is amazing to hear people say we should and can learn something of value from them.
    - Evermyrtle
      
      Very Good Post, M Seigel We so often forget who we are dealing with when it comes to our relationship with GOD, and hate cast at HIM as well. WE think because we reject HIM He is going away, not so and we should accept this fact. While reading the WORD seeking to discredit it, with doubts about it and trying to explain how it is wrong, we might read Matthew 25, especially the last portion to get an idea where we are going.
  - Esther
    
    Jeff, according to your rules, how should one be chided, for being a Latter-day Saint? Have you ever come to an understanding of how the saints are any different?
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      No, I cannot say that I think the Mormons are any different from other religious people.
      - Esther
        
        I consider this a challenge.
    - Joe Anzilotti
      
      Doc, how are the "saints" "different" from other religions? Enumerate the differences for me. Relationship with God based on works would seem to be right in line with everyone else. Unless you actually believe in Jesus' work on your behalf–which is true Christianity.
      - Esther
        
        I know your definition of Christianity. You fail to notice that I have some experience with Calvinists. I also know who does the work in the workplace, and it is never the Calvinist if he can help it.
  - petroskhan
    
    To address what you've presented in regards to adulterers, if you don't mind, I would like to raise a point or two.
    
    One, let's take this within its proper context. That is the only way to discuss a religious position on something, I'm sure you'd agree. The topic is one of the Bible, so let's put it in a Biblical context, right?
    
    Jesus was being presented with a situation in an attempt by His detractors to cause Him to be forced into making a decision, with the two options seen by the Pharisees as being equally productive and beneficial to their cause.
    
    Had He condemned the woman, He would have been seen as heartless and cruel, devoid of sympathy.
    
    Had He proposed letting her go, showing mercy, they would have complained that He wasn't following the Law, and therefore was not worthy of respect.
    
    However, Jesus was (is) the Son of God, equal to the Father in every way. He had the full authority to pardon sins, as He was the sacrifice for the remission of our sins. Exercising His authority, He chose to forgive the woman for her sin, and let her go on her way, instructing her to "sin no more."
    
    The Bible is quite clear that all sacrifices before Christ were a shadow of His sacrifice, the "true" sacrifice needed for the cleansing of sin.
    
    Taken within its own framework and context, would you explain to me how this is a contradiction?
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Please explain why you think that if Jesus had condemned a woman who was guilty of adultery he would have been seen as heartless and cruel? It seems odd that god gave rules for how to treat someone who has committed adultery and Jesus, who is supposedly this same god, cannot enforce his own rules.
      
      And the reality is that according to the story, he did let her go by imposing a new requirement that would be impossible to fulfill. If only someone who is without sin could cast the first stone, and all people are sinners, there can be no one who could cast the first stone.
      - petroskhan
        
        Hmm…I suppose a clearer wording of that might be in order:
        
        Had He condemned the woman, He would have been accused by the Pharisees of being devoid of sympathy and/or compassion.
        
        And by forgiving the woman, He was doing what only He had the authority to do, which is forgive someone for violating the Law, His Law. We cannot forgive sins (papal doctrine and practice to the contrary), only He can.
        
        It was, as I am sure you are aware, yet another of their attempts to discredit Jesus by forcing Him to make a decision between what they saw as two choices, for both of which they had ready answers.
        
        As for the casting of the first stone, it was not, nor did it become, part of the law that only those without sin could enact punishments. But the very punishments themselves became obsolete with our Saviors sacrifice of His own life for ours.
        
        So, with that cleared up (I hope), I would like to hear where you believe, within the framework of the Bible, the contradiction lies.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I am afraid petroskhan, that Jethro is not going to be able to follow your clear explanation, insofar as he is not "certified in logic," like our other friend. Furthermore, some times it seems like Jethro just simply can't read English. What you wrote is right on the money–especially the part on, ahem, "papal doctrine and practice."
      - petroskhan
        
        Oh, I think he will get it; he's a pretty sharp guy…for an atheist. (That's a joke, Jeff.)
        
        And he does have one huge thing in his favor. He actually answers questions when asked. Without insulting you for asking them, too! Go figure…
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Just because he may have been accused of being heartless and cruel does not mean he definitely would have been. But even if he had been, he merely had to explain that he was upholding the law.
        
        Here is the problem. You are asking me for the contradiction. I have pointed out the contradiction. Jesus himself said he did not come to change the law but to fulfill it. The law said the woman should be stoned to death.
      - petroskhan
        
        All right, let's examine this closely. I had to. You've raised a fairly decent question, and I had to dig into it to find an answer for you. That's what I enjoy about discussing things with you, Jeff; you make me think and dig into things a bit deeper than I otherwise might. I must admit, in order to be honest, that my initial interpretation of the nature of this passage was in error in regards to the causes for Jesus' actions, and the rationale behind His deeds in this scene.
        
        Here's what I found:
        After checking relevant verses, and doing a bit research, it is quite clear that there is no contradiction within the act of Jesus which you mention.
        
        Let's examine the Law which is applicable here, since this is where you contend that the contradiction arises:
        Leviticus 20:10 " ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
        
        Pretty straightforward…they need to be put to death, right? Okay so far…
        
        Now, the passage regarding Jesus and the Pharisees:
        John 8
        "3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
        4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
        5 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women ; what then do You say ?”
        6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
        7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
        8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
        9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
        10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one
        condemn you?”
        11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”"
        
        Your contention is that in order to uphold the Law, the woman should have been condemned to death. But is that what the Law states? Let's look at the relevant passage: "…the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
        
        Where was the man, the "adulterer"? The Law was clear; in order to adhere to the letter of the Law, BOTH must be condemned, and put to death for this transgression. The man being absent, it would have been a violation of the Law to stone the woman without the man being included in the punishment. THAT is what verse 6 is talking about when it states "They were saying this, testing
        Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him." THIS was the "test", to see if He would accuse/condemn one, without the other being included in the sentence as the Law commanded. THIS is what they would have used to "accuse Him."
        
        Also, when Jesus instructed one "without sin" to cast the first stone, He knew exactly what He doing. The Pharisees were sinning (violating the Law) by bringing only the woman to be punished. The Law commanded BOTH be punished, and in bringing only the woman to be stoned, they were violating the law, committing a sin; therefore, not one of them was "without sin", and could not, therefore, cast that first stone.
        
        Being condemned (accused) by no one, the woman was free to go.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Is it not
        fascinating that the biblical god, who is considered to be perfection and who knows
        everything in the universe, finds it difficult to tell a story that is not
        easily understood by the people who read it? "C'est
        la vie",
        
        However, while I
        do find this version to be a more plausible story, there is still some glaring
        problems. While the verse does say to put both to death, it does not say that
        if one of the guilty parties is not around, the other one gets off scot free.
        The story does not say why the man was not arrested. Perhaps he was able to
        fight his way to freedom. But more importantly, Jesus, according to you, IS
        god. He is, therefore, also all knowing. He either knows that the woman is
        guilty or not. If she is guilty, then he is required to administer punishment
        according to the OT laws. After all, he is going to be judging everybody in the
        world at some point. If she is not guilty, he should dismiss the charges as
        without foundation. Does he say she did not commit the sin? No, he said go and
        sin no more. Now, this is also a humorous statement since supposedly all of
        mankind is sinning 24/7.
      - petroskhan
        
        "Is it not fascinating that the biblical god, who is considered to be perfection and who knows everything in the universe, finds it difficult to tell a story that is not
        easily understood by the people who read it?" That statement reminds me of a scene from the movie "Road Trip". Ever see it? They're taking a shortcut, and one of the guys in the car complains that the road seems difficult, and the one who suggested the shortcut tells him, "It's supposed to be a challenge, that's why they call it a shortcut. If it was easy it would just be the way."
        
        But anyway, I digress…
        
        You've stated that the law doesn't say that if one gets away, the other gets off scot free. Fair enough. But it also doesn't say that only one can be punished either, does it? There is that word "AND" there. They both must be punished, or the Law isn't being followed.
        
        And, if we want to attempt to second-guess what was in the mind of Christ, let's assume, as you said, that He is God. He then has the authority to forgive, does he not? To exercise His divine authority, and forgive someone, who is being accused by no one, and allow her to go in peace and attempt to do better in her life from that point on.
        
        As for Jesus being all-knowing, of course He is. He is also the one who came to pay the price for our sins. Wouldn't it be silly to condemn a woman to stoning (in violation of the Law, as explained) when He was there to die for her sins just a short time from then?
        
        And as for the statement that she should "go, and sin no more", in light of the fact that yes, we are all sinning 24/7 as you point out, it's a goal, something that we should all strive to achieve.
        
        You personally want to be the best person you can be, right, Jeff? You have standards for yourself, your behavior, etc. Do you always live up to them? I'm fairly certain you don't, we all make mistakes now and then. But we don't just give up. We keep trying. That's all Jesus was telling her. It's no different from a parent telling children to behave themselves. We know they won't, but we sure would like them to try.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        So, in your mind if two people were caught commiting adultery and the male suffered a heart attack and dies on the spot, that absolves the woman from the law?
      - petroskhan
        
        ROFL Good one!
        
        No, not exactly. I would say that he has already received his sentence, but that's just me.
        
        As for the serious answer to your question, in the case you present, it would be impossible to further punish the man, ergo the woman would have to be punished alone.
        
        In the scenario given to us in the Bible, we do know that the man was not brought before Jesus. Obviously, this was the very nature of the "trap" or "test" "temptation" (depending on the translation used) with which Jesus was being presented. Would he condemn one participant only, when the Law called for both? No reason was given for the man's absence, so we must assume that the only reason for the man's absence was for the purpose of confronting Jesus with a situation in which a thorough knowledge of the Law, and a desire to adhere to it, was called for.
        
        With the situation as it is given in the text of the Bible, Jesus adhered to the Law, as given in the Old Testament.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Now you are just being contradictory. You just got done saying that the while the bible does not say you have to punish both, the word and makes it clear that both must be punished. Now you are saying it is ok to just punish the woman since the man cannot be further punished.
      - petroskhan
        
        "Now you are just being contradictory." No I'm not. (That's a joke)
        
        On the serious side, how am I being contradictory? You describe an implausible situation in an attempt to divert the conversation from the topic at hand, and then somehow claim that the implausible situation you've created validates your contention that the topic at hand is contradictory.
        
        Let's stick to the topic, shall we? The contention was that Leviticus 20 and and John 8 contradicted each other. I've shown why they do not contradict each other, and why Jesus was upholding the Law.
        
        If you want to bring in imaginary situations, we can discuss that, if you'd like. I'm willing to give my opinion on the subject, but only with the caveat that it is just that, my opinion. But that would be a discussion NOT related to the Law of the Bible we were discussing, nor the original topic of contradiction.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I would have assumed that the lessons from the bible are how people should live. Therefore, proposing a very plausible scenario (and yes it is very plausible) and asking how it applies to the lesson at hand would seem to be the very essence of the bible story. But perhaps I should just assume them to be fables that have no relevance to real life.
      - petroskhan
        
        I suppose that if you want to call your scenario "plausible", I will grant that the word is an appropriate description of what you've offered up:
        
        Definition of PLAUSIBLE
        1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious
        
        And just to be very clear, we'll define "specious":
        Definition of SPECIOUS
        1obsolete : showy
        2: having deceptive attraction or allure
        3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic
        
        So, we have a scenario you've presented that has the superficial appearance of being reasonable, but has "a false look of truth or genuineness."
        
        I will grant that your scenario does fit that description. In fact, I will even agree, as you've stated, that it is "very plausible", given the definition above. (Note: Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster)
        
        So, like I said, if you want to discuss hypothetical situations ("plausible" scenarios?) we can do that. It's really fine with me.
        
        If, on the other hand, you want to stick to the original topic, which was your contention that the two Bible passages were in contradiction, we can do that as well.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The definition you offered states that it can be often specious. Therefore, it is not always specious. It also states that it can be reasonable and valuable. Yet you want to try and focus on the aspect that it seems specious. I think you are the one being superficial with that.
        
        But in any event, the contradiction, which we have already covered is the following. God (of whom Jesus is part of) says to kill adulterers. Jesus, when presented with a woman that no one disputes committed adultery, does not enforce his own law and lets her go.
      - petroskhan
        
        "The definition you offered states that it can be often specious." I feel that in this case, it is specious. But we could run around that one for quite a while.
        
        To stick to the issue of the Law under discussion:
        The Law states that a man caught in the act of adultery must be put to death, along with the woman with whom he committed the act.
        
        Leviticus 20:10
        
        “If a man commits adultery with a
        married woman –
        
        if he commits adultery with his
        neighbor’s wife -
        
        both the adulterer and the adulteress
        must be put to death.”
        
        The man was not present, and no reason was given for his absence. THIS was the test, or trap, within which they hoped to find a reason to condemn Jesus. However, when told that "one without sin" could cast the first stone, they all left, knowing that they had sinned (broken the Law), by not brining the man.
        
        Therefore we have:
        
        John 8:10-11
        
        When Jesus stood up, He said to her,
        “Woman, where are they?
        
        Has no one condemned you? ”
        
        11“No one, Lord,” she answered.
        
        “Neither do I condemn you,” said
        Jesus. “Go, and
        
        from now on do not sin anymore.”
        
        With no one present to accuse (or "condemn") the woman, by what Law or right would she punished? There were no witnesses, no accusers, therefore, no reason within the Law to punish her.
        
        I find something fascinating here. The Pharisees had their faults, that much is plain. But they knew the Law; they studied it daily, lived it and breathed it and enforced it. Yet they found no wrong, nothing in violation of the Law, with what Jesus did. They found no contradiction or conflict with the Law they held so important to their daily lives. Yet you do?
        
        This would be like to trying to convict someone of conspiracy to commit robbery when there are no co-conspirators, and no witnesses against him.
        
        Simple, short version analysis…
        The Law says the man, along with the woman, must be punished. The man was not brought, which violates the Law. There were no accusers. What is the basis for punishment, then?
        
        More importantly, where is the contradiction with the Law?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        You have already agreed that if a man died, the woman should still be punished. Therefore, your argument that both must be punished has been handled.
        The story does not say the women was merely accused of committing adultery, it states The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery. So, are you now saying that the bible itself cannot describe the situation accurately?
      - petroskhan
        
        "You have already agreed that if a man died, the woman should still be punished." Yes, I did. That is my opinion; but it is just that…an opinion, with no relevance to the topic at hand.
        
        However, it is quite apparent that your stance seems to consist of this: "I can think of a completely different situation, where it might be possible to construe that the Law would be unclear. If I can do this, then I've proven that the Law is contradictory." The topic is "A"; you're trying to prove "B" is wrong. "B" may very well be wrong, but it does not equal "A", and is NOT "A". Proving "B" wrong proves that "B" is wrong. That's it. You want to get me to assume that if you can contrive a situation (not mentioned in the texts YOU presented) that IS contradictory, then the original situation which you raised must also be contradictory.
        
        Wrong. The topic, which YOU raised, Jeff, is that Leviticus 20:10 and John 8 contradicted each other. You have thus far not proven that point. Bringing in imaginary scenarios does not prove your point. Focus. Stick to the issue, and prove your point. Show how the two passages which YOU mentioned are in contradiction.
        
        Your claim was that Jesus did not uphold the Law; I've shown how He did exactly that. The Law requires that the two adulterers be punished together. There was no reason for the man not being present, and there was no one present accusing the woman, no witnesses against her. According to the Law, she could not be punished.
        
        You contend that the Law was not followed. Your proof is…?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It is evident that you have no idea what my stance if if you think that.
        My stance is that the bible was written by men and that no gods had anything to do with it. My stance is that the bible is full of contradictions. My stance is that people go through mental gymnastics in order to try and show that the bible has no contradictions. Since we started chatting on the topic you first gave one opinion as to what the verses meant. After I questioned you, you suddenly found that your first opinion was wrong and now have a new more insightful opinion on the matter. You claimed that the verses require that both parties be punished. In fact, if both parties are not accussed, then it is not allowed by the law to punish the other. The fact that the verses say to punish both can also merely mean that the law considers both parties to be equally guilty and therefore both must be punished. As opposed, for example, to it saying that only the woman or only the man should be punished. But there is nothing stated that says that if one of the parties is not present then the other cannot be punished. You are merely interjecting that.
        But it ultimately is meaningless because it if Jesus who is involved here. he is suddosedly god and therefore all knowing. If he knows she is innocent, he should say so. But he does not say that. He says to go and sin no more. In other words, althuogh she is guilty, he is allowing her to avoid being punished.
        And that, my friend, is the contradiction, your protests not withstanding. One bible verse says that god requires punishment, the other says that god will allow someone to not be punished.
      - petroskhan
        
        Fascinating, thank you for all of that…
        
        You said, "there is nothing stated that says that if one of the parties is not
        present then the other cannot be punished. You are merely interjecting
        that." I am not interjecting anything. I am quoting the law, which states that the man and the woman must be punished. It does NOT state that the man or the woman, nor does it state anything else. YOU are the one interjecting, Jeff. You are attempting to add to what is there in an attempt to justify a position with no foundation.
        
        "In other words, although she is guilty, he is allowing her to avoid being punished." The Law, as given, is clear. The two parties are to be punished. Not only was only one person brought (violating the Law), but there were no accusers present.
        
        How, in keeping with the Law, could the woman then be punished? THAT would be a contradiction. In fact, I have NO doubts that if the story in the Bible did read that way, if the woman had been punished, you would still be stating that the Law had not been upheld, since it required both to be present.
        
        If you were to get a speeding ticket, and went to court to fight it, and found the officer was not present, would be okay with the judge levying a fine against you, when there was no one there to accuse you, no witness against you, other than someone who was absent for no good reason?
        
        We have a clear situation given here, a single participant is brought in when the Law states both must be punished. There were no accusers. How could the woman be punished, within the Law, under those circumstances?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Jesus is either god and all knowing or he is not. If god cannot punish someone, no one can.
      - petroskhan
        
        So those passages DON'T contradict each other then?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Of course they do. If Jesus is god, he knows of her sin. He chooses to ignore his own rule that adulterers should be stoned. Are you saying that god is bound by the testimony of men?
      - petroskhan
        
        Once again, you are forced to resort to bringing extraneous details? I am trying very hard to keep this conversation on topic, yet you seem to insist on taking side trips to other issues to substantiate your original assertion.
        
        You stated that the passages were in contradiction. I have shown how they clearly are not. If you disagree, show me how the two passages contradict each other. You ideas, interpretations, opinions, etc., on the nature and knowledge of God/Jesus are all side issues, with no relevance to to the issue YOU raised.
        
        I repeat, you stated the two passages were in contradiction. I have shown how they clearly are not. If you disagree, show me how the two passages contradict each other.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        What is extraneous to the biblical concept of Jesus being god or all knowing? You are trying very hard to go down one path, but the path you are attempting to go down is not supported by the verses.
        You have not shown clearly that the verses do not contradict themselves. You are the one using your opinion that verse means that both parties must be punished or neither of them can be. The verse does not say that. It only says that both parties should be punished, not just one of them.
        In other bible verses, it is clear that anyone guilty of adultery has committed a sin.
        "Thou shalt not commit adultery". (Exodus 20:14)
        "But he that is an adulterer, for the folly of his heart shall destroy his own soul" (Proverbs 6:32)
        "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: (10) Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
        The only way that Jesus cannot condemn her is if she is actually not guilty. And Jesus does not say that. He says go and sin no more.
      - petroskhan
        
        You claimed the verses contradicted each other. I'm still waiting to hear how they do.
        
        Even in modern laws, Jeff, the word "and" carries great weight. There are innumerable laws where the word "and" means the difference between guilty and not guilty. Here, you've quoted a Law from the Bible, along with a passage which you claim violates that Law. You yet to show how this claim is valid.
        
        I am not interjecting, or giving opinion, or extrapolating. I am simply quoting the Law, and the passage you cited. The passages are both clear, and there is no violation of the Law given in the passage. You have yet to show how the actions of Jesus in the John passage violate the Law given in Deuteronomy 20, which was your contention.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        While it might be true that the word "and" carries great weight in modern legal usage, I would be shocked to be shown one legal precedent that states that if two people commit a crime and only one person is arrested, that one person cannot be punished.
        
        You remind me of the joke about the referee who was obviously working on behalf of one team over another. At one point the coach of the other team protested yet another bad call. The ref's response was "Ah, you are just upset cause our side is winning"
        
        The contradiction is clear. One verse says punishment is required, the other one says Jesus did not punish.
      - petroskhan
        
        Well, then, be shocked.
        
        We have laws regarding conspiracy, which require more than one person be involved.
        
        We also have laws regarding evidence, witnesses, and things like proof.
        
        The Law of Leviticus is clear. And so is the passage from John 8. The only contradiction is that you insist there must be one due to your bias.
        
        You are so meticulous when you discuss things with people, Jeff. You go over every sentence, every phrase, to find flaws with what people write/say, to find some minute flaw with what's said that you can exploit and attempt to use to your advantage.
        
        Well, if it's a tactic you like (you must, you do it often enough), you should enjoy me using it.
        
        The wording is simple and clear. So is the conclusion drawn from objectively reading the two passages. There is no contradiction. You are free to claim otherwise, but to convince anyone of that, you must have proof. Thus far, the only proof you've shown amounts to "There's a contradiction because I say there is."
        
        I'm afraid you need more than that. Show me where, in the passages you've cited, the contradiction exists.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Shocked about what? Conspiracy requires more than one person, but there is no law that says one person cannot be convicted of it. Evidence, witnesses and "things like proof", whatever you mean by that does not say that one person will be let go if two people committed the crime.
        
        You are giving your peers far too much credit. It does not require much scrutiny to tear apart the arguments on here. Your argument does not hold up either, you simply refuse to accept that your bible has flaws.
      - petroskhan
        
        My argument doesn't hold up? MY argument? That's rich, Jeff.
        
        Look, the whole point of the passage in John is the trap the Pharisees attempted to spring on Jesus. The whole point was to see if He would violate the Law and condemn the woman alone. The Law is clear; they were attempting to trick Him into breaking it. That's the point of the whole passage, and you're claiming there's a contradiction in Jesus upholding the Law?
        
        The Pharisees walked away knowing they'd been caught in their own trap, but you know the Law better than them? That's the message you're sending, you know. The scoffing atheist knows the Law better than the men who devoted their lives to its interpretation and application.
        
        You've shown nothing that could be labeled a contradiction. You've cited a passage giving a Law, and a passage where that Law is upheld. The upholding of that Law even acknowledged by the actions of the Pharisees themselves in walking away.
        
        You might want to move on to another example if you've got one, Jeff. This dog don't hunt.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        Jesus is god according to the fables of the bible. You cannot trick a god into fulfilling his own laws. Whether or not that was the intent of the people who made up this story, they failed to take into account that Jesus is supposedly god in this story. (many of the stories of the NT fall apart because the writers did not take into account that Jesus is supposedly all powerful and all knowing). By not condemning the woman, he fails to uphold his own laws. He does not need witnesses of others to accuse her, he is god and is able to pass judgment on her all by himself.
        
        Whether I know the law better than people who devote their lives to it, I certainly seem to know it better than one who immediately changes his mind about the intent of the story when we first started chatting about it.
        
        But here is the rub. You are attempting to argue the consistency of the bible on a verse that most scholars agree is not authentic.
        
        Nearly all modern scholars agree that this Pericope de Adultera is not authentic. Bruce Metzger, a leading biblical scholar, put it this way:[4]
        The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.
        This disputed passage is inconsistent in style and sequence with the remainder of the Gospel of John. This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else. The account of the eldest leaving first, as though the eldest are holier or more sinful than younger persons, is found nowhere in any of Jesus' teachings. In no other story do the people give Jesus as much authority as this story recounts, with every single person accepting His teaching in this story. Two sentences later, the Pharisees challenge Jesus' authority.
        One thorough analysis concludes, "Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. On this page I present some extended quotations from scholarly works that explain the reasons for this judgment."[5]
        The conservative, evangelical translation of the Bible (NIV) flatly says,[6] "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11."
        A Jewish scholar pointed out multiple absurdities in the story:[7]
        That a woman taken in the act of adultery should have been brought before Jesus (and apparently without witnesses of her crime); that such an utterly un-Jewish, as well as illegal, procedure should have been that of the "Scribes and Pharisees"; that such a breach of law, and of what Judaism would have regarded as decency, should have been perpetrated to "tempt" Him; or that the Scribes should have been so ignorant as to substitute stoning for strangulation as the punishment of adultery; lastly, that this scene should have been enacted in the Temple, presents a veritable climax of impossibilities.
        http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Adulteress_Story
      - petroskhan
        
        Some interesting stuff in there. Allow me to address some of that.
        
        "He does not need witnesses of others to accuse her, he is god and is able to pass judgment on her all by himself." Indeed He is God; therefore He may do as He pleases, and forgive someone as His Law allows.
        
        "Whether I know the law better than people who devote their lives to it, I
        certainly seem to know it better than one who immediately changes his
        mind about the intent of the story when we first started chatting about
        it." This statement makes no sense, Jeff, as I'm sure you're aware. And understanding of the Law, and the nature of the "test" within the passage are unrelated. And since you so frequently argue from the "copy/paste" podium, I'm sure that someone admitting to learning something from discussing something should actually please you.
        
        But enough of the appetizer, let's get to the meat 'n' taters:
        "But here is the rub. You are attempting to argue the consistency of the
        bible on a verse that most scholars agree is not authentic."
        
        Okay. I'll agree with you. It's not authentic. It is NOT part of the Bible. It has no place there, and should not, by all evidence, be included in the texts or taken as authentic in any, shape or form. In fact, the version of the Bible I use most frequently has the entire passage italicized (indicating added text). There is no reason to assume, infer or accept the passage as original or relevant to the original Bible as written.
        
        So, there is no contradiction, then…is there?
      - petroskhan
        
        Perhaps I need to explain my position in more detail.
        
        You claim to know the Law, Jeff, but you keep misquoting/misapplying it. You want it to say what it does not, so that you can then validate your contention that the Bible contradicts itself. I think your preconceptions are blinding you to the simplicity, actually.
        
        You wrote, "You cannot trick a god into fulfilling his own laws." True, you cannot. You also cannot trick God into breaking His own laws. The important part you keep leaving out of the discussion (unintentionally, I'm sure) is that it takes the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses to condemn someone to death (Deut. 17:6). With no witnesses against the woman, by the Law you claim was violated, she couldn't possibly be put to death.
        
        Also, let's not forget the historical context here. Under Roman law, only the Emperor (the government) had the authority to condemn someone to death. I'm not certain, but it seems that this could have been another facet of the trap the Pharisees tried to spring. They tried with the issue of taxes as well, at another time.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If it should be in the bible and yet it is in the bible, it is irrelevant if there is a contradiction or not. It shows that the bible is not inerrant. At that point, all the other arguments are moot.
      - petroskhan
        
        "If it should not be in the bible and yet it is in the bible, it is irrelevant"
        Then why did you bring it up?
        
        Also, I think you missed my "Edit" at the end.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I saw your edit. However, I was trying to address your question about there being no contradiction.
        I brought up the issue, because it IS in the bible.
      - petroskhan
        
        Jeff…would you PLEASE follow your own topic flow?
        
        I mean…why bring up the issue that it could be added text (and devote several paragraphs of your reply to it), if it's irrelevant?
        
        AND, just to go along with your "added text" theory (which I don't support, btw), that wouldn't show that the Bible is flawed anymore than someone adding notes to your medical file would indicate that you've got lupus. If it was added by someone later, it's not supposed to be there, right?
        
        If it IS supposed to be there, you have yet to show where the contradiction lies.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        My topic flow is just as it should be. The verse is in the bible. I have shown repeatedly that there is a contradiction. On top of that, I point out that most modern scholars agree it is added text. My points compliment each other. I have no idea how you come up with your view on my topic flow. Other than an attempt to divert attention away from the issue.
      - petroskhan
        
        If it belongs there:
        The Law states "the adulterer and the adulteress" must be put to death. Not one or the other…not whichever gets caught. The Law is also clear that one can only be put to death on the testimony of 2 to 3 witnesses. Neither of those conditions was met in the passage, nor did the Jewish leaders have authority, under Roman rule, to issue death sentences. So no Law, civil or Biblical, would have allowed for the woman to be punished.
        
        If it does belong there:
        Then it is not Biblical, not a factual account of an event that even took place, and therefore irrelevant to the topic of Biblical contradictions.
        
        Either way, no contradiction has been proven, nor any error of the Bible demonstrated.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        In my opinion, there is little reason to continue this topic, as neither of us accepts the premise of the other. So, I am going to present a different contradiction so that we can argue for days about that instead.
        
        Christians believe that Jesus is god. He is part of the Trinity and is equal to god the father. However, the bible says differing things about that concept.
        
        JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
        
        JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
      - petroskhan
        
        "In my opinion, there is little reason to continue this topic, as neither
        of us accepts the premise of the other. So, I am going to present a
        different contradiction so that we can argue for days about that
        instead. "
        Wisely and entertainingly stated. If you'd like to move, by all means.
        
        "Christians believe that Jesus is god. He is part of the Trinity and is equal to god the father."
        I'm not down with that whole "Trinity" label…and as for the concept…I'm not convinced the Bible supports what most mean by "Trinity", but I'll focus on what you've quoted, as the issue to be discussed.
        
        I would like to point out, as a preface, a thought I have. God said, "Let us make man in our image." Now, does that mean that God has a body, like ours, with two arms, two legs, etc.? I'm not sure, but I don't think that's the context for that statement. I think what He was talking about was spiritual. He is a spiritual being, after all, so it's important to take everything in the proper frame of reference. So, it's my thought that God made us in His spiritual image; capable of morality, thought, judgment, growth, etc.
        
        Where am I going with this? John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." One being? One physical entity? Can't be that, since Jesus clearly referred to His Father being in Heaven, while he was here on earth, right? More likely, taken within the full context of His teachings, statements and His nature, Jesus and His Father were "one" in the sense of one mind, one purpose, united in the same goal.
        
        This, then, does not in any way contradict His statement "my Father is greater than I", but rather supports it, actually.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        If you are not a believer in the Trinity, I am not really sure where this argument goes. So, before I attempt to present an answer to your post, can I ask what your view on Jesus and Christianity is? It seems silly to attempt to argue a position that you are not in agreement with to start with.
      - petroskhan
        
        Well, that's a complicated question to answer. Also, I've not devoted a great deal of study to the issue, since it's not what I would term a "salvation issue", one upon which salvation is based, nor is it given much attention in the Bible. For Christians, I think there are greater issues to study, but I can see where some might be intensely interested in this. So here's my current understanding of the topic.
        
        I'm not convinced of the "Trinity" doctrine, as espoused by many, that of three equal "facets" of one being, or three equal beings comprising one entity. That doesn't seem, from what I've read, to be entirely supported by Scripture.
        
        If they were equal, then why would Jesus have stated that His Father was greater than He was? Why would the Holy Spirit always seem to be sent by God? Why is the Holy Spirit never quoted as saying anything, or making any decisions? Why would God state the He would share His glory with no one?
        
        No, I think that logically, and based on the Scripture, you have the three, of one mind and purpose, but not perhaps "equal" in our sense of the word. It's nowhere spelled out perfectly, and too many try to read too much between the lines.
        
        Even verses used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, when read carefully, don't seem to actually say what Trinitarians want them to say, like this one from 1 Cor 13:14
        "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,"
        There are three different things being ascribed to each "person" referenced. The grace of Jesus – His free gift to us, his forgiveness, and faith.
        The love of God – His emotional devotion to us, and us to Him
        The fellowship of the Holy Spirit – The "glue" that binds us together, our love for each other.
        
        I don't see a lot of support of the Trinitarian viewpoint. I see a clear hierarchy, clearly defined roles. They are "one" in the sense of goals and purpose, insights and desires, but distinct in roles.
        
        Just my initial take on it. I'm open to others, given convincing proof from Scripture.
  - Wordman
    
    You'll have to better than that, Jeff. Jesus didn't say that Adulterers should not be punished. He showed that the men who accused one particular adulteress were not qualified to prosecute her.
fliteking

The bible does not contradict itself near as much or on as grand a scale as any liberal I know.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  The bible is sadly very liberal.
Barney

Ha! Ha! Ha! All you dear folks argueing about eschatolgy. I am thankfully 80 years old and in a few years I will be in glory and know more than all of you put together about eschatology.
- Jeff Dixon
  
  Actually no, you will not. Sorry.
Michael G.

The answer to the question is…NO!
peter1589

Keep reading below, folks, and you'll see the flagrant, spell-binding evidence of the arguments between the 38,000+ sects of PROTEST-antism which satan has been dividing and subdividing for years. Unless you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, there is no life in you. Thus says the Lord. What say you i ncontradiction to His Word?
- Pastor Dwayne
  
  You are right ,, with the " Roman " catholic church leading the way of the 38,000 + sects.
  There is only life in you, if you are first born again, you can be baptized in water , eat His flesh, drink His blood all day long week after week the rest of your life, BUT if you are not born again, you will be going where Satan wants you.
  Belonging to a church and going through a series of rituals and rights, does not constitute the born again experience.
Joe Anzilotti

Mr. Dixon, do you care to elaborate on your remark about a "slobbering sycophant" that I noticed on one of these silly threads? Is calumniation something you do regularly when folks are not looking, or do you misbehave regularly out in public?
inhimjim

Usually people who claim the Bible contradicts itself are really complaining because the Bible contradicts them!