TX_Made713
New member
religion is religion to me......
Last edited:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Christianity practiced today is not the original Christanity
shadyteam;408365 said:universal reconcilation is the original and first form of christianity that existed they put no emphasis on jeus dying for anyones sin's but believed everyone was saved regardless of their beliefs and it was a very peaceful form of christianity
it actually has similarities to hinduism the oldest practiced religion to this day
i feel personally christianity should have remained in the universal reconcilation form but realistically i feel the peaceful aspect was gonna be over taken by fundemental people and over the years things changed dramatically
proove it!! Instead of just saying it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited:
ThaChozenWun
New member
CapitalB;410240 said:wasnt Jesus a Buddhist?? lol
What I took from it was he practiced Buddhism in teen years and then had a change of heart thats why those years are left out in the bible and it only focuses on his birth and death
Last edited:
ThaChozenWun;414418 said:What I took from it was he practiced Buddhism in teen years and then had a change of heart thats why those years are left out in the bible and it only focuses on his birth and death
exactly!!!!
amazing how the creators of the Bible pick and chooses what it wants to convey??
sounds like manipulation! lol
Last edited:
trackreviver
New member
The Bible has changed numerous times...FACT. If it was the word's of God, the Bible would withstand time. Quran was not written by man and has remained in its original state...FACT.
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
trackreviver;418819 said:The Bible has changed numerous times...FACT. If it was the word's of God, the Bible would withstand time. Quran was not written by man and has remained in its original state...FACT.
3,000+ years and the word of God is still alive and kicking.
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever." Isaiah 40:8
Hallelujah!
Last edited:
trackreviver
New member
I have deep respect for the Bible, but that verse does not hold its ground. Research/Google changes made to the bible...
all i'm saying your bible should be the same (literal translation) as the Bible #1...
all i'm saying your bible should be the same (literal translation) as the Bible #1...
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
trackreviver;418879 said:I have deep respect for the Bible, but that verse does not hold its ground. Research/Google changes made to the bible...
all i'm saying your bible should be the same (literal translation) as the Bible #1...
The Bible has stood the test of time my brother. No debating about it. The message is all about Jesus Christ. Do you know Him my friend?
Last edited:
supaman4321
New member
define "standing the test of time" because if that's the case why would it need ANY revisions and why are there different versions where some have different books that others don't?
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
supaman4321;419686 said:define "standing the test of time" because if that's the case why would it need ANY revisions and why are there different versions where some have different books that others don't?
The dead sea scrolls are solid proof that the OT has stood the test of time in regards to accuracy. The reliability of the NT is established because the number, date, and accuracy of its manuscripts has enabled reconstruction of the original text with more precision than any other ancient text; making the NT is the best textually supported book from the ancient world. There are over 5,700 greek manuscripts for the NT. The closest comparison is Homers Illiad, which has 643 manuscripts. It's not rocket science brother.
Last edited:
supaman4321;419686 said:define "standing the test of time" because if that's the case why would it need ANY revisions and why are there different versions where some have different books that others don't?
There R Different vesions, because people started DIFFERENT CHURCHES WITH DIFFERENT DOCTRANTS, FROM THE CHURCH MOSHIA started, havent u studied this already, or r u just jumping to page 500 going on 2 page 1000, with out first starting at page 1-500?????????????????
Last edited:
ThaChozenWun
New member
solid analysis;421842 said:what proof is there that the Bible has been altered in regards to what is being taught? None.
Well for starters they created a new testament because the "old one" wasnt good enough, which the old one should be a more accurate one. When Constetine selected which gospels would be in the bible he left some out, which is funny considering somebody else chose what we would know as the word of god. The gospels that didnt make the cut were supposed to be destroyed yet were put into clay jars and buried so future generations could find them, also funny considering people kept gospels that supposedly werent important. I dare you call me a liar on any of that because when you do im just done cause its then obvious your arent making a solid analysis you're just saying the shit you think is right. And you still havent answered my question in the other thread that youve side stepped about a thousand times, no answer maybe?
Last edited:
DoUwant2go2Heaven
New member
ThaChozenWun;421863 said:Well for starters they created a new testament because the "old one" wasnt good enough, which the old one should be a more accurate one. When Constetine selected which gospels would be in the bible he left some out, which is funny considering somebody else chose what we would know as the word of god. The gospels that didnt make the cut were supposed to be destroyed yet were put into clay jars and buried so future generations could find them, also funny considering people kept gospels that supposedly werent important. I dare you call me a liar on any of that because when you do im just done cause its then obvious your arent making a solid analysis you're just saying the shit you think is right. And you still havent answered my question in the other thread that youve side stepped about a thousand times, no answer maybe?
Stopped reading right there.
Last edited:
ThaChozenWun;421863 said:Well for starters they created a new testament because the "old one" wasnt good enough, which the old one should be a more accurate one. When Constetine selected which gospels would be in the bible he left some out, which is funny considering somebody else chose what we would know as the word of god. The gospels that didnt make the cut were supposed to be destroyed yet were put into clay jars and buried so future generations could find them, also funny considering people kept gospels that supposedly werent important. I dare you call me a liar on any of that because when you do im just done cause its then obvious your arent making a solid analysis you're just saying the shit you think is right. And you still havent answered my question in the other thread that youve side stepped about a thousand times, no answer maybe?
Right. For starters, lets use an entirely false premise (like you did) and build an argument on it made out of straw. Now let's knock it down.
Last edited:
ThaChozenWun
New member
So them making a new testament by adding new stuff and removing bits and pieces out the old testament isnt a big change. Sorry but if you think something thats "God's word" isnt good enough for the new testament then I guess its useless conversating with either of you. The new testament says that all sins can be forgiven, the old testament does not, Which is right do you know? Why would they be forgivin now and not then, more so who did god come tell this to for them to make the change?
The Old Testament prophets hundreds of years before, foretold the coming of a second covenant. Moreover, the New Testament also teaches that Old Testament was imperfect because it could not offer forgiveness of sins. Instead, each year the sins were "rolled back" until Christ's ultimate sacrifice. The entire book of Hebrews is devoted to showing that the Old Covenant is inferior to the New, and that New Testament Christians should not abide by this inferior covenant when they have something so superior. In fact, the writer of Hebrews actually quotes the a passage from Jeremiah to make this point (Hebrews 8:6-13). So in a sense Gods saying the followers of the original disciples fucked up his word when they wrote the gospels and that what was written isnt good enough like I said.
Another significant difference is who God gave the covenant to. The Old Testament was a covenant given strictly for the Jews, or Israelites. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, could adopt the Jewish covenant and become "prostelytes", but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews. However, the New Testament made no distinction. One of the things about the New Testament is that God's message and special covenant relationship is extended to all races and peoples. Consequently, the writings of the Old Testament generally track the story of the Israelites with a few exceptions, and the New Testament writings contain the gospel of Jesus and of the spread of the gospel all over the world, as well as directions for the new Christians. Why change all this? Again if the original gospels are true this should already of been included right? If not Id like to know who God told these to that made them change the writings. Why is it others werent good enough for God then but are accepted now? To me it seems like god guy has some bi-polar issues goin on upstairs.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. ... And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:4, 11-14
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Cause I know one of you will say some ish about how it really means Jesus will suffer for our sins, Yes he supposedly suffered for our sins but the book was written after that. It clearly states its impossible for our sins to be taken away, now why in a time when were are probably sinning at the most is it okay to sin and just have it taken back by god? Makes no sense to me.
The Old Testament prophets hundreds of years before, foretold the coming of a second covenant. Moreover, the New Testament also teaches that Old Testament was imperfect because it could not offer forgiveness of sins. Instead, each year the sins were "rolled back" until Christ's ultimate sacrifice. The entire book of Hebrews is devoted to showing that the Old Covenant is inferior to the New, and that New Testament Christians should not abide by this inferior covenant when they have something so superior. In fact, the writer of Hebrews actually quotes the a passage from Jeremiah to make this point (Hebrews 8:6-13). So in a sense Gods saying the followers of the original disciples fucked up his word when they wrote the gospels and that what was written isnt good enough like I said.
Another significant difference is who God gave the covenant to. The Old Testament was a covenant given strictly for the Jews, or Israelites. Non-Jews, or Gentiles, could adopt the Jewish covenant and become "prostelytes", but there was no special law and relationship offered that was for the Gentiles as the Old Testament was for the Jews. However, the New Testament made no distinction. One of the things about the New Testament is that God's message and special covenant relationship is extended to all races and peoples. Consequently, the writings of the Old Testament generally track the story of the Israelites with a few exceptions, and the New Testament writings contain the gospel of Jesus and of the spread of the gospel all over the world, as well as directions for the new Christians. Why change all this? Again if the original gospels are true this should already of been included right? If not Id like to know who God told these to that made them change the writings. Why is it others werent good enough for God then but are accepted now? To me it seems like god guy has some bi-polar issues goin on upstairs.
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. ... And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Hebrews 10:4, 11-14
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Cause I know one of you will say some ish about how it really means Jesus will suffer for our sins, Yes he supposedly suffered for our sins but the book was written after that. It clearly states its impossible for our sins to be taken away, now why in a time when were are probably sinning at the most is it okay to sin and just have it taken back by god? Makes no sense to me.
Last edited:
supaman4321
New member
rapluva;420984 said:There R Different vesions, because people started DIFFERENT CHURCHES WITH DIFFERENT DOCTRANTS, FROM THE CHURCH MOSHIA started, havent u studied this already, or r u just jumping to page 500 going on 2 page 1000, with out first starting at page 1-500?????????????????
And nearly every one of those churches has a radically different view of God and his essence, how can one group of christians claim trinity and another group not but they both claim to be christians?
and you didn't really answer my question, a different version with a different number of books, how can some be kept and others not? so man gets to decide what's God's Word and what isn't?
What's stopping some new "church" from completely disregarded whichever books of the bible they want to and claiming it's the authentic Word of God
Last edited:
supaman4321;433112 said:And nearly every one of those churches has a radically different view of God and his essence, how can one group of christians claim trinity and another group not but they both claim to be christians?
and you didn't really answer my question, a different version with a different number of books, how can some be kept and others not? so man gets to decide what's God's Word and what isn't?
Get The Septuigant Bible, and then, get ALL the other KJV/and other Biblez, and look at them and u'll see the difference in what I'm talkin about, thats all I can say, U got 2 do that 2 C what, I'm talkin bout, it may cost U some $ but thats what it takes in our world 2 get somethin done.
What's stopping some new "church" from completely disregarded whichever books of the bible they want to and claiming it's the authentic Word of God
NOTHING, AND IT'S HAPPENIN EVERYDAY!
Last edited:
Similar threads
