Encouragement to kill babies in the Christian Bible

Post Reply New Topic

Other versions of the Bible contain books discredited by scholars. It would take a long drawn out explanation to help you understand.

One recent example I can point to would be the recently "discovered" Gospel of Judas. A collector had been holding this book for a while.

It is clearly authentic in terms of age, but it was written by a sect of Christians who wanted to cast Jesus in a different light than any other book in the Bible portrays him as. The Gospel of Judas suggests Jesus resorted to deception by telling Judas to betray him so that later on he could appear to have predicted that Judas would betray him.

This goes against the actual Bible which states in many different ways that anything miraculous that Jesus did was the result of God's power working through him.

Each and every other chapter that has been excluded from the Protestant Bible has been excluded for valid reasons.

And for the record, the Duay version is a Catholic version.

I have read published portions of the Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Thomas, as well as parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls incidentally.

When you corroborate written secular historical documents with Biblical text, you begin to realize that historical fact supports the Bible steadfastly.

Not true. To any person with a modicum of intelligence, the stories of creation and Noah's Ark are obviously fictional. Basically, the bible consists of mythical stories combined with the ravings of a madman.

Just wanted to say that Jesus wasn't mythical. Historical texts corroborate his existence. I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that:

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of- ... itus.shtml

Tacitus: "Annals" 15.44.2-8 Circa 115 AD

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome..."

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of- ... phus.shtml

Josephus: "Jewish Antiquities." Circa 93 AD

"So he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned..."

http://www.jesus-institute.org/life-of- ... phus.shtml

Josephus: "Jewish Antiquities." Circa 93 AD

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (if it be lawful to call him a man,) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. (He was the Christ;) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, (for he appeared to them alive again the third day,) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." Note: Interpolations, possibly added by others, are indicated in parenthesis. "

http://www.catholictruths.com/articles/ ... e.html#one

Pliny the Younger: Letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan Circa A.D. 112

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

http://www.catholictruths.com/articles/ ... e.html#one

"Babylonian Talmud" Circa AD 70-500

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

http://www.catholictruths.com/articles/ ... e.html#one

Lucian of Samosata

"The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws."

Pontius Pilate, the man ultimately responsible for crucifying Jesus, also existed as proven by historical documentation. But before I present such documentation, perhaps you would like to go here:

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

"Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea."



Here is the historical documentation I mentioned:

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

"The Standards" - Josephus, War 2.169-174, Antiq 18.55-59

"On one occasion, when the soldiers under his command came to Jerusalem, he caused them to bring with them their ensigns, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in privily by night, put their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. For five days he refused to hear them, but on the sixth he took his place on the judgment seat, and when the Jews were admitted he had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter. The Jews thereupon flung themselves on the ground and bared their necks, declaring that they preferred death to the violation of their laws. Pilate, unwilling to slay so many, yielded the point and removed the ensigns."

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

"The Aqueduct"- Josephus, War 2.175-177, Antiq 18.60-62)

"At another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled."

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia

Philo (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii)

"Philo tells us (Legatio ad Caium, xxxviii) that on other occasion he dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod in honor of the emperor. On these shields there was no representation of any forbidden thing, but simply an inscription of the name of the donor and of him in whose honor they were set up. The Jews petitioned him to have them removed; when he refused, they appealed to Tiberius, who sent an order that they should be removed to Caesarea."

Isn't all this stuff neat?

A person named Jesus did exist. That does'nt prove the bible is true.

BTW Didymus this is yet another example of you using misdirection in your arguments. Emp never said that Jesus did'nt exist. He said that the story of Noah is fictional (it is). Your whole post is a red herring.

Last edited by Scrapheap on 21 Apr 2006, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The story of the flod was pagerised from Sumarian mythology. Thier story is at least partialy true. Noah's Ark makes statements that are scientificaly disprovable.

Hah, always amusing to see a giant post destroyed by a simple and obvious piece of logic such as the above. I agree with Scrapheap: Even if Jesus did exist, it is impossible to know anything about him with accuracy. It is so long ago that there are NO reliable records. Any professional historian will tell you that the bible is not a reliable historial reference. The gospels were not even written when Jesus was supposed to be alive!! They were written much later by people who wanted to use the writings to manipulate gullible people into following them, and then they were modified and adapted multiple times by later authors who improved them again for the purposes of manipulating the gullible.

And Didymus, you said you are a Lutheran. How can we be expected to take you seriously on any religious issue now? Martin Luther advocated cutting off the limbs of Jews as a punishment for teaching. You admire a man who advocated cutting off the limbs of people!! ! How can you expect to be taken seriously on religious issues?

The story of the flood was also something that American Aboriginal people had even before the white men came to America and told them about Noah. At least that is what my Abenaki/Metis girlfriend says.

Funny how peoples the world over have flood stories in their religions even though they could have absolutely no contact with one another to spread such a story isn't it?

Sort of makes you think there might be some truth in this flood thing eh?

Flood based Destruction/redemtion myths are commonplace among people who live near water. The common thread here is geography.

(Sigh)

I'll just go ahead and do the research for you AGAIN...

It's like you take rumors and run with them without trying to LISTEN to the facts...

Makes for a difficult friendship.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?171 ... =1&id=3192

"The religious/political situation of Luther’s day was much like that of Israel. The situation Luther was in, but did not create, was that the ruler’s religion was the religion of his land. Freedom of religion existed—you just had to go to the territory whose leader practiced yours. It was inconceivable for that generation to imagine the religious tolerance we practice, although the Lutherans for their part forced no one to believe as they.

"To 21st-century ears tuned to freedom of religion and reverberating from genuine anti-Semitism, Luther’s advice seems out of order. For our day it is. However, this was for 16th-century Saxony. Remember, God does not mandate any form of government or legislate its treatment of idolatry. Luther’s words were not for the common people but only for the leaders of Saxony whose duty it was to protect the faith and the faithful. Unlike God’s instruction to Israel, Luther’s was that no person be harmed. He prefaced his advice (which he said they could ignore) by saying, “With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throats.”

"Luther’s advice to the princes was not the result of anti-Semitism but a response to false Jewish claims that they were being held against their will in Saxony. Luther said, fine, let the Jews go and burn their synagogues behind them. (Unlike Luther, others were advocating “burning synagogues with the Jews still in them” and did.) Luther was happy to grant their “wish,” because they were gaining converts to Judaism. Jews could remain and be safe, but their proselytizing had to stop.

"That there was no organized persecution of Jews at that time in Saxony is evidence that Luther was not naive in believing that no Jew would be harmed. Rights of rulers were sharply distinguished from those of individuals.

"In addition, Luther was responding to some unprintable and unimaginably gross blasphemy against Jesus and Mary, as well as to the illegal practice of usury, to reports of the murder of Christian children, and to other criminal acts. Finally for Luther, since these Jews were resisting Christianity, the time had come to no longer “throw your pearls to pigs” (Matthew 7:6).

"Luther was not anti-Semitic. His writings clearly show that his quarrel was with the religion of Judaism and not with people of Jewish ancestry—an important distinction that even some Lutherans refuse to grant Luther. Luther called many a Jewish convert “brother.” In fact Luther closed his writing with this prayer, “May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.” It can safely be said that Luther would not write in 21st-century America as he did in 16th-century Saxony, although his condemnations of idolatry would be just as harsh as God’s, and so, just as out of tune with 21st-century America."

Then why did/do Aboriginal peoples of the Great Plains and the Nevada dessert have the same "myth?"

More information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jew ... tin_Luther)

Reading that webpage, it becomes blatantly obvious that Martin Luther was a madman.

Re your comment on the flood Noah's Ark, I will not respond to that because the suggestion that a god flooded the earth and all the animals were saved in Noah's Ark... to claim with all seriousness that this really happened is ludicrous. It is so ridiculous that I need not even bother debating it. It is the same as if you are trying to draw me into a debate about whether Batman or Superman is better: It is totally absurd.

I maintain what I said: Martin Luther advocated cutting off the limb's of Jews. A person that admires such a madman cannot be taken seriously on the topic of religion.

I don't think any Lutheran "admires" Luther for those statements. They are shameful. Modern day Lutherans freely admit it. However, again, let me state that Luther was speaking against the religion, not individuals.

All religions in that day and age were equally savage. Not that it excuses anything to say that.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?171 ... =1&id=3192

"Luther wrote concerning Jews living in Saxony that their synagogues be burned, their houses razed, their prayer books and Talmud taken, their rabbis forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb, their free passage through the country stopped, their usury prohibited, and their young people put to hard work. You can look it up in Luther’s works."

But even while he was saying this, the Old testament, which Jews were supposed to be following stated:

“Destroy all the places where [they] worship their gods.” And this. “If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’ . . . Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death.”

"Indefensible? Well, look it up— in Deuteronomy. That was God on how to treat paganism in Israel. When Israel itself fell into apostasy, the Lord demanded, “Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down on the heads of all the people; those who are left
I will kill with the sword” (Amos 9:1)."

"God’s words were for the nation of Israel. God does not tolerate idolatry and at that time he ordered death for idolaters, while at the same time giving opportunity for repentance and atonement. "

"The religious/political situation of Luther’s day was much like that of Israel."

If Luther was anti-semetic, Lutherans wouldn't support anti-semitism. Lutherans "admire" Luther only because he broke off from the Catholic Church during a time when the Church itself was thought to be corrupt.

As for the Noah's Ark thing and the flood...

You just have to have faith.

Can you tell me where all the matter came from to make the universe?

And don't say the Big Bang because the MATTER which came out of the Big Bang had to come from somewhere. Yet you have faith that there is some reasonable scientific explanation for the existence of matter even though there is no existing science to explain its creation.

Therefore I will choose to believe that God created it all, which makes more sense than your way of thinking, because there is considerable science to explain lots of what God did as recorded in the Bible whereas your beleifs about the creation of the universe cannot be explained by science.

Just a few months ago there was a paper published that people were able to grow organs from stem cells http://www.hindu.com/seta/2006/04/20/st ... 621600.htm

"The paper published online in the April 4, 2006 issue of The Lancet, illustrates the promise of tissue engineering and the possibility of taking cells from the patient's own bladder to generate healthy, functional bladders that can be put back in the patient."

We humans call this a brilliant scientific advancement, but in Biblical terms this is old hat. God took a rib from Adam, and with that rib and some dust of the earth and VOILA: There was Eve!

When man can take a rib and make another man out of it I will be impressed. Right now what they are doing is primitave in comparrison to what God can and did do.

Regardless, even if you don't buy into the fact that God exists or that God did what the Bible says He did, here we have an example where science PROVES that what is "alleged" to have happened in the Bible COULD have happened.

Science comes closer and closer to proving the existence of God and His works every day.

But...

Folks will be skeptical.

And yet they still call themselves Lutherans, and yet again we see how religion is a form of insanity.


You say that as if it exonerates such terrible immoral statements!

And furthermore, it is blatantly obvious that it includes individuals because you cannot cut off the limb of a religion, only of an individual. Also Luther specifically states rabbis, those are the people he wants to cut the limbs from, and rabbis are individual people.

But why argue about whether it is against the religion or individuals? It makes no difference either way, the conclusion is the same: Luther was a madman, he made statements that you admit are shameful, and yet you still call yourself a Lutheran. Madness. For crying out loud, you are in a religion headed by a man who advocated cutting limbs off!! Anything you say about religion cannot be taken seriously.

As I said before, a religion has little if anything to do with the person who starts it.

Oh, so it's okay to kill someone's family if you plan on marrying them?



GET OUT.



In other words, everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as they're compatible with yours.



Actually it does. If you have faith in God, Jesus, and the Bible, you can't just sweep every verse you don't agree with under the rug.

Are you going to claim that there are no rivers in the great plains?? because the bible says so??