Anyone familiar with the barbarism of the Old Testament would not be surprised that the same barbaric injunctions are given unremitting succor in the New Testament by the so-called "gentle Jesus, meak and mild".

The OT calls for the killing of recalcitrant children,  as in;

Exodus 21: 17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

And cross-reference with Matthew 15, where Jesus is calling on his listeners to remember to observe Exodus 21: 17.

Matthew 15: 1-9 :

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Now, what do Christians make of this?

Now that you've started the topic properly, you can get a proper explanation.

If you were not desperately looking for an excuse to discredit Christ and Christianity, you would have realised that Christ wasn't calling for the killing of children but for sincerity on the part of the hypocritical Pharisees. The law they claimed to practise and interpret told them that children should honour their parents and to prevent any child from disregarding the law a strict punishment was specified for violators. But to satisfy their personal interests, they perverted the law and interpreted it in such a way that children could freely dishonour their parents. Now, they came to Jesus and complained that his disciples were not washing their hands (ceremonially) before eating. Appalled by their hypocrisy, Jesus told them that they were doing something far worse than what they were accusing the disciples of. And what were they doing? Giving children the right to insult their parents. That was what he was condemning them for - not their refusal to stone children!

If Jesus were pro-stoning or pro-violence, you would have seen it in his actions and decisions. Did he ever approve of anyone being stoned or killed. NEVER! Take for example, when the same hypocritical leaders brought a woman that was caught in adultery for him to approve that she should be stoned. Did he give his approval? No way. Please take time to read the full account for a better understanding (John 8:3-12)

[b]And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.[/b]

At another time, when Peter was trying to defend him (Jesus) with a sword, Jesus told him, "Put up thy sword into the sheath!" (John 18:11).

Isn't that amazing? Try to imagine what someone like muhammed would have done in such a case! Jesus was against violence all the way because he is the PRINCE OF PEACE!

So who gave the original law to stone children, is it not god?
How can god the father be pro-stoning and god the son anti-stoning, why is there confusion in heaven?

tudor again u r realy confused bt i pray God gives u wisdom

gen2genius:

Now that you've started the topic properly, you can get a proper explanation.

If you were not desperately looking for an excuse to discredit Christ and Christianity, you would have realised that Christ wasn't calling for the killing of children but for sincerity on the part of the hypocritical Pharisees. The law they claimed to practise and interpret told them that children should honour their parents and to prevent any child from disregarding the law a strict punishment was specified for violators. But to satisfy their personal interests, they perverted the law and interpreted it in such a way that children could freely dishonour their parents. Now, they came to Jesus and complained that his disciples were not washing their hands (ceremonially) before eating. Appalled by their hypocrisy, Jesus told them that they were doing something far worse than what they were accusing the disciples of. And what were they doing? Giving children the right to insult their parents. That was what he was condemning them for - not their refusal to stone children!

No. Christianity does discredit itself by its own book and doctrine. It is full of falsehoods, absurdities, fabrications, corruptions, etc, etc, right there in the very same bible.

How do you KNOW Jesus was not calling for the killing of Children? The verses clearly shows Jesus reprimanding the Jews who had abandoned the laws and had adopted their own traditions, which incidentally appeared to be a far better moral system that the Laws Jesus was berating them about. That is why Jesus called them HYPOCRITES because they were only paying lip service to the Law, but in reality observed a far moral system of "laws". Let us look at the verse again:

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

There are two issues at play here: 1) Observance of the LAW 2) Observance of the tradition of the elders. The Scribes and Pharisees (S&P) apprear to have been mixing and matching the LAW with their TRADITION as suited them.

The S&P approach Jesus, accusing his disciples of not following the Tradition of the elders. Jesus, as vindictive as ever, say "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". Then the barbaric and immoral Jesus says the following:

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.


Basically, the elders and the S&P had re-interpreted the law so that they would NOT have to kill their children, but Jesus is STRONGLY against this re-interpretation of the LAW by their tradition,and berates them for that.

Thus Jesus is showing his preference for a system that would see parents killing the disobedient children, in compliance with the LAWS he is advocating.

gen2genius:

If Jesus were pro-stoning or pro-violence, you would have seen it in his actions and decisions. Did he ever approve of anyone being stoned or killed. NEVER! Take for example, when the same hypocritical leaders brought a woman that was caught in adultery for him to approve that she should be stoned. Did he give his approval? No way. Please take time to read the full account for a better understanding (John 8:3-12)

[b]And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.[/b]

At another time, when Peter was trying to defend him (Jesus) with a sword, Jesus told him, "Put up thy sword into the sheath!" (John 18:11).

Isn't that amazing? Try to imagine what someone like muhammed would have done in such a case! Jesus was against violence all the way because he is the PRINCE OF PEACE!

Now, the story of the woman accused of adultery is a later fabrication by Christian falsehood machinery. It does not appear in some of the best and earliest manusscripts of the Gospel of John. Newer bibles these days now actually put warning around this narrative. So don't go quoting some fabrications to try to defend your delusions.

luxley or whatever comeon are you for real please stop disgracing yourself comeon

horse703:

luxley or whatever comeon are you for real please stop disgracing yourself comeon

Why don't you challenge my points with facts and evidence, rather than pointing accusatory fingers at me with absolutely nothing. Have you got a point that is rooted in facts? if you have, present it - otherwise just shutup and not display your ignorance.

I don't usually engage in debates that lead nowhere, and I'm not going to start that now. But I'll certainly tackle the issues you raised one after the other, as much as I can.

@ Tudor.  I was actually expecting someone to mention that. I'll enlighten you on the issue. I know you're not a believer in God or Jesus, but have you ever wondered why Jesus (according to Christian beliefs) had to come into the world to die for our sins? Why did he have to do that when the people were already used to  making atonement with the blood of animals? The reason is simple. Before Christ came and died, there was nothing called CHRISTianity. What the people practised was Judaism. They were given rules and regulations to follow. But most times, the people flouted the rules because it's inherent in human nature to stray. So to make them comply, promises of rewards and blessings were made for the obedient and strict penalties were stipulated for the disobedient. The goal was to make the people see why they should obey and not violate God's laws. If you look at this method closely and the Jewish religious system as a whole, you'll see that it bears resemblance to the Islamic shar'ia system. Stone, punish, kill offenders - not because God was wicked because all they had was the law but they lack the grace of God (the divine enablement) to obey the law. The only way they could be restricted from disobeying the law therefore was to recommend harsh punishments for offenders.

But you know what? God wasn't really after killing or destroying anyone (Ezekiel 33:11). All he wanted was for them to live righteously and responsibly. But even with the strict measures, many of the people could still not obey God's laws. Hence the divine promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,, But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


The idea in the passage is that since despite all the harsh measures that were in place, the people continue to stray from the written law, then a new method (covenant) will be put in place that would ensure that God's laws were not just read, memorised and recited, but would be IN THEIR HEARTS. In other words, they'll no longer have much difficulty obeying it.

That was what the death of Christ was to accomplish. It was to mark the beginning of a new covenant, not a covenant of forced compliance through harsh laws, but a covenant that will ensure that as many as are willing to serve God get the divine enablement (grace) to do so from their hearts and not just for fear of punishment. When you receive Jesus and become born again, you're able to serve God NATURALLY because His power helps you; not something you have to FORCE yourself to do because you're afraid of being killed or stoned. This is why Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam. Christianity ensures that you have the grace to live for God without compulsion. Romans 8:2-4 explains it better: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Christianity began after Christ had accomplished his mission, making the ultimate atonemnet and paying the ultimate price so that the power for righteousness will be imputed in us, once and for all, instead of sinning everytime and making atonement with the blood of animals. Hebrews 9:13,14 says: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

I hope my explanations clarifies the issue you raised, Tudor. If you have any more questions on the issue, feel free to ask (I'm very calm today for expository theology lol).

Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

gen2genius:


@ Tudor.  I was actually expecting someone to mention that. I'll enlighten you on the issue. I know you're not a believer in God or Jesus, but have you ever wondered why Jesus (according to Christian beliefs) had to come into the world to die for our sins? Why did he have to do that when the people were already used to  making atonement with the blood of animals? The reason is simple. Before Christ came and died, there was nothing called CHRISTianity. What the people practised was Judaism. They were given rules and regulations to follow. But most times, the people flouted the rules because it's inherent in human nature to stray. So to make them comply, promises of rewards and blessings were made for the obedient and strict penalties were stipulated for the disobedient. The goal was to make the people see why they should obey and not violate God's laws. If you look at this method closely and the Jewish religious system as a whole, you'll see that it bears resemblance to the Islamic shar'ia system. Stone, punish, kill offenders - [b]not because God was wicked [/b]because all they had was the law but they lack the grace of God (the divine enablement) to obey the law. The only way they could be restricted from disobeying the law therefore was to recommend harsh punishments for offenders.

Your god told people to kill stone to death their disobedient children, sacrifice unbelievers unto him as burnt offering, rape the virgin girls of other tribes and people that worship other gods, kill the prophets of other gods, steal from unbelievers, send lying spirits to confuse people and make them believe in lies, tell people to kill the innocent children of other people that worship other gods and yet you say this god is not wicked. Allah the god of the muslims is no different from your god but allah is the evil and wicked one. There is nothing that your god has done or told people to do that is different from what allah has told his own people to do against others yet allah is the bad one.

But you know what? God wasn't really after killing or destroying anyone (Ezekiel 33:11).

There are so many bible verses which talks about your god rejoicing over the death of unbelievers. your god isn't after killing any one yet the bible says he drowned the whole world,

There are so many bible verses which talks about your god rejoicing over the death of unbelievers. your god isn't after killing any one yet the bible says he drowned the whole world, Grin Grin

U say dat U don't know Him dat control da Universe! Pls add me, tomgirl4realshow@yahoo.com, maybe we toq beta, or +2348062835589. Remain blezed!

gen2genius:

Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood.  You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content.  What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1)  That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2)  That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3)  That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4)  Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5)  That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda.  That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance.  The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:

Taken from http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=4&source=1&seq=i.50.7.7

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type.  Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

ONE THING IS SURE: EACH ONE OF US WILL DIE SOME DAY, AT THAT POINT WE WILL COME TO CONFIRMATION OF OUR BELIEFS.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_{You may call me a fool for keeping safe, it's alright.But I'd rather not be an atheist}

gen2genius:

Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood. You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content. What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1) That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2) That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3) That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4) Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5) That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda. That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance. The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:

Taken from http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=4&source=1&seq=i.50.7.7

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type. Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

gen2genius:

Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood. You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content. What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1) That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2) That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3) That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4) Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5) That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda. That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance. The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:

Taken from biblegateway

Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type. Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

Exodus 21: 17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

And cross-reference with Matthew 15, where Jesus is calling on his listeners to remember to observe Exodus 21: 17.

@Huxley - ur post are extremely disingenuous, and the stupidity u display here, along with Tudor, in both ur quests to illustrate an extremely spurious argument is breathtaking!

The 1st -  Ex 21:17 concerns when God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses and in addition, other laws guiding the Israelites on various issues - Violence, Animal Control, Laws of the Alter, etc. This particular law (Ex 21:17), is in synergy with Gods view on how children (in this context, meaning adults with parents) should respect and honour their parents.
Remember this was in the time of the Law, before Jesus Christ, who brought the Grace. The Law was harsh, unforgiving, and was expected to be followed to the letter.

The 2nd - Mat 15:1-9, Here, Jesus actually refers to the original law in Exodus 21, when the Pharisees challenged him on why his disciples transgressed a tradition - eating bread without washing their hands, He reminded them that not only did [i]they [/i]disobey a law (Ex 21), they also challenged it with a tradition that was against the word of God concerning that specific Law
In other words, they were hypocrites! Jesus is saying - Which is worse,  Breaking a tradition enshrined by Man, or breaking the Law of God.

This is very clear in the scriptures, and for you guys to try to obfuscate this in order to score cheap points is hugely disappointing.

gen2genius:

Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

Well, if you are like me, you would value the TRUTH over Falsehood. You would want to believe things that are generality true and close to reality rather than fables, myths and superstitions.

Now, supposing you showed the bible narrative to a neutral and intelligent and rational person to evaluate for its truth content. What do you think he will make about the following claims of the bible:

1) That God created the world about 6000 years ago, all in one week of creative activity?

2) That the same God kill every human and animal on earth bar those on Noah's boat?

3) That a virgin gave birth to a child that is in fact the same god the created the world?

4) Upon checking with historical records could find NO evidence of the character called Jesus?

5) That the documents that are claimed to be the recorded acitvities and wished of this Jesus character is riddle with fabrications, contradictions, absurdities, lies, etc, etc?

etc, etc, etc.

Do you think that neutral person would be inclined to believe in the claims made by this book and about the Jesus person?

It is well known amongst bible scholars that there are many fabrications added into the bible, with a view to promote a certain agenda. That you did not know this is a matter of your own ignorance. The story of the woman caught in adultery is one of the most well known interpolations of the bible. Check this out:



Jesus Forgives a Woman Taken in Adultery(Taken from biblegateway)

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.

Those who believe that authorship is a primary criterion for canonicity will suspect or even reject this passage. Most of Christendom, however, has received this story as authoritative, and modern scholarship, although concluding firmly that it was not a part of John's Gospel originally, has generally recognized that this story describes an event from the life of Christ. Furthermore, it is as well written and as theologically profound as anything else in the Gospels.


There are probably more than 1000 additions to the original text of this type. Like I said, some new bible these days are published with warns about these additions.


Another additions is the resurrection narrative given in the Gospel of Mark.

So if you care about the truth, you should care about such things.

Romeo4real:

@Huxley - ur post are extremely disingenuous, and the stupidity u display here, along with Tudor, in both ur quests to illustrate an extremely spurious argument is breathtaking!

The 1st -  Ex 21:17 concerns when God gave the 10 Commandments to Moses and in addition, other laws guiding the Israelites on various issues - Violence, Animal Control, Laws of the Alter, etc. This particular law (Ex 21:17), is in synergy with Gods view on how children (in this context, meaning adults with parents) should respect and honour their parents.
Remember this was in the time of the Law, before Jesus Christ, who brought the Grace. The Law was harsh, unforgiving, and was expected to be followed to the letter.

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

1) He Demands human sacrifices (Lev 27:29, Exodus 22: 29-30)
2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthat sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11.
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls
4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt

etc, etc, etc.

So, you see - you Jesus is a very bloodthirsty and barbaric god. If he ordered all of these violent crimes in the Old Testament, why would he not do the same in the NT. After all, did he not say that he did not come to change the LAW:

Matthew 5:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus refering to here?

The 2nd - Mat 15:1-9, Here, Jesus actually refers to the original law in Exodus 21, when the Pharisees challenged him on why his disciples transgressed a tradition - eating bread without washing their hands, He reminded them that not only did [i]they [/i]disobey a law (Ex 21), they also challenged it with a tradition that was against the word of God concerning that specific Law

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.

Now, what is wrong with that?

In other words, they were hypocrites! Jesus is saying - Which is worse,  Breaking a tradition enshrined by Man, or breaking the Law of God.

This is very clear in the scriptures, and for you guys to try to obfuscate this in order to score cheap points is hugely disappointing.

Yes, as I said, they are hypocrites because they were calling for the observance of the tradition while flouting the "laws of God". But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

So they all are hypocrites - Jesus, the Scribes and Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law - All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR.

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.
1) He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God. Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two.
2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.

The question is - What is ur point? That God is sometimes brutal? If so, so what? Does that mean he is not God because of this? Does my father cease to become my dad, because he sometimes smacks me?, Or,If he kills somebody else to protect me, does that means he no longer is my father?

Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus referring to here?

Again Huxley, u are being very ignorant here. U need to study the the writings of Paul in Romans 6 onwards, where he discusses the legalistic issues concerning the Law and Grace.
What Jesus is saying in Matt 5 is simply an extension of Paul's arguments - That though u are no longer under the Law(not judged according to the strict letter), but are now under Grace(Grace is now a consideration in the application of the Law), does not mean make the Law invalid - In fact the Law is still valid, because it the yardstick to confirm there has been sin.
He also makes it clear he has an issue with people, especially the Pharisees who follow the Letter of the Law - What the Law states, but not the Spirit of the Law - What the Law and God stand for. He is saying the "Letter" is just as important as the "Spirit", and both should be observed equally.

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.
Now, what is wrong with that?

Of course, ur not a Christian, otherwise you would not ask this question. Kinda make debating this issue with you a mere academic exercise.
The Pharisees regarded themselves as authorities and experts on God, Godly issues ,and also believed in upholding the the Oral Laws of God given to Moses. But quite frequently, they were prepared to subvert these laws when it suited them, That is why Jesus always regarded them as a bunch of hypocrites.
You cannot claim to believe in the sacrosanct authority of something, then question and change it when it suits you.
So, im sure you can now see "what is wrong with that".

But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

How does this prove Jesus is a hypocrite? He recognises them as sticklers of the Law, whilst being sinners, and flouting the spirit of the Law. Jesus see that the motivation of the Pharisee is not to be Godly, rather its the power that come with being the authority and enforcers of the Law they are interested in.

All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR

. I would assume ur referring to Jesus here. Can u pls enlighten us who the REAL son of God is? Is it you, or someone else? And pls show ur authoritative sources for this statement above.

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.

1) He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God. Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two. 2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.

The question is - What is ur point? That God is sometimes brutal? If so, so what? Does that mean he is not God because of this? Does my father cease to become my dad, because he sometimes smacks me?, Or,If he kills somebody else to protect me, does that means he no longer is my father?

Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus referring to here?

Again Huxley, u are being very ignorant here. U need to study the the writings of Paul in Romans 6 onwards, where he discusses the legalistic issues concerning the Law and Grace.
What Jesus is saying in Matt 5 is simply an extension of Paul's arguments - That though u are no longer under the Law(not judged according to the strict letter), but are now under Grace(Grace is now a consideration in the application of the Law), does not mean make the Law invalid - In fact the Law is still valid, because it the yardstick to confirm there has been sin.
He also makes it clear he has an issue with people, especially the Pharisees who follow the Letter of the Law - What the Law states, but not the Spirit of the Law - What the Law and God stand for. He is saying the "Letter" is just as important as the "Spirit", and both should be observed equally.

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.
Now, what is wrong with that?

Of course, ur not a Christian, otherwise you would not ask this question. Kinda make debating this issue with you a mere academic exercise.
The Pharisees regarded themselves as authorities and experts on God, Godly issues ,and also believed in upholding the the Oral Laws of God given to Moses. But quite frequently, they were prepared to subvert these laws when it suited them, That is why Jesus always regarded them as a bunch of hypocrites.
You cannot claim to believe in the sacrosanct authority of something, then question and change it when it suits you.
So, im sure you can now see "what is wrong with that".

But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

How does this prove Jesus is a hypocrite? He recognises them as sticklers of the Law, whilst being sinners, and flouting the spirit of the Law. Jesus see that the motivation of the Pharisee is not to be Godly, rather its the power that come with being the authority and enforcers of the Law they are interested in.

All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR

. I would assume ur referring to Jesus here. Can u pls enlighten us who the REAL son of God is? Is it you, or someone else? And pls show ur authoritative sources for this statement above.

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.

1) He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God. Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two. 2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - [b]Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.[b]

The question is - What is ur point? That God is sometimes brutal? If so, so what? Does that mean he is not God because of this? Does my father cease to become my dad, because he sometimes smacks me?, Or,If he kills somebody else to protect me, does that means he no longer is my father?

Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus referring to here?

Again Huxley, u are being very ignorant here. U need to study the the writings of Paul in Romans 6 onwards, where he discusses the legalistic issues concerning the Law and Grace.
What Jesus is saying in Matt 5 is simply an extension of Paul's arguments - That though u are no longer under the Law(not judged according to the strict letter), but are now under Grace(Grace is now a consideration in the application of the Law), does not mean make the Law invalid - In fact the Law is still valid, because it the yardstick to confirm there has been sin.
He also makes it clear he has an issue with people, especially the Pharisees who follow the Letter of the Law - What the Law states, but not the Spirit of the Law - What the Law and God stand for. He is saying the "Letter" is just as important as the "Spirit", and both should be observed equally.

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.
Now, what is wrong with that?

Of course, ur not a Christian, otherwise you would not ask this question. Kinda make debating this issue with you a mere academic exercise.
The Pharisees regarded themselves as authorities and experts on God, Godly issues ,and also believed in upholding the the Oral Laws of God given to Moses. But quite frequently, they were prepared to subvert these laws when it suited them, That is why Jesus always regarded them as a bunch of hypocrites.
You cannot claim to believe in the sacrosanct authority of something, then question and change it when it suits you.
So, im sure you can now see "what is wrong with that".

But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

How does this prove Jesus is a hypocrite? He recognises them as sticklers of the Law, whilst being sinners, and flouting the spirit of the Law. Jesus see that the motivation of the Pharisee is not to be Godly, rather its the power that come with being the authority and enforcers of the Law they are interested in.

All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR

. I would assume ur referring to Jesus here. Can u pls enlighten us who the REAL son of God is? Is it you, or someone else? And pls show ur authoritative sources for this statement above.

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.

1) He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God. Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two. 2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.

The question is - What is ur point? That God is sometimes brutal? If so, so what? Does that mean he is not God because of this? Does my father cease to become my dad, because he sometimes smacks me?, Or,If he kills somebody else to protect me, does that means he no longer is my father?

Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus referring to here?

Again Huxley, u are being very ignorant here. U need to study the the writings of Paul in Romans 6 onwards, where he discusses the legalistic issues concerning the Law and Grace.
What Jesus is saying in Matt 5 is simply an extension of Paul's arguments - That though u are no longer under the Law(not judged according to the strict letter), but are now under Grace(Grace is now a consideration in the application of the Law), does not mean make the Law invalid - In fact the Law is still valid, because it the yardstick to confirm there has been sin.
He also makes it clear he has an issue with people, especially the Pharisees who follow the Letter of the Law - What the Law states, but not the Spirit of the Law - What the Law and God stand for. He is saying the "Letter" is just as important as the "Spirit", and both should be observed equally.

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Exo 21:17. Yes, they challenged with with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.
Now, what is wrong with that?

Of course, ur not a Christian, otherwise you would not ask this question. Kinda make debating this issue with you a mere academic exercise.
The Pharisees regarded themselves as authorities and experts on God, Godly issues ,and also believed in upholding the the Oral Laws of God given to Moses. But quite frequently, they were prepared to subvert these laws when it suited them, That is why Jesus always regarded them as a bunch of hypocrites.
You cannot claim to believe in the sacrosanct authority of something, then question and change it when it suits you.
So, im sure you can now see "what is wrong with that".

But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

How does this prove Jesus is a hypocrite? He recognises them as sticklers of the Law, whilst being sinners, and flouting the spirit of the Law. Jesus see that the motivation of the Pharisee is not to be Godly, rather its the power that come with being the authority and enforcers of the Law they are interested in.

All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR

. I would assume ur referring to Jesus here. Can u pls enlighten us who the REAL son of God is? Is it you, or someone else? And pls show ur authoritative sources for this statement above.

Romeo4real:

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic  in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.
It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.

Even if I grant that this referred to adults with parents, do that make it morally right? I submit that it does not. But I shall not grant that. Let us examine the passages you have given:

Exodus 20: 12 - Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Exodus 21: 15 - And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Exodus 21: 17 - And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Lev 19: 3 - Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.

Lev 20: 9 - For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Deut 5: 16 - Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Deut 27: 16 - Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Matthew 15: 4-6 - For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Matthew 19: 19 - Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mark 7: 10 - For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Luke 18: 20 - Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.


Ephesians 6: 1- 4 - Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. 4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.




Firstly, I wish to thank you for providing these verses. Now, let us see if the support you point that "Children" referred to "adults with parents". Can you should which of the above verses so much as insinuates that "Children" referred to "adults with parents"? If you insist that it does, then I shall have to ask you where the cut-off age was beyond which one was considered an adult and below which one was a child.

Further, when the bible says that "Children should honour their parents", did it mean that only "adults with parents should honour their parents? If youy want to make that distinction, you have got to clarify when children mean "adult with parents" from when it meant something else.


Like I said above, even if this meant "adults with parents" (a case which remains to be demonstrated) it is still a most evil injunction.

1)  He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God.

OK, let us see what Lev 27: 29 (KJV) actually says:

27And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation. 28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: [b]every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD. 31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.


Look at the context (that is why I have included more verses around verse 29) . This chapter is talking about "things" that are given or offerred or devoted to God. Verse 28 says that nothing that has been offerred or devoted to God can be sold or taken back - every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

Now, where in the text is punishment even so much as suggested? Did you make that up? Please show US where punishment is suggested. Further, why would god described someone put to death as punishment for stealing as "most holy unto the LORD"?

You explanation make absolutely no sense, but I am not surprise - I have come to expect such nonsense from bible-believers.

Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two.[/b]

Let's look at Ex 22: 29-30:

29Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.


So what is being offered to god above? Fruits, liquors, oxen, sheep and firstborn of thy sons. Now, what do you thing (Fruits, liquors, oxen, sheep) was done with the other things offered to god. Were they burn in offering as sacrifices, eaten, used as the possessions of the priests? What do you think they would have done with the firstborn of the sons? Were they used as slaves and minoins in the temples, or what?

2) He even gets a human sacrifice when  Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow

Why did god arrange for Jephthah's deal to come to pass, which comply him to honour his promise to god. Why did god not arrange for a family pet to be the first thing that came out of his house to greet him upon his return. He did not, but arrange for his daughter to come out of the house first, presumably because he was a bit bloodthirsty yet again.

By the way, why did god not intervene to say that this was a silly promise, in view of the potential consequences? Why did god not stay the executtion just as he saved Isaac's life?

3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

Yes, I meant Numbers 31. I saw the mistake after I posted but was distracted by a number of things and forgot to make the correction. But that is the least of the issue. The more substantive point is that God command this atrocity. Let us look at Numbers 31:


Numbers 31

1 [size=18pt]And the LORD spake unto Moses[/size], saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. 4Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. 5So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.


And the LORD spake unto Moses. And what did you say? Let's see: "God did not command this". I submit that the bible contradicts you. Let's look further down the chapter, shall we:

25[size=18pt]And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying[/size], 26Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation: 27And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: 28And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: 29Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.


Here we see god commanding Moses to make a sacrifice to him from the loot of the ethnic cleansing and rampage of the Midianites and other tribes. Do you see anywhere god reproach Moses for his excessive execution of the war? I submit NOT. In fact, with God behind Moses, no amount of atrocity and barbarism could be seen as excessive.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.

You god is such a vindictive god, he first of all hardens the Pharoah's heart, so that the Pharoah would not comply with his directives. Having failed to comply, something that the god had caused in the first place, he then comes along and wipes out all the firstborn the the Pharoahs country. Now, how is that for compassion. What did this children do to deserve such savage action.

This suggests that god approves of punishing people for the sins and crimes of others, doesn't it?

Firstly, can you explain how you got the context of children to mean "adults with parents"? Where is this context from? Do you have some sort of previlege access to the context that is not available to a straight-forward reading of the text?

Don't be silly. Every adult has a parent, and is thus a "child", and we don't need to guess the context. A quick lesson understanding the Bible though, - To understand any topic in the Bible, u cannot take a passage or issue in isolation. U need to look at all occurences and incidences of that topic to come to a full comprehension of it.

Now lets look at ALL the occurrences of this topic -
The first is Ex 20:12, followed by Ex 21:15, Ex 21:17, Lev19:3, Lev 20:9, Deut 5:16, Deut 27:16, Matt 15:4-6, Matt 19:19, Mark 7:10, Luke 18:20, Eph 6:2.There are more, but these are the relevant ones. In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

Secondly, why is this God, who is also Jesus, so brutal, violent and barbaric? This is not the only incident where he demands and displays behaviour which would be way beyond the pale today. Let me give some example, just to show you that killing children was well within the purview of this Jesus God:

It really would do you well to research ur subject matter properly before casting desultory arguments.

1) He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29 - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God. Likewise Exodus 22: 29-30 is not about sacrificial offerings, but about devoted offerings - You need to learn about the difference btw the two.
2) He even gets a human sacrifice when Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to God, Judges 11 - Now ur just being stupid. God never asked Jephthah for an offering. Jephthah mad the vow himself, and felt he had to redeem it. It was even his daughter (the"sacrifice" who encouraged him to honour his vow
3) Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls - No, not Numbers 13, but Numbers 31. It helps to know ur argument - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did. This is the ignorance of Bible bashers showing through. Not all actions committed by people were sanctioned or even ordered by God. The Bible is very clear and irrefutable on actions ordered by God.

4) He kills all the firstborn in Egypt - Yes, he ordered this, as a final warning, after 9 plagues had proved insufficient. remember, Pharaoh had enslaved God's people and refused to let them go.

The question is - What is ur point? That God is sometimes brutal? If so, so what? Does that mean he is not God because of this? Does my father cease to become my dad, because he sometimes smacks me?, Or,If he kills somebody else to protect me, does that means he no longer is my father?

Does the above suggest that Jesus meant to change the LAWS? Why would he require his followers to be more observant of the laws than the Pharisees and the teachers of the law? What law was Jesus referring to here?

Again Huxley, u are being very ignorant here. U need to study the the writings of Paul in Romans 6 onwards, where he discusses the legalistic issues concerning the Law and Grace.
What Jesus is saying in Matt 5 is simply an extension of Paul's arguments - That though u are no longer under the Law(not judged according to the strict letter), but are now under Grace(Grace is now a consideration in the application of the Law), does not mean make the Law invalid - In fact the Law is still valid, because it the yardstick to confirm there has been sin.
He also makes it clear he has an issue with people, especially the Pharisees who follow the Letter of the Law - What the Law states, but not the Spirit of the Law - What the Law and God stand for. He is saying the "Letter" is just as important as the "Spirit", and both should be observed equally.

What the deuce is this? Yes, the Pharisees where being hypocritical - that is NOT in dispute. But there were being hypocritical for a good reason - they did not wish to observe a barbaric law, and had reformed this, replacing it with the "the tradition of their elders", including which would have been a relaxation of Ex 21:17. Yes, they challenged with a much more moral and humane tradition, rather than the barbarism of Exodus 21: 17.
Now, what is wrong with that?

Of course, ur not a Christian, otherwise you would not ask this question. Kinda make debating this issue with you a mere academic exercise.
The Pharisees regarded themselves as authorities and experts on God, Godly issues ,and also believed in upholding the the Oral Laws of God given to Moses. But quite frequently, they were prepared to subvert these laws when it suited them, That is why Jesus always regarded them as a bunch of hypocrites.
You cannot claim to believe in the sacrosanct authority of something, then question and change it when it suits you.
So, im sure you can now see "what is wrong with that".

But Jesus too is a hypocrite, because on the one hand Jesus recognises the Pharisees as sticklers for the LAW (Matthew 5: 20, For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven) and on the other hand points accusatory fingers at them.

How does this prove Jesus is a hypocrite? He recognises them as sticklers of the Law, whilst being sinners, and flouting the spirit of the Law. Jesus see that the motivation of the Pharisee is not to be Godly, rather its the power that come with being the authority and enforcers of the Law they are interested in.

All HYPOCRITES. But the worst is the one who falsely claims to be the son of God, Messiah, King of Kings, etc, etc. What a BIG LIAR

. I would assume ur referring to Jesus here. Can u pls enlighten us who the REAL son of God is? Is it you, or someone else? And pls show ur authoritative sources for this statement above.

@poster

Which bible do you study?.

Matthew 15: 1-9 :

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees (the scribes and pharisees came to Jesus) , which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress (disobey) the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress(disobey) the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death (would reap what he sowed i.e his children would do the same to that child). 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free(it means; any child who serves God and does that by disobeying his parents(his parents dont want him to serve God) shall be free of his children disobeying him). Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition(they had always cursed any child( to suffer the same fate) who disobeyed). 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men i.e putting them to death wasn't what the prophet meant as it was fabricated by men.

Die the death (Jesus), put to death means two different things, the first means suffer the same consequences the other means to be put to death, for instance, a child who curses his parents to die would also get the same from his children, or a child who beats up his parents will reap it too.
And i know Jesus who stopped the killing of an adulterer won't support the killing of anyone.
before you post anything, read, meditate, before drawing conclusion, bible passages can mean different things to different people.

Yes, its me Romeo4real. I will keep creating new id’s to combat the delusion and fallacies Hux and Tpaine are spouting on these posts. So here goes.

Even if I grant that this referred to adults with parents, do that make it morally right?

Huxley or Tpaine or whatever ur name is, We can all see what ur doing. Everytime ur argument is shown to be spurious, you move the goalposts hoping no one noticed.
So its now a moral issue right? That wasn't ur initial argument. Remember. And where did you exactly get you parameters to judge morality from? Could it have been from the Bible? If not, can u please tell us? B'cos ur argument are now becoming convoluted.

Now, let us see if the support you point that "Children" referred to "adults with parents". Can you should which of the above verses so much as insinuates that "Children" referred to "adults with parents"?

Are you thick or what? Why are you asking the same question already answered? Read my previous ans - In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.
If you tell a group of adult to “honour their parents”. Would they assume you are speaking to all children, including babies, those who cant speak yet, cant walk yet, or those who cant understand yet, or to the adults who are listening? Go figure

“If you insist that it does, then I shall have to ask you where the cut-off age was beyond which one was considered an adult and below which one was a child”

What is exactly is ur stance? Do you accept it meant “Adults” or “children”, as you cannot argue both sides of the issue simultaneously? Anyway, the cut off age is the age of the audience being addressed – They are all adults who understand what is being said, and the context. This is surely simple to grasp?

“Like I said above, even if this meant "adults with parents" (a case which remains to be demonstrated) it is still a most evil injunction”

. Again, make a choice on ur stance, and stop shifting ur argument. This is ur opinion, which you are entitled to have; But it does not change anything. We are not arguing here about the merits/demerits of the statement. Its is simply what God said.

“Now, where in the text is punishment even so much as suggested? Did you make that up? Please show US where punishment is suggested. Further, why would god described someone put to death as punishment for stealing as "most holy unto the LORD"?”

Ok, lets look at this.
This is ur original comment - He Demands human sacrifices Lev 27:29.
This is my reply - This is not about human sacrifices, but rather about the punishment of anyone who sells or redeemed a devotional offering already devoted to God.

And this is Lev 29.29 - No person under the ban, who may become doomed to destruction among men, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death.
Can you see how confused you are, that you cannot read anymore. The punishment is death, for anyone under the initial ban who has been redeemed.

”Further, why would god described someone put to death as punishment for stealing as "most holy unto the LORD"?”

Firstly, you say there is no punishment, then you ask the question above! Anyway, I will answer - The passage is NOT about stealing. Pls read it properly!! It’s about reneging on a covenant made with God. Haba!

”Your explanation make absolutely no sense”

Really? I’m sure, that even you in ur delusion, don’t believe that.

” Fruits, liquors, oxen, sheep and firstborn of thy sons. Now, what do you thing (Fruits, liquors, oxen, sheep) was done with the other things offered to god. Were they burn in offering as sacrifices, eaten, used as the possessions of the priests? What do you think they would have done with the firstborn of the sons? Were they used as slaves and minoins in the temples, or what?”

So you have some privy knowledge, that is not written, about what will happen to these offerings in this case? As I said, do research your subject matter, before arguing on a public forum. It is not ALL offerings that were meant to be burned, fruits or not. Again, God IS always clear on what he says, and in this case, he did not tell anyone to burn anything. There are many people in the Bible, who were dedicated as children to God to serve him.

“Why did god arrange for Jephthah's deal to come to pass, which comply him to honour his promise to god. Why did god not arrange for a family pet to be the first thing that came out of his house to greet him upon his return. He did not, but arrange for his daughter to come out of the house first, presumably because he was a bit bloodthirsty yet again.”

These are all stupid questions, and again, u are changing ur initial argument. Sigh.
God never “arranged” anything. The Bible never mentions this, so I don’t know where you got it from. This shows ur ignorance about Christianity. So if you decide to go stand in front of a train to offer urself as a sacrifice to God, we can then conclude that God arranged it, or he because he did not prevent it, then he agreed to it? right? Can you see how idiotic that sounds?

Why did god not stay the executtion just as he saved Isaac's life?

Now u are getting it!. In Abraham/Isaac’s case, Abraham was following an order from God. God ordered it. Abraham was not acting on his own decision, like Jephthah did.

And the LORD spake unto Moses. And what did you say? Let's see: "God did not command this". I submit that the bible contradicts you.Let's look further down the chapter, shall we:”

It is really becoming difficult not to insult you here. Again, you have moved ur argument. It now about God reproaching Moses. Anyway,
This is what you initially said - Numbers 13 - He orders the ethnic cleasing of an entire community save for their virgin girls
Here was my reply - Moreover, God did not command this. Moses did.

Now lets look at the scripture you quoted –

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. 3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian. 4Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war. 5So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. 6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand. 7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9[i]And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods[/i]. 10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

Pls now show me where the Lord commanded “Ethnic Cleansing” (rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group - The official UN definition)"as you put it.
What God commanded was to kill all the males,(remember, these were the male in the war, of fighting age)which is commensurate with war, not the Women or Children. It cannot be called ethnic cleansing if the Women and Children are left alone! It was customary to kill males in War and capture women/children and whatever was left. This was the way EVERY war was fought in those days. Just research some Roman/Greek/Hellenic/Persian history.

“Here we see god commanding Moses to make a sacrifice to him from the loot of the ethnic cleansing and rampage of the Midianites and other tribes. Do you see anywhere god reproach Moses for his excessive execution of the war? I submit NOT. In fact, with God behind Moses, no amount of atrocity and barbarism could be seen as excessive”.

Again, is this about God reproaching Moses? Why cant you be stable in ur arguments? I am speechless. Please RESEARCH ur subject matter well, and stop making a fool of yourself. Ur statement above contains so many inaccuracies. If you read the scripture well, it says – Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.
Clearly, the offering is for God, but its given its to Eleazar, more so, it is a “Heave Offering”, Not a “Sacrifice”, as u claim. It is disingenuous to change words to argue ur point!. Do u know what a “heave offering” means? It simply means an offering that is raised to God.

”You god is such a vindictive god, he first of all hardens the Pharoah's heart, so that the Pharoah would not comply with his directives. Having failed to comply, something that the god had caused in the first place, he then comes along and wipes out all the firstborn the the Pharoahs country. Now, how is that for compassion. What did this children do to deserve such savage action”

If you had mentioned before that this is the nub of ur argument, I would not have bothered with you at all. God is vindictive, or wicked.OK, so what? It does not change the fact he is God. The Bible makes it clear that God hardened Pharaoh heart, and the reasons are were made clear in the same Bible u attempt to quote. It is not really a point to contend.

“This suggests that god approves of punishing people for the sins and crimes of others, doesn't it?”

What suggests it? This is not a major leap of logic. The Pharaoh enslaves the Israelites with the help of ordinary Egyptians citizens. Their slave masters were ordinary Egyptian citizen. They were regarded as 2nd class citizens by Egyptians in general, and they did not enjoy the rights Egyptian citizens had. The prejudice they suffered was perpetrated throughout Egyptian society, So how were they punished for the sins of others?

All my (Huxley, Tpaine) "disappeared" post have re-appeared again. How nice

Romeo4rea1:

Yes, its me Romeo4real. I will keep creating new id’s to combat the delusion and fallacies Hux and Tpaine are spouting on these posts. So here goes.

Hello. It is the poster former known as Huxley, Huxley2, Tpaine and therationa. Ok, here we go.

Huxley or Tpaine or whatever ur name is, We can all see what ur doing. Everytime ur argument is shown to be spurious, you move the goalposts hoping no one noticed.
So its now a moral issue right? That wasn't ur initial argument. Remember. And where did you exactly get you parameters to judge morality from? Could it have been from the Bible? If not, can u please tell us? B'cos ur argument are now becoming convoluted.

Why do you think I was questioning the killing of anyone, child, adult, man or woman, especially for something as trivial as disobeying their parents? What issue do you think I was questioning?

Of course, I was questioning the act of killing. What else could I have been question? And killing is a moral issue. So it was and has also been a moral issue?

I get my parameters to judge morality from the same place you get yours, which is certainly NOT the bible. If you got your morality from the bible then you would be practicing some of the most reprehensible injunctions from the bible. I assume you are a relatively decent human being, so you do not practice these. I have many threads here that discuss the many immoralities in the bible - if you want I could bring a couple of them up again.

Are you thick or what? Why are you asking the same question already answered? Read my previous ans - In all the passages, it is clear the speaker is speaking to, and thereby referring to an adult audience, not children.

Show me where it say that those to whom these commandments were binding are adults with parents? You have not done this.

If you tell a group of adult to “honour their parents”. Would they assume you are speaking to all children, including babies, those who cant speak yet, cant walk yet, or those who cant understand yet, or to the adults who are listening? Go figure
What is exactly is ur stance? Do you accept it meant “Adults” or “children”, as you cannot argue both sides of the issue simultaneously? Anyway, the cut off age is the age of the audience being addressed – They are all adults who understand what is being said, and the context. This is surely simple to grasp?

I am not arguing both side. I an trying to see how consistent your arguments are. If this commandments was meant for adults with parents, then we should see how it fits in with all the other commandments. And if there were any special commands for people not considered adults.

Take for instance, a 12 years old child who infringed any of the commandments like disobeying their parents, violating the sabbath laws, killing another person, or worshiping another god. Do you think they would have been spared the sanctions of the law?


Can you explain Lev 27: 29. Here is it below, can you attempt it again.

27And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation. 28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD. 31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.



I submit that this is clearly human sacrifice.

Dr Tomgirl:

There are so many bible verses which talks about your god rejoicing over the death of unbelievers. your god isn't after killing any one yet the bible says he drowned the whole world, Grin Grin

U say dat U don't know Him dat control da Universe! Pls add me, tomgirl4realshow@yahoo.com, maybe we toq beta, or +2348062835589. Remain blezed!

Doctor Doctor, You havent told us your real motive here.

I think your yahoo ID gives a clue as to why you want someone to call you

gen2genius:

Now that you've started the topic properly, you can get a proper explanation.

If you were not desperately looking for an excuse to discredit Christ and Christianity, you would have realised that Christ wasn't calling for the killing of children but for sincerity on the part of the hypocritical Pharisees. The law they claimed to practise and interpret told them that children should honour their parents and to prevent any child from disregarding the law a strict punishment was specified for violators. But to satisfy their personal interests, they perverted the law and interpreted it in such a way that children could freely dishonour their parents. Now, they came to Jesus and complained that his disciples were not washing their hands (ceremonially) before eating. Appalled by their hypocrisy, Jesus told them that they were doing something far worse than what they were accusing the disciples of. And what were they doing? Giving children the right to insult their parents. That was what he was condemning them for - not their refusal to stone children!

Thanks a lot for this gen2genius. Indeed this is what was happening in the verse quoted, and which some take without the use of the personal ability to reason. I guess it is the disease we atheists suffer when we ignorantly wish to denigrate a faith. We miss context, we miss deeper meaning, and think the person of faith takes it in the same ignorant context, and from the same blind perspective that we the atheist consider the things of the Spirit. If only the aim were to understand and comprehend. But unless one is born again, it says, though the person of faith would know how hard it is to enter back into the womb for rebirth - easier for camels, I read it is written.