Hypocrite

The following is an entirely fictional scene at the last judgment to make a point about accumulating reasons to remain unsaved through Christ's gracious atoning death.

Judgment Day:

God - "What about the fornication, the lies, the stealing, the gossiping, the bearing false witness, the taking of the name of God in vain, and the other sins ? You knew they were wrong. Why did you not allow My redemption to cleanse away the guilt of your sins."

Sinner - "Well uh, uh, uh, the camel thing. I couldn't figure out where the camels came from in the Old Testament. "

God - "Couldn't you have repented and been washed in the blood of Christ and put that problem off for latter ?"

Sinner - "Uh, Uh, Uh then there was this problem with

Who carried the cross to Golgotha?
A. Mat. 27: 32, B. Mark 15: 21, C. Luke 23: 26, D. John 19:17
What exactly was written on the plate of the cross?
A. Mat. 27:37, B. Mark 15:26 C. Luke 23:3
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
A. Mat. 27:46, B. Mark 15:34, C. Luke 23:46, John 19:30
Who went first at the grave on Sunday morning?
A. A woman (John 20:1), B. Two women (Mat. 28:1), C. Three women (Mark 16:1), D. More than three women (Luke 23:55-56, 24:1, 24:10)
When did the woman or the women went to the grave?
A. Mat. 28:1, John 20:1, B. Mark 16:2
The woman/ en went to the grave because they wanted to:
A. Mark 16:1-2, Luke 24:1, B. Mat. 28:1
The women acquired and prepared the spices:
A. Luke 23:54-56, B. Mark 16:1

etc. etc. etc. and all the other things I saw on Infidel's website.
So I didn't think I needed to be forgiven by God. "

God - " Let me rerun your life before you and show you how many people and things you put your trust in who deliberately lied to you and cheated you and you never knew it. But I knew it. Remember this incident ? That guy robbed you blind. Remember this? That girl spread lies about you and smiled in your face. Remember this friend? Let me show you how he ripped you off and you were clueless. You completely trusted all these people who cheated you. I bled and died that you could be saved from a perfect holy and righteous judgment. Couldn't your puzzlement with the camel matter have been taken up after you were saved? Look at all the things here you believed with paradoxical details in the reports from different people. Look at all these things you believed with less reason to ."

Sinner - "Couldn't you just forgive all my sins and look at me as if I had never sinned against You."

God- " I already offered you that. You rejected that because you hated Me and didn't trust Me."

Originally posted by sonship
The following is an entirely fictional scene at the last judgment to make a point about accumulating reasons to remain unsaved through Christ's gracious atoning death.

[b]Judgment Day:

God - "What about the fornication, the lies, the stealing, the gossiping, the bearing false witness, the taking of the name of God in vain, and the other ...[text shortened]... [/b] " I already offered you that. You rejected that because you hated Me and didn't trust Me."[/b]

A-freaking-men.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
OK, let's see if we can do a quick parallel reconstruction.

In Mark 15, Jesus goes from Pilate to the Praetorium (palace) where he gets the crown of thorns and they mock and beat him. They lead him out of the palace to crucify him, when they spot Simon the Cyrene passing by. They make Simon carry the cross, from just outside the palace to Golgotha, th ...[text shortened]... upposedly occurred, then it is not at all surprising that some small details are not consistent.

Was it out of the palace, or out of the city?

Originally posted by sonship
The following is an entirely fictional scene at the last judgment to make a point about accumulating reasons to remain unsaved through Christ's gracious atoning death.

[b]Judgment Day:

God - "What about the fornication, the lies, the stealing, the gossiping, the bearing false witness, the taking of the name of God in vain, and the other ...[text shortened]... [/b] " I already offered you that. You rejected that because you hated Me and didn't trust Me."[/b]

And so the duping goes on and on and on. Make believe god's by the dozen, choose your god carefully.

Originally posted by sonship
The following is an entirely fictional scene at the last judgment to make a point about accumulating reasons to remain unsaved through Christ's gracious atoning death.

[b]Judgment Day:

God - "What about the fornication, the lies, the stealing, the gossiping, the bearing false witness, the taking of the name of God in vain, and the other ...[text shortened]... [/b] " I already offered you that. You rejected that because you hated Me and didn't trust Me."[/b]

I'd make a slight edit:

God - "Couldn't you have repented and been washed in the blood of Christ and put that problem off for latter ?"

Sinner - "Well, I will admit I got into it with some people who claimed that the Bible had no contradictions and somehow they seemed to think it was vitally important to my salvation that I believe this. One of them did say there were more important things than believing this; that it didn't matter if I bought into it totally right away. He did this in a clever way too, writing a judgement day dialogue rather like the one we're having right now. Maybe I should have asked him if it was really OK if I never came to believe that the Bible was free of contradictions."

God - "Let's ask him now."

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Was it out of the palace, or out of the city?

Golgotha, you mean? It could be, since Mark 15 says Simon was coming 'in from the country'. Not-country could be the city.

Also, a hill would probably be outside the city.

Originally posted by sonship
The following is an entirely fictional scene at the last judgment to make a point about accumulating reasons to remain unsaved through Christ's gracious atoning death.

[b]Judgment Day:

God - "What about the fornication, the lies, the stealing, the gossiping, the bearing false witness, the taking of the name of God in vain, and the other ...[text shortened]... [/b] " I already offered you that. You rejected that because you hated Me and didn't trust Me."[/b]

I agree that the infidel's list is probably insufficient to void someone's faith, but I doubt that is the primary reason for most people's atheism.

If God spoke to me tonight, I'd write that other stuff off as people of a time before printing presses making some errors on details. It wouldn't stop me from believing.

If it turned out that I am wrong and I had a chance to converse with God after I died, I would ask about why so much suffering was permitted to happen. And where the universe really came from. And about a million things other than that list.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am mystified by this reference you offer.

Vague, at best, when it gets down to specifics, it doesn't offer anything substantive and declaratory.

Its a Wikipedia summary, it isn't meant to go into specifics. But it does show that there is no consensus that the Bible is a highly accurate historical account. So when you make a claim that it has "stood the tests of time, withstanding all scrutiny within the means of man's various disciplines."
You are basically saying you don't believe any criticism of it, not that there is no such criticism.

If you feel satisfied with this level of support, I don't see a lot of difference or distinction between you and the person who resorts to "God wrote it," albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Truth requires far more rigor than displayed here.
Well stop being so secretive, where is this 'truth'? Where is it displayed? Why should I believe the word of some anonymous poster on a Chess forum?

Originally posted by black beetle
OK then, kindly please do play –choose and win!

Who carried the cross to Golgotha?
A. Mat. 27: 32, B. Mark 15: 21, C. Luke 23: 26, D. John 19:17

What exactly was written on the plate of the cross?
A. Mat. 27:37, B. Mark 15:26 C. Luke 23:3

What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
A. Mat. 27:46, B. Mark 15:34, C. Luke 23:46, John 19:30

Who :23

The disciples and the descent of the Holy Spirit:
A. John 20:19-22, B. Acts 2:1-13

Yes, one really would think that people copying text and/or collusion maintain and veneer of authenticity within the same narratives would provide more aligned accounts of these details.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Seriously, you should read up on how the Bible was written and compiled over the centuries. It's fascinating stuff.

Please sir! I've been a reading the Bible for over 30 years. I am well acquainted with its history. The thing that you and others don't seem to understand is that any historical evidence concerning the veracity of the Holy scriptures that in any way suggests that the Word of God contains errors or contradictions, is a lie.

You are unaware of the truth. From the moment God first uttered His Truth it has been under attack. But His Word is wholly intact, and nothing is lost, nor will it ever be. It's too bad you don't know that, or even how it is possible.

Originally posted by josephw
Please sir! I've been a reading the Bible for over 30 years. I am well acquainted with its history. The thing that you and others don't seem to understand is that [b]any historical evidence concerning the veracity of the Holy scriptures that in any way suggests that the Word of God contains errors or contradictions, is a lie.

You are unaware of the tr ...[text shortened]... hing is lost, nor will it ever be. It's too bad you don't know that, or even how it is possible.[/b]

Edit: “The thing that you and others don't seem to understand is that any historical evidence concerning the veracity of the Holy scriptures that in any way suggests that the Word of God contains errors or contradictions, is a lie.”

I fully agree with SwissGambit.
On the other hand, as regards what you said, any beleiver of any religion can claim the same for Tanakh, Vedas and every other scripture. No big deal😵

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes, one really would think that people copying text and/or collusion maintain and veneer of authenticity within the same narratives would provide more aligned accounts of these details.

No, SwissGambit said it all perfectly well: "If you admit that these tales were passed by word-of-mouth and after that jotted down by hand and copied laboriously and imperfectly by hand thereafter, and our earliest known copies are dated at decades after the events supposedly occurred, then it is not at all surprising that some small details are not consistent."
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its a Wikipedia summary, it isn't meant to go into specifics. But it does show that there is no consensus that the Bible is a highly accurate historical account. So when you make a claim that it has "stood the tests of time, withstanding all scrutiny within the means of man's various disciplines."
You are basically saying you don't believe any criticism ...[text shortened]... Where is it displayed? Why should I believe the word of some anonymous poster on a Chess forum?

Its a Wikipedia summary, it isn't meant to go into specifics.
You do know that Wikipedia is editable by any and all, right?
For instance, when I log in I could easily change any post on the site to say literally anything.
How long my alteration lasts is a separate issue.
The underlying point, of course, is citing Wikipedia as authoritative lends no support to your claim.

But it does show that there is no consensus that the Bible is a highly accurate historical account.
I thought we'd already established the constant attack levied against the Bible?
The nature of an ongoing attack is the refusal of the opposition to concede the perspective of the one defending.

Look at it another way.
Freedom is under constant threat, in some ways obvious and others insidious.
No one will openly admit their plans to wipe out freedom, and yet the attacks continue as they have for hundreds of years.
Students of history recognize the offensive throughout time and draw parallels to current events of the same nature.
An objective view of freedom in history surmises the resounding resiliency of freedom despite the varying angled attacks.
In short, freedom has won and will continue to win the battle.

Every time some numbnut comes up with supposed contradictions (which, in this case currently being discussed is decidedly not a contradiction, but rather a parallel narrative) the claim is quickly unraveled to reveal a thread-bare claim which didn't amount to even so much as a string, and which also does nothing more than expose said numbnut's poor research and analyzing skills.
They should be embarrassed, but they're not.

You are basically saying you don't believe any criticism of it, not that there is no such criticism.
Look, twhitehead.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating.
There was a time when I hated God and hated that Bible, too.
I didn't want it to be wrong, I NEEDED it to be wrong and I spent several years doing literally everything within my meager intellectual ability as it relates to research and analysis to disprove some part, or even any part of it.
Beginning with the low hanging fruit of the parallel narratives found in the Gospels, I figured it wouldn't take too much time to settle the issue once and for all.
I nailed 95 theses to the door for every one of Luther's... and then gently tore each one down and discarded every one of them.
Literally every single one of my targets melted before my eyes, most only requiring a modicum of scrutiny.
Admittedly, there were a few which seemed more rigorous than the others, a few which 'offered some hope' to my quest.
They, too, eventually withered as well.
My approach was straightforward enough: do the facts seem reasonable enough to allay the question?
It got to the point where I eventually ran out of targets and I conceded defeat.

Yet the rebel in me persists!
Even though I am now very confident (more confident in this than even in my recognition that I am typing these letter out) that each and every assault on the Bible's veracity will end with the vindication of the Bible, I have great excitement every time I hear of a new challenge/challenger: I want to see the Bible kick some serious ass!
By that, I mean this:
God is the Master Hacker.
Every man builds his own personal firewall to ward off assaults, some with easy passwords (1-2-3-4) and others far more complex.
Personally, I find the complex ones the most intriguing as they are representative of concepts which although I might be able to perceive them, I certainly wasn't able to conceive them.
My thought is that perhaps someone has found the unbreakable code; someone has stumped God!
I know I don't believe it's possible (not like I used to believe it was), but there's that suspended animation which makes this a serial thrill for me.

That being said, it is quite tiring (and boring) when a person brings out the oafish laundry list of elementary-level "challenges" and acts like they've just stolen the Mona Lisa from Musée du Louvre.
At least put some thought into it!

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Golgotha, you mean? It could be, since Mark 15 says Simon was coming 'in from the country'. Not-country could be the city.

Also, a hill would probably be outside the city.

So the procession was both out of the palace and out of the city, eh?
That seems like QUITE the contradiction to me.
How is it even possible to leave the palace AND the city?
Hmm...
This one's a real head-scratcher, huh!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You do know that Wikipedia is editable by any and all, right?

Yes, I know what Wikipedia is.

The underlying point, of course, is citing Wikipedia as authoritative lends no support to your claim.
Did I call it authoritative? Do you dispute any of the contents therein? I didn't see you do so. Did you dispute the claim I made when I cited it? (that there are a significant number of people (scholars) who dispute the accuracy of the Bibles historicity.)
Simply lecturing me on Wikipedia indicates you have nothing of substance to say on the matter.

I thought we'd already established the constant attack levied against the Bible?
The nature of an ongoing attack is the refusal of the opposition to concede the perspective of the one defending.
Well then you cannot honestly claim that the defence is victorious can you?

Look at it another way.
Freedom is under constant threat, in some ways obvious and others insidious.
No one will openly admit their plans to wipe out freedom, and yet the attacks continue as they have for hundreds of years.
And if you claimed that freedom has withstood all attacks against it, you'd be wrong.

An objective view of freedom in history surmises the resounding resiliency of freedom despite the varying angled attacks.
No, that would not be an objective view of history. Must I refer you to Wikipedia again?

Every time some numbnut comes up with supposed contradictions (which, in this case currently being discussed is decidedly not a contradiction, but rather a parallel narrative) the claim is quickly unraveled to reveal a thread-bare claim which didn't amount to even so much as a string, and which also does nothing more than expose said numbnut's poor research and analyzing skills.
They should be embarrassed, but they're not.
Once again, I ask, who makes this judgement? You? I don't see any indications of this quick unravelling on the Wikipedia page. In fact it mentions criticisms of the Bible that are over a hundred years old, with no unravelling in sight. So where are you hiding these revelations?

Look, twhitehead.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating.
....
....
....
.....
What a windy way of saying "yes".

OK, so the bible has withstood all criticism because you say so.
Sorry, not good enough.

At least put some thought into it!
You seem to have not realised that I didn't mention a single specific criticism of the Bible. It seems you are arguing with someone else.