Heaven Is for Real!

[pocketfullofshells]

If you want to believe that Paul, for example, wrote a chapter, then people who knew him copied it and said that they knew him and that it was from him but that they copied any significant portions incorrectly you may. But you would be demanding a higher level of perfection from this process than just about anybody demands from either any other ancient document or even any contemporary documents. That level of proof that you are requiring is so high that it is unreasonable.

The different versions of the bible are due to different interpretations from Greek. There are different manuscripts but we can know which differences come from errors and even when the errors crept in. It does not even matter if the errors were added intentionally or accidentally.

The level of agreement among early manuscripts is astoundingly accurate! You are welcome to find any significant difference between manuscripts and show them to us. (best on a new thread)

I would just point you to the book , :"misquoting Jesus" where it looks just some of how what we read today is not always the same as written 500, or 1000, or 1500 years ago. In some cases looking at earliest known writtings, and ignoreing newer ones...makes things actuly make more sense...it changes things that did not add up before. Like one the book of Mark says one thing, the book of someone else about the same thing...says something completely different.

What things like
what was Jesus's last words?
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"
"Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"
"It is finished"

Mathew luke and John...3 last words? really bad Greek translating? 2 are wrong? Someone changed it?
( note I did not take that one from the book, just one of many contradictions from a online list I took for a example)

 

[Dr.Who]

I would just point you to the book , :"misquoting Jesus" where it looks just some of how what we read today is not always the same as written 500, or 1000, or 1500 years ago. In some cases looking at earliest known writtings, and ignoreing newer ones...makes things actuly make more sense...it changes things that did not add up before. Like one the book of Mark says one thing, the book of someone else about the same thing...says something completely different.

What things like
what was Jesus's last words?
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"
"Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit"
"It is finished"

Mathew luke and John...3 last words? really bad Greek translating? 2 are wrong? Someone changed it?
( note I did not take that one from the book, just one of many contradictions from a online list I took for a example)

Matthew 27:46
46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23
46And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19
30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

None of those three actually say that any of those were the last words. The first does not link it at all with his end and it may have been said minutes or hours earlier. The other two of those verses do say that he said them last. They say that he said them just before he died. It is very possible that he said them both (even as one sentence) and Luke chose to report the one while John chose to report the other. (that is not even the only interpretation that answers the question)

All three accounts agree that in the timeline he spoke in the ninth hour. An hour is a pretty long time and a lot can be said in that period of time.

It is the interpretation that says any of those were his last words that is at fault here.

 

[Gipper]

Hey Doc, you are debating someone who is...delusional.

He truly believes there is no difference between Christianity and Islam. Political correctness and multiculturalism bleeds from his ears...like most libs.

Is that not enough to prove one is delusional? You might as well be debating Fat Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[Dr.Who]

Hey Doc, you are debating someone who is...delusional.

He truly believes there is no difference between Christianity and Islam. Political correctness and multiculturalism bleeds from his ears...like most libs.

Is that not enough to prove one is delusional? You might as well be debating Fat Rosie O'Donnell.

I am fine with debating people who are excellent debaters and who present facts respectfully as well as debating poor debaters who are delusional and rude or anyone in between.

When I debate a polite factual and logical debater I trust that an audience will see the truth of what I have to say.

When I debate a rude ignorant illogical debater I also trust than an audience will see the truth of what I have to say.

I also trust that any audience will see when I make mistakes and will be able to separate the best from the worst.

I am happy to debate anyone as it gives me a platform to speak and an audience to hear it.

I would add that Pocketfullofshells is not all wrong or rude or illogical nor is anyone else here all right or polite or logical. IMO, given some of the other people I have debated Pocket is in the half with the best.

 

[Gipper]

I am fine with debating people who are excellent debaters and who present facts respectfully as well as debating poor debaters who are delusional and rude or anyone in between.

When I debate a polite factual and logical debater I trust that an audience will see the truth of what I have to say.

When I debate a rude ignorant illogical debater I also trust than an audience will see the truth of what I have to say.

I also trust that any audience will see when I make mistakes and will be able to separate the best from the worst.

I am happy to debate anyone as it gives me a platform to speak and an audience to hear it.

I would add that Pocketfullofshells is not all wrong or rude or illogical nor is anyone else here all right or polite or logical. IMO, given some of the other people I have debated Pocket is in the half with the best.

I can agree that Pockets on some issues is okay. I seldom agree with him as he is a hardcore liberal dem stuck in the simplistic ideology of Ds good Rs bad.

But on the issue of religion, he has stated in other threads that there is little difference between Islam and Christianity. He may believe that all religion is foolish, which is his right in this country, but is incapable of distinguishing the reality that exists today.

He like many on the left, is unable to accept that radical Islam is a major threat to our nation, to world peace, and must be fought. He would likely say radical Christianity (whatever that is) is just as much a threat. He also will not admit that the radical left and radical Islam are allies, which of course most lefties do not know or will ever accept as truth.

 

[dogtowner]

I can agree that Pockets on some issues is okay. I seldom agree with him as he is a hardcore liberal dem stuck in the simplistic ideology of Ds good Rs bad.

But on the issue of religion, he has stated in other threads that there is little difference between Islam and Christianity. He may believe that all religion is foolish, which is his right in this country, but is incapable of distinguishing the reality that exists today.

He like many on the left, is unable to accept that radical Islam is a major threat to our nation, to world peace, and must be fought. He would likely say radical Christianity (whatever that is) is just as much a threat. He also will not admit that the radical left and radical Islam are allies, which of course most lefties do not know or will ever accept as truth.

I can't see how anyone takes islam seriously as a religion but that being said, I applaud those adherents who find what remnants of good Mohammad did not pervert and use it to live a good life. But to deny the dangers we've been getting beaten over the head with for decades now is really just the epitome of head-in-sand-ism.