I didn't know who Jimmy Swaggart was until I watched this dvd.
It wasn't so much who won the debate, but there were some interesting points brought up, that were universal despite who was saying them. However there are a lot of people in the world who are like Jimmy Swaggart and are utterly devout to something which they interpret their own meanings out of and barely understand themselves.
With the bible, it is not an issue of faith. Every Christian is told that the Bible IS the word of God. It is taught that it is undeniable, and is a piece of historical literature that has been proven correct. With the Bible, Torah(Hebrew Bible), Qu'ran etc. they believe that these books are rock solid the word of God as though God has come unto them and told them EXACTLY how to live their lives. In their eyes, these books are the PROOF they need that they can't get from living life based upon faith. The bible tells them what to have faith in.
You give a Protestant a Mormon Bible and ask them what the difference is between their own bible. The protestant will say that the Mormon religion is a cult based on a book that was written thousands of years after Jesus' death by "some guy"(Joseph Smith isn't it?). That it is not the word of God because it contradicts what is written in their bible and it was written without a direct account of Jesus' life or the preaching of his Gospel. It has no basis in historical antiquity and therefore cannot be the word of God.
As far as believers as well as non believers are told, the New Testament is a direct account of Jesus' teachings. The faith part is whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, or whether you believe what the book says. It is rarely doubted (by normal people anyway) whether the bible is a direct account of the Gospel of Jesus. Jesus never wrote anything down, so all we can do is go off what other people wrote and "trust" that they didn't put their own emphasis in, or misinterpret the words. Just like Socrates never wrote anything down and we have to trust that Plato gave considerable respect and honor to Socrates teachings and didn't warp them at all to emphasize his own teachings. Just the same as The Torah. It is taught that the Torah IS the work of a man called Moses, however the faith is whether you believe Moses was who he says he was, and whether you believe what it says to be true. Same goes with the Qu'ran and Muhammed. That these books are taught as fact is for many a paramount part of their belief?
What has been debated and I'm posting about is that the Torah, the bible etc was NOT written by Moses, nor was the new testatement written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It could have been written by someone as insignificant as Joseph Smith. Yet millions of people around the world will testify their belief on these words that there is a very good chance that it is NOT the word of God.
Now you could say that its no big deal, because the core belief is there, the "general" message of Jesus is in tact. But when you consider that the entire christian faith believes that: If you do not believe Jesus to be the one and only Son of God then you will be damned to Hell either when you die or on Judgement Day. Now, this belief stems from primarily two parts of the bible: Ascension Mark 3:16.
It has been found by 12 scholars of the highest eminence and 52 co-operating denominations going back to the most ancient texts (more ancient than the texts the King James Version was based on) that these two sections were NOT a part of the Gospel of Jesus.
End of part 1 (damn LJ for not allowing more than 4300 characters) -Nath
This kind of difference would change the whole meaning behind the christian religion. Just the same as the gnostic belief changes the emphasis on Jesus' christ resurrection. The difference between the resurrection being a "mental" resurrection compared to a literal physical resurrection is monstrous. If the gnostic belief became the primary belief we wouldn't have churches, we wouldn't have a pope, our entire history would have been COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (Given the influence the church had on western progress).
What I'm getting at, is that millions of people are determining our world history, are determining life or death, are even determining yours and my eternal salvation on text that essentially was corrupted.
Now, when you have people like Jimmy Swaggart being televised in 140 countries, influencing people with his interpretation of the Bible that itself is someone elses interpretation. I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with this.
(by the way i'm not getting angry, though it might seem that way. :) )
Anyways, thanks for your reply Trudles. I'm now going to watch another debate between Ahmed Deedat and Anor Shorish on "Is Jesus God?". hehe.
I didn't know who Jimmy Swaggart was until I watched this dvd.
It wasn't so much who won the debate, but there were some interesting points brought up, that were universal despite who was saying them. However there are a lot of people in the world who are like Jimmy Swaggart and are utterly devout to something which they interpret their own meanings out of and barely understand themselves.
With the bible, it is not an issue of faith. Every Christian is told that the Bible IS the word of God. It is taught that it is undeniable, and is a piece of historical literature that has been proven correct. With the Bible, Torah(Hebrew Bible), Qu'ran etc. they believe that these books are rock solid the word of God as though God has come unto them and told them EXACTLY how to live their lives. In their eyes, these books are the PROOF they need that they can't get from living life based upon faith. The bible tells them what to have faith in.
You give a Protestant a Mormon Bible and ask them what the difference is between their own bible. The protestant will say that the Mormon religion is a cult based on a book that was written thousands of years after Jesus' death by "some guy"(Joseph Smith isn't it?). That it is not the word of God because it contradicts what is written in their bible and it was written without a direct account of Jesus' life or the preaching of his Gospel. It has no basis in historical antiquity and therefore cannot be the word of God.
As far as believers as well as non believers are told, the New Testament is a direct account of Jesus' teachings. The faith part is whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, or whether you believe what the book says. It is rarely doubted (by normal people anyway) whether the bible is a direct account of the Gospel of Jesus. Jesus never wrote anything down, so all we can do is go off what other people wrote and "trust" that they didn't put their own emphasis in, or misinterpret the words. Just like Socrates never wrote anything down and we have to trust that Plato gave considerable respect and honor to Socrates teachings and didn't warp them at all to emphasize his own teachings.
Just the same as The Torah. It is taught that the Torah IS the work of a man called Moses, however the faith is whether you believe Moses was who he says he was, and whether you believe what it says to be true. Same goes with the Qu'ran and Muhammed. That these books are taught as fact is for many a paramount part of their belief?
What has been debated and I'm posting about is that the Torah, the bible etc was NOT written by Moses, nor was the new testatement written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It could have been written by someone as insignificant as Joseph Smith. Yet millions of people around the world will testify their belief on these words that there is a very good chance that it is NOT the word of God.
Now you could say that its no big deal, because the core belief is there, the "general" message of Jesus is in tact. But when you consider that the entire christian faith believes that:
If you do not believe Jesus to be the one and only Son of God then you will be damned to Hell either when you die or on Judgement Day.
Now, this belief stems from primarily two parts of the bible:
Ascension
Mark 3:16.
It has been found by 12 scholars of the highest eminence and 52 co-operating denominations going back to the most ancient texts (more ancient than the texts the King James Version was based on) that these two sections were NOT a part of the Gospel of Jesus.
End of part 1 (damn LJ for not allowing more than 4300 characters)
-Nath
Reply
This kind of difference would change the whole meaning behind the christian religion. Just the same as the gnostic belief changes the emphasis on Jesus' christ resurrection. The difference between the resurrection being a "mental" resurrection compared to a literal physical resurrection is monstrous.
If the gnostic belief became the primary belief we wouldn't have churches, we wouldn't have a pope, our entire history would have been COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (Given the influence the church had on western progress).
What I'm getting at, is that millions of people are determining our world history, are determining life or death, are even determining yours and my eternal salvation on text that essentially was corrupted.
Now, when you have people like Jimmy Swaggart being televised in 140 countries, influencing people with his interpretation of the Bible that itself is someone elses interpretation. I feel there is something fundamentally wrong with this.
(by the way i'm not getting angry, though it might seem that way. :) )
Anyways, thanks for your reply Trudles. I'm now going to watch another debate between Ahmed Deedat and Anor Shorish on "Is Jesus God?". hehe.
- Nath
Reply
- Nath
Reply
- Nath
Reply
Leave a comment