I. On the faith built on only the Bible
/ „Deluge myths might have been invented to explain the fossils of sea animals found in the hills.” /
1. Presumably more than two thousand years after the birth of Jesus Christ, one of the most important actors of the Bible (when I am writing this) Christianity, the religion of the Bible, and Islam, another religion in close relationship with the Bible have a lot of followers: more than any other religion on Earth. That's why it would be important to point out the errors to be found in the Bible, which are harmful to the individuals reading the Bible, and therefore, to humankind. In this work I would like to offer a logically built critique of the Bible to the reader, which almost follows the same way as someone who just gets acquainted with the Bible. The Old Testament in the Bible (which is about the same as the sacred texts of the Jewish religion) is so long that Christians used to suggest that we start reading the Bible from the New Testament, and within that, the gospels (gospel means good news). These are roughly about the Jesus of Nazareth (who we know as Jesus Christ in History) teaching and healing (by wonders) very effectively on the Land of Israel in the antiquity, but as he strongly criticized part of the Jews (like the Pharisees and the knowers of sacred texts), and as he deemed himself the Son of God (e.g. John 15:1-6) or some other great power (e.g. John 6:48-58), he was sentenced to death and crucified. However, according to the Bible he resurrected in three days (or less) after his death caused by crucifixion, and he founded Christianity. Here is this section in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:14-20):
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Thus, here is that part of the Bible which, on its own, makes Christianity worse than (for example) Buddhism: „he that believeth not shall be damned”. (Damnation in our days means that eternal suffering is waiting for one in Hell.) For some young persons afraid, this can mean such a psychological terror that would urge them to believe blindly, and may cause even some mental illness to them (but maybe more on this later). It is not easy, however, to determine what shall be believed in order to be saved. In our days there are many kinds of Christian denominations, with different arguments for each. However, no well-known denomination is famous for its average members to (1) cast out devils, (2) speak with new tongues, (3) take up serpents, (4) remain alive after drinking some deadly thing, (5) lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. If so, then the new believer will be uncertain about his or her own salvation (and whether he or she is a good believer enough), until he or she will be able to produce the mentioned signs. For similar reasons, the new believer will probably not want to join those denominations in which he or she cannot believe (as they do not cast out devils, they do not speak with new tongues, they do not take up serpents, they do not drink any deadly thing and remain alive, and they do not lay hands on the sick so that the sick recover). Thus, the new believer will probably interpret the Bible alone, or maybe he or she will be part of a Christian sect. This can lead to other problems…
2. Thus, we are there when the new believer has taken the Bible and fearing the damnation described in the end of the Gospel of Mark he or she has started to believe in it blindly. He or she probably did not think that the mentioned damnation may hurt only those who disbelieve the words of Jesus's original disciples, the apostles (who allegedly proclaimed only that which they directly experienced, see 1 John 1:1-3), and probably did not think either that „damnation” here does not mean eternal damnation in Hell, and did not even think that Jesus simply lied or erred when saying this. Instead, the gospels (and the effective rhetoric and wonderful healings described in them) might almost have hypnotized him or her, and the authority and respect of humankind might have suggested to him or her that its Christian past can only be good. So, the new believer started to attribute the same, or maybe even greater authority to the Bible than to the apostles introduced in it. It is also possible that he or she started to believe in wonders after he or she had found proof in any other spiritual culture, like in parapsychology or reiki that such wonders might exist. This might have aroused his or her interest in the New Testament, which he or she might have even received for free from zealous Christians like the members of Gideons International. (At least, the author of this work became Christian this way, before he disappointed in the religion.) Thus, we are there when the new believer reads the Bible, and he or she feels that he or she must believe in it blindly (if he or she wants to be saved). He or she may find some biblical passages likeable, like the parts about love and healings or the Sermon of the Mount (or its beginning: Matthew 5:1-12), he or she may overlook other parts, but mixed into these he or she may find even such parts that he or she cannot grasp, as they are disadvantageous to him or her, but make him or her curious what their meaning can be (so these astounding parts may get greater emphasis than others). We are going to discuss these parts here. Let's first see the parts about the believer's relationship with his or her parents. These are in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 10:34-38):
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
The Gospel of Luke composes even more intensely (Luke 14:25-27):
And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Thus speaks the Gospel of Luke about the peace of Christian families (Luke 12:51-53):
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
In many cases, the new faith of Christians really has no good effect on family peace, as the members of the family might be disturbed by the new faith. But does the believer have to come to hate the members of his or her family proactively, and does it have to be so in every case? (According to the Gospel of Mark, it is enough if the Christian person loves Jesus more than his or her own parents, and for this, according to the Gospel of Luke, it may be necessary to come to hate them in some cases. Due to the translation of the Bible and its ambiguity, it may occur that the blindly believing person spoils his or her relationship with his or her family more than the Bible wished.) It is a good question how can a Christian family stand based on this, with Christian children of Christian parents… Without commentary, the following biblical passage also belongs to this topic (1 John 3:8-10):
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
3. Just now, we could see a case when the wickedness of the Bible or at least its incorrect interpretation causes problems to the believer (who probably interprets the Bible by himself or herself, as he or she cannot find a Christian mentor good enough to do wonders, and not even a trustworthy denomination). Let us now see another disputed topic where the Bible can cause great harm to those who believe in it blindly: this is the topic of biblical passages in connection with self-mutilation. In the Gospel of Matthew, the recommendation of self-mutilation can be read in association with fornication (Matthew 5:27-30):
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
In some translations of the Bible the expression „tempts you to sin” may be there instead of the word „offend”. Now let's see the biblical passage which the blind Christian believer may link to the previously cited part. (Matthew 19:8-12):
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
It may occur that the (male) blindly believer feels, based on the two biblical passages previously mentioned, that he can avoid the sin of fornication only by castrating himself (or getting himself castrated). In our age, however, it is not as frequent as in the antiquity, and the blindly believer may even be considered mentally ill for it. And if psychiatric medication is prescribed to him for this, then he can get real psychiatric illness after he gets accustomed to the medicines... not to mention the case when castration is successful… (According to some, one of the early Christian writers, Origen might have really get himself castrated.) To those who believe in a blind way, other parts of the Bible may also cause harm besides the already mentioned, let here be the following one without commentary (Matthew 5:39-42):
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
4. Now suppose that the blindly believer forgets the statements at the end of the Gospel of Mark about the believers (1) casting out devils, (2) speaking with new tongues, (3) taking up serpents, (4) remaining alive after drinking some deadly thing, (5) and laying hands on the sick to make them recover. Let us suppose that the blindly believer does not have these statements on the brain (in the subconscious) any longer, and this way he or she becomes willing to join some Christian community (which does not really produce the signs or wonders mentioned before). Which Christian community shall he or she join? Whoever becomes Christian by reading the Bible, may probably (and initially) be closer to the Protestant Churches than to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, as the Protestant Churches (like the Lutheran, Calvinistic or Baptist Church) base their faith primarily (and supposedly) on the Bible. The Protestants do not call their priests „father” like the Catholics, and thereby it seems that they better keep the advice or commandment of the Bible concerning this (Matthew 23:8-10):
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
By the way, there is a possibility of interpretation here which says that this advice or commandment might have been only for those who Jesus was speaking to that time… but as it made into the Bible, we still feel that it addresses the readers as well. There is another biblical advice that is not observed by the Catholics, and it says that each bishop (and deacon) should have one wife. However, the Catholic priests and bishops pledge celibacy, although the pope might be allowed to marry (1 Timothy 3:1-5):
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
In brief, each deacon should also have one wife according to the Bible (1 Timothy 3:12):
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Among the Catholics, this biblical suggestion is only kept by some of the „permanent deacons” (although celibacy may be defended by the supposition that Paul suggested one wife only because there were not enough unmarried men for priesthood at the time of writing his first letter to Timothy, but elsewhere he also suggests celibacy: 1 Corinthians 7:7-9). For the previously mentioned and other reasons (like the Catholic commercialization of indulgences in History or their sacred pictures and statues looking like idolatry) the Protestants are probably closer to the reader of the Bible than the Catholics. However, this does not mean that the theology, liturgy and customs of the Protestants are perfect! In other words, it is not sure that they interpret the Bible better than that talented human who reads the Bible on his or her own, and builds the theology solely based on the Bible… However, it is also true that even the Protestants can help and dissuade the blindly believer from hating his or her parents, or getting himself castrated. The different Protestant Churches and Christian communities may interpret the Bible in different ways, among which there may even be some interpretation that is roughly correct (which, of course, does not mean that the Bible is true, or that Christianity is a good religion).
5. The many errors made by the different Protestant Christian denominations are interesting in the spiritual journey of the person who believes in the Bible (maybe belongs here: Matthew 16:5-12). Now from these, look only the Baptist Church, as the author of this work got to know only this closely enough. At the Baptists one becomes Christian by „converting”, which may even happen after the superficial knowledge of the Bible (but afterwards, it is suggested for one to read the Bible often). One only has to believe that all the people (except Jesus Christ himself) are sinful in case they are not yet converted, and from this state one can only be saved by the sacrifice (crucifixion and resurrection) of Jesus Christ, which is free, and one only has to believe and to accept it (that Jesus is the Lord, and he dies for us), and to thank him (that he suffered „instead of” and „because of” us), and afterwards, by faith (in the resurrection) one can even have certainty of salvation. Conversion is followed by Baptism, which is done at the Baptists in adulthood. Well, there are some problems with this theology...
One of the problems is that Jesus probably did not suffer „instead of” us: after Jesus, a great part of the apostles were also executed, and the Catholics also have sufferings (part of which they accept just for they being Christians), and it is said concerning this that „everyone has his or her own cross” or „we all have a cross to bear”. Many people may even suffer more in their lives than Jesus did suffer. However, this problem may still not contradict the Baptist faith, as the believer believes that the sacrifice of Jesus saves him or her from the sufferings of Hell. However, it seems to remain problematic in it that this statement logically refers to itself: „Jesus suffered for me, too, if I believe that Jesus suffered for me, too.” (but if I do not believe it, then he did not).
The other problem is that it is hard to prove based on the Bible that Jesus was crucified „because of us” (or as some prayer of conversion formulates, „because of me”), or „for our sins” or „due to our sins”. How could Jesus die for our sins (or for the sins of modern Christians), if we did not even live yet in those times? How could the cause occur later than the effect? Where does this faith come from? For example, from the first letter of John the apostle (1 John 2:2):
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
From the same letter elsewhere (1 John 4:10):
Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Maybe from Paul the apostle’s letter to the Romans (Romans 4:23-25):
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Or from the first letter of Paul the apostle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:3-4):
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
How should these biblical passages be interpreted? These biblical passages serve as a commentary to the gospels. Accordingly, the crucifixion and death of Jesus was caused by the sins of his contemporaries, in which the disciples, the Jews and also the Romans took their part (so, the smaller sins of more people added up, and this lead to the crucifixion of Jesus). Thus, probably this is how to understand that Jesus died for the sins of the world: he died because of the sins of his contemporaries! Whoever is going to be an authentic Christian in the modern age, shall try to avoid this happening again (check Hebrews 10:26-27), so he or she will probably be reluctant to accept that Jesus died even for his or her sins... By the way, maybe it is related to the topic how the Pharisees are scolded by Jesus (Luke 11:47-48), so it might not be an accident that Jesus speaks this way (Matthew 23:29-32):
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Early Christians required the recital of the Apostles' Creed (or otherwise called, the „Credo”, the „sign of the apostles” or the „rule of faith”) as the condition of baptism, and this does not include that Jesus Christ would die for the sins of the new believer (or die „instead of him”, or even „die for him”) (also check Romans 10:9). Here is this creed in ten points, somehow altered (so it can be enumerated by five plus five fingers or thumbs of two hands, like the Ten Commandments can also be):
1. I believe in one God, the Father almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth,
2. and in Jesus Christ, his only (begotten) Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;
3. he descended into Hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead;
4. he ascended into Heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
5. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
6. the holy catholic Church,
7. the communion of saints,
8. the forgiveness of sins,
9. the resurrection of the body,
10. and the life everlasting. Amen.
When the author of this work frequented the baptists, he did not meet with the Apostles' Creed there. Based on this and other reasons (like the presumed errors in baptist songs, and the absence of the certainty of salvation of baptist conversion) he began to frequent the Roman Catholic Church instead. (By the way, the early Christian writer, Tyrannius Rufinus also wrote about the Apostles' Creed.)
6. Now let us suppose that the new believer forgets those biblical passages (and other things) which are against the Roman Catholic Church, and gets acquainted with the catholic faith hoping that it can provide real sanctification. There is a strong argument for this: the tradition of the Catholics gets to the believers through an unbroken path. According to the faith of the Catholics, the grace of Jesus Christ and the sanctification can be claimed by taking part in sacraments (so this is easier than thinking on whether I have already been converted or not). The Roman Catholic Church offers seven (kinds of) sacraments: these are (1) baptism, (2) confession, (3) Eucharist, (4) confirmation, (5) marriage, (6) Holy Orders, and/or (7) anointing of the sick. These are not only supposed to bring the forgiveness of the believer's sins, but are also supposed to sanctify him or her so that he or she shall not commit these sins later. In the hope of taking part in the sacraments the new believer may take part in catholic religious education, may read books about theology, may get to know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. It is not the target of this work to familiarize the readers with all of this, but whoever is interested, may look them up…
The essence is that the Roman Catholic Church may have new disappointments for the new believer, and it is easily possible that his or her sanctification does not succeed. According to the Catholics, it is/was a deadly sin to miss a weekly Mass. Usually at a Mass, the following must (or at least, used to) be said after searching the heart („mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”):
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
However, it's possible that some believer appearing there does not have any (relatively) „very great” or „most grievous” sin, and thereby the compulsory mass (and saying the mentioned text) does harm to him or her (check Romans 14:23). Maybe the „most grievous” sin does not mean „relatively great” sin, but the Latin expression „mea maxima culpa” should be translated in another way, but this is still against the Catholic Church. (Let's not even talk about it that this request may unnecessarily disturb Virgin Mary and all the Angels and Saints, in every mass.) There are also other things in the liturgy of the Catholics that are hard to accept. For example, such is the sentence said by priests to the people on Ash Wednesday:
Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
How could this be true, when more than 50% of the human body is water, and the human consists of body and soul? And if there is such a part of Catholic liturgy that we cannot believe, then we become more sceptical about the other parts of Catholic liturgy (and dogmatics) as well. This probably leads to breaking with the Roman Catholic Church as well. In summary: it is easily possible that the new Christian believer does not find any proper Christian community, and he or she has to build his or her faith solely on the Bible. According to the Bible, there is still hope for him or her this time (Matthew 18:20):
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
7.
One of the problems with the
faith built on only the
Bible is that the translations of the Bible to different languages
may have errors, and there may also be great differences between its
English translations. That's why a Christian person who takes his or
her faith seriously may deem it necessary to procure
different translations of
the Bible, and/or to learn
the original languages of the Bible: Hebrew (the language of the Old
Testament) and Ancient Greek (the language of the New Testament) (and
maybe also Latin or Aramaic too). However, as Latin and Ancient Greek
are not living languages, it is probably not possible to learn them
perfectly. Afterwards, the believer might realize that the sources
from which the Bible is translated to the modern languages may also
have differences between one another, even in the ages of patriarchs.
Apart from this, the
believer may also get to
know that Protestant Christianity accepts only 66 books of the Bible
(and consider them
canonical, true, and inspired by God), while Catholic Christianity
also accepts 6 7 other books (the deuterocanonical books) in the Old
Testament besides these, so the Catholic Bible consists of 72 73 books.
It is lucky that in our
times, a lot of material can be found on the Internet in connection
with the Bible translations, and I would recommend the following
English-language websites, for example:
NET Bible (.org)
BibleGateway (.com)
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible
Another problem with the faith built solely on the Bible is that the Book of Genesis (and some other parts of the Bible) is/are too incredible, and contradict(s) the present state of Science. According to the Bible, the Earth is not more than 10000 years old, while it is more than 4 billion years old according to Science. This might be explained in the following way: the Spirit of God chose the state of the world not older than 10000 years, and it entered into humans this time. Also, choosing (selection) and creation are synonymous, as creation means selecting the existent from the nonexistent. However, other parts of the Book of Genesis remain incredible. It can be hardly believed that God created the animals living on Earth one (earthly) day after he created the animals living in water or air (Genesis 1:19-25). The story of Noah's Ark and the Global Flood is also too incredible (Genesis 6-9). By the way, it is interesting that stories like that of Noah could be found among the myths of many peoples close to Nature. Some of these stories said that they survived the Deluge in a boat, on a mountain, on a tree, or on a tree on a mountain, or as the Bible tells, in an ark stranded on a mountain. According to one speculation, there were not very tall mountains at the time of the Deluge, and that is why water could overflow them. After the Flood, however, higher mountains may have formed, and the continental drift may have also happened this time, in the time of Peleg (Genesis 10:25). It still remains unbelievable how could all the terrestial animals of Earth fit into one ark, and what happened to the water which had overflown even the highest mountains.
Some Christians may think that Christians are not required to believe the books of the Old Testament, and they only need to believe the books of the New Testament. However, according to the New Testament Jesus Christ refers to Noah (Matthew 24:38), Abraham (John 8:56-58), the Ten Commandments (Mark 10:19), Jonas and Solomon (Matthew 12:40-42), etc. Therefore, if the Old Testament is refuted, then the faith in Jesus Christ will probably also cease (as he does not remain infallible). In summary, there are a lot of problems with the faith built on only the Bible, and their solution may take a lot of time from the Christians. This way they may have disadvantages in the economic competition against the other people. After many disappointments, the time may come to break up with the entire Christianity.
8. On December 24, 2019 (CE) I felt that I had finished a previous version of this book. Later we watched a documentary on television with my mother (so that we should be together on Christmas Eve), and this documentary was about how the world got to know the oldest sources of the Bible, like Codex Sinaiticus. In this documentary, they said a very interesting thing about the Gospel of Mark: that its ending is not there in Codex Sinaiticus! That's why I checked this information also in WikiPedia later that day, and really, it read that the following passage: „Mark 16:9-20” (among others) is neither in Codex Sinaiticus, nor in Codex Vaticanus (which are considered the best original sources of the Bible)! Accordingly, the critique of „Mark 16:14-20” and within it, that of „Mark 16:16”, which I have written about, can be acceptable even to Christians, as the solution may be that these parts actually do not belong to the Bible. Later, someone called my attention to the sad fact that it seems that other parts of the Bible (John 3:18, John 3:36) still condemn the unbelievers (or consider them damned). The mentioned parts of the Gospel of John are, however, there in the mentioned codices. I may still argue against this, because I have seen that these parts of the Gospel of John (John 3:18, John 3:36) use different ancient Greek words for „damnation” than „Mark 16:16”, so maybe these could be interpreted in a different way. Here, I find it worth mentioning how Jesus thought about the text of the Old Testament (or part of it) (Matthew 5:18):
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
By the way, he began this statement of his with „verily I say unto you”, so he could verily say also some untruth to his disciples, if by adding „verily I say unto you” the whole sentence became true (check Matthew 24:34). This is similar to saying: „verily I say that two times two is five”… if I utter this, then the whole sentence becomes true, even if its second clause is false (see also Matthew 5:37).
9. Some other parts of the Bible that I (Árpád Fekete) do not like (with no comment):
1 Corinthians 16:22:
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha
(in other translations, let him be „cursed” or something like that).
Philippians 2:9-11:
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
1 Corinthians 7:22:
For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
Matthew 15:21-28:
Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Mark 13:12:
Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
Revelation 21:8:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
No comments:
Post a Comment