Jack Chick Tracts - Read here!

[Meriweather]

You've never been a Catholic Jeri, you don't understand it, that is very plain to see.

I agree there are certain doctrines in the Catholic church that I believe are more about control and power of the clergy than they are in following the Bible, i.e. confession only being done via clergy, etc.. having to have someone intervene between the person and God.

Here is a different perspective. The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church are centered upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus was baptized and commanded that we also be baptized. He forgave sins. He instituted the Last Supper. He sent the Holy Spirit upon the Church. He anointed twelve apostles to carry on all that he did and commanded. He taught about marriage. He healed.

When a person decides to be baptized, do they go off on their own and baptize themselves with it only being between themselves and Jesus? Do they partake of the Last Supper/Communion on their own, just with Jesus? Are they the only witness to their marriage, again making it a personal, not a community event? Do they heal themselves, if possessed, drive out their own demons? Do they anoint themselves as a Minister?

If none of these are about "power and control" of clergy, rather about the services clergy provides, then why is one sacrament signaled out as "power and control"? Why is only one sacrament signaled out as a priest coming between Christ and the individual? Christ forgave sins--it was one of the seven significant practices and teachings in his life. For the Church to ignore something so vital and shoo people away to do this on their own seems odd.

Christ said, "Receive the Holy Spirit...Whose sins you shall forgive, are forgiven them..." He did not say, "Receive the Holy Spirit and forgive your own sins." The priest in the confessional is as much--if not most--the servant of Christ and the community in the sacrament of reconciliation. The sacrament is not about power and control. It is about being centered on Christ, what he did, how he commanded the Apostles to continue with his ministry.

All I ask is the next time people think that hearing confessions is about power and control, and standing between Christ and the individual, they ask themselves is a priest or minister baptizing an individual about power and control--and standing between the individual and Jesus? Why don't people just baptize themselves? If they can answer this, then they can answer why Catholics continue to confess in the church with a priest present.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Forget the Doctrines of men, Meriweather. They cannot save you. Only Jesus can save you. The Bible is very clear. Jesus said, Ye must be born again. You cannot enter the kingdom of heaven if you are not born again. (saved) Do not believe men. Believe God. Look at this thread - it is the life of Richard Wurmbrand - suffering in Communist prison - for 14 years - and his relationship with Jesus Christ did not fail him. He had no fear. This is true faith. Listen to his story. Note that they chose to use a cartoon video - why? Because it is more interesting for some people and even a young person can understand. Do not dismiss people that use such methods to share the Gospel message. Jesus has used Jack Chick tracts to win many souls to Christ. Do not try to prevent souls from coming to Jesus, Meriweather. If you will not come to Jesus do not prevent others from receiving their salvation and coming to Jesus Christ.

Story of Richard Wurmbrand - in Communist Prison US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Listen to these testimonies, Meriweather. Many are fleeing from the Roman Catholic Church - including the priests and nuns. Listen to this video interview and learn why 50 priests left the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Newby]

You've never been a Catholic Jeri, you don't understand it, that is very plain to see.

I agree there are certain doctrines in the Catholic church that I believe are more about control and power of the clergy than they are in following the Bible, i.e. confession only being done via clergy, etc.. having to have someone intervene between the person and God.

Here is a different perspective. The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church are centered upon the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus was baptized and commanded that we also be baptized. He forgave sins. He instituted the Last Supper. He sent the Holy Spirit upon the Church. He anointed twelve apostles to carry on all that he did and commanded. He taught about marriage. He healed.

When a person decides to be baptized, do they go off on their own and baptize themselves with it only being between themselves and Jesus? Do they partake of the Last Supper/Communion on their own, just with Jesus? Are they the only witness to their marriage, again making it a personal, not a community event? Do they heal themselves, if possessed, drive out their own demons? Do they anoint themselves as a Minister?

If none of these are about "power and control" of clergy, rather about the services clergy provides, then why is one sacrament signaled out as "power and control"? Why is only one sacrament signaled out as a priest coming between Christ and the individual? Christ forgave sins--it was one of the seven significant practices and teachings in his life. For the Church to ignore something so vital and shoo people away to do this on their own seems odd.

Christ said, "Receive the Holy Spirit...Whose sins you shall forgive, are forgiven them..." He did not say, "Receive the Holy Spirit and forgive your own sins." The priest in the confessional is as much--if not most--the servant of Christ and the community in the sacrament of reconciliation. The sacrament is not about power and control. It is about being centered on Christ, what he did, how he commanded the Apostles to continue with his ministry.

All I ask is the next time people think that hearing confessions is about power and control, and standing between Christ and the individual, they ask themselves is a priest or minister baptizing an individual about power and control--and standing between the individual and Jesus? Why don't people just baptize themselves? If they can answer this, then they can answer why Catholics continue to confess in the church with a priest present.

I don't see anything wrong with the sacraments, but there is no doubt that the church veered into great power and abused their power through the ages. And I'm not saying that you should do everything in a vacuum, or that your relationship with Christ happens in a vacuum, but neither should I need a priest to ask God for forgiveness either. There is no reason that I cannot confess to God myself and ask for His forgiveness. It was a way for the church to exert power over the people. And as Jeri mentioned, indulgences do not 'buy' you anything with God, and how can a church 'excommunicate' someone? Isn't that between that person and God if they are not right with Him? There are a lot of things that I disagree with the church about, power and money being the top two, but I also don't believe that Jeri has it right that the church does not teach salvation through Jesus Christ.

 

[Newby]

Meriweather, I should add that being Catholic cannot save you either. I understand that Catholics are taught that by being Catholic they will be in heaven but the Pope does not have the authority to tell God what to do. God is not taking payoffs - indulgences - to get people out of pergatory ( which does not exist ) He is not acknowledging any prayers to saints or to a statue entitled - Queen of heaven - Mary - which is in reality a demon god - He is not permitting any to enter the Kingdom of heaven if their names are not found in the Lamb's book of Life. So what do you do? You receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and turn from sin. You ask Jesus to forgive you of your sins and to be your Savior and Lord and He will receive you - Read Romans 10: 9,10 in the Bible and see what it says. Also - read the Jack Chick Tracts on Catholicism and realize that God wants us to come out from among them and be separated. I left the Roman Catholic Church many years ago - there was no salvation in it - it was a dead religion - when I went to a holiness church that preached the Gospel ( Not the false grace to sin Gospel mega churches or the rock music show / prosperity gospel preachers - a true holiness church that preached the Message of the Cross) I learned the difference between having a form of godliness and having a real relationship - abiding in Jesus Christ and living the life! You can do that too. I will be praying for you today and I believe God for Him to move mightily in your life.

I tend to ignore the Protestant terminology of "Saved." I understand most see "Saved" as happening in an instant of time and at that instant they are guaranteed a place in heaven. Such is not my understanding of salvation/redemption.

By his life, death, and resurrection, Christ has redeemed mankind (including you and me) and opened the way to eternal life. We choose to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in this life, and by following The Way (Jesus Christ) we will be drawn even more closely to the presence of God when we pass from this life. We are able to do this because of Christ's redemptive work on the behalf of mankind. We who choose to, are living a redeemed life/existence right now. We don't have to wait until death.

When you say that some choose to live a redeemed life right now, are you saying that you don't have to right now? That you're free to continue sinning and wait for death to live a redeemed life? Would one who is truly saved live anything but a redeemed life?

 

[Meriweather]

When you say that some choose to live a redeemed life right now, are you saying that you don't have to right now? That you're free to continue sinning and wait for death to live a redeemed life? Would one who is truly saved live anything but a redeemed life?

I am saving some seem to equate being "saved" with heavenly reward after this life. Others of us feel we have been redeemed and are living a redemptive life, a life of salvation, here on earth.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't see anything wrong with the sacraments, but there is no doubt that the church veered into great power and abused their power through the ages. And I'm not saying that you should do everything in a vacuum, or that your relationship with Christ happens in a vacuum, but neither should I need a priest to ask God for forgiveness either. There is no reason that I cannot confess to God myself and ask for His forgiveness. It was a way for the church to exert power over the people. And as Jeri mentioned, indulgences do not 'buy' you anything with God, and how can a church 'excommunicate' someone? Isn't that between that person and God if they are not right with Him? There are a lot of things that I disagree with the church about, power and money being the top two, but I also don't believe that Jeri has it right that the church does not teach salvation through Jesus Christ.

The Church is run by imperfect men and therefore we will see failures. However, the Church is also guided by the Holy Spirit, and the Church does repent and turns back. That being said, there has been great mud-slinging and misunderstandings as well. Confession is not a way for the Church to "exert power over people." Nor is excommunication. Excommunication is notice that a Catholic is currently outside Church teaching, and the purpose is to bring anyone excommunicated back into the Church.

An indulgence does not buy anything, just the opposite in fact. The indulgence is the effort of the sinner to make a more complete payment on the debt one owes to God. Recall Martin Luther's shout about indulgences. He was not speaking of all indulgences--but one which Rome had already forbidden in Germany. Some were going against authority. It's funny that so many remember Martin Luther spoke out against the indulgences the Church forbade--and few remember it was the Church who made the first move. Of course, Protestants did decide to do with any type of indulgence, while the Catholic Church continued to honor this practice of early Christianity.

Keep in mind indulgences are for sins already forgiven. It's not for those who wish to purchase anything--it's for those who wish to offer more to God. It keeps one focused on the ways Christ taught, and hopefully far from any future sin. Keep in mind the teaching of Christ that we cannot just clean house, or things are likely to become many times worse. We must clean house and then refill it with things that are good.

Unless Protestants refuse to go the extra mile for God, they are practicing "indulgences."

Keep in mind, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is only one of several ways Catholics seek forgiveness of sins. In our daily prayers we seek forgiveness; we ask for and are granted forgiveness in the prayers we say at the beginning of each Mass. After the Gospel is read, we often say "Amen" (so be it) to, "May the words of the Gospel take away our sins." However, Christ offered us something more--the Sacrament of Reconciliation where we can hear the actual pronouncement of Christ's words: "Your sins are forgiven."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So much of opposition to all things Catholic is based on half truths and outright lies about what the Church teaches and practices and the history of the universal Church. Having both Catholics and Evangelicals in my family, I know that evangelical Christians aren't called by God to attack, malign, and distort the view of the Catholic Church. Those I know who are following Jesus closely and are filled with his love feel no desire whatsoever to attack Catholics. So when hateful people come along like Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop, Ellen G. White, and others spew their hatred of the Catholic Church, it's clear they're on an errand by their father, the devil. Christ does not compel anyone to do this.

 

[ninja007]

So much of opposition to all things Catholic is based on half truths and outright lies about what the Church teaches and practices and the history of the universal Church. Having both Catholics and Evangelicals in my family, I know that evangelical Christians aren't called by God to attack, malign, and distort the view of the Catholic Church. Those I know who are following Jesus closely and are filled with his love feel no desire whatsoever to attack Catholics. So when hateful people come along like Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop, Ellen G. White, and others spew their hatred of the Catholic Church, it's clear they're on an errand by their father, the devil. Christ does not compel anyone to do this.

we are to be Bereans of God's Word. I can go point by point over this list if you want to.... Here is a list of teachings in the RCC that do not line up with the Bible. Heck, they have a huge Catechism that has dozens of false statements/beliefs in it.


Catholic doctrine contradicts the Bible

 

[JoeB131]

we are to be Bereans of God's Word. I can go point by point over this list if you want to.... Here is a list of teachings in the RCC that do not line up with the Bible. Heck, they have a huge Catechism that has dozens of false statements/beliefs in it.

Um, okay, it's kind of fun to watch you guys argue over the right way to worship an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

The problem is the Bible doesn't line up with itself.

 

[ninja007]

we are to be Bereans of God's Word. I can go point by point over this list if you want to.... Here is a list of teachings in the RCC that do not line up with the Bible. Heck, they have a huge Catechism that has dozens of false statements/beliefs in it.

Um, okay, it's kind of fun to watch you guys argue over the right way to worship an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

The problem is the Bible doesn't line up with itself.

it sure does. Give me just one thing that does not.

 

[JoeB131]

.

The problem is the Bible doesn't line up with itself.

it sure does. Give me just one thing that does not.

Since we are close to Christmas, let's go with this one.

Okay, how about the fact that the Genealogies in Luke and Matthew give two different sets of ancestors linking Joseph to David. They both agree that his father was Joseph and he was a descendant of David. Besides the fact that my Patron Saint wasn't the sperm donor for Jesus, their clumsy attempts to link David to Jesus become ever more laughable.

Then we have the actual birth stories. Matthew puts the birth story at the end of the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BC) while Luke has it during the governorship of Quirinius. (6 AD) Matthew has Joseph and Mary being from Bethlehem and having to flee to Egypt and then settling in Nazareth, while Luke has Joseph and Mary being from Nazareth but having to go back to Bethlehem because apparently, Quirinius decided that it would be cool to have people travel the town their ancestors came from to be counted.

Matthew mentions Wise Men. Luke doesn't talk about them at all.

 

[Meriweather]

So much of opposition to all things Catholic is based on half truths and outright lies about what the Church teaches and practices and the history of the universal Church. Having both Catholics and Evangelicals in my family, I know that evangelical Christians aren't called by God to attack, malign, and distort the view of the Catholic Church. Those I know who are following Jesus closely and are filled with his love feel no desire whatsoever to attack Catholics. So when hateful people come along like Jack Chick, Alexander Hislop, Ellen G. White, and others spew their hatred of the Catholic Church, it's clear they're on an errand by their father, the devil. Christ does not compel anyone to do this.

we are to be Bereans of God's Word. I can go point by point over this list if you want to.... Here is a list of teachings in the RCC that do not line up with the Bible. Heck, they have a huge Catechism that has dozens of false statements/beliefs in it.


Catholic doctrine contradicts the Bible

People truly interested in learning how nothing on that list contradicts the Bible, would ask Catholics about the items on any list one at a time--without cut and pastes--and listen. No one seems daring enough (or perhaps able) to leave the darkness and face the light and the truth.

For example...

There is nothing wrong with anyone saying, "For me, the Rosary does not work as a meditative prayer on the life of Christ..." I am sure most Catholics will agree that sometimes the Rosary doesn't bring them to that meditative state, so they leave off and enter another type of prayer. Catholics might also note for those times (often times of emotional trauma) when one has trouble entering into any prayer, the Rosary is of great help, as the Rosary guides a meditation of the life of Christ or the Psalms. Do non-Catholics really believe meditating on the life of Christ or the Psalms is not Biblical?

The second example is from yesterday. There is nothing wrong with saying, "I don't care to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation before a priest." The error is the accusation that the Sacrament is about power and control, instead of noting that the Catholic sacraments have always centered around the life of Christ and how he asked the Apostles to continue his ministry.

 

[Meriweather]

Um, okay, it's kind of fun to watch you guys argue over the right way to worship an Imaginary Sky Pixie.

The problem is the Bible doesn't line up with itself.

I agree it takes a tremendous amount of study of both the Bible and the histories and cultures of Biblical times to correctly understand the contexts of the Bible. Biblical passages are not, "One size fits all."

God is not imaginary, and contrary to some who espouse faith alone, I think those who follow virtues (yes, those despised works) are more likely to comprehend and find some empathy with God. It seems to me many pick up faith by following/applying virtues. I don't know, but I also tend to think those of the Jewish faith would agree--that their Law (of virtues) is designed to do precisely this, bring people to faith.

 

[Meriweather]

.

The problem is the Bible doesn't line up with itself.

it sure does. Give me just one thing that does not.

Since we are close to Christmas, let's go with this one.

Okay, how about the fact that the Genealogies in Luke and Matthew give two different sets of ancestors linking Joseph to David. They both agree that his father was Joseph and he was a descendant of David. Besides the fact that my Patron Saint wasn't the sperm donor for Jesus, their clumsy attempts to link David to Jesus become ever more laughable.

Then we have the actual birth stories. Matthew puts the birth story at the end of the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 BC) while Luke has it during the governorship of Quirinius. (6 AD) Matthew has Joseph and Mary being from Bethlehem and having to flee to Egypt and then settling in Nazareth, while Luke has Joseph and Mary being from Nazareth but having to go back to Bethlehem because apparently, Quirinius decided that it would be cool to have people travel the town their ancestors came from to be counted.

Matthew mentions Wise Men. Luke doesn't talk about them at all.

To non-Jewish readers of these Genealogies today, they are just a list of names that do not match. They also follow the line of Joseph, though some feel Mary's genealogy follows along some of the same lines. In the time the Gospels were written, genealogies told stories--and we especially see this in Matthew's genealogy. Matthew's entire Gospel is an overlay or transcendence of the Old Testament. It's purpose is not to tell about the humans, but to present the story of how God worked in each of these lives to bring the birth of Christ and the salvation of mankind to fruition.

Nor were dates meant to be exact. People, especially the common people, didn't keep track of years--and they followed different calendars as well. When people asked, "When did this happen?" the response was not a year, the response was, "Remember just before Herod died? Or remember when Quirinius called that ridiculous census? It was around then."

Matthew, a Jew, found the fact that the family lived in Egypt for a time to be meaningful--Luke, a non-Jew apparently didn't see any importance of wasting pen and ink on such a trivial time in the life of Christ.

We of modern times often make the mistake of assuming that the way we do things today is the way it was always done. Instead, we have to put aside the way we would record things in modern times, and go back to how it was popularly done in Biblical times.

 

[JoeB131]

To non-Jewish readers of these Genealogies today, they are just a list of names that do not match. They also follow the line of Joseph, though some feel Mary's genealogy follows along some of the same lines. In the time the Gospels were written, genealogies told stories--and we especially see this in Matthew's genealogy. Matthew's entire Gospel is an overlay or transcendence of the Old Testament. It's purpose is not to tell about the humans, but to present the story of how God worked in each of these lives to bring the birth of Christ and the salvation of mankind to fruition.

Or that these were just two guys making it up as they went. Okay, here's the thing. Both Matt and Luke copied heavily off of Mark, who didn't really cover Jesus early life. They were both essentially writing fan-fiction. Now, I give Matt some credit, he actually plagiarized his genealogy from the Book of Chronicles... Except that he dropped some names out of his list to hit certain lucky numbers.

Yes, it is well documented that Matthew misinterpreted, our outright lied about scripture to make Jesus fit into prophecy.

and one of those genealogies being 'from Mary's bloodline" is crap.

Nor were dates meant to be exact. People, especially the common people, didn't keep track of years--and they followed different calendars as well. When people asked, "When did this happen?" the response was not a year, the response was, "Remember just before Herod died? Or remember when Quirinius called that ridiculous census? It was around then."

Except that this was "around". These were SPECIFIC events. So either Jesus was born before the time Herod died or he was born when Quirinius ordered a census and there was no room at the inn. The problem is that you have a 10 year gap between those events, and those events were key to the stories. They simply can't both be true.

Then you delve into the logic of them. Matthew's story makes no sense because if Herod had ordered the slaughter of babies, this is something people would have remembered. It does make sense if your realize, Matthew being a horrible plagiarizer, was merely copying the story of the slaughter of innocents from the book of Exodus, giving Jesus a story similar to Moses.

Luke's version has a similar problem. It would really make no sense to order people to report to a place their ancestors came from in order to do a census. Also at the time, while Judea had become a Roman Province, Galilee was still a client Kingdom under the rule of Herod Antipas

Matthew, a Jew, found the fact that the family lived in Egypt for a time to be meaningful--Luke, a non-Jew apparently didn't see any importance of wasting pen and ink on such a trivial time in the life of Christ.

Again, that seems very unlikely. Herod ordering the murder of hundreds of infants based on the word of some Magi would have been a VERY big deal. Also, the reason why Jesus family fled to Egypt - to get away from Herod - wouldn't make sense if Herod had been dead for 10 years at that point.

We of modern times often make the mistake of assuming that the way we do things today is the way it was always done. Instead, we have to put aside the way we would record things in modern times, and go back to how it was popularly done in Biblical times.

Nonsense. Let's look at another JC from that same time period. Julius Caesar. We know when he was born (July, 100 BCE) and we know the exact day he died (March 15, 44 BCE). We know the dates of events in his life.

Meanwhile, the first writing about Jesus don't happen until 20 years after his death, and the first Gospels don't occur until 50 years after his death. The Church picked out four Gospels out of the hundreds that existed, to tell the story they wanted to tell.

.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree it takes a tremendous amount of study of both the Bible and the histories and cultures of Biblical times to correctly understand the contexts of the Bible. Biblical passages are not, "One size fits all."

I do admit that it takes quite an effort to ignore the contradictions, absurdities, cruelties, racism, homophobia and superstition in the bible and still distill out the "good" parts that you guys are comfortable with.

I stopped making that effort years ago.

God is not imaginary, and contrary to some who espouse faith alone, I think those who follow virtues (yes, those despised works) are more likely to comprehend and find some empathy with God. It seems to me many pick up faith by following/applying virtues. I don't know, but I also tend to think those of the Jewish faith would agree--that their Law (of virtues) is designed to do precisely this, bring people to faith.

The problem is, the bible is full of just as many things we'd consider evils today as 'virtues'. According to the bible, slavery was okay. You could marry your rape victim if you paid her father 50 sheckels. Committing genocide against your enemies in war was encouraged by God. Saul lost favor with God because he didn't commit complete genocide against the Amalekites.

The bible didn't change on these things. We did. We just pretend those things aren't relevant anymore.

 

[Meriweather]

Except that this was "around". These were SPECIFIC events. So either Jesus was born before the time Herod died or he was born when Quirinius ordered a census and there was no room at the inn. The problem is that you have a 10 year gap between those events, and those events were key to the stories. They simply can't both be true.

Then you delve into the logic of them. Matthew's story makes no sense because if Herod had ordered the slaughter of babies, this is something people would have remembered. It does make sense if your realize, Matthew being a horrible plagiarizer, was merely copying the story of the slaughter of innocents from the book of Exodus, giving Jesus a story similar to Moses.

Luke's version has a similar problem. It would really make no sense to order people to report to a place their ancestors came from in order to do a census. Also at the time, while Judea had become a Roman Province, Galilee was still a client Kingdom under the rule of Herod Antipas

Again, that seems very unlikely. Herod ordering the murder of hundreds of infants based on the word of some Magi would have been a VERY big deal. Also, the reason why Jesus family fled to Egypt - to get away from Herod - wouldn't make sense if Herod had been dead for 10 years at that point.

Nonsense. Let's look at another JC from that same time period. Julius Caesar. We know when he was born (July, 100 BCE) and we know the exact day he died (March 15, 44 BCE). We know the dates of events in his life.

Meanwhile, the first writing about Jesus don't happen until 20 years after his death, and the first Gospels don't occur until 50 years after his death. The Church picked out four Gospels out of the hundreds that existed, to tell the story they wanted to tell.

I understand you are angry and that you take it personally that you see Matthew and Luke as trying to fool you. In fact, both were writing to specific audiences of their time. I doubt either thought what they wrote down would be suspiciously investigated by you thousands of years later. They wrote to an audience who understood the familiar references of their time. I suspect even if they were told people two thousand years later would be mad about their methodology and research styles, they still would have said, "Tough, we're trying to connect with our own audience today."

Of course Matthew was using the Exodus story! Doesn't your Bible footnote this? You sound like you have recently discovered something that has been carefully hidden from you. These are things I learned by ninth grade--and that was some time ago.

Absolutely, you can find some specific dates of some famous people. However, what about King David? Everyone today has heard of King David, but no one knows the exact dates of his birth and death.

I have read many of the "Lost Gospels", and these were written after the Gospels we use today. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the first--others started popping up once Christianity became more popular.

 

[Meriweather]

I do admit that it takes quite an effort to ignore the contradictions, absurdities, cruelties, racism, homophobia and superstition in the bible and still distill out the "good" parts that you guys are comfortable with.

I stopped making that effort years ago.

The problem is, the bible is full of just as many things we'd consider evils today as 'virtues'. According to the bible, slavery was okay. You could marry your rape victim if you paid her father 50 sheckels. Committing genocide against your enemies in war was encouraged by God. Saul lost favor with God because he didn't commit complete genocide against the Amalekites.

The bible didn't change on these things. We did. We just pretend those things aren't relevant anymore.

Slavery was an economic reality of the time--very different from the slavery of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In Biblical times, the choice was to take on the conquered as slaves/servants--or slaughter them. Jews were given specific instructions on treating slaves and servants kindly. Can we find examples when slaves were treated meanly? Absolutely. We can also see where slaves were treated as family.

However, nineteenth century Americans claiming their slavery was the same as Biblical slavery? Sorry, but conquering a people and kidnapping individual people is not the same. The second unquestionable comes under, "Thou shalt not steal," and we fought a one of the bloodiest wars to make this point. Some felt that strongly about it.

We see some harsh punishments and consequences, which should tell us more how seriously the Jews of Biblical times considered these sins to be. Once again, with payment to the father, you are comparing today's culture (where any payment would be directly to the woman) to the realities of those times.

As for the Amalekites, I see that situation as an internal war between priests and politicians. It appears in that incident, the priests carried the day--they got their man in. As for other incidents of genocide (commanded by man in God's name), I would need specifics.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand you are angry and that you take it personally that you see Matthew and Luke as trying to fool you. In fact, both were writing to specific audiences of their time. I doubt either thought what they wrote down would be suspiciously investigated by you thousands of years later. They wrote to an audience who understood the familiar references of their time. I suspect even if they were told people two thousand years later would be mad about their methodology and research styles, they still would have said, "Tough, we're trying to connect with our own audience today."

Naw, I don't take it personally that Luke and Matthew lied to me. I take it personally that the NUNS lied to me.

Of course, the problem is that Matthew and Luke were writing for different audiences. Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience, before Christians decided to say fuck it and just genocide the shit out of them. Luke was writing for a Greek and Roman audience. But the point I am making is that they weren't reporting facts, they were just making stuff up to fit their narrative.

Of course Matthew was using the Exodus story! Doesn't your Bible footnote this? You sound like you have recently discovered something that has been carefully hidden from you. These are things I learned by ninth grade--and that was some time ago.

He didn't "use" the Exodus story, he PLAGIARIZED the Exodus story and said something that didn't happen actually happened.

Absolutely, you can find some specific dates of some famous people. However, what about King David? Everyone today has heard of King David, but no one knows the exact dates of his birth and death.

Actually, it's doubtful David existed, either. There's certainly no archeological evidence to support it.