OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[muffler dragon]

Christianity is ultimatley very simple and easy to follow: Thou shall have no other gods before Him. Treat your neighbor as yourself. That is Christendom's true cannon IMO.

I am not picking on Bleed when I re-post this quote. I simply thought it would be of interest for some for me to explain myself when I responded by saying that this is rather Judaic in nature (in other words - pre-dates Christianity).

The "thou shall have no other gods before Me" comes from Deuteronomy. The "love your neighbor as yourself" comes from Leviticus.

Here is a link which some may find of interest:

Judaism 101: Love and Brotherhood



One of the first things that intrigued me about Judaism was the concept of "challenge your faith daily". To some, this is an inspiring statement. To others, fear or ambivalence. For today, it's just something to think about.

Yeshua was a Jew, in case you missed that part.

what do you mean so what? it's not irrelevant. the fact that he was Jewish is fundamental in understanding who He was and what He taught.

1) My statement to Bleed dealt with who claimed primacy on the two Golden Rules. The Judaic portion is many centuries previous to the Christian adoption of them. Thus, the religious background of Jesus is irrelevant with regard to primacy.
Anyway... to entertain the thought further.
2 IF you believe that Jesus was G-d incarnate; THEN the entire Shema is thrown out the window.
3) Even IF Jesus were a Jew; then that doesn't make what he said Judaic. There have been a number of Jews throughout time who have slaughtered the context and meaning of concepts within the Torah.

It's not, So what?

It's, So you want what for what?

Very insightful.

 

[muffler dragon]

sorry, but you are incorrect.

1) the word Roman. there were churches in Corinth, Ephasus, Thyatira, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Pergamos, Laodicea, and Sardis. it wasn't until those church came under the control of Rome, which happened ~323 when Constantine had his visions and 'converted' that they became 'Roman.' and even then, what Rome portratyed as Christianity was a FAR cry from what those churches were actually practicing. those churches consisted primarily of Jews and secondarily of converted gentiles. the original church was a JEWISH church. the Roman church has its basis in paganism that dates all the way back to Nimrod and his whore mother/wife.

2) the word "Catholic." Catholic literally means "universal." prior to becoming the state religion of the largest empire in the world, the tiny little churches spread around Asia Minor could hardly be called universal.



pick up a book. i suggest Murder, Money and the Mafia: The Vatican Exposed. perhaps the intro will give you some insight into exactly how dead the Vatican was in the 1920s.



let's see, because what Yeshua taught is different that what the church teaches.




back that statement up please.

I'll try to get to this post of yours this weekend, lv.

Have a pleasant weekend.

 

[Mike80]

the anti-Catholic rhetoric on this thread is interesting to say the least.....

 

[stowfan]

I utilized Genesis 4 to show two things:

1) That from the very beginning G-d set forth a process of sin => repentance => forgiveness. This is established for all people.
2) Genesis 4 has two components noticeably missing from the argument you're attempting to make: a sacrifice and a mediator.

Thus, from well before the institution of atonement via blood sacrifice, we see that G-d provides forgiveness for sins from a person's repentance. This is consistent throughout the entire Tanakh. Furthermore, there is not just one way of gaining forgiveness, but instead, many.

Now, for the "sin offering" v. "the crucifixion".

Sin Offering Taken from Leviticus 4. Note that this particular passage deals with the laypeople.

Leviticus 4
27. If one person of the people of the land commits a sin unintentionally, by his committing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be committed, incurring guilt;

28. if his sin that he committed is made known to him, he shall bring his sacrifice: an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he committed.

29. And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] on the head of the sin offering, and he shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

30. And the kohen shall take some of its blood with his finger, and place [it] on the horns of the altar [used] for burnt offerings. And then he shall pour all of its [remaining] blood at the base of the altar.

31. And he shall remove all of its fat, just as the fat was removed from the peace offering. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. Thus the kohen shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

Key Points:

1) This takes place within the Temple walls.
2) This is for UNINTENTIONAL sins.
3) After the sin is "made known" to the sinner, he then brings an "unblemished female goat".
4) The sinner places his hands on the goat.
5) The sinner slaughters the goat.
6) The kohen (priest) sprinkles the blood on the altar.
7) The kohen burns the fat on the altar.

Taking the above and rendering them upon the crucifixion:

1) It took place outside of the Temple walls.
2) The crucifixion is supposedly for both INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL sins.
3a) No sinners brought Jesus to the cross as according to the Christian testament, he went on his own. 3b) Jesus is NOT an animal. 3c) Jesus was not unblemished as he was supposedly beaten. 3d) Jesus was not perfect according to the observance of Torah either, thus the spiritualizing is moot.
4) No sinners placed their hands upon Jesus.
5) No sinners slaughtered Jesus according to Jewish tradition guidelines.
6) Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar.
7) Jesus' fat was not burned upon the altar.

My challenge for you, stowfan, is this:

Can you substantiate the idea that the crucifixion WAS a sin offering in any way, shape or form OTHER THAN METAPHORICAL/ALLEGORICAL?

As an addendum, I ask in advance that you please refrain from any consideration of the Passover should it come to mind. The Passover is NOT a sin offering.

To begin with, I reviewed Genesis 4 and nowhere is it stated God forgave Cain. God cursed Cain and put a mark on him so people would know not to kill Cain. It appeared God wanted Cain to live a long cursed life. You may consider this to be a METAPHORICAL/ALLEGORICAL form of forgiveness but no where is it stated in black and white Cain was forgiven for killing his brother.
BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Further, I love you dearly but I am really beginning to believe you have no idea what your talking about. By way of example; it is believed the book of Leviticus was written somewhere between 1446 to 1406 BC. Construction of the first Temple was not started until at least 970 BC. Completly contrary to what you have posted, the book of Leviticus says nothing about any of the rituals having to be performed with the four walls of a Temple that didn't exist for the next 400 plus years.

Finally you are asking me to "substantiate" my faith. As I told you with reference to IS. 53, debates on this matter have gone on for over 2,000 years and will continue until the end of time. I am aware of what the Passover celebrates, and no, I don't have it confused with the Day of Atonement.:)

 

[muffler dragon]

To begin with, I reviewed Genesis 4 and nowhere is it stated God forgave Cain. God cursed Cain and put a mark on him so people would know not to kill Cain. It appeared God wanted Cain to live a long cursed life. You may consider this to be a METAPHORICAL/ALLEGORICAL form of forgiveness but no where is it stated in black and white Cain was forgiven for killing his brother.

Genesis 4

5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?

7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

This is right before the slaying of Abel. This is dealing with the offering that Cain made. Thus, your argument above is a red herring.

Further, I love you dearly but I am really beginning to believe you have no idea what your talking about.

Edited to remove "over the top" emotion.

After being a Christian for over 20 years, studying apologetics for 7, and then being led out of Christianity by G-d, this sort of statement by you is demeaning and uncalled for.

By way of example; it is believed the book of Leviticus was written somewhere between 1446 to 1406 BC. Construction of the first Temple was not started until at least 970 BC. Completly contrary to what you have posted, the book of Leviticus says nothing about any of the rituals having to be performed with the four walls of a Temple that didn't exist for the next 400 plus years.

Exodus 20 (with Rashi's commentary)

21. An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter beside it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle. Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you.

An altar of earth Attached to the ground, [meaning] that it should not be built on pillars or on a block of wood (another version: [on] a base). [According to the Mechilta and Rashi on Zev. 58a, the reading is ?archways.?] Alternatively, [מִזְבַָּח אִדָמָה means] that he [Moses] would fill the hollow of the altar with earth when they [the Israelites] encamped. [from Mechilta]
you shall make for Me That from the beginning, it shall be made in My name. [I.e., it should not be made for another purpose and then later used as an altar.]-[from Mechilta]
and you shall slaughter beside it Heb. עָלָיו, like ?And beside it (וְעָלָיו) was the tribe of Manasseh? (Num. 2:20). Or perhaps עָלָיו means literally ?upon it.? Therefore, Scripture says: ?the flesh and the blood on the altar of the Lord, your God? (Deut. 12:27), [meaning that only the flesh and blood are to be put on the altar] but the slaughtering is not [to be performed] on top of the altar. ? [from Mechilta]
your burnt offerings and your peace offerings which are from your sheep and your cattle. ?Your sheep and your cattle? is the explanation of ?your burnt offerings and your peace offerings.?
Wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you Heb. אַזְכִּיר, lit., I will mention. [This should apparently read ךְתַּזְכִּיר, you will mention. Therefore, Rashi explains that it means: whenever] I will permit you to mention My Explicit Name, there I will come to you and bless you. I will cause My Shechinah to rest upon you. From here you learn that permission was given to mention the Explicit Name only in the place to which the Shechinah comes, and that is in the Temple in Jerusalem. There permission was given to the priests to mention the Explicit Name when they raise their hands to bless the people. ? [from Mechilta, Sifrei, Num. 6:23, Sotah 38a]​

Considering that the Tabernacle was a portable dwelling place for the Name of the L-rd, I'll presume that you understand that there was no difference between it and the Temple as far as function. Thus, within the walls of the Tabernacle and within the walls of the Temple are where Jews were to perform the offerings; not outside the walls.

It should be noted that there is no such restriction upon Gentiles, but that's another topic for another time.

Finally you are asking me to "substantiate" my faith.

Another non-sequitur. Not once have I asked you to substantiate your faith. I have entertained discussions into the understanding of passages. Big difference.

As I told you with reference to IS. 53, debates on this matter have gone on for over 2,000 years and will continue until the end of time. I am aware of what the Passover celebrates, and no, I don't have it confused with the Day of Atonement.:)

If that is your sole answer to all the points raised by Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53; then that's fine by me. If this is your concluding statement to Personal Vicarious Atonement, "sin offering" v. "the crucifixion", for any other topic that we may enter upon; then that's fine by me. I know it's not worth my time.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I utilized Genesis 4 to show two things:

1) That from the very beginning G-d set forth a process of sin => repentance => forgiveness. This is established for all people.
2) Genesis 4 has two components noticeably missing from the argument you're attempting to make: a sacrifice and a mediator.

Thus, from well before the institution of atonement via blood sacrifice, we see that G-d provides forgiveness for sins from a person's repentance. This is consistent throughout the entire Tanakh. Furthermore, there is not just one way of gaining forgiveness, but instead, many.

Now, for the "sin offering" v. "the crucifixion".

Sin Offering Taken from Leviticus 4. Note that this particular passage deals with the laypeople.

Leviticus 4
27. If one person of the people of the land commits a sin unintentionally, by his committing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be committed, incurring guilt;

28. if his sin that he committed is made known to him, he shall bring his sacrifice: an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he committed.

29. And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] on the head of the sin offering, and he shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

30. And the kohen shall take some of its blood with his finger, and place [it] on the horns of the altar [used] for burnt offerings. And then he shall pour all of its [remaining] blood at the base of the altar.

31. And he shall remove all of its fat, just as the fat was removed from the peace offering. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, as a pleasing fragrance to the Lord. Thus the kohen shall make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

Key Points:

1) This takes place within the Temple walls.
2) This is for UNINTENTIONAL sins.
3) After the sin is "made known" to the sinner, he then brings an "unblemished female goat".
4) The sinner places his hands on the goat.
5) The sinner slaughters the goat.
6) The kohen (priest) sprinkles the blood on the altar.
7) The kohen burns the fat on the altar.

Taking the above and rendering them upon the crucifixion:

1) It took place outside of the Temple walls.
2) The crucifixion is supposedly for both INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL sins.
3a) No sinners brought Jesus to the cross as according to the Christian testament, he went on his own. 3b) Jesus is NOT an animal. 3c) Jesus was not unblemished as he was supposedly beaten. 3d) Jesus was not perfect according to the observance of Torah either, thus the spiritualizing is moot.
4) No sinners placed their hands upon Jesus.
5) No sinners slaughtered Jesus according to Jewish tradition guidelines.
6) Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the altar.
7) Jesus' fat was not burned upon the altar.

My challenge for you, stowfan, is this:

Can you substantiate the idea that the crucifixion WAS a sin offering in any way, shape or form OTHER THAN METAPHORICAL/ALLEGORICAL?

As an addendum, I ask in advance that you please refrain from any consideration of the Passover should it come to mind. The Passover is NOT a sin offering.

Yom Kippur.

may i inquire of you when the last time you (or anyone for that matter) sacrificed a goat was?

 

[lvbuckeye]

1) My statement to Bleed dealt with who claimed primacy on the two Golden Rules. The Judaic portion is many centuries previous to the Christian adoption of them. Thus, the religious background of Jesus is irrelevant with regard to primacy.

i'm fairly certain that you have not the lightest clue who Yeshua was and what he taught. it's blatantly obvious. Yeshua TAUGHT THE TORAH.

Anyway... to entertain the thought further.
2 IF you believe that Jesus was G-d incarnate; THEN the entire Shema is thrown out the window.

nope. the Ten Commandments, which the Shema commemorates, still exist.

3) Even IF Jesus were a Jew; then that doesn't make what he said Judaic. There have been a number of Jews throughout time who have slaughtered the context and meaning of concepts within the Torah.

what, exactly, are the context and meanings within the Torah, and how did what Yeshua taught "slaughter" them?

on a side note, why do you suppose when asked of Him which was the Greatest commandmant, Yeshua answered "Hear Oh Isreal, The LORD is our God, The LORD is One" which is the FIRST LINE of the Shema if what He taught throws the Shema out the window?

Mark 12: 28-30:
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

what did the scribe say about that?

Mark 12:31
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

chew on that.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

This isn't my battle, so I'd probably be best to just let it be... but, that's not the BKB way. So....

1 - You're sure making a great deal of assumptions about Muffler's knowledge of who Jesus is/was/is alleged to have been. What strikes me about your remarks are how they sound like "My religious dick is bigger, because I understand something you apparently don't." Naturally, completely tossing aside that Muffler may very well believe what he believes VERY strongly while at the same time you fail to offer an argument at all. All you do is point out that whatever he believes isn't the same as you believe, and of course, you rest on the hidden assumption that your belief is the 'right' one. BFD. If I've learned one thing about Muffler, it's that he has thought this through. I may or may not agree with him, but I'd never suggest to him that he "doesn't know" something. You may not agree with his thoughts, but they are far from uneducated.

2 - Regarding the amendment of laws.... never mind, no need for me to get in to that one.

3 - What that says about Jesus is that, assuming he existed and was a Jew, he had a working familiarity with Jewish law. Big shock. I'm not even Jewish and I can say as much. Am I now the Son? Of course not. My point is, showing a consistency between the NT and the OT does little to establish anything other than that they are on occasion consistent, that early Christians understood their Jewish foundation(s). I'd be more interested in hearing how where they are alleged to be inconsistent the problem can be explained without appeals to "Well, Jesus was G-d so what he says goes," since it begs the question in the first place. That is to say, I think we all agree I'm not the Messiah, so who am I to wave my hand and say "Well, this is how it is now." and if I did, who would be the fools who'd listen to me?

 

[lvbuckeye]

well, i certainly wasn't trying to come off as measuring my religious dick, but whatever... IIRC, didn't MD say way back when that he grew up in some form of Christianity or other? because that was a point that i was trying to make. not that i have all the answers, because i quite clearly don't... but that maybe if we spent our time actually reading the book instead of relying on some other guy with an agenda spoon-feeding us, we'd all have a better working knowledge of what the book actually says... mainstream Christianity, regardless of denominational flavor, does not exactly follow what is outlined in the book.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Fair enough, LV. Like I said, it's not really even my battle, it just struck me as more "you don't know" rather than "you've never been taught." I won't pretend to speak for Muffler on that, as he's more than able to address it if he sees fit.

Regarding actually reading the book, and mainstream Christianity not necessarily being in accord with it.... I don't have any quarrel with that, particularly the second part (mainstream not in accord). On the first part, for me, it's about the fundamental question - why bother reading it at all (ie, no sense in me "wasting" my time, if I don't believe the premise that Jesus is useful for me religiously)? That's not to say I've never read it, just that for me, until I'm convinced it has particular value for me spiritually, there's no use in reading it further.

 

[MaxBuck]

...I think we all agree I'm not the Messiah...

None of you is the Messiah? Are you certain? Better check with all of you to make sure.

 

[muffler dragon]

sorry, but you are incorrect.

1) the word Roman. there were churches in Corinth, Ephasus, Thyatira, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Pergamos, Laodicea, and Sardis. it wasn't until those church came under the control of Rome, which happened ~323 when Constantine had his visions and 'converted' that they became 'Roman.' and even then, what Rome portratyed as Christianity was a FAR cry from what those churches were actually practicing. those churches consisted primarily of Jews and secondarily of converted gentiles. the original church was a JEWISH church. the Roman church has its basis in paganism that dates all the way back to Nimrod and his whore mother/wife.

2) the word "Catholic." Catholic literally means "universal." prior to becoming the state religion of the largest empire in the world, the tiny little churches spread around Asia Minor could hardly be called universal.

Going in reverse order:

2) You are correct. I should have used the Catholic designation and NOT the Roman designation.
1) The RCC and EO (prior to the split) both claim apostolic ascendency/descendency. Thus, they claim rights all the way back to Peter and so forth. When I was using (incorrectly), "Roman", I was referring to this claim.
Now, they statements you make regarding Judaic nature of the initial Christian church, I, too, used to make such statements as I was transitioning out of the typical Christian Church and getting into Messianism. Oddly enough, the claim you make above falls prey to the exact same thing that I did: lack of substantiation. Please feel free to show via ecclesiastical history that there were paradigms shifts in doctrine that support a decline in the Judaic background of the original Christian communities/churches.

pick up a book. i suggest Murder, Money and the Mafia: The Vatican Exposed. perhaps the intro will give you some insight into exactly how dead the Vatican was in the 1920s.

So, you claim resurrection of the Beast exists in the book of Revelation?

let's see, because what Yeshua taught is different that what the church teaches.

Do you believe that Jesus taught a Sola Scripture type of doctrine for his followers?

back that statement up please.

It's an opinion. Thus, I don't need to "back it up".

 

[muffler dragon]

Yom Kippur.

Ummm...

Buttermilk Biscuits.
Hot Pockets.
Mercedes Benz.

Two word phrases don't really mean a whole lot.

Btw, when speaking of Personal Vicarious Atonement and sin offerings, let's attempt to stay with the part that I already set as a consideration: PERSONAL.

You're not a Jew, and we're not discussing the national considerations of the office of High Priest.

may i inquire of you when the last time you (or anyone for that matter) sacrificed a goat was?

I never have sacrificed an animal. I've actually never even killed one. I will make two points on this red herring (just for kicks):

1) As a Gentile, there is no restriction on me sacrificing an animal.
2) I've never felt the need to perform such an act as an outward sign of my inward repentance.

 

[muffler dragon]

i'm fairly certain that you have not the lightest clue who Yeshua was and what he taught. it's blatantly obvious. Yeshua TAUGHT THE TORAH.

And your perception of my aptitude means absolute bopkess to me. I've walked the born-again Christian apologist route. It didn't fit my mindset. But feel free to consider with the ad hominems. It fits you.

As for what Jesus taught. Sure, in some ways he taught Torah. Unfortunately for Jesus, often times his actions betrayed his teachings. As a Jew, he sure didn't observe Torah consistently.

nope. the Ten Commandments, which the Shema commemorates, still exist.

Such a profound rebuttal of my statement. Either you ignore the Judaic understanding of the Shema, or you just eisegize it to fit your POV.

what, exactly, are the context and meanings within the Torah, and how did what Yeshua taught "slaughter" them?

Did you read what I wrote or just type too fast? I was discussing the context and meanings behind CONCEPTS within the Torah. I can just stick with one: echad. The nature of G-d from a Judaic POV precludes the concept of the trinity. You, I presume, believe that Jesus taught that he was G-d incarnate. This would be a HUGE slaughtering and context of the word "echad" and how it describes the nature of G-d.

on a side note, why do you suppose when asked of Him which was the Greatest commandmant, Yeshua answered "Hear Oh Isreal, The LORD is our God, The LORD is One" which is the FIRST LINE of the Shema if what He taught throws the Shema out the window?

Why? Because I don't believe that Jesus taught that he was G-d incarnate. Yet, the vast majority of Jesus interprets his statements as such.

Now, does this change what I wrote above? Only to an extent, because it's evident throughout the Christian gospels that Jesus was not perfectly Torah observant even without this supposed claim of deity-ship. However, I doubt that you're really interested in that sort of discourse.

what did the scribe say about that?

Mark 12:31
And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

chew on that.

I have. It's one of the few times in the Christian gospels that a Judaic response by a Jewish Sage is actually presented that would reflect a historically consistent discourse.

And here's something for you to "chew" on: this discourse shows that your Personal Vicarious Atonement doctrine was bopkess even to the Jews of the time.

 

[muffler dragon]

This isn't my battle, so I'd probably be best to just let it be... but, that's not the BKB way. So....

1 - You're sure making a great deal of assumptions about Muffler's knowledge of who Jesus is/was/is alleged to have been. What strikes me about your remarks are how they sound like "My religious dick is bigger, because I understand something you apparently don't." Naturally, completely tossing aside that Muffler may very well believe what he believes VERY strongly while at the same time you fail to offer an argument at all. All you do is point out that whatever he believes isn't the same as you believe, and of course, you rest on the hidden assumption that your belief is the 'right' one. BFD. If I've learned one thing about Muffler, it's that he has thought this through. I may or may not agree with him, but I'd never suggest to him that he "doesn't know" something. You may not agree with his thoughts, but they are far from uneducated.

Thanks. I have no problem "agreeing to disagree". It's the superfluous non sequiturs that really start to irritate.

well, i certainly wasn't trying to come off as measuring my religious dick, but whatever... IIRC, didn't MD say way back when that he grew up in some form of Christianity or other? because that was a point that i was trying to make. not that i have all the answers, because i quite clearly don't... but that maybe if we spent our time actually reading the book instead of relying on some other guy with an agenda spoon-feeding us, we'd all have a better working knowledge of what the book actually says... mainstream Christianity, regardless of denominational flavor, does not exactly follow what is outlined in the book.

Here's a personal history lesson, LV.

I was raised in a Congregational home. I went every Sunday (with only a handful of exceptions) from birth through highschool. I was baptised at 12. In college, I got involved with a Pentecostal group and was "baptised in the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues" during my Sophomore year. It was at this time that I started to read more regularly on a daily basis. After college, I went Non-denominational. Then came my time of transition from Christian => Messianic => studier of Judaism => Noachide. All told, I was a Christian for over 20 years of my life. I've read the ENTIRE Christian Bible from cover to cover in the NASB, KJV, NIV, NKJV, Amplified and Living Translations. At present, I am reading a Jewish Tanakh. I had studied apologetics for seven years prior to leaving Christianity. I wasn't spoon-fed anything, and I certainly compared and contrasted to see what stood up to scrutiny. I've challenged my faith on a daily basis, and it was a life changing experience to have my Christian foundation crumble into nothing. The only THING that sustained me was G-d.

Fair enough, LV. Like I said, it's not really even my battle, it just struck me as more "you don't know" rather than "you've never been taught." I won't pretend to speak for Muffler on that, as he's more than able to address it if he sees fit.

FTR, there is NOT one single Christian statement, doctrine, dogma, personal belief on here that I have not encountered, read, or heard before. Thus, "nothing new under the sun". The plain truth is that I just can't believe the Christian faith.