TheProcess

I have the feeling that perhaps you aren't interested in honestly looking at whether your religion is consistent with what you acknowledge as previous revelation. (The Old Testament.)

It is not relevant to the issue of whether Hebrews 9:22 is accurate. I am not trying to redefine anything. What I am doing, is suggesting that Hebrews 9:22 is a false representation of Old Testament religion. Hebrews 9:22 claims that "shedding of blood" is required to atone for sin. I have given verses which I believe show that this isn't the case. This isn't relevant to the issue of whether Hebrews 9:22 is accurate. Please keep to the issue. I think you are proving my point that Christians do not always give straight answers! Lets keep it focused on whether Hebrews 9:22 is accurate.

If you want to bring up this verse, how about you respond to what I have already said?

The issue is whether Hebrews 9:22 is an accurate representation of Old Testament law.

I think you have made a mistake here: "sin cannot be forgiven with blood being shed". Did you want to say "without"? Your position doesn't seem to be recognized in Judaism. Jews say that blood sacrifice is one way to atone for sin in the Old Testament. But it wasn't the only way to atone for sin, and it never atoned for all sins.

Certainly not the case in my opinion. I'm not really interested in going back over it, but I will summarize the discussion to defend myself against your accusations: There was one attempt to try and resolve the contradiction -- "now dead" should be read as meaning something like "She's as good as dead". A counter-argument was given to this. And indeed, your own Christian sources conceded the likelihood of contradiction when read as literal history -- "Most commentators seem to regard this as one of those "freedom of composition" issues where Matthew, knowing that the girl would be dead by the time Jesus showed up, just telescoped the account". But it was claimed that we shouldn't expect the Bible to be precise about history, so a contradiction isn't really a contradiction, so to speak. And if you are going to make that kind of argument, I would say that you need to show that you have a coherent account of what "divinely inspired" scripture is about. The argument was something like: "They weren't that precise back then, we shouldn't impose modern standards on an ancient text". Well OK, but would we expect such ancient texts to be necessarily historical at all? I can see Christians perhaps getting themselves into trouble if they want to make this kind of argument. Not true. I am skeptical of the Christian religion, and I suggested a possible error in the Bible. What you are saying here, is way off into the realm of ranting and personal attack against me. I often see this kind of behaviour from Christians.

As one example, what justification exists for the N.T. claim that: Can you give me a clear answer?

OK, I don't expect any debating from you. I will ask certain questions, but I am not expecting a response. The issue is certainly significant. What exactly is intended when Christians claim that the Bible is the "word of God"? How do we know whether 2 Timothy is itself scripture? It is a suspected forgery I believe. Also, when it mentions "all scripture", which books exactly are being referred to? If you think this means precisely those books included in the Protestant Bible, well how do we know this? I understand that 2 Peter (another suspected forgery) considers Paul's writing to be scripture. How do we know whether 2 Peter is scripture? Lets imagine that -- as claimed in 2 Peter -- Paul's writings are scripture. How do we know which of the letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament were actually written by him? How can we be certain about which letters are genuine? So the Bible isn't necessarily true as strict history. Is it necessarily true when it comes to doctrine? If you want to say that we can trust the Bible on the subject of doctrine, but not history, what justification do you have for this? I certainly see this as suspicious, and I imagine that Christians could well agree with me. You seem to suggest that God would have a problem communicating his message through "sinful human beings". And God wouldn't worry too much about historical inconsistencies. God wouldn't be bothered to make sure that it came out correct. Is this really plausible? Why wouldn't God be careful to make the Bible accurate as strict history? God couldn't do so? I don't think you can say that. God didn't want to? Why? The unbelievers aren't allowed to use PM.

(1) This doesn't look like "apologetics". You are posting in the wrong forum. (2) This isn't much of an answer as to why Christians sometimes seem to find it difficult to give straight answers.

And what do you mean by "here for answers"? It can be very difficult to get straight answers out of Christians sometimes.

Yes, that is true, but do you really see the BBC religion forums as a particular danger that Christians need to be protected from?

Here is something that I noticed on the BBC religion forums: *UMMM! NO to this link!* Should we accept this personal testimony? As the quote and link were removed I will explain what it was about so I can make the point. The testimony in question, was from someone who used to be a born again Christian and claimed to have a genuine experience of fellowship with God as a Christian. They have left Christianity, and claim to continue having such fellowship with God in a different religious context. The point being made, is that you don't necessarily need to be a Christian to have fellowship with God. And "fellowship with God", if Christians really experience it, doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is true.

Why can't I link to a forum discussing Christianity? What is the problem with that?

I am here to discuss issues connected with Christianity. I am skeptical of the religion.