₦airaland Forum

salvation101:
typical but childish response

Which you started by accusing me of arguing for arguments sake. can't stand the heat? gerara the kitchen

wch i took time to explain in the post u just quoted but hey, perhaps u never even bothered to read it cos u are more interested in arguing than you are interested in arguing than in my answer.

don't get all emotional on me, did the hobo buy the meth on my behalf?
The account of him buying the land said he bought it and killed himself on it. did the chief priests hand him the documents to the land after they bought it and he went there to kill himself?

Never mind, I think I've seen one explanation that (perhaps) brings them all together here https://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbaother3.htm

according to that, the land Judas was reported to have bought in acts is different from the one the chief priests bought in Matthew and the money Judas used to buy his land was actually the money he's been stealing from the money bag while he only felt remorseful for the money that lead to the torture of Jesus

They propose it this way

1. Judas felt bad after seeing what they were doing to Jesus and went back to the temple to leave the money there

2. The chief priests bought a land with the money after deliberation

3. Judas bought a land with the money he's been stealing from the moneybag and killed himself on it, the amount of money he used was not stated and its only referred to as "Wages of his iniquity" or something so its assumed that was the money he's been stealing


4. both lands are called blood because he killed himself on one and the other was bought with blood money and translation made it look the same

If the translation changes they gave are true, then they've solved it

hopefulLandlord:
Which you started by accusing me of arguing for arguments sake. can't stand the heat? gerara the kitchen

don't get all emotional on me, did the hobo buy the meth on my behalf?
The account of him buying the land said he bought it and killed himself on it. did the chief priests hand him the documents to the land after they bought it and he went there to kill himself?

Never mind, I think I've seen one explanation that (perhaps) brings them all together here https://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbaother3.htm

according to that, the land Judas was reported to have bought in acts is different from the one the chief priests bought in Matthew and the money Judas used to buy his land was actually the money he's been stealing from the money bag while he only felt remorseful for the money that lead to the torture of Jesus

They propose it this way

1. Judas felt bad after seeing what they were doing to Jesus and went back to the temple to leave the money there

2. The chief priests bought a land with the money after deliberation

3. Judas bought a land with the money he's been stealing from the moneybag and killed himself on it, the amount of money he used was not stated and its only referred to as "Wages of his iniquity" or something so its assumed that was the money he's been stealing


4. both lands are called blood because he killed himself on one and the other was bought with blood money and translation made it look the same

If the translation changes they gave are true, then they've solved it

I really admire your energy at engaging theists especially the Christian variety in arguments. I remember my university days when we argue from evening till the morning of the next day. At the end of the day nobody is any wiser as the theists engage in logical, spiritual and linguistic gymnastics to escape glaring illogicalities and contradictions in their bible and doctrines.
A hypothetical example is;
A verse says Jesus died during the day, another book in another verse says Jesus died at night.

Non Christians would see contradiction, but Christians would argue a plethora of reasons.
1. It was in the late evening, so one writer saw it as day, while the second writer saw it as night.

2. It was actually night, but it was day in the part of the world the writer was located.

3. It was actually day, but the other verse said night due to translational issues. The original Greek translation actually meant late in the day, when the sun has actually gone down. But when they translated to English they removed the late, so it read as if it was day when it actually meant night.

4. It is irrelevant of Jesus died at night or in the day, the most important thing was that Jesus died, that was a fact and no contradiction there.

The excuses can go on and on to explain away the numerous glaring contradictions in the bible.

wirinet:
I really admire your energy at engaging theists especially the Christian variety in arguments. I remember my university days when we argue from evening till the morning of the next day. At the end of the day nobody is any wiser as the theists engage in logical, spiritual and linguistic gymnastics to escape glaring illogicalities and contradictions in their bible and doctrines.
A hypothetical example is;
A verse says Jesus died during the day, another book in another verse says Jesus died at night.
Non Christians would see contradiction, but Christians would argue a plethora of reasons.
1. It was in the late evening, so one writer saw it as day, while the second writer saw it as night.

2. It was actually night, but it was day in the part of the world the writer was located.

3. It was actually day, but the other verse said night due to translational issues. The original Greek translation actually meant late in the day, when the sun has actually gone down. But when they translated to English they removed the late, so it read as if it was day when it actually meant night.

4. It is irrelevant of Jesus died at night or in the day, the most important thing was that Jesus died, that was a fact and no contradiction there.

The excuses can go on and on to explain away the numerous glaring contradictions in the bible.

Re-read your hypothetical, does it sound or read right?
PS You've edited it after spotting the discrepancy

wirinet:
I really admire your energy at engaging theists especially the Christian variety in arguments. I remember my university days when we argue from evening till the morning of the next day. At the end of the day nobody is any wiser as the theists engage in logical, spiritual and linguistic gymnastics to escape glaring illogicalities and contradictions in their bible and doctrines.
A hypothetical example is;
A verse says Jesus died during the day, another book in another verse says Jesus died at night.

Non Christians would see contradiction, but Christians would argue a plethora of reasons.
1. It was in the late evening, so one writer saw it as day, while the second writer saw it as night.

2. It was actually night, but it was day in the part of the world the writer was located.

3. It was actually day, but the other verse said night due to translational issues. The original Greek translation actually meant late in the day, when the sun has actually gone down. But when they translated to English they removed the late, so it read as if it was day when it actually meant night.

4. It is irrelevant of Jesus died at night or in the day, the most important thing was that Jesus died, that was a fact and no contradiction there.

The excuses can go on and on to explain away the numerous glaring contradictions in the bible.

Why not post those verses let's see

MuttleyLaff:
Re-read your hypothetical, does it sound or read right?
PS You've edited it after spotting the discrepancy

And you are only interested in errors instead of the substance of the argument. You must earn a living as a proof writer.
For your info, I type with my phone and only re-read my posts after I have posted. It is easier to see errors after posting than in comment or edit mode.

butterflyl1on:
Why not post those verses let's see

Ok. Here is one;

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. —Luke 12:10

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. —Romans 10:13

Are all sins forgiven once somebody confesses Jesus as lord and saviour or there is one single sin that can never be forgiven, even if one confesses Jesus as saviour?

wirinet:
Ok. Here is one;

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. —Luke 12:10

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. —Romans 10:13

Are all sins forgiven once somebody confesses Jesus as lord and saviour or there is one single sin that can never be forgiven, even if one confesses Jesus as saviour?

You talked about one verse saying Jesus died at night and another saying he died during the day and I said i want to see those verses and not these ones you posted. I will handle these ones later but I am specific about my request.

wirinet:
And you are only interested in errors instead of the substance of the argument.
You must earn a living as a proof writer.

Its nothing like that Chief, its nothing like, must earn a living as a proof writer.
I wasnt even looking, it just jumped out and staring at me like a big fat throbbing swollen sore thumb
and I was going like this looks like a repetition of the first hypothetical

wirinet:
For your info, I type with my phone and only re-read my posts after I have posted.
It is easier to see errors after posting than in comment or edit mode.

Woulnt it have been convenient for the translators to enjoy this same privilege you instantly have and can easily take advantage of, huh?

butterflyl1on:
Why not post those verses let's see

Its a hypothetical
Jesus died at night or Jesus died at day is a hypothetical
He was just trying to illustrate a sentiment

wirinet:
Ok. Here is one;

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. —Luke 12:10

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. —Romans 10:13

Are all sins forgiven once somebody confesses Jesus as lord and saviour or there is one single sin that can never be forgiven, even if one confesses Jesus as saviour?

I am sure that in your dictionary "saved" does not mean the same thing as "forgive" does it?

And also I am sure that even you know that "calling upon the name of the lord" does not mean the same thing as "accepting Jesus as your Lord and saviour" does it?

Another one;
Thou shalt not kill. —Exodus 20:13

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. - Exodus 32:27

So shall we kill others or not?

wirinet:
Another one;
Thou shalt not kill. —Exodus 20:13

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. - Exodus 32:27

So shall we kill others or not?

butterflyl1on, you get time sha, if you respond to this Exodus 20:13 & Exodus 32:27 pre-Bible 101

butterflyl1on:
I am sure that in your dictionary "saved" does not mean the same thing as "forgive" does it?

And also I am sure that even you know that "calling upon the name of the lord" does not mean the same thing as "accepting Jesus as your Lord and saviour" does it?

Linguistic gymnastic. So you mean Jesus or God will save some without their sins being forgiven?

wirinet:
Linguistic gymnastic. So you mean Jesus or God will save some without their sins being forgiven?

Read that scripture again and tell me who is the one trying to play Gymnastics.

The scripture says " whosoever shall CALL upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"

How does that translate to forgiveness?

I need you to show me how forgiveness came into the picture and let see if it is me or you who is applying linguistic Gymnastics.

Go ahead.

MuttleyLaff:
butterflyl1on, you get time sha, if you respond to this Exodus 20:13 & Exodus 32:27 pre-Bible 101

He does not know that scripture validates scripture just like Deut 30:17-18 said

"but if thine heart turn away, so that thou will not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passed over Jordan to go possess it."

wirinet:
Linguistic gymnastic. So you mean Jesus or God will save some without their sins being forgiven?

Romans 9:15

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion"

butterflyl1on:
He does not know that scripture validates scripture just like Deut 30:17-18 said

Wirinet, hopefulLandlord and Company are eristics squared

butterflyl1on:
He does not know that scripture validates scripture just like Deut 30:17-18 said

To avoid contradictions, Exodus 20:13 should have put a caveat;
" Thou shall not kill, except non Jews and Jews who worship other God's apart from YHWH".

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion"

but if thine heart turn away, so that thou will not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passed over Jordan to go possess it.

Nice quotes. I hope you never again blame Boko Haram or ISIS for following the instructions of their own God. In fact every other religion in justified by killing unbelievers.

MuttleyLaff:
Wirinet, hopefulLandlord and Company are eristics squared

They can argue for the universe. Arguing in such a "mumuistic" way.

wirinet:
To avoid contradictions, Exodus 20:13 should have put a caveat;
" Thou shall not kill, except non Jews and Jews who worship other God's apart from YHWH".



Nice quotes. I hope you never again blame Boko Haram or ISIS for following the instructions of their own God. In fact every other religion in justified by killing unbelievers.

This is a facepalm moment but it took strength to desist from putting a meme well suited for this.

butterflyl1on:
They can argue for the universe. Arguing in such a "mumuistic" way.

I wouldnt settle for "mumuistic"
They think they have chutzpah, balls made out of steel
When the Owner decides to mark that thing, they'll wince and yelp ooo

wirinet:
To avoid contradictions, Exodus 20:13 should have put a caveat;
" Thou shall not kill, except non Jews and Jews who worship other God's apart from YHWH".

Nice quotes. I hope you never again blame Boko Haram or ISIS for following the instructions of their own God. In fact every other religion in justified by killing unbelievers.

butterflyl1on:
This is a facepalm moment but it took strength to desist from putting a meme well suited for this.

ROTBL. If not that I bit my tongue, I was going to say "didnt I tell you so"

MuttleyLaff:
I wouldnt settle for "mumuistic"
They think they have chutzpah, balls made out of steel
When the Owner decides to mark that thing, they'll wince and yelp ooo



ROTBL. If not that I bit my tongue, I was going to say "didnt I tell you so"

Put some ice on the tongue

butterflyl1on:
Put some ice on the tongue

I didnt literally bite my tongue
I just held back, not wanting to say "I told you so"

MuttleyLaff:
I didnt literally bite my tongue
I just held back, not wanting to say "I told you so"

I know. I also meant put some ice on that thought. Some things we see and read here give us mental pain so in fact soak your whole body in ice. I think I sometimes need to do same. This is pure torture.

For all the logical and linguistic gymnastics you two are amusing yourselves with (MuttleyLaff and butterflyl1on ), you have failed to answer the questions raised by the contradictions;

Is the command " Thou shall not steal" valid, or there are caveats?

Are there unforgivable sins that the blood of Jesus cannot cleanse? Are you then saying that even though certain sins are not forgiven by your God? nevertheless, you can still be saved and enjoy fellowship with him in heaven?

Please try and answer the questions instead of engaging in meaningless rants.

wirinet:
For all the logical and linguistic gymnastics you two are amusing yourselves with (MuttleyLaff and butterflyl1on ), you have failed to answer the questions raised by the contradictions;

Is the command " Thou shall not steal" valid, or there are caveats?

Are there unforgivable sins that the blood of Jesus cannot cleanse? Are you then saying that even though certain sins are not forgiven by your God? nevertheless, you can still be saved and enjoy fellowship with him in heaven?

Please try and answer the questions instead of engaging in meaningless rants.

Muttleylaff I tried, I really really tried but my strength couldn't stop it any further. So here it is



https://i.imgur.com/YNgmlTp.gif


Wirinet So you are still on about this and still cannot differentiate between forgiveness and save? The scripture does not even say those who BELIEVE or who ACCEPT Jesus. It says those who CALL upon the name of the Lord.

How you cannot see this white elephant in your room is amazing

MuttleyLaff:
because your wording, the choice of words, when you say it, are incorrect

As a non-Christian I believe my choice of words are quite fair.

MuttleyLaff:
Dont you think its a bit of an over-generalization, when you carelessly make a blanket statement like this?
Who are these early Christian Jews sef? Who is an early Christian Jew?
Werent there Jews who rejected the Divinity of Jesus?

For me, the Divinity of Christ is beyond doubt.

The issue is that in the immediate aftermath of the passing of Jesus His Divinity was not assured. There were many who did not accept that Jesus was God, in fact there were very many competing beliefs, chief amongst these was the Docetist view of the twin nature of Jesus promulgated by the likes of Marcion and neatly encapsulated in the esoteric writings of the Book of Hebrews, it was Marcion who collated the disparate writings of Paul at his own expense and presented them as a corpus, without his actions we may not even Paul’s writings enshrined in the NT today.

As you know, early Christian Jewish followers of Jesus who came to be known as the Ebionites vehemently objected to the idea that Jesus was God, he had lived amongst them and had been observed by them, they rejected the idea completely, these people were persecuted to near extinction for their beliefs.

Outside the Books of John it is true that there are references to the Divine nature of Jesus such as the ones you and others have quoted but these were inferred, in fact early Christians actually disputed most of the gospel accounts and always asked for firm proof, we have this on record from the writings of Irenaeus.

It is in the writings of John that we are first introduced to the idea of Jesus as God as fully-fledged Christian doctrine, first the opening prologue of John 1:1, and of course the heavily disputed “Johannine Comma” 1 John 5:7-8. But of course the Book of John was a late arrival to the gospel party written and circulated sometime around 90CE-110CE possibly even later, therefore the theology of the Divinity of Christ would not have been common knowledge to early followers.

Added to that is the fact that the “Muratorian Canon” the first compilation of the NT was not compiled until around 180CE. The point of all of this is to illustrate that early followers did not have the same homogeneous view of Christianity that obtains now, it was an evolving religion, It is fair to say that the views of Proto-orthodoxy came to be the dominant one, that is to say the Paulinist view espoused by the likes of Origen, Irenaeus and Eusebius it was incumbent on early church leaders to seek to persuade followers to the dominant doctrinal thoughts, hence subtle alterations were made to various biblical texts.

The Divinity of Christ was formally ratified as Christian doctrine at the Ecumenical Synod of Nicea at 325CE

wirinet:
To avoid contradictions, Exodus 20:13 should have put a caveat;
" Thou shall not kill, except non Jews and Jews who worship other God's apart from YHWH".



Nice quotes. I hope you never again blame Boko Haram or ISIS for following the instructions of their own God. In fact every other religion in justified by killing unbelievers.

Study the scriptures and see how they apply in context...

Thou shall not kill ---- very valid...

But when you have a stranger in possession of your land... and these strangers are;
(a) Ready to kill you for claiming back your property...
(b) Are also ready to brainwash you with their customs and traditions thereby eroding your identity...

Please tell us... what will you do?


Can you also tell us what ISIS or Boko Haram are fighting for...and how this applies to the Jews fighting for their birthright and homeland (even up to this present day)?

Sarassin:
As a non-Christian I believe my choice of words are quite fair.



For me, the Divinity of Christ is beyond doubt.

The issue is that in the immediate aftermath of the passing of Jesus His Divinity was not assured. There were many who did not accept that Jesus was God, in fact there were very many competing beliefs, chief amongst these was the Docetist view of the twin nature of Jesus promulgated by the likes of Marcion and neatly encapsulated in the esoteric writings of the Book of Hebrews, it was Marcion who collated the disparate writings of Paul at his own expense and presented them as a corpus, without his actions we may not even Paul’s writings enshrined in the NT today.

As you know, early Christian Jewish followers of Jesus who came to be known as the Ebionites vehemently objected to the idea that Jesus was God, he had lived amongst them and had been observed by them, they rejected the idea completely, these people were persecuted to near extinction for their beliefs.

Outside the Books of John it is true that there are references to the Divine nature of Jesus such as the ones you and others have quoted but these were inferred, in fact early Christians actually disputed most of the gospel accounts and always asked for firm proof, we have this on record from the writings of Irenaeus.

It is in the writings of John that we are first introduced to the idea of Jesus as God as fully-fledged Christian doctrine, first the opening prologue of John 1:1, and of course the heavily disputed “Johannine Comma” 1 John 5:7-8. But of course the Book of John was a late arrival to the gospel party written and circulated sometime around 90CE-110CE possibly even later, therefore the theology of the Divinity of Christ would not have been common knowledge to early followers.

Added to that is the fact that the “Muratorian Canon” the first compilation of the NT was not compiled until around 180CE. The point of all of this is to illustrate that early followers did not have the same homogeneous view of Christianity that obtains now, it was an evolving religion, It is fair to say that the views of Proto-orthodoxy came to be the dominant one, that is to say the Paulinist view espoused by the likes of Origen, Irenaeus and Eusebius it was incumbent on early church leaders to seek to persuade followers to the dominant doctrinal thoughts, hence subtle alterations were made to various biblical texts.

The Divinity of Christ was formally ratified as Christian doctrine at the Ecumenical Synod of Nicea at 325CE

Quick one please...who persecuted the Ebionites to near extinction? was it the Roman Catholic church or the early church?

wirinet:
I really admire your energy at engaging theists especially the Christian variety in arguments. I remember my university days when we argue from evening till the morning of the next day. At the end of the day nobody is any wiser as the theists engage in logical, spiritual and linguistic gymnastics to escape glaring illogicalities and contradictions in their bible and doctrines.
A hypothetical example is;
A verse says Jesus died during the day, another book in another verse says Jesus died at night.

Non Christians would see contradiction, but Christians would argue a plethora of reasons.
1. It was in the late evening, so one writer saw it as day, while the second writer saw it as night.

2. It was actually night, but it was day in the part of the world the writer was located.

3. It was actually day, but the other verse said night due to translational issues. The original Greek translation actually meant late in the day, when the sun has actually gone down. But when they translated to English they removed the late, so it read as if it was day when it actually meant night.

4. It is irrelevant of Jesus died at night or in the day, the most important thing was that Jesus died, that was a fact and no contradiction there.

The excuses can go on and on to explain away the numerous glaring contradictions in the bible.

For the umpteenth time...let us establish the fact that the bible was not originally written in English...

Also, consider Matthew 27 v 45;

Now from the sixth hour was there darkness over all the land, unto the ninth hour.


If there was a solar eclipse or some supernatural phenomenon that brought about darkness over the land at the point Jesus was crucified...would you call it day time or night time?


I will call it day time...but another person may also argue it was night time...since night is associated with darkness and day time is associated with light (Just my thoughts)

Sarassin:
As a non-Christian I believe my choice of words are quite fair.



For me, the Divinity of Christ is beyond doubt.

The issue is that in the immediate aftermath of the passing of Jesus His Divinity was not assured. There were many who did not accept that Jesus was God, in fact there were very many competing beliefs, chief amongst these was the Docetist view of the twin nature of Jesus promulgated by the likes of Marcion and neatly encapsulated in the esoteric writings of the Book of Hebrews, it was Marcion who collated the disparate writings of Paul at his own expense and presented them as a corpus, without his actions we may not even Paul’s writings enshrined in the NT today.

As you know, early Christian Jewish followers of Jesus who came to be known as the Ebionites vehemently objected to the idea that Jesus was God, he had lived amongst them and had been observed by them, they rejected the idea completely, these people were persecuted to near extinction for their beliefs.

Outside the Books of John it is true that there are references to the Divine nature of Jesus such as the ones you and others have quoted but these were inferred, in fact early Christians actually disputed most of the gospel accounts and always asked for firm proof, we have this on record from the writings of Irenaeus.

It is in the writings of John that we are first introduced to the idea of Jesus as God as fully-fledged Christian doctrine, first the opening prologue of John 1:1, and of course the heavily disputed “Johannine Comma” 1 John 5:7-8. But of course the Book of John was a late arrival to the gospel party written and circulated sometime around 90CE-110CE possibly even later, therefore the theology of the Divinity of Christ would not have been common knowledge to early followers.

Added to that is the fact that the “Muratorian Canon” the first compilation of the NT was not compiled until around 180CE. The point of all of this is to illustrate that early followers did not have the same homogeneous view of Christianity that obtains now, it was an evolving religion, It is fair to say that the views of Proto-orthodoxy came to be the dominant one, that is to say the Paulinist view espoused by the likes of Origen, Irenaeus and Eusebius it was incumbent on early church leaders to seek to persuade followers to the dominant doctrinal thoughts, hence subtle alterations were made to various biblical texts.

The Divinity of Christ was formally ratified as Christian doctrine at the Ecumenical Synod of Nicea at 325CE

If for you the divinity of Christ is beyond doubt then why are you pushing that it was inferred and not definite?

Are you confused?

Personally I can show you even with Jesus' own words how his divinity was certain right from the old testament but it was simply his manifestation that was being expected but when he was made flesh, those who were in the early aftermath of his passing due to their expecting a warrior divinity "on their own" rejected him but their rejection did not change anything about his divinity.

Do you wish to learn?

OkCornel:
Study the scriptures and see how they apply in context...

Thou shall not kill ---- very valid...

But when you have a stranger in possession of your land... and these strangers are;
(a) Ready to kill you for claiming back your property...
(b) Are also ready to brainwash you with their customs and traditions thereby eroding your identity...

Please tell us... what will you do?


Can you also tell us what ISIS or Boko Haram are fighting for...and how this applies to the Jews fighting for their birthright and homeland (even up to this present day)?

Truly Christianity seems to be the most dubious religion on the planet, you guys are ready to lie barefaced and do even worse things to convert non believers. You guys exploit the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of individuals and even nations to set them up for exploitation.

Where in did it state the the order of exodus 32:27 was directed at foreigners in possession of Jewish lands?
This are the events leading up to the order and subsequent massacre of thousands of people;

Exodus 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies

32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

32:29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves today to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

It was the children Israel that were massacred for making golden calf and worshipping it. The children of Levi were mandated to carry out the massacre.

There were also many other places where God ordered the killing of others to pay for various sins.

1. Exodus 22:18 KJV: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

2. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

3. Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

wirinet:
Truly Christianity seems to be the most dubious religion on the planet, you guys are ready to lie barefaced and do even worse things to convert non believers. You guys exploit the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of individuals and even nations to set them up for exploitation.

Where in did it state the the order of exodus 32:27 was directed at foreigners in possession of Jewish lands?
This are the events leading up to the order and subsequent massacre of thousands of people;



It was the children Israel that were massacred for making golden calf and worshipping it. The children of Levi were mandated to carry out the massacre.

There were also many other places where God ordered the killing of others to pay for various sins.

1. Exodus 22:18 KJV: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

2. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

3. Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

It appears you have not been able to differentiate Christianity from Judaism in the Bible you've been reading...

Anyways, the Babylonians, Greek, Persians and Romans also slaughtered millions around the world in their goal of global conquest...I have not seen you blaming their gods for these killings as well...


Can you point out where in the bible Christians were commanded to kill their enemies? Please show me where...