paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

If Paul is a liar, as you say, then a better part of the NT is a lie, and if that is the case, then the entire NT must be a lie since how do we distinguish truth from fiction... or lies.

Now let’s go one step further...
If Jesus is a lie
If Paul is a liar

Then we can discount the NT. Now if we discount the NT, we can also discount the OT since the very foundations of Christianity are based upon both the OT and the NT.

We all know that the god of the OT is God! He’s also the SAME God who is called Allah. Therefore, neither of them can possibly exist... is that not so?

There you are at fault; we could distinguish truth from the untruth of the NT; after all if jewels are mixed with pebbles one could find a jewel and reject a pebble.

JUDGE: Even if we accept that at face value, and for the moment we will, do you realize the ramifications?

Any book, especially a holy book that requires the reader to “pick” out the parts that are true from the parts that are false... well it makes one ask, “Is not the whole book worthless then?”

SP: I think they’re all full of shit your honour!

JUDGE: Counsellor Puppy’s observation is duly noted.

Of what use is a mathematics book, a physics book etc. which is only “kind of right, sort of right, might be right, some of it is wrong” and so on.

Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

May the court note that this rule also excludes Moses, Abraham, and a few others whom counsel Paarsurrey accepts as truthful. We just don't have direct quotes from people who actually met them.

Jie wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

May the court note that this rule also excludes Moses, Abraham, and a few others whom counsel Paarsurrey accepts as truthful. We just don't have direct quotes from people who actually met them.

JUDGE: Court is in session.

Counsellor Jie has raised an interesting point which the court will expand upon.

Reading scriptures, and this applies to any and all holy books, creates a serious problem. The problem is one of logic and we can state it thusly.

• They can’t all be right... that is logically impossible.
• They can be all wrong... that is logically possible.
• One of them can be right... that is logically possible.

However, every holy book fails the acid test... and that test is “Does any one of them conform to reality?” Not one of them does, but this court has accepted the holy bible as the word of God.

Counsellor Paarsurrey asks us to accept his First Rule. Stated in such a unique manner the court assumes there are more to come? However, we’ll deal with his “first rule”.

1 – It’s an opinion and opinions are just that... opinions. Counsel Paarsurrey will need to quote from respected scholars of the bible who have accepted this first rule as a fact.

2 – Taking the first rule to its next logical step, the court would now like to state that the book of Exodus is a lie, well not an actual lie per se because the court accepts that every evenly numbered verse is the truth while every odd numbered verse is a lie. The court is applying counsel Paarsurrey’s first rule.

3 - Counsellor Paarsurrey may or may not have realized that we don’t have even a scrap, not even a scrap of any original texts of the bible. Every single book in the bible is a copy... and a copy of a copy of a copy at that. Counsellor Paarsurrey accepts Moses as a legitimate prophet, but the court must ask why Counsellor Paarsurrey doesn’t call Moses a liar?

4 - Counsel Paarsurrey discounts Paul’s vision as a lie yet he accepts visions by other prophets at face value. The court wonders if all prophets’ visions are nothing but a scam.

5 – Even if the closest associate of Jesus wrote down every word that Jesus spoke to the letter with 100% accuracy, we simply don’t have those original writings. We only have copies, and copies, as we all know, can be altered. Extrapolating that further, the entire OT now becomes suspect since we don’t have any of its original manuscripts.

The court will wait for counsel Paarsurrey to provide the court with documented proof that an adequate number of biblical scholars are in agreement with his first rule.

Skinny Puppy wrote:


Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

paarsurrey wrote:

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

The first rule is specific for the NT, which the sinful scribes wrote under supervision of the cunning Paul.

paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:


Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

paarsurrey wrote:

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

The first rule is specific for the NT, which the sinful scribes wrote under supervision of the cunning Paul.

Your honour, at this point I *giggle*... umm, sorry. At this point I must excuse myself for a brief time while I gain my composure.

*slowly rolls towards the door laughing. The bailiff holds the door open as counsel Jie laughs his way out of the court room.*

paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:


Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

paarsurrey wrote:

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

The first rule is specific for the NT, which the sinful scribes wrote under supervision of the cunning Paul.

JUDGE: Court is in session.

Counsellor paarsurrey has made a very poignant statement about “Sinful scribes”.

This court at first found it hard to believe that scribes would change holy texts for reasons unknown to us. However, if they were “sinful”, as counsel Paarsurrey has kindly pointed out, then the devil would be behind them and that would explain why the words of our Lord God have been altered.

The court wondered if this “sinfulness” was confined just to Christianity. To that end we would like to quote from an expert in the field of ancient texts.

But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it [the Koran] is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.

...

He says they shed new light on the early development of the Koran as a book with a "textual history", which contradicts the fundamental Muslim belief that it is the unchanging Word of God.

...

Puin noticed minor textual variations, unconventional ordering of the chapters (surahs), as well as rare styles of orthography. Then he noticed that the sheets were palimpsests - manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased.

These findings led Dr Puin to assert that the Koran had undergone a textual evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran that we have is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2000/aug/08/highereducation.theguardian

It appears, to this court at least, that lies in the name of religion are not an anomaly, but are quite common in order to “create” a holy book that the masses will accept as God’s word.

While the court must ponder all of the implications of the outright lies that are contained within all of the holy books, we would like to thank counsel paarsurrey for opening the floodgates, as it were, to this common practice of lying in order to prove the validity of one’s god or prophet.

Up until now this court has simply accepted the bible and the holy Quran as fact... forever unchangeable, truth to its purpose and the perfectly revealed word of God. However, we must now take pause and reflect on those beliefs, especially in light of the new evidence presented here by counsel Paarsurrey that the holy books are chock-full of lies, mistruths, fabrications and out-and-out wickedness that has been fostered upon us by sinful scribes.

The court can’t begin to thank the learned counsel paarsurrey for bringing this issue “sinful scribes” to our attention.

Court is in recess while this matter is taken into consideration. The court’s entire case has been built upon the credibility of the holy books. Should they flounder under the enormous weight of their lies and deceptions, then the case against the Lord will collapse simultaneously into a heap of rubble and ash.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:


Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

paarsurrey wrote:

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

The first rule is specific for the NT, which the sinful scribes wrote under supervision of the cunning Paul.

.

We were not discussing OTBible or Quran or Gita here; the first rule is for NT Bible. I mentioned of the cunning Paul and the sinful scirbes because Paul coined a term "the original sin" and hence the church believes that all except Jesus are sinful.
Hence the most share of sin should go to the cunning Paul and the sinful scirbes; they deserve it on merit, because the authored it.

Jie wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:


Counsel Paarsurrey must demonstrate before this court how one determines what parts are true and what parts are false when reading the words of the Lord our God.

paarsurrey wrote:

First Rule

If there are no direct quotes from Jesus by a person who actually met Jesus before the event of Cross; those are not likely to be truthful; those who are direct quotes from Jesus by a person who met Jesus before the event of Cross are to be accepted likely to be truthful.

The first rule is specific for the NT, which the sinful scribes wrote under supervision of the cunning Paul.

Your honour, at this point I *giggle*... umm, sorry. At this point I must excuse myself for a brief time while I gain my composure.

*slowly rolls towards the door laughing. The bailiff holds the door open as counsel Jie laughs his way out of the court room.*

JUDGE: Counsellor Jie has laughed in the courtroom. This court must dispense justice in order to make amends for that disrespect of this court.

But what is a just and a fair punishment? When faced with a difficult situation the court does what is in the best interests of justice... we turn to the bible, the fountain of morality, goodness and all-out niceness.

The court will first pass sentence and then explain the punishment in the context of our Loving Father in heaven.

Counselor Jie, for laughing in the courtroom your punishment is as follows:

• The mayor of this city is to be hanged.
• The chief of police of this city is to be hanged.
• All of the city councillors of this city are to be hanged.

They are all to be hanged facing the sun. If it’s a cloudy day, well we’ll wait it out.

Counselor Jie the court realizes that this is a harsh punishment, but you brought it upon yourself. For the non-Christians in the courtroom I will explain why those city officials must be hanged for the crime that was committed by Counsellor Jie. Should any of you be wondering if Counselor Jie is being punished too, the answer is no, only the leaders of this city are to be punished for his crime.

All non-bible reading Christians know that morality comes from God. Well the court has used an exact biblical example of this blessed and holy justice by the King of Righteousness to dispense justice to Counselor Jie by letting him go scot-free and hanging the city officials instead as in the example below.

Numbers 25:1-5
1 Now Israel remained in Acacia Grove, and the people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab.
2 They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods.
3 So Israel was joined to Baal of Peor, and the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel.
4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the Lord, out in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.”
5 So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you kill his men who were joined to Baal of Peor.”

For any Christians struggling with these passages, I will let Mark twain explain them.

...... Moreover, the punishment usually oversized the offense. Often, too, it fell, not upon the doer of a misdeed, but upon somebody else -- a chief man, the head of a community, for instance.

And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the Sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.

Does that look fair to you? It does not appear that the "heads of the people" got any of the adultery, yet it is they that are hanged, instead of "the people."

If it was fair and right in that day it would be fair and right today, for the pulpit maintains that God's justice is eternal and unchangeable; also that he is the Fountain of Morals, and that his morals are eternal and unchangeable. Very well, then, we must believe that if the people of New York should begin to commit whoredom with the daughters of New Jersey, it would be fair and right to set up a gallows in front of the city hall and hang the mayor and the sheriff and the judges and the archbishop on it, although they did not get any of it. It does not look right to me.

Moreover, you may be quite sure of one thing: it couldn't happen. These people would not allow it. They are better than their Bible. Nothing would happen here, except some lawsuits, for damages, if the incident couldn't be hushed up; ...........

From book X of Mark Twain’s Letters From the Earth

At this point the court would like to personally thank the Lord God for guiding us in these troubled times and showing us, by example, how to be compassionate, loving, caring of our fellow man and how to be a true Christian.

Court is now in recess to allow the bailiff time to get the ropes ready.

Skinny Puppy wrote:For any Christians struggling with these passages, I will let Mark twain explain them.

...... Moreover, the punishment usually oversized the offense. Often, too, it fell, not upon the doer of a misdeed, but upon somebody else -- a chief man, the head of a community, for instance.

And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the Sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.

Does that look fair to you? It does not appear that the "heads of the people" got any of the adultery, yet it is they that are hanged, instead of "the people."

If it was fair and right in that day it would be fair and right today, for the pulpit maintains that God's justice is eternal and unchangeable; also that he is the Fountain of Morals, and that his morals are eternal and unchangeable. Very well, then, we must believe that if the people of New York should begin to commit whoredom with the daughters of New Jersey, it would be fair and right to set up a gallows in front of the city hall and hang the mayor and the sheriff and the judges and the archbishop on it, although they did not get any of it. It does not look right to me.

Moreover, you may be quite sure of one thing: it couldn't happen. These people would not allow it. They are better than their Bible. Nothing would happen here, except some lawsuits, for damages, if the incident couldn't be hushed up; ...........

From book X of Mark Twain’s Letters From the Earth

At this point the court would like to personally thank the Lord God for guiding us in these troubled times and showing us, by example, how to be compassionate, loving, caring of our fellow man and how to be a true Christian.

Court is now in recess to allow the bailiff time to get the ropes ready.

Your honour, I must say... I'll be sad to see you go. Still, justice must be served. May you have a swift, painless hanging.

Hear, hear !

Now I think, it is agreed that Jesus was/is not a god; the person who carved god out of innocent Jesus should now be implicated for trial; he should not be allowed to go to Rome from the road to Damascus and should be brought to Jerusalem, where I thinkgs the proceedings are being held.

Also please title of the thread should be changed to "Putting cunning Paul on trial", instead of the present; after taking due permission.

I wish to throw a spanner into the works if I may. Counsel paarsurry calls Jesus innocent. I say it's doubtful he even existed. Can members of the defence show this court some concrete evidence for the existence of this man between year 0 ad to 30 ad ?

paarsurrey wrote:Now I think, it is agreed that Jesus was/is not a god; the person who carved god out of innocent Jesus should now be implicated for trial; he should not be allowed to go to Rome from the road to Damascus and should be brought to Jerusalem, where I thinkgs the proceedings are being held.

Also please title of the thread should be changed to "Putting cunning Paul on trial", instead of the present; after taking due permission.

JUDGE: Court is now in session. Will the bailiff please dispose of the bodies that are in the sun, they’re beginning to smell.

Counsellor Paarsurrey is somewhat intent on implicating Paul in the eyes of the court as not being a true prophet of the Lord. The court would direct counsel to these verses:

Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure;

That verse is quite explicit, God doesn’t lie, and since the bible is the Word of God, the bible contains no lies, no errors and is letter perfect. Praise God and His perfect holy word!

Bible contradictions:

Can we, or perhaps more fully stated, should we discard any of the bible?

Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people.

Therefore the bible, in its entirety, is God’s Holy word, and since it is everlasting, it then follows that it must remain unchanged. And to add, why would anyone want to change perfection?

Counsellor Paarsurrey also rejects Jesus as God.

Hebrews 1:1-3
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Once again, as we turn to the words of God for our knowledge, the bible proclaims that Jesus is His Son. We’ve previously shown that Jesus spoke to Paul and selected Paul to preach unto the nations. Therefore Paul is qualified to write gospels and to speak on behalf of God and Jesus.

In addition, counsellor Paarsurrey is merely stating his opinion and is making things up; he has presented no facts to this court. The court would like to emphasis, emphatically, that making things up is the sole prerogative of pastors, priests, the pope and men of the cloth. The court also accepts that many prominent theologians are experts at turning make-believe into reality and that they excel at making a case without any facts. Unless counsellor Paarsurrey can present credentials to this court to prove that he is a religious leader, a theologian or a pastor, then the court is left with only one option.

Objection overruled.

I object! If this god is all-powerful, why the heck would he/she need anybody to talk for "it". Could it not speak for it-self? Nay, I say the whole lot is a shameless play on people's credibility. It's balony, the whole case does not hold water!!

I move that your worship throws the whole case out!

angelo wrote:I move that your worship throws the whole case out!

JUDGE: Court is in session.

This court was on the verge of dismissing the entire case since there was speculation that God simply doesn’t exist. However, “The League of Sling-the-Bull Christians Inc.” sent the bailiff to the lake that’s just down the street last Monday. He took this picture.



The League of Sling-the-Bull Christians Inc. then prayed for a mountain to be moved into the sea as Jesus had foretold in the scriptures. The court clerk will note that they prayed in earnest. On Tuesday, the following day, the bailiff returned to the same spot and took this picture.



Can anyone, and I mean anyone, deny the mighty power of the Lord our God?

The bailiff did report that on the way to take the 2nd picture he found a few dazed dogs and cats, they’d been hit slightly by the flying mountain and one old lady was found sitting on her ass. She’d attempted to stop the mountain in mid-flight with an outstretched arm. The court would like to warn all potential flying mountain-stoppers to exercise care and caution... flying mountains can be and are dangerous objects!

The court has examined the two pictures quite extensively and accepts that they have not been tampered with in any way... well except for the miniscule fact that they look like they were taken at two different locations. Obviously that’s a minor detail and in no way detracts from their authenticity and proof of the Lord’s handiwork.

In light of this event, or shall we say miracle? The court rules that the case against God will continue. Counsels for both sides may continue with their arguments.

Objection overruled.

JUDGE: A notice to the court and to the spectators.

With Good Friday and Easter Sunday just on the horizon, the court would ask for any submissions by counsel to be brought to the court’s attention as soon as possible.

The court would like to allow the go-once-a-year-to-church devoted and faithful Christian’s time to prepare for their annual church visit.

For those with short memories, the court has a list of all churches in the area.

In addition, for any of those one-time-in-church Christians who’d like to shout obscenities at homosexuals while they go on their merry way to church, the court has prepared leaflets with the appropriate scriptures to cite from the Father of Infinite Understanding and Humanity.

If you require gasoline, matches and wood to burn any witches you may encounter on the way, please see the bailiff on the way out.

Let’s abuse homosexuals and witches and make this a really sterling Christian Easter!

NVM point already addressed.