I often hear about the divine nature of scripture, about how it's the error-free word of God, etc. I do believe there are passages in the Bible that tell us this although I'm not sure whether those passages say that scripture is inerrant.
2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed". Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT
If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?
left out of whose scriptures? Jewish or Christian religion.
I was talking about the Christian Bible where a slew of gospels, letters and various other scriptures have been discarded.Most collections are edited down Khatru for reasons of relevance.
I was talking about the Christian Bible where a slew of gospels, letters and various other scriptures have been discarded.
2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed". Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT
If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?
Most collections are edited down Khatru for reasons of relevance.
In all the documents which didn't make it though there are documents referring to jesus as a mere prophet, a false prophet, a specially created superhuman, even some kind of Holy Hologram but funnily none as far as I know which would resemble anything circulating in the wild and wacky world of today's antitheism.
Like Modern Pagans you guys are ,well, a modern phenomenon.
I often hear about the divine nature of scripture, about how it's the error-free word of God, etc. I do believe there are passages in the Bible that tell us this although I'm not sure whether those passages say that scripture is inerrant.Had to think very carefully about what you meant by the 'divinity' of Scripture, especially as it isn't a Christian concept, let alone a Biblical one. Regarding 'God-breathed', it isn't talking about the material being given word for word by God, it's referring to the fact that it is inspired by God.
2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed". Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT
If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?
Hope,Oh, don't worry, Walter; it was often as I was studying other stuff - such as Applied Linguistics, education, politics, geology, ornithology, and a whole host of other stuff, that what you call 'nonsense' became so relevant to me. In other words, without said 'nonsense', I wouldn't have studied as much as I have.
I find it sad that you have wasted so much time and effort in your life learning this nonsense. Just imagine what worthwhile stuff you could have studied in the same time.
Oh, don't worry, Walter; it was often as I was studying other stuff - such as Applied Linguistics, education, politics, geology, ornithology, and a whole host of other stuff, that what you call 'nonsense' became so relevant to me. In other words, without said 'nonsense', I wouldn't have studied as much as I have.
Most collections are edited down Khatru for reasons of relevance.
In all the documents which didn't make it though there are documents referring to jesus as a mere prophet, a false prophet, a specially created superhuman, even some kind of Holy Hologram but funnily none as far as I know which would resemble anything circulating in the wild and wacky world of today's antitheism.
Like Modern Pagans you guys are ,well, a modern phenomenon.
Both, in their way, modern (small 'm'), timewise, modern but the beliefs, all of are older than yours.and my dad is bigger than your dad.
and my dad is bigger than your dad.
2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed". Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT
If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.Perhaps you can provide the Greek phrase that you believe means 'Jesus was angry' in Mark 1, Dicky.
*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.
Depends a lot on how you translate that passage. Traditionally, the Christian translators have chosen the biased option of translating 'graphe' as "scripture" -with its implication of 'holy writing', though in fact both words could just as well be translated as "writing".
That would give us "all writing inspired by God". Okay, how do you determine what writing was and is inspired by God?
The glib answer is "what got into the present day Bible" - except a lot of what's in modern Bibles wasn't always there earlier in history. As for restricting "writing inspired by God" to what is now the Old Testament - well what we know as the OT depends on the post-A.D. Masoretic Text, which took quite a while to exist in such a form. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that there were a number of versions of the OT available, each version indicating different lines of development.
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.
*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.
The words that were translated or the real meanings of those words - the ultimate cop-out used by Christians when their interpretation of the biblical contents is challenged.Well, the first thing I'd want to know is what Dicky believes/understands to be the word(s) in the original Greek, and then I'd want to know how that word or words would have been used in everyday language, as well as how it would have been used in any special usage - such as legal or technical language.
Quote - Oh, that is open to interpretation, the words meant something else then! - UnquoteUnfortunately, even in our own times language usage has changed the meaning of words or added to their meaning, Owly. For instance, take 'gay' or 'wicked'. It isn't only religious people who make such comments.
Yeah maybe - I wonder how theologians will transate "total and utter bollocks" when applied to Christian scripture in the future?Something like 'Owlswing'?
Something like 'Owlswing'?
Hope,Really? Then please present your proof.
I find it sad that you have wasted so much time and effort in your life learning this nonsense.
Just imagine what worthwhile stuff you could have studied in the same time.Worthwhile stuff like your proof perhaps, or can I only imagine what that will be like? ;)
Really? Then please present your proof.
No imagination will be necessary if I can come back and read your proof.....?
But please don't bother to try - your fellow Christians have been dodging this challenge all the way back to the old Beeb R and E forum, so most on here have heard all the excuses, prevarications, and fallacious arguments a hundred times before. Both your question and lack of an answer to my question have rendered such conversations about three-hundred miles west of boring to the point of causing suicides so don't bother.Which is interesting because, despite what you say, there are a numerous amount of threads where the posts of Christians are challenged. I would have expected this forum to be then full of Christians discussing all sort of theological issues, but that is not the case.
You and some others are so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong. It must really get to you that you can't prove it!
Some of aren't naive enough to bandy about terms like 'prove' as you seem happy to do: but of course you won't understand this point but no doubt you'll lumber on regardless.Then on what is the confidence based that allows some to be so sure that they are right and religious believers are wrong?
Owlswing #19SusanDoris: On what is the confidence based that allows you to be so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong?
Nice post!
SusanDoris: On what is the confidence based that allows you to be so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong?You mentioned theology (or theologians) a few posts back. Can you give me one fact that theologians, including past and present ones, famous or otherwise, know, actually know about God? I am not asking about what they might believe they know, from the words and beliefs of their predecessors, but just one fact they know.
Then on what is the confidence based that allows some to be so sure that they are right and religious believers are wrong?
You mentioned theology (or theologians) a few posts back. Can you give me one fact that theologians, including past and present ones, famous or otherwise, know, actually know about God? I am not asking about what they might believe they know, from the words and beliefs of their predecessors, but just one fact they know.Not sure this answers my question:
SusanDoris: On what is the confidence based that allows you to be so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong?
You're doing it again with terms like 'right' and 'wrong', which betrays your simplistic understanding of your interlocutors if that is what you think is happening.Right. I'm sure no atheist here has ever said (or even implied) that religious belief is wrong or that an individual is wrong to believe. It's never happened in the history of this forum?
Which is interesting because, despite what you say, there are a numerous amount of threads where the posts of Christians are challenged. I would have expected this forum to be then full of Christians discussing all sort of theological issues, but that is not the case.
Tomorrow is another day. I wonder how many challenges to what Hope, Sassy, Vlad, or other Christians will be challenged. My guess will be that the answer is not zero.
You and some others are so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong. It must really get to you that you can't prove it!
Not sure this answers my question:
Right. I'm sure no atheist here has ever said (or even implied) that religious belief is wrong or that an individual is wrong to believe. It's never happened in the history of this forum?
NO MORE WRIGGLING - PROVE HE EXISTS, BY CONCRETE FACT (i e NOT the Bible) or, and I put this so bluntly it is likely to get modded just to show how fed up with your nonsense I am:(expletive removed)
(expletive removed)
A piece of advice: Go away and find positive reasons for your atheism.
A piece of advice: Go away and find positive reasons for your atheism.
Clearly you do not read what is posted here (I'm breaking the ignore rule just this once to show just what a fool you are!)Perhaps we can fast forward then to a time when the Christians, like all other people of religion have left this forum leaving pagans and salivating atheist ready to ''feast on their flesh''. They will ask you, being the final theists, what is it which differentiates your Gods from ''made up shit''. What account will you give to that question?
I am not an atheist - I am a Pagan, a polytheist. I follow a religion and deities, male and female, that predate your pathetic Johnny-(or Jesus)come-lately by at least 20,000 years!
And I am willing to admit that my religious beliefs and my belief in my deities are matters of faith not fact. It is a shame that only one of your lot, amd only very recently (today), has finally had the 'nads to actually agree with this statement for his belief in YOUR god!.
Perhaps we can fast forward then to a time when the Christians, like all other people of religion have left this forum leaving pagans and salivating atheist ready to ''feast on their flesh''. They will ask you, being the final theists, what is it which differentiates your Gods from ''made up shit''. What account will you give to that question?
Perhaps we can fast forward then to a time when the Christians, like all other people of religion have left this forum leaving pagans and salivating atheist ready to ''feast on their flesh''. They will ask you, being the final theists, what is it which differentiates your Gods from ''made up shit''. What account will you give to that question?
Do you need help finding the exit?Yes you'd love that wouldn't you a religion and ethics debating forum made up of atheists:
Yes you'd love that wouldn't you a religion and ethics debating forum made up of atheists:
Gordon: God doesn't exist
Trent: You're wrong he really doesn't exist.
Ippy: No he really, really doesn't exist.
The forum will truly resemble a roman toilet. Rows of you all shitting into the same trough......
you just come over as a bitter, twisted, polished turd.Oi, less of the bitter and twisted.
Oi, less of the bitter and twisted.
If you are going to post, please, at least, get your terminology correct.
Pagans pre-date Christianinty by thousands of years.
Modern Pagans do not exist.
There are two kinds of Pagans around now; Neo-pagans (neo = new (not Modern)) who take what is known of early paganism, the deities and their attributes and the powers of nature that the deities controlled and used and create their rituals around that knowledge; Reconstrutionist Pagans who go to great lengths to try and re-create exactly the rites and rituals of the ancients.Both omitting the evil ways and trying to distance themselves from the most horrific acts that even the Israelites were told off for doing when they got involved with them.
Both, in their way, modern (small 'm'), timewise, modern but the beliefs, all of are older than yours.
and my dad is bigger than your dad.
Your God is supposed to be a person, yet no-one in over 2,000 years has ever seen him.
Every other person who has ever lived had been seen by at least one other person.
Thus there is physical proof that each and every one of those other people has existed; contrary to your God which no-one has ever seen.
The burden of proof therefore is on you not us!
But please don't bother to try - your fellow Christians have been dodging this challenge all the way back to the old Beeb R and E forum, so most on here have heard all the excuses, prevarications, and fallacious arguments a hundred times before. Both your question and lack of an answer to my question have rendered such conversations about three-hundred miles west of boring to the point of causing suicides so don't bother.
How do you know that?
So let me see... We know Adam saw God and so did Eve
How do you know that?
But you said:
There was no gospels in the OT. and you said Timothy referring to OT and we both know ONLY THE OT was referred to as scripture by God, Jesus Christ, the Prophets and the Apostles. As the NT not in the Jewish bible. I asked which RELIGION they had been omitted from. So can we start again...
Had to think very carefully about what you meant by the 'divinity' of Scripture, especially as it isn't a Christian concept, let alone a Biblical one. Regarding 'God-breathed', it isn't talking about the material being given word for word by God, it's referring to the fact that it is inspired by God.
By the time that 2 Timothy was written (between 90 and 140 according to the majority of scholars) all of the 3 Synoptic Gospels would have been written and possibly John's Gospel, as well as all of Paul's acknowledged epistles (as opposed to those that scholars regard as pseudoeponymous), so I'm not sure that your comment about the term only referring to the OT is true.
As for why 'so many scriptures (are) left out of the Bible', there are a number of reasons Whilst the Canon of the New Testament wasn't finalised until the 7th century, it was largely finalised as early as the early 4th century, and early church fathers seemed to feel that authorship pre-150 AD was the cut-off point. If you look at Bart Ehrman's book 'Lost Christianities' you will find that the majority of the material he deals with in the book date from the 3rd century on. If you read some of the other material you will find that it says much the same as the earlier material that is included in the Canon and, understandably, the early church fathers probably decided that - if there were two or more documents that said the same thing - it would be best to go with the earliest.
Depends a lot on how you translate that passage. Traditionally, the Christian translators have chosen the biased option of translating 'graphe' as "scripture" -with its implication of 'holy writing', though in fact both words could just as well be translated as "writing".
That would give us "all writing inspired by God". Okay, how do you determine what writing was and is inspired by God?
The glib answer is "what got into the present day Bible" - except a lot of what's in modern Bibles wasn't always there earlier in history. As for restricting "writing inspired by God" to what is now the Old Testament - well what we know as the OT depends on the post-A.D. Masoretic Text, which took quite a while to exist in such a form. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that there were a number of versions of the OT available, each version indicating different lines of development.
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.
*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.
Oh, don't worry, Walter; it was often as I was studying other stuff - such as Applied Linguistics, education, politics, geology, ornithology, and a whole host of other stuff, that what you call 'nonsense' became so relevant to me. In other words, without said 'nonsense', I wouldn't have studied as much as I have.
Right. I'm sure no atheist here has ever said (or even implied) that religious belief is wrong or that an individual is wrong to believe. It's never happened in the history of this forum?
Really? Then please present your proof.
Worthwhile stuff like your proof perhaps, or can I only imagine what that will be like? ;)
Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish faith.
Such arrogance
Judaism exists and it is its own religion and not (as you would have it be) a dress rehearsal for Christianity.
The scriptures and miracles of Judaism are in their books, not yours. Who are you to tell the Jews that they have got it wrong and they are interpreting their own scriptures incorrectly?
How about Mormonism being the fulfilment of the Christian faith?
Or the unpleasant JW cult, for that matter?
People can believe what they like as long as they don't practise it in such a way it impinges adversely on the lives of others.
Such arrogance
Judaism exists and it is its own religion and not (as you would have it be) a dress rehearsal for Christianity.
The scriptures and miracles of Judaism are in their books, not yours. Who are you to tell the Jews that they have got it wrong and they are interpreting their own scriptures incorrectly?
How about Mormonism being the fulfilment of the Christian faith?
The scriptures and miracles of Judaism are in their books, not yours. Who are you to tell the Jews that they have got it wrong and they are interpreting their own scriptures incorrectly?
Khatru
I no longer respond to Sassy, but I was interested to learn, from her post above, that the Jewish faith existed prior to 25,000 - 23,000 BCE (the authenticated date of the Venus of Willendorf).
Being one of the more erudite on the subject of religious history, do you have any knowledge of this "fact". please. I have Googled over 100 sites and cannot find any such evidence.
I am loath to ask any of the Christian fraternity as I know I will only get a string of prevarication, lies, waffle and bulldust a mile long.
Every right. The Jews lost any divine inheretence they might have dad when they put their own Lord and God to death. The Church is the inheretor of the promise made to Abraham and the scriptures belong to the Church.
Probably not even Hancock or his pale imitation, Icke, wiould suggest those dates for Judasm, Owl.
The first mention of 'JAH' that I can find in literature occurs on the walls of a pylon built by Nebmaatre Amenhotep III at Karnak, around 1380 BC (that's not to say earlier mention occurs - we simply haven'yt found it yet)
Ad_o, Jesus was executed by the Romans! You know that very well. Sure, some of his fellow Jews were against him but most of his followers were Jews.
Ad_o, Jesus was executed by the Romans! You know that very well. Sure, some of his fellow Jews were against him but most of his followers were Jews.
You really are . . . . (insert expletive of your own choice)!
How many more times do I have to say this before it finally sinks into that 2.5 to 3 pounds of cold and stagnant porridge that you fondly imagine operates as a brain.
I have never claimed that I have any proof tht my deities/gods/goddesses exist anywhere but in my belief - they are a matter of faith, not of fact.
It is your pathetic Christian insistence that your deity and his witch/magician son are real that cause the friction between them and atheists and pagans.
If there comes "a time when the Christians, like all other people of religion, have left this forum leaving pagans and salivating atheist(s)", the forum will get back to proper discussions that are not constantly derailed by specious arguments about possibly non-existent dieties.
Zeus, Thor, Odin, Herne, Cernunnos, Cerydwyn, Freya, send that day soon, please!
Khatru
I no longer respond to Sassy, but I was interested to learn, from her post above, that the Jewish faith existed prior to 25,000 - 23,000 BCE (the authenticated date of the Venus of Willendorf).
Being one of the more erudite on the subject of religious history, do you have any knowledge of this "fact". please. I have Googled over 100 sites and cannot find any such evidence.
I am loath to ask any of the Christian fraternity as I know I will only get a string of prevarication, lies, waffle and bulldust a mile long.
Every right. The Jews lost any divine inheretence they might have dad when they put their own Lord and God to death. The Church is the inheretor of the promise made to Abraham and the scriptures belong to the Church.
No, that's what your schism claims.
The messiah you claim is Jesus is not the messiah that the Jews have been waiting for.
Oh, he is. Yet being stiffnecked they denied it.They are just all liars then?
They are just all liars then?
No but as the Apostle says, the have been made blind aand they have veil over their hearts, that is until they acknowledge Christ.So they have no free will in this matter according to that.
Oh, he is. Yet being stiffnecked they denied it.
No but as the Apostle says, the have been made blind aand they have veil over their hearts, that is until they acknowledge Christ.
No they haven't.
They are faithful to their scriptures, the very same scriptures that the NT says are ""God-breathed".
Those scriptures are specific regarding what the Messiah will do. Unfortunately for your belief system, Jesus failed to do what the Jewish scriptures say.
Ezekiel says the Mesiah will build the third temple. Jesus failed
In Isaiah we read how the Messiah will gather all Jews back in Israel. Jesus failed
Where is the world peace that the Messiah was supposed to usher in? Jesus failed
The Jews know their religion and it's not yours.
Khatru
I no longer respond to Sassy, but I was interested to learn, from her post above, that the Jewish faith existed prior to 25,000 - 23,000 BCE (the authenticated date of the Venus of Willendorf).
Being one of the more erudite on the subject of religious history, do you have any knowledge of this "fact". please. I have Googled over 100 sites and cannot find any such evidence.
I am loath to ask any of the Christian fraternity as I know I will only get a string of prevarication, lies, waffle and bulldust a mile long.
THERE is absolutely NOTHING to suggest anything we have been told by scientist regarding historical finds is absolute on dates. THEY SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.
All those are examples of how the Jews never understood the scriptures. Christ is the temple. The Church is Israel. And when our Lord returns then all things will be made anew and their will be no death, disease or hunger, no war, but the everlasting peace due to those who believed in him.
Every right. The Jews lost any divine inheretence they might have dad when they put their own Lord and God to death. The Church is the inheretor of the promise made to Abraham and the scriptures belong to the Church.
Do you mean Inheritance?
I see you believe man made teachings and not what God teaches.
Were Christ, Peter, Paul and the Apostles not Jews then?
For the Jews to lose divine inheritance they would literally have to lose all the promises God made to them.
Does Jerusalem in fact all Israel not belong to the Jews?
Do you know what Christ said:-
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
So you have a false belief because your belief makes Christ a liar.
Christ is the Church, the Jews are the inheritors and all are made Jews in Christ.
No difference between Jew and Gentile...the Jews do not become gentiles the gentile becomes the Jew believing in the Messiah.
Circumcision of the heart not the flesh.
They lost nothing because Salvation came through the Jews. Christ himself saying:
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Christ himself told the world when speaking to a Samaritan woman.
The Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ there is no human intercessor on earth between God and man. There was Jesus Christ the ONLY way and the Holy Spirit whom people are baptised with when they believe in the truth about Jesus Christ.
As Christ said... the wise man built his house upon the rock... Jesus Christ... the rest is sinking sand...anything not centred on the truth about Jesus Christ.
So do not make statements which rely solely on man made beliefs.
Do you mean Inheritance?
I see you believe man made teachings and not what God teaches.
Were Christ, Peter, Paul and the Apostles not Jews then?
For the Jews to lose divine inheritance they would literally have to lose all the promises God made to them.
Does Jerusalem in fact all Israel not belong to the Jews?
Do you know what Christ said:-
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
So you have a false belief because your belief makes Christ a liar.
Christ is the Church, the Jews are the inheritors and all are made Jews in Christ.
No difference between Jew and Gentile...the Jews do not become gentiles the gentile becomes the Jew believing in the Messiah.
Circumcision of the heart not the flesh.
They lost nothing because Salvation came through the Jews. Christ himself saying:
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Christ himself told the world when speaking to a Samaritan woman.
The Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ there is no human intercessor on earth between God and man. There was Jesus Christ the ONLY way and the Holy Spirit whom people are baptised with when they believe in the truth about Jesus Christ.
As Christ said... the wise man built his house upon the rock... Jesus Christ... the rest is sinking sand...anything not centred on the truth about Jesus Christ.
So do not make statements which rely solely on man made beliefs.
Sass,
You are a heretic of the worst kind. Yes, the Apostles were Jews but in the end it counted for nothing. They are first and foremost descendents of Abraham by faith, as are all members of the Church, and it is the Church to which the promises and inheritance pertain. And try to get it through your thick skull that I'm not a Roman Catholic.
Then on what is the confidence based that allows some to be so sure that they are right and religious believers are wrong?Balance of probability. There can be no proof in matters of belief, or indeed of any statement about the actual, existing world. "Proof" only applies to tautological statements, such as Aristotelian syllogisms, or mathematics. Evolution, for example, seems overwhelmingly likely, given the huge amount of evidence, but, strictly speaking, it can never be proved. You should stop bandying the word "prove" about if you want to be taken seriously.
Is there a difference in belief between the RCC and the orthodox church?
http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/comparative/roman-catholic.htm
The words that were translated or the real meanings of those words - the ultimate cop-out used by Christians when their interpretation of the biblical contents is challenged.
Quote - Oh, that is open to interpretation, the words meant something else then! - Unquote
Yeah maybe - I wonder how theologians will transate "total and utter bollocks" when applied to Christian scripture in the future?
Perhaps you can provide the Greek phrase that you believe means 'Jesus was angry' in Mark 1, Dicky.
Sassy
just to let you know, I too will be ignoring your posts from now on .goodbye
Sass,
You are a heretic of the worst kind. Yes, the Apostles were Jews but in the end it counted for nothing. They are first and foremost descendents of Abraham by faith, as are all members of the Church, and it is the Church to which the promises and inheritance pertain. And try to get it through your thick skull that I'm not a Roman Catholic.
All those are examples of how the Jews never understood the scriptures.The arrogance of the Christian. How do you know that it's not you who doesn't understand.
Christ is the temple.What a load of bollocks. The Temple was a building in Jerusalem used by Jews to worship in. The idea that it is a human being is comical and rather pathetic.
The Church is Israel.Not all Jews are in the Church so that interpretation is still a failure.
And when our Lord returns then all things will be made anew and their will be no death, disease or hunger, no war, but the everlasting peace due to those who believed in him.So you admit the World Peace prophecy hasn't happened.
Jeremy,
You really have no clue, do you! You betray you ignorance of the scriptures and have fallen for the lies of Judaism. Read the gospels and the epistles. Christ is the temple. The Church is Israel, Abraham's descendents by faith, whether Jew or Gentile but circumcision of the flesh counts for nothing. As for the last bit, you need to understand the Apocalypse of St. John which you obviously don't. Know what the first resurrection is and you will understand the prophecy. Christ already reigns "The Lord said to my Lord etc". It doesn't matter what Judaism says for it is essentially nothing more than an apostate sect.
Jeremy,
You really have no clue, do you! You betray your ignorance of the scriptures and have fallen for the lies of Judaism. Read the gospels and the epistles. Christ is the temple. The Church is Israel, Abraham's descendants by faith, whether Jew or Gentile but circumcision of the flesh counts for nothing. As for the last bit, you need to understand the Apocalypse of St. John which you obviously don't. Know what the first resurrection is and you will understand the prophecy. Christ already reigns "The Lord said to my Lord etc". It doesn't matter what Judaism says for it is essentially nothing more than an apostate sect.
The arrogance of some believers. I suppose God just made things look old to fool us?
Which makes God a deceiver and a cheat.
Sass,
You are a heretic of the worst kind.
Thankfully, calling someone a heretic is the worst you can do now.
There was a time not that long ago when your kind killed those unfortunate enough to be branded as a heretic.
Thankfully, calling someone a heretic is the worst you can do now.
There was a time not that long ago when your kind killed those unfortunate enough to be branded as a heretic.
Heaven forbid anything should be considered a heresy! ::)
I would venture to suggest that your statement could, in certain circumstances and minds, be itself considered heresy.
Heresy is an archaic concept, which is more and more, rightfully, being consigned to the garbage bin of history; a remnant of a time when you were not allowed to live if you disagreed with or rejected the teachings of one brand of religion or another.
Before Kramer and Spengler got a Pope to agree that a witch had made a pact with the Devil they could not be burned at the stake, the punishment foir heresy. Therefrom arose the myth of the Witch's Sabbat and witches kissing the Devil's arse.
God of love? What a load of rubbish!
Defining heresy is necessary is necessary because heresy leads souls astray.
Damn that god of Sassy's!
Damn him for filling the world with false clues like the fossil record. Clues which he knew would fool people of logic and reason but wouldn't even faze believers who have abandoned logic and reason.
Even now the so called theories and fallacies are falling apart with new discoveries.got any examples?
got any examples?
Yes watch them regularly on the tv all the time...Which ones? Got any examples?
do your studies in geology conflict with you beliefs, Hope?No, why should they? Or perhaps you'd prefer 'No, why? Should they?' Are you asking because your studies in geology conflict with your beliefs?
There are two kinds of Pagans around now; Neo-pagans (neo = new (not Modern)) who take what is known of early paganism, the deities and their attributes and the powers of nature that the deities controlled and used and create their rituals around that knowledge; Reconstrutionist Pagans who go to great lengths to try and re-create exactly the rites and rituals of the ancients.And can you be remotely certain that what they do now isn't simply 'modern', Owl? After all, it is thought that modern Druidism bears little or no resemblance to that which the Romans would have encountered in Britannia.
Both, in their way, modern (small 'm'), timewise, modern but the beliefs, all of are older than yours.
I like being a heretic! ;Dand the heretics speak highly of you!
Your God is supposed to be a person, yet no-one in over 2,000 years has ever seen him.Wrong, on two counts, Owl. Even if Jesus was born in 7BC, as some scholars suggest, or the more probable 4BC, he lived until he was about 33. So, that would mean he was crucified in the spring of either 26 or 29AD. We therefore have another 9.5 or 12.5 years before we can say that no-one has seen him for over 2000 years.
Every other person who has ever lived had been seen by at least one other person.There would appear to be a fair body of independent witness evidence that Jesus lived and taught, Owl. Maybe not as many people saw him as have seen - say - Richard Dawkins, but then does the fact that hundreds have seen RD in the flesh and millions have seen him 'virtually' make what he says any more valid than someone who was only seen by several thousand?
Thus there is physical proof that each and every one of those other people has existed; contrary to your God which no-one has ever seen.The physical proof is available to all to look at, Owl. Are you really sure that you want to carry on pointing out how little you know. The important issue is whether Jesus was God, as he himself claimed, or not.
The burden of proof therefore is on you not us!
But please don't bother to try - your fellow Christians have been dodging this challenge all the way back to the old Beeb R and E forum, so most on here have heard all the excuses, prevarications, and fallacious arguments a hundred times before. Both your question and lack of an answer to my question have rendered such conversations about three-hundred miles west of boring to the point of causing suicides so don't bother.Wasn't on the old Beeb R&E forum very often, Owl, but no-one dodged the challenge; if anything they pointed out the historical and physical facts on a number of occasions that I saw, only to be ignored in much the same way that Floo ignores responses she doesn't like and re-starts debates in new threads every so often.
And can you be remotely certain that what they do now isn't simply 'modern', Owl? After all, it is thought that modern Druidism bears little or no resemblance to that which the Romans would have encountered in Britannia.
All man made, I am afraid... Even now the so called theories and fallacies are falling apart with new discoveries.Are you saying that the fossil record is all man-made, Sass? Certainly not what many of the geologically-minded Christians I know believe.
As I have said, " Your beliefs require much more faith than the Christians".
It is such a vast subject, like the Amazon with countless tributaries. I've learned that since Owl posted his thread on Faith Sharing and I started to look things up. I doubt any of us would know it all in a million years.Watched the first half of the Auld Enemy clash, but have a really busy week and found myself falling asleep, so thought I'd come and pit my wits on here before going to bed.
(No football for you tonight, Hope?)
Can one be a Christian, say, & STILL know about fossils etc?Brownie wonders whether there is a joke in there somewhere. I'd say, 'Yes; the whole sentence'. ;)
Are you saying that the fossil record is all man-made, Sass? Certainly not what many of the geologically-minded Christians I know believe.
Its worth pointing out that the Ussherite calculations ignore many aspects of Jewish literary conventions - such as their love of dividing history into equal eras (think of the way in which genealogies are often equally divided even though the time span from the start to end of each are known not to be equal in length). They have theological relevance as opposed to historical.
Please don't tell me Sass is an Usherite as well as everything else?Don't know whether Sass believes that the earth was created at about 6pm on 22nd October 4004 BC, as Ussher calculated, but she does seem to be a young earth-er - a belief that I have still to find any evidence for in the Bible (OT or NT).
I don't think I have the patience to waste my time on the YEC thing again. As yet, the evidence I posted on threads last year has not been challenged - and you don't need to go into geology; archaeology and written history refute Usser dates without any trouble. This kind of stuff is a distraction from the core message of Scripture (but you, like most Christians, already know that!)Quite agree, but trippy seems to be stuck in the 'Christianity=no fossils' belief system!!
Quite agree, but trippy seems to be stuck in the 'Christianity=no fossils' belief system!!Except Anchorman's reply there was about you talking about Sassy.
Except Anchorman's reply there was about you talking about Sassy.But triggered by trippy's post. Post trail - #119, 122-125
But triggered by trippy's post. Post trail - #119, 122-125which is irrelevant to the context of the reply
which is irrelevant to the context of the replyExcuse me, NS - how can a particular post and the trail up to it be irrelevant to the reply? After all, the original post was from me to Sass, and what I said in it was then picked up by Nick, whose post I responded to - to which Jim made his response. Sass's understanding underpinned the whole trail.
Excuse me, NS - how can a particular post and the trail up to it be irrelevant to the reply? After all, the original post was from me to Sass, and what I said in it was then picked up by Nick, whose post I responded to - to which Jim made his response. Sass's understanding underpinned the whole trail.because you were discussing Sassy at that stage, so Trippy's position was irrelevant
Quite agree, but trippy seems to be stuck in the 'Christianity=no fossils' belief system!!
I'm not stuck in anything but if you can confirm at least SOME Christians DO believe fossils even though the Bible more or less denies dinosaurs etc, then I'll be OK.The majority of Bible-believing Christians that I know believe in the fossil record, not least because the Bible makes no judgement on them - perhaps you can give us the reference(s) that you think do, Nick. Furthermore, many also believe in the importance of science to humanity.
Personally I can't see why they can't go hand in hand. We've more proof of a T-Rex than Noah's Ark???Well, since there could only be one of the latter and several thousands of the former, that doesn't prove anything. As for the 'going hand in hand', that's precisely what I've been arguing regarding faith and science since the early days of my membership of this board.
because you were discussing Sassy at that stage, so Trippy's position was irrelevantExcept that the post you seem to have taken offence to was in response to one that Nick made on the comments I'd made on Sass's posts. In other words, Nick's position/comment was no less relevant than Jim's or mine.
I'm not stuck in anything but if you can confirm at least SOME Christians DO believe fossils even though the Bible more or less denies dinosaurs etc, then I'll be OK.
Personally I can't see why they can't go hand in hand. We've more proof of a T-Rex than Noah's Ark???
Nick
WELL THAT'S another post -A literal Bible.
I don't feel, after many years of studying Hindu literature, that the Bible IS literal.
Nick
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.
*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.
Perhaps you can provide the Greek phrase that you believe means 'Jesus was angry' in Mark 1, Dicky.
OH DEAR ?!?!!?
Do they???
How on earth ANYBODY can think that especially if you've actually READ it?!?!?!? It's very disjointed in places & contradictory too.?!!?!?
Nick
Fortunately many Christians are not Biblical literalists.Fortunately, Floo, most Christians ARE Biblical literalists. They read it in the way that it was written - be that as poetry. prophecy, theology, comedy and, yes, occasionally as history. Those who follow the 'Ussher-type' of reading aren't literalists; they are - to coin a phrase - langulists - their understanding is dependent on the English language (predominantly), and ignores the fact that in some aspects, English is a rather poor cousin to Latin and Greek, let alone Hebrew.
Fortunately, Floo, most Christians ARE Biblical literalists. They read it in the way that it was written - be that as poetry. prophecy, theology, comedy and, yes, occasionally as history. Those who follow the 'Ussher-type' of reading aren't literalists; they are - to coin a phrase - langulists - their understanding is dependent on the English language (predominantly), and ignores the fact that in some aspects, English is a rather poor cousin to Latin and Greek, let alone Hebrew.
I am not sure I follow your definition of Biblical literalist? Do you mean they believe every word in the Bible is literally true, like the creation story and the flood for instance? If you do mean that then I think only the more extreme Christians like the 'you must be 'saved' lot are BLs. Most moderate Christians don't see it that way.No, I mean that they believe that every word is true in the way in which it was written - so, for instance, a common Jewish literary technique was hyperbole; research is increasingly showing that the early chapters of Genesis was never written as history, but as theology. Then you get wisdom (Proverbs) and poetry (Psalms) which often use language in other than its everyday usage.
No, I mean that they believe that every word is true in the way in which it was written - so, for instance, a common Jewish literary technique was hyperbole; research is increasingly showing that the early chapters of Genesis was never written as history, but as theology. Then you get wisdom (Proverbs) and poetry (Psalms) which often use language in other than its everyday usage.
Literal interpretations need to take all of these complexities into account!!
No, I mean that they believe that every word is true in the way in which it was written - so, for instance, a common Jewish literary technique was hyperbole; research is increasingly showing that the early chapters of Genesis was never written as history, but as theology. Then you get wisdom (Proverbs) and poetry (Psalms) which often use language in other than its everyday usage.
Literal interpretations need to take all of these complexities into account!!
Jeremy,No, you have fallen for the lies of Christianity.
You really have no clue, do you! You betray your ignorance of the scriptures and have fallen for the lies of Judaism.
Read the gospels and the epistles. Christ is the temple.Nope. The Temple was a building in Jerusalem. The gospels do not form part of the Messianic prophecies, the "Christ is the temple" meme is just an attempt at fudging the fact that he does not qualify as the Messiah.
Nope. The Temple was a building in Jerusalem. The gospels do not form part of the Messianic prophecies, the "Christ is the temple" meme is just an attempt at fudging the fact that he does not qualify as the Messiah.
As I said, you have fallen for the lies of the Jews. They have a veil over their hearts which is why they do not understand the scriptures.
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
As I said, you have fallen for the lies of the Jews. They have a veil over their hearts which is why they do not understand the Scriptures.And yet some would say that you have fallen for the lies of the early Christian Church. They had a veil over their hearts and did not understand the true nature of God.
And yet some would say that you have fallen for the lies of the early Christian Church. They had a veil over their hearts and did not understand the true nature of God.Seb, haven't you noticed that the Old Testament is full of situations where the Jewish religious hierarchy is challenged as to its inability to understand the true nature of God? The New Testament isn't much better - Jesus gets angry with the traders who have taken over the Court of the Gentiles ('because the Jewish God is only for the Jews'), and then Stephen lambasts the leadership of his day regarding their inability to understand God and follow his instructions (Acts 7). Even Paul, who initially disagreed with Stephen, eventually takes what he says on board
Seb, haven't you noticed that the Old Testament is full of situations where the Jewish religious hierarchy is challenged as to its inability to understand the true nature of God?Challenged, maybe.
Who actually 'wrote' the Bible anyway ?!!?!? ;) ::)
http://www.biblica.com/bible/bible-faqs/who-wrote-the-bible/
It doesn't really matter who wrote the words - which of course were later translated, re-written, added to, subtracted from, etc - since every single one of those words was thought of and written down by a human being. No god wrote any of it or 'inspired' anyone to write any particular words and since only a small proportion of the people were literate, the stories were transmitted to other orally.
P.S. And the word 'divinity' is meaningless since there is nothing to support it!
Can one be a Christian, say, & STILL know about fossils etc?TM,
Why ffs? I only posted a link.
There are other sites if you google, "Who wrote the Bible?", I wasn't going to copy and post all of them.
It doesn't really matter who wrote the words - which of course were later translated, re-written, added to, subtracted from, etc - since every single one of those words was thought of and written down by a human being. No god wrote any of it or 'inspired' anyone to write any particular words and since only a small proportion of the people were literate, the stories were transmitted to other orally.
P.S. And the word 'divinity' is meaningless since there is nothing to support it!
TM,
If you kept upto date with all that is happening you would know that fossils are not what you think they appear to be.
Why ffs? I only posted a link.
There are other sites if you google, "Who wrote the Bible?", I wasn't going to copy and post all of them.
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.
*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.
Perhaps you can provide the Greek phrase that you believe means 'Jesus was angry' in Mark 1, Dicky.
A number of early manuscripts have "splagchnistheis", which does mean "moved by compassion". But some also read "orgistheis", which means "moved by anger". A number of modern commentators think this is the original and correct reading. It is significant that neither Matthew or Luke have either reading in their references to the incident, though one might suppose that "moved by compassion" would have been their immediate choice in quoting Mark. That may suggest some equivocation, or indeed that the text in front of them did indeed read "orgistheis" - angry, and they didn't like it.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZcUUAAAAIAAJ
In most texts, that phrase would be splagxnízomai/σπλαγχνισθεὶς (compassion/pity) but we also have the Codex Bezae in which it is written that Jesus, instead of showing compassion displayed anger: orgízō/ὀργισθείς which correlates with the end of the passage where Jesus orders the guy not to tell anyone.
There is good reason to accept the original phrasing was orgízō over splagxnízomai as the scribes of the later stories chose not to include either phrases in their writings; Matt 8:3 and Luke 5:13 respectively. If the original they were copying from had used compassion instead of anger they would have had no difficulty in saying so, but an angry Jesus at a reasonable request from a sick man was not the sort of Man they wanted to portray.
Which also explains why the later copyists of Mark chose to replace angry with pity!!
Why ffs? I only posted a link.
There are other sites if you google, "Who wrote the Bible?", I wasn't going to copy and post all of them.
Its more to do with the tone of the website: It promotes the false notion that all the books were written by who they claim they were: "Luke and Acts, a two-volume series on the life of Jesus and the early church, was penned by a physician named Luke, who was also a traveling companion to the apostle Paul." "The gospel of John was written by one of Jesus’ closest disciples, giving us an eyewitness account of the Messiah’s life.
All of which is bollocks..
It doesn't really matter who wrote the words - which of course were later translated, re-written, added to, subtracted from, etc - since every single one of those words was thought of and written down by a human being. No god wrote any of it or 'inspired' anyone to write any particular words and since only a small proportion of the people were literate, the stories were transmitted to other orally.
P.S. And the word 'divinity' is meaningless since there is nothing to support it!
As I said, you have fallen for the lies of the Jews.As I said, you have fallen for the lies of the Christians.
They have a veil over their hearts which is why they do not understand the scriptures.Who? Christians? Yes I agree.
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.Let us shove your arrogance back up your arse from whence it came.
Who actually 'wrote' the Bible anyway ?!!?!? ;) ::)Nobody really knows. Jews and Christians have traditions, but, with the exception of seven of Paul's letters, it's all guesswork.
Nobody really knows. Jews and Christians have traditions, but, with the exception of seven of Paul's letters, it's all guesswork.
Ad_o: "Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen."
Ad_o, that prayer is extremely old fashioned, patronising and contentious. Arrogant in the extreme but I see Jeremy has already said that.
It puts a barrier between us and those of Jewish faith, hinders interfaith dialogue and stops us learning from the Jews - and there is a great deal for us to learn from them.
It strikes me that you have learned the prayer practically off by heart, maybe out of a book, and are repeating it without questioning or even thinking. Parrot fashion comes to mind.
(PS I remember someone asked me a question yesterday on this thread, I haven't forgotten; I will look back to find it and answer (if I can), later today.)
It is one of the oldest orayers in the Roman Rite. Modernist Catholics reject it of course but that is because they are dispensationalists in all but name. The Pope would do well to remember tradition rather than cosy up to rabbis. However, if you're offended by that prayer then don't even consider going to an Orthodox Good Friday liturgy which refers to that "impious and transgressing people" and "the murderers of God".
It is one of the oldest orayers in the Roman Rite. Modernist Catholics reject it of course but that is because they are dispensationalists in all but name. The Pope would do well to remember tradition rather than cosy up to rabbis. However, if you're offended by that prayer then don't even consider going to an Orthodox Good Friday liturgy which refers to that "impious and transgressing people" and "the murderers of God".
Spiritually - according to Scripture - WE are responsible for the death of Christ.
Historically - according to Scripture - the Romans did it.
As far as I'm aware, they were not Jewish Romans.
The Jews conspired to put Jesus to death. Both St. Peter and St. Stephen call them murderers.
The Jews conspired to put Jesus to death. Both St. Peter and St. Stephen call them murderers.
It is crazy to condemn modern day Jews for getting Jesus crucified, even if the story is true!the characters in EastEnders are NOT REAL
The Jews conspired to put Jesus to death. Both St. Peter and St. Stephen call them murderers.'Some' Jews, surely?
'Some' Jews, surely?
It is like branding ALL WW2 Germans as Nazis!Or all Amercans as stupid!
Or all Amercans as stupid!
Aw shucks >:(.I know, me too ;)
Jesus did NOT fulfill ALL Jewish criteria for Messiahship - FULL STOP !!!
THAT'S why he was executed as per Jewish religious law - fact !!!
Nick
Jesus did NOT fulfill ALL Jewish criteria for Messiahship - FULL STOP !!!Which idea of 'Messiah' are you talking about, Nick? The one that dates from the 4th or 5th century BC, or the older, more traditional one that predates David and others? The politico-militaristic concept is the later of the two.
THAT'S why he was executed as per Jewish religious law - fact !!!
Nick
Which idea of 'Messiah' are you talking about, Nick? The one that dates from the 4th or 5th century BC, or the older, more traditional one that predates David and others? The politico-militaristic concept is the later of the two.
Which idea of 'Messiah' are you talking about, Nick? The one that dates from the 4th or 5th century BC, or the older, more traditional one that predates David and others? The politico-militaristic concept is the later of the two.
Over the years your attachment to the Bible and your god and your total detachment from real truth has been demonstrated thousands of times, ....detachment from real truth?
Sass,
You show oncw again that you are a eank heretic. The Church is the one true Israel of God, he's chosen people. Messianic Jews are no better than the Judaisers of St. Paul's time for they still cling on to Moses. They must have faith in the most holy Trinity and be baptised into the Church. I have no idea why you keep mentioning Rome. Maybe you're just not very btight.
How can anyone who does not love God understand the things of God or from God. Never mind judge those who do.
Most modern Christians only know a modernist faith, so they may well think that, Vic. Even as an RC I only really attended traditional liturgies (SSPX and FSSP). This is what I have learned from the Church, its ancient liturgies and from the holy fathers. It is the Apostolic faith, something which has been believed for almost 2000 years. What Vatican II has to say is, quite frankly, rank heresy.
Wriggle - wriggle - wriggle - when are you going to stop twisting words and history to suit YOUR version of the Bible's contents while totally ignoring ther fact that MOST, the vast majority of, in fact, Christians know next door to nothing about the origins in both language and history of it contents and care a great deal less!I think you will find that, whilst there is some truth in your comment, many more Christians - both in the Orthodox and RC sections of the church and the Protestant/evangelistic sections - take an interest in the Bible's language and history of its contents than you like to think. That is why I 'ignore' the so-called facts that you so love to claim. As for 'twisting words and history', perhaps you need to do a bit more research into the language and history of the Bible's contents before spouting off in the way you do. I do try to keep up with scholarship in the matter, and having a few friends in that particular area of life, from a variety of approaches, some religious and some not.
They read the Bible as the "revealed word of God" and accept it quite literally without question. Over the years your attachment to the Bible and your god and your total detachment from real truth has been demonstrated thousands of times, not all of which, thank the Goddess, I have read or would want to, bullshit in defense of the indefensible gets boring very very quickly.Good to see you resorting to abuse when it becomes clear that your arguments are less than effective.
Well I never knew you used to be a Catholic, ad_o! You have something in common with our old posting pal, Paleologus (?sp), aka MTV on the Beeb, who wanted something more authentic which he believed he found when he became Orthodox. He wouldn't talk about it much though.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Sass,
You show oncw again that you are a rank heretic. The Church is the one true Israel of God, he's chosen people.
Messianic Jews are no better than the Judaisers of St. Paul's time for they still cling on to Moses. They must have faith in the most holy Trinity and be baptised into the Church. I have no idea why you keep mentioning Rome. Maybe you're just not very bright.
What a pity Sass so obviously believes NOBODY can love God unless they're HER version of a Christian, eh?
Nick
Jesus never knew Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or John.
Why should we believe anything they have to say about him?
If you knew what the bible says a Christian is., you could judge couldn't you. Instead you make an unfounded allegation
but are unable to sustain whether the real believer is that born of Spirit and Truth.
As for loving God, how would you know what it means to love God... Version of Christians...entirely your own making up.
Because there is only one type of Christian those born of Spirit and Truth and guess how that happens?
Why not learn something about Christian and tell us what you think the difference is...
Emm
Prove to me that Jesus actually met Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or John and taught them, then we can discuss it..
We have this knowledge passed on through the Church. You have the conjectures of atheists, apostates and rabbis. I know which one I choose.
Jesus never knew Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke or John.
Why should we believe anything they have to say about him?
We have this knowledge passed on through the Church. You have the conjectures of atheists, apostates and rabbis. I know which one I choose.
The real Church has Christ and the Holy Spirit. One teacher and it certainly isn't knowledge passed down by men to men.
John 16:13. (KJV)
13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
1 john 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
God has given us a teacher who has taught every child of God since the beginning of time. King David knew him and so did Christ. All who come to God through Christ knows the baptism of the Holy Spirit is where the believers learns the truth from.