Discerning the wheat from the tares.

[floo]

Excepting that even a casual reading of Acts 17 makes it plain that those in Berea were not the sort to allow themselves to be swayed by a glib talker (which Paul by his own admission was not).  Which is precisely why they were cautious enough and suspicious enough to search the Scriptures daily to check him out.

It's easy to find corroboration in the records of people who all believed the same thing.

However, that is a long way from it proving the truth.

There are plenty of people who cannot recognise the truth even when it is staring them in the face, amongst them a certain Pontius Pilate.

How do you know you have the elusive 'truth'? All you have is a belief with no evidence to support it.

[DaveM]

There are plenty of people who cannot recognise the truth even when it is staring them in the face, amongst them a certain Pontius Pilate.

No to mention most of the Christians on this board! 

Well as the saying goes it is the exceptions which prove the rule.  And no prizes for guessing the name of the star exception on this Board.

[ippy]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

I agree with you about Moses;  but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus,  After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church. 

Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?"  As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say.  I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner.

That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

I agree with you about Moses;  but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus,  After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church. 

Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?"  As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say.  I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner.

That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.

ippy

 Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.

[ippy]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

I agree with you about Moses;  but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus,  After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church. 

Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?"  As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say.  I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner.

That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.

ippy

 Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.

What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed. 

ippy 

[BashfulAnthony]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

I agree with you about Moses;  but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus,  After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church. 

Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?"  As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say.  I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner.

That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.

ippy

 Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.

What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed. 

ippy

I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation;  and it continues to do so  -  that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no recollection of you ever debating any specific points about Christianity on this forum.

That will be because your memory is not that good.

Yet you dismiss it all.

More lies!

Show some knowledge and perception by actually debating, rather than this across-the-board dismissal.

Debating with you, my dear Tony, is like talking to a robot.

I never knew you debated Len....when did all that start?

[Leonard James]

I never knew you debated Len....when did all that start?

Many years ago on the BBC forums. Over the years I have come to realise that debating religious belief is a sterile and thankless pastime. It just consists of the same old arguments trotted out endlessly ... so now I usually restrict myself to correcting false claims.

Christians are prone to claiming as fact what they read in the Bible, quite forgetting that none of the supernatural stuff can be backed up with evidence.

[Hope]

... and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

Other than his mother and his brother James, of course.

Sass, in respect of this thread, it should be noted that some of the material that makes up the New Testament may have been written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ.  Other documents were written by a Jewish scholar who would have known the Old Testament's understanding of the Messiah - as well as the Jewish leadership's understanding of the concept.  I think that I would rather believe what they understood than what you do.

[BeRational]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

I agree with you about Moses;  but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus,  After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church. 

Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?"  As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say.  I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner.

That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.

ippy

 Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.

What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed. 

ippy

I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation;  and it continues to do so  -  that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.

But it does not establish the existence of a God.
All the miracles claims it contains are just claims. Claims that are almost certainly false.
The book as no one information in it that was not known at the time.

[ippy]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

There is no evidence Moses wrote anything. Funny most of the Jews didn't see that bloke Jesus as any sort of Messiah, and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

I agree with you about Moses;  but you are entirely incorrect, again, about Jesus,  After His death His brother, James became head of the early Church. 

Is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as "that bloke?"  As far as I'm concerned that sort of comment is far more unpleasant and abusive than anything I ever say.  I wouldn't treat a poltergeist in such a cavalier manner.

That's only what it states in your manual and no one has established the authenticity of the so called facts this manual of yours contains and no you don't need to be a scholar to be aware of that.

ippy

 Maybe not, but it would be something if you could actually debate it sensibly instead of just the inane, carpet condemnation.

What's the point of discussing something like your manual until there can be some some sort of conformation that it contains at the very least something that would establish the magical, mystical and superstitious as factual happenings/events; something no one has managed to do unless there is something somewhere I've missed. 

ippy

I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation;  and it continues to do so  -  that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.

No matter how serious anyone likes to be about the NT as you call it, unless you can find or in some way introduce some credibility into it's claims about the mythical, magical and supernatural happenings it contains, something that hasn't yet been achieved, it might as well be a discussion forum of something like the Sherlock Holms society and add a very similar amount of value to our daily lives.

ippy 

[Leonard James]

No matter how serious anyone likes to be about the NT as you call it, unless you can find or in some way introduce some credibility into it's claims about the mythical, magical and supernatural happenings it contains, something that hasn't yet been achieved, it might as well be a discussion forum of something like the Sherlock Holmes society and add a very similar amount of value to our daily lives.

ippy

Spot on. Ippy ... but don't expect BA and his like to acknowledge that.

[ad_orientem]

Your argument is flawed. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch the writings of the prophets did not exist. Does that mean they're not scripture? The NT is scripture because the Church recognises them as such. The same goes for the OT. But then you are a heretic and so it's not surprising that you have a screwed view of the NT and most importantly of Christ, nay, you believe in some other Christ, not the Christ of scripture.

On this occasion I'm with Sassy.

What you have basically said is that you believe in the theology of the church, which was invented to explain the things they didn't have answers for.

Like how Christians can worship one God if Jesus was in some way God.

IMO the Jesus of the "scripture"  isn't the one invented by the church either.

Sassy has as much chance of getting it right as anyone else.

It's all POV and opinions.

The "theology of the Church" comes straight from the Apostles who were taught by Christ himself but, of course, you first have to discern where the Church is.

[floo]

... and it appears his nearest and dearest didn't rate him either!

Other than his mother and his brother James, of course.

Sass, in respect of this thread, it should be noted that some of the material that makes up the New Testament may have been written by Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ.  Other documents were written by a Jewish scholar who would have known the Old Testament's understanding of the Messiah - as well as the Jewish leadership's understanding of the concept.  I think that I would rather believe what they understood than what you do.

Jesus seemed to be dismissive of his family, including his mother. As his father, Joseph, didn't get mentioned after his childhood, one assumed he might have died. I wonder who was supporting Mary whilst her eldest son was making a nuisance of himself where the religious mafia was concerned?

[Leonard James]

34 Then Jesus looked at the people sitting in a circle around him. He said, “Here is my mother! Here are my brothers! 35 Anyone who does what God wants is my brother or sister or mother.”

i.e., if you don't believe what I believe, get lost.

A tad conceited, no?

[Sassy]

Yes, you are a heretic, a follower of Arius, and you do not believe in Christ otherwise you would acknowledge that that Christ is God. You do not understand the scriptures.

It is you who is an heretic because you go beyond the teachings of Christ. As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God. He opened my mind to the Scriptures so I know the truth of OT and was taught that before the NT. So when it comes to your two line replies which has nothing to prove me wrong about Scripture you are telling the whole world you have nothing but tradition and manmade beliefs.

You cannot answer the fact that both Peter and John teach Christ was a human being and that God gave Jesus power and anointed him with the Holy Spirit.
You cannot bear the truth like those Stephen spoke to before he was stoned.
John warning people that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Because as Jews they knew the truth about the Messiah.

HERETIC is more befitting of you because your beliefs are not biblical and you have no way of producing anything from the OT which says the Messiah would be God made man. Even Luke tells you that God through an angel told Mary that Christ being a Holy Thing...that he was to be called the Son of God.

You ignore the things written for a manmade belief which started out even at the time of the disciples preaching. But the disciples DID NOT TEACH but warned against it.

[floo]

Sass you are a 'larf'. I suspect there are quite a few Christians on this forum who think you are a naughty heretic too!

[Leonard James]

Depends how you read it Len 

If you took it as he was teaching the golden rule ( and was just a man) you could take it as a lesson in equality.

That those doing the golden rule ( what God wanted) were those that were important, rather than just because they were relatives.

 

They are still your parents and should have some importance in your life.

Sadly, Jesus didn't just teach the Golden Rule, with which I entirely agree. He taught a lot of other crap about the god he believed in.

[Outrider]

I'm only concerned with the NT, and it has come under intense debate since its formation;  and it continues to do so  -  that is amongst serious students and scholars, and that's where you miss out.

Hi Tony,

As you say, the NT is one of the most long- and widely-studied works in history, and yet there is still no clear consensus on what several sections mean, who may or may not have authored certain elements and similar issues.

Do you think this lack of clarity indicates that the work itself is not divinely inspired, is the work of 'mere' mortals? (Regardless of whether the content is accurate or not, simply the construction of the documents)

O.

[Leonard James]

As for scripture you only have manmade teachings but I was taught by God.

Don't be so idiotic, Sass! You simply absorbed like a sponge the religious belief of your time and culture. THAT is what 'taught' you ... not your non-existent "God".

[Leonard James]

All through the ages, there have been different groups of Christians calling each other heretics because of some opin... Um theology.

You've had Popes excommunicating each other.......

It would be funny, except too many people  have got hurt. 

Well, it rather serves them right for believing such patent rubbish,

[Leonard James]

Have you ever spoken to a Jew about the scriptures?

I have, a chief Rabbi no less who had written a book with a Christian that highlighted their different answers.

And did either of them offer any testable evidence of the truth of their different answers?

Of course not ... there isn't any.

[Outrider]

Depends how you read it Len 

If you took it as he was teaching the golden rule ( and was just a man) you could take it as a lesson in equality.

That those doing the golden rule ( what God wanted) were those that were important, rather than just because they were relatives.

 

They are still your parents and should have some importance in your life.

Have to disagree with that, I'm afraid -  you owe your parents nothing unless they merit it through their actions. They choose to have children for their reasons, and whilst it would be nice if all parents cared well for their children that isn't the case. The majority, yes, but you don't merit anything simply by producing offspring, you earn love, respect and care by how you treat them.

O.

[Hope]

In more recent times we don't know for sure if people who do happen to have some historical basis, unlike the Biblical characters, said and did the things claimed for them.

Yet most of us happily accept the claims anyway, Floo, especially when informed by so-called 'experts'.   

[Hope]

Absolutely, Roses. We can only be guided by the strength of the evidence presented by their followers/detractors.

And n my opinion it is always better to err on the side of scepticism rather than credulity.

So, despite the strength of the evidence of the time being considerably greater than that of the detractors (who, of course, would have had the best opportunity to produce contradictory evidence - such as a body), you choose to side with theose detractors.  Where is your scepticism regarding their un-evidenced argument?