Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#599189 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you discredited many of the 10 scholars as being shills and gave no reason and still refuse to
Next to your standards mine are more than reasonable
At least mine calls into question the biases when someone has money or a doctorate to gain or all 5 follow a pattern of naming a book off of something that most their book isn't even about
Is the reason you had for dismissing so many scholars anything more than you disagreed? Because calling them shills would seem to be the nonsense part
I don't refuse to.

And I'll be happy to limit my self primarily to the source you linked to, Shawn Eyer.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#599190 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Good rebuttal
But like i said, I will leave it to you then
If you believe it is simply a coincidence that 5 authors chose a title based on its provocative nature that their book had very little to do with it then that is your opinion
If you don't see using it as a title for a boor subject where sales would rely on it being true or for a thesis to get a doctorate are things that create a bias for them to want it to be true then that is your opinion
i see nothing provocative in the title Ancient Gospels.

Weren't the canonical gospels ancient, silly?

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599191 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you discredited many of the 10 scholars as being shills and gave no reason and still refuse to
Next to your standards mine are more than reasonable
At least mine calls into question the biases when someone has money or a doctorate to gain or all 5 follow a pattern of naming a book off of something that most their book isn't even about
Is the reason you had for dismissing so many scholars anything more than you disagreed? Because calling them shills would seem to be the nonsense part
Hey Skom you watching the game? Tigers may have something cooking in the 4th. 1st and 3rd with 1 out and Victor batting.
Dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#599192 Oct 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I sleep well at night, because I'm unconscious.
you sleep day and night time
because you are 24 hours dead brain and unconscious,blind, and deaf dead Zombie=only flesh heart beating few rythms allowing you to judge yourselves at end

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599193 Oct 7, 2013
Yes, V. Mart doubles to the corner in right. 1 run in, 2nd and 3rd now with 1 out and Jhonny P. batting.

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599194 Oct 7, 2013
Boom, boom, boom. Jhonny P. doubles to left, 2 runs in, game tied 3-3.

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599195 Oct 7, 2013
Make that a single to left.

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599196 Oct 7, 2013
Avial up. still only 1 out.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599197 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't refuse to.
And I'll be happy to limit my self primarily to the source you linked to, Shawn Eyer.
Um..you didn't link any of your sources and said you aren't a librarian

Just because all my sources are compiled on one page doesn't change the fact there were 10 different scholars listed

And you didn't limit you dismissal to Shawn Eyer. YOU were the one who claimed most of the other ten were shills. yet now you won't say why you said most of the other 10 were shills and will only talk about Eyer?

You opened the door when claiming most of the 10 scholars were shills. If you don't want to provide any reasons for why you believe that to be true than it would seem likely you didn't have any.

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599198 Oct 7, 2013
*Avila*

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599199 Oct 7, 2013
2 outs, Jhonny P. to 2nd on an Avila ground out to 3rd. Omar up.

Since: May 11

UK

#599200 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no doubt
Just as I am sure falling asleep comes easy to you
You don't strike me as someone whose conscious would weigh on him no matter what awful things he had helped facilitate for money
Congratulations?
I re don't know what I am supposed to say to that
it's "conscience" not "conscious"[sic] you dolt.

it's one of the basic errors in phraseonomy which has been exposing your sock puppets for the 2 years I've been coming here.

...egads you're a numbskull.

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#599201 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
It is an interesting question which I tried to get into a little more detail lat you might see as far as where does the responsibility lie for faith?
Is faith the gift or salvation the gift as a result of faith?
There are plenty of verses that show even though faith is given by hearing the word that some of it depends on us. Choose who you will serve, trust in God not man, seek and you will find, etc. And on the flip side the Pharaoh's heart was hardened even more by God when his already hard heart caused him not to believe
I concluded the inability to have faith may stem from the inability to trust in a power higher than themselves
But how much does that clear up? Is it pride? Or are some people just wired that way? Why do some people believe and others don't? I really can't say for sure. Can you? So to say I think unbelief is worthy of eternal punishment would not be something I would agree with
But that's not why I believe in annihilation. Although it did make me happier to discover it. It is the dozens of verses that say the soul is destroyed, our thoughts perish, the soul dies, no more reward is given, etc.
What verses show eternal punishment? One verse in a parable in Matthew 25 where the goat and sheep are separated and it could mean they go to a place of eternal suffering? That is all I could really find that shows hell is eternal for man. If you have more I am always interested in seeing it because my search has left me basically where I am at now.
Mostly based on the words of Jesus:

Luke 16
Jesus' Account of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

Matthew 10:15
"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
[[
Jesus basically saying there are levels of judgment and that there are some punishment that will be more tolerable than some. If we go by the annihilation doctrine(and it's not just you, there are many in Christianity that agree with you)---why would Jesus claim "tolerable"? there would be no need for "tolerable"if all souls outside of heaven is annihilated.

Matthew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
[[[
Why would Jesus say something like that if annihilation happened in hell? the eternal fire cannot be annihilation of the soul if Jesus us saying its worse in being thrown in eternal fire???

plus there are other verses.

See what I'm saying Skombolis. If we just focus on the words of Jesus---then the 'annihilation of the soul' doctrine just don't compute.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599202 Oct 7, 2013
Red Apples wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Skom you watching the game? Tigers may have something cooking in the 4th. 1st and 3rd with 1 out and Victor batting.
Hey John

I see it is 3-3 with runner on second

Game isn't televised where I am at if you can believe that

It is only on some MLB network

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#599203 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
NO you are
Show me where I or the source used the words "ultimate source"
How can you even deny you made that up?
You did it to make it seem like you showing the quote was out of context did more than it really did and because for some strange reason you seemed to be trying to pride me out of asking you for the link that completed a quote found on a page i sourced
Whatever game you were playing was your game
Please copy and link anywhere that the phrase "ultimate source" came from other than your post
Therefore, you made it up
This is simple stuff CJ.
Let me disabuse you here.

After all, I feel it's my duty.

You copied and pasted from Shawn's most excellent piece, where he assembled a number of shrill early responses to Smith's discovery.

I have always felt Brown did not deserve to be in that list. Again, Brown's actual footnote, the ultimate source, though this is from a reprint after his death:

http://s1057.photobucket.com/user/Chess-Juris...

This article is the ultimate source of your quote from Brown, goofy.

But you did not know that because you had not actually read any of the quoted sources in Eyer's most excellent article, huh?

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599204 Oct 7, 2013
Omar grounds out to 3rd. Finally after 20 scoreless innings the Tigers bats show some life. Lets hope it's just the start of good things to come.

Detroit 3 Oakland 3 after 4.
dogs of war

Baltimore, MD

#599205 Oct 7, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post shows only two things you do not read the Holy Bible and you do not try to practice it either. No anger on my part I would not allow that or give you that type of satisfication.
just worry if you alone read Bible, and apply passages first to yourselves
you are not existing as women to be teacher or advisor in the Assembly of all saints?

your goal is to clean dishes,room,obey husband and sexual touchings makes you slave of lust and devil earthly emotions

anyway
why you respond to me-I ask nobody to respond or discuss anything with me

Bible is sealed by Gods Eternal Seal.
there is nothing to discuss or spread how you are day by day busy reading Bible,
I don't care at all,
what you are doing with Bible,if you read or not,it is your buisness not my?

If I read Bible,it is my personal business,not yours,

to know bible is also to know 2 Cor.6;14-17. 1 Cor 5'9. 1 John 1;6

also start read and use in your daily life,

Now I see that you are big"lawyer and deffendant and cyber friend of worst possible posters

this way you are not my friend,nor any sister in Christ

and Eph 2;20-21......doesn't apply to you

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599206 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
i see nothing provocative in the title Ancient Gospels.
Weren't the canonical gospels ancient, silly?
You seem to have a fetish with calling me silly

You don't see guys call other guys silly a whole lot. At least I don't. Maybe we travel in different circles

And its not so much the name but the subject matter behind the name/ You really need a road map?

Secret gospel, hidden gospel, ancient gospel, other gospel

All of it is met to say "ooh, a gospel nobody knew about. For $40 a paperback you can find out all about it."

And even though most the book has nothing to do with it, this subject is the most likely to get people to buy it so it will be named after it. And of course this subject only sells if its true."

But, no possibility for bias there right?

“Romans 8:1.”

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#599207 Oct 7, 2013
Oops!!!

Moss just went deep for the A's. Oakland 4 Detroit 3 with 1 out in the top of the 5th.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599208 Oct 7, 2013
Roger Viklund wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most Ancient Christian documents, it’s almost impossible to prove its authenticity. It is always a matter of weighing probabilities. I would never at this stage claim that is would be proven that Secret Mark is genuine (whatever one means by that). But it is incorrect though to say that any strong arguments have been presented for its inauthenticity. There simply are no such strong arguments – which does not mean that it still could not be a forgery. But naming certain scholars opinions are beside the point. It is also beside the point to judge the letter and the gospel by Morton Smith’s own theories or by modern scholars (mis)interpretation of the gospel.
That is fair enough

So you definitely wouldn't write a book and title it the "secret gospel of Mark" and try to make money off of claiming it is true then naturally

I have no problem with saying it hasn't been proved or disproved. Although I think without proof, the assumption has to be it isn't valid until proven otherwise. But i agree it hasn't been proved to be invalid either. Although many scholars think it is not

Very reasonable response

Thank you

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min scaritual 878,413
Ruthlessly GREEDY New Yorkers earned 9-11 19 min Knock off purse s... 7
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 26 min WasteWater 272,853
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 31 min WasteWater 8,001
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 37 min RoSesz 603,240
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr BenAdam 3,821
Weeniez, testicals, panites, dresses, make-up..... 2 hr BenAdam 6
More from around the web