Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599277 Oct 7, 2013
Sorry to not replying to some posts

For whatever reason my phone doesn't show all of them and I will scroll back and see posts that weren't there before and the conversation already passed it

Will check in later

(T) Peace

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#599278 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it BYOP?
Bring Your Own Pickles
I thin the safe side I will shower at home first. Then not go at all because I am an adult male who doesn't engage in slumber-parties with other guys
That may seem weird to a guy who bathes with them but I can only speak for me
Although it would seem one of their slumber-party games will be 'Finding typo'. I am sure they will have fun
:)
That wasn't a typo, Einstein.

It was ignorance, pure and simple.

And you repeated the error several times.

Conscience: The aptitude, or judgment, that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.

Conscious: Awake and able to understand what is happening around you.

You're welcome.

Now get it right next time, O.K.?
Roger Viklund

Umeå, Sweden

#599279 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry about that
I assumed you had seen the post
Below is the post that shows 6 authors that wrote about longer Mark and claiming it was valid. Despite it being a very, very small portion of what their book was about overall, 5 of them chose to make it their title
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T0N0LOR...
To me, that was done deliberately as a marketing strategy. And since selling books was the goal and they couldn't do so without the title being true I believe it creates a bias for them to want it to be true
Had they not titled their books off of it and if they had gotten into why they think it is reasonable to think it may very well be valid then it would have been one thing. But instead they just said it is and used that to sell books
To me, not only it creates a bias but its irresponsible given the proper proof have never been done to authenticate the work in question
(T) Peace
Thanks!
But why would you consider these books to be of a marketing strategy? Why then no every other book on the origin of Christianity?
None of those books are that kind of books, i.e. sensational book. If you want to add to that list of scholars who think Secret Mark is genuine (Ron Cameron, Marvin Meyer, Scott G Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Helmut Koester and Thomas Talley), there is what I can remember offhand also James D. Tabor, Allan J. Pantuck, Jeff Jay, John Dart, Eckhard Rau, Charles W. Hedrick, Guy G. Stroumsa, Hershel Shanks, Tony Burke and Timo Paananen. I might have forgotten a few and also myself think it is genuine. I think it’s sort of a “dead race” between those who is for and against authenticity among those who have published on the subject. Not that it matters …
Bongo

Patchogue, NY

#599280 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it BYOP?
Bring Your Own Pickles
I thin the safe side I will shower at home first. Then not go at all because I am an adult male who doesn't engage in slumber-parties with other guys
That may seem weird to a guy who bathes with them but I can only speak for me
Although it would seem one of their slumber-party games will be 'Finding typo'. I am sure they will have fun
:)
bwhahahaha, oh that catcher , hes a hoot
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#599281 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
So. Are you Roger Viklund,as in this one:
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_Jesus_som_al...
no,he is not Roger Viklund my uncle,moved from Sweden and now residing in Berlin
he is pretender ,and psudo,
you poor empty brainless human species
Roger Viklund

Umeå, Sweden

#599282 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is, Secret Mark -- the Mar Saba Clementine Fragment -- probably is genuine, probably predates canonical Mark, and probably is canonical Mark's ancestor.
I also happen to agree on that. That is IMO the most reasonable conclusion even though it doesn't necessarily have to predate GMark by more than a day.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599283 Oct 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't a typo, Einstein.
It was ignorance, pure and simple.
And you repeated the error several times.
Conscience: The aptitude, or judgment, that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.
Conscious: Awake and able to understand what is happening around you.
You're welcome.
Now get it right next time, O.K.?
Actually on auto-correct it is a typo

Its very hard to type on touch-screens and I pretty much just make an effort to come close and the phone automatically chooses the word and I continue without looking. I also am generally multi-tasking too so I pay even less attention to how the exact wording is showing up.

But dork on you crazy diamond if it makes you happy

:)

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599284 Oct 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That wasn't a typo, Einstein.
It was ignorance, pure and simple.
And you repeated the error several times.
Conscience: The aptitude, or judgment, that assists in distinguishing right from wrong.
Conscious: Awake and able to understand what is happening around you.
You're welcome.
Now get it right next time, O.K.?
Is it right or wrong to willingly take a case defending a known child molester?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599285 Oct 7, 2013
Roger Viklund wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks!
But why would you consider these books to be of a marketing strategy? Why then no every other book on the origin of Christianity?
None of those books are that kind of books, i.e. sensational book. If you want to add to that list of scholars who think Secret Mark is genuine (Ron Cameron, Marvin Meyer, Scott G Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Helmut Koester and Thomas Talley), there is what I can remember offhand also James D. Tabor, Allan J. Pantuck, Jeff Jay, John Dart, Eckhard Rau, Charles W. Hedrick, Guy G. Stroumsa, Hershel Shanks, Tony Burke and Timo Paananen. I might have forgotten a few and also myself think it is genuine. I think it’s sort of a “dead race” between those who is for and against authenticity among those who have published on the subject. Not that it matters …
I don't know the exact numbers either, although from what I have found and just from general statements made it seems like maybe 2:1 against would be more accurate. I have seen statements similar to 'while more and more scholars are finding issues with its authenticity, it would be an exaggeration to say it has been almost universally dismissed"

Things like that

But you rarely see book titles that have little to do with the overall content. And to me, it seems clear the 'hook' in the marketing ploy is clearly a previously undiscovered gospel that may imply Jesus is anywhere from gay to a magician. Its a very controversial issue and they chose it for the title because of that

If the whole book was about i then that would be one thing

Or if the title was for example "The Secret Gospel of Mark?"

...with a question mark

But to title a book and claim it as essentially a fact puts them in a position where they now have to back it up. Nobody wants to title their book on something false. And again, they chose that as the title because it will be more likely to get someone's attention

That tells me that the main motivation is selling as many books as possible

And that's fine I guess

But not when something that hasn't been through the necessary proofs is claimed as fact and made to look like the focal point of the book.

Is that proof of anything? Not necessarily. But I view it with skepticism based on the self-serving reasons someone would have to be biased. Even if not intentionally trying to be. They may have simply made a claim they can't live up to and find themselves seeing things that aren't really there as evidence of its authenticity. Or things they wouldn't have accepted as enough if they didn't need it to be

JMO

(T) Peace
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#599286 Oct 7, 2013
Roger Viklund wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks!
But why would you consider these books to be of a marketing strategy? Why then no every other book on the origin of Christianity?
None of those books are that kind of books, i.e. sensational book. If you want to add to that list of scholars who think Secret Mark is genuine (Ron Cameron, Marvin Meyer, Scott G Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Helmut Koester and Thomas Talley), there is what I can remember offhand also James D. Tabor, Allan J. Pantuck, Jeff Jay, John Dart, Eckhard Rau, Charles W. Hedrick, Guy G. Stroumsa, Hershel Shanks, Tony Burke and Timo Paananen. I might have forgotten a few and also myself think it is genuine. I think it’s sort of a “dead race” between those who is for and against authenticity among those who have published on the subject. Not that it matters …
If none of those posted by you,psudo scholars are not SAVED BY GRACE?ePH 2;8-9
Then none of you have Holy Spirit inspiration to write the truth?
also they are punks,bumms, and simple unsaved idiots like you together with them

2 tim 3;16.......point only to Bible,not books of man or your pseudo scholars
2 peter 1;20.......
clear,plain and loud deny all those idiots calling them false prophets and deceivers?

bumbun bum
post Bible passages not this earthly satan spirit BS made by satan and his children( faken earthly scholars, priests, churches and their worthless sermons?

so?
geh zu Hoehle
Lost In Transition

United States

#599287 Oct 7, 2013
Epiphany2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its called a Golden Shower.....
I'm gonna pretend you didn't know that.
For both our sakes.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#599288 Oct 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it right or wrong to willingly take a case defending a known child molester?
Answer my question first.
Roger Viklund

Umeå, Sweden

#599289 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
But you rarely see book titles that have little to do with the overall content. And to me, it seems clear the 'hook' in the marketing ploy is clearly a previously undiscovered gospel that may imply Jesus is anywhere from gay to a magician. Its a very controversial issue and they chose it for the title because of that
If the whole book was about i then that would be one thing
Or if the title was for example "The Secret Gospel of Mark?"
...with a question mark
But to title a book and claim it as essentially a fact puts them in a position where they now have to back it up. Nobody wants to title their book on something false. And again, they chose that as the title because it will be more likely to get someone's attention
That tells me that the main motivation is selling as many books as possible
And that's fine I guess
But not when something that hasn't been through the necessary proofs is claimed as fact and made to look like the focal point of the book.
Is that proof of anything? Not necessarily. But I view it with skepticism based on the self-serving reasons someone would have to be biased. Even if not intentionally trying to be. They may have simply made a claim they can't live up to and find themselves seeing things that aren't really there as evidence of its authenticity. Or things they wouldn't have accepted as enough if they didn't need it to be
JMO
(T) Peace
It is often the publisher who sets the title
Then what do you think of titles like these ones?

The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark

The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death, and Madness in a Biblical Forgery

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#599290 Oct 7, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it BYOP?
Bring Your Own Pickles
I thin the safe side I will shower at home first. Then not go at all because I am an adult male who doesn't engage in slumber-parties with other guys
That may seem weird to a guy who bathes with them but I can only speak for me
Although it would seem one of their slumber-party games will be 'Finding typo'. I am sure they will have fun
:)
You know you did Skumbelina , you're always talking about it. Just tell catcher how attracted you are to him , and how you love flirting with him in a Why Jesus love me thread.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599291 Oct 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer my question first.
What was the question, "what is luck"?

You really me me to answer that?!

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#599292 Oct 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it right or wrong to willingly take a case defending a known child molester?

Well since he was the pastor of your church....
Lost In Transition

United States

#599293 Oct 7, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him,'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.
-- The Mar Saba Clementine Fragment
Oh my. Looks like Jesus could have been in need of a criminal defense attorney, were pedophilia a crime in the first century.
I buy it.
Anybody that believes that Jesus calmed the seas, or walked on water, should believe this as well. It's just another act in the same play. But just as the first two acts will prove to be a bit deceiving, so will this.
Jesus wouldn't be needing any legal help.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599294 Oct 7, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gonna pretend you didn't know that.
For both our sakes.
LOL

A little piece of my inner-child's innocence died when I read that!

JK!

I actually like to see it. People often mistake nice and kind for naive and fragile

Epi reminds me of my sister a lot. Someone I almost forget understands all aspects of the real world but is so nice all the time I almost forget it.

Anyway, that was not a commentary on your post as that made me laugh. Just used it as a jumping off point as well

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#599295 Oct 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well since he was the pastor of your church....
I don't have a church, therefore no pastor.

You were saying?

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#599296 Oct 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a church, therefore no pastor.
You were saying?
No not you, the other guy.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 9 min Thinking 70,424
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 15 min Internet Reality 45,596
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 19 min Ruby88 53,931
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 21 min Thinking 658,506
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 37 min Poppyann 3,015
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 49 min cuckoldpaul 445,525
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 57 min Hilary 90
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr AussieBobby 282,923
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 hr nanoanomaly 974,676
More from around the web