What Your Church Won't Tell You by Da...
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#32610 Aug 4, 2013
Addendum, Saban

Acts confirms that Peter and John were unschooled or illiterate.

If they had been literate, they would have written more long before any gospel appeared.

Under the scrutiny of that statement, it is impossible that John wrote John.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#32611 Aug 4, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Truly.

2 Peter was written in the 2nd century and plagiarizes heavily from Jude, also a 2nd century pseudograph.

Acts describes John and Peter as unschooled. Yet if one does not rely on Acts but accepts the description of Peter in the canonical gospels as common laborer, 1rst century Palestinian laborers rarely received any literary education, let alone education in reading and writing a second language -- Koine Greek.

And so even the apology that Peter used a scribe fails. Peter, a real person, was long dead before the 2nd century and could not have plagiarized a 2nd century Greek text, Jude, even if relying on a scribe.
Good points.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32612 Aug 4, 2013
Gary,

Here's a question I asked you last Tuesday:

Just obeying the gospel as we've been instructed we must do. We wouldn't know about these instructions had it not been for the Spirit and the Word. Right?
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32613 Aug 4, 2013
Gary,

Here's another one from last Tuesday:

Which infant conversion are you going to point me to?
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32614 Aug 4, 2013
Gary, Here's another one from last Tuesday you skipped over:

Jesus said “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, and the son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19,20).

Sounds like "WORK" to me Gary. Do you recommend we ignore this commandment?

Which portion would be considered works and which portions would not be considered works?
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32615 Aug 4, 2013
bmz wrote:
Addendum, Saban
Acts confirms that Peter and John were unschooled or illiterate.
If they had been literate, they would have written more long before any gospel appeared.
Under the scrutiny of that statement, it is impossible that John wrote John.
Which verse points to their being illiterate?

Additionally, Peter is the only man of which I am aware ever walked on water. Did he do it all his life? No. With Jesus it was possible.

The same would be true with the books attributed to them. If they were in fact illiterate, we would see even more confirmation that the message is from God working through the Spirit through these men.

This is in fact what the scriptures claim, they are inspired by God.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Singapore

#32616 Aug 4, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Which verse points to their being illiterate?

Additionally, Peter is the only man of which I am aware ever walked on water. Did he do it all his life? No. With Jesus it was possible.
The same would be true with the books attributed to them. If they were in fact illiterate, we would see even more confirmation that the message is from God working through the Spirit through these men.

This is in fact what the scriptures claim, they are inspired by God.
Acts 4:13 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

13 And they saw the steadfastness of Peter and of John, and when it was found that they were men unlettered, and lay men [that there were men without letters, and idiots], they wondered, and they knew them that they were with Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...

I do not believe that Jesus walked on water. Hence, no comments on walking on water.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#32621 Aug 4, 2013
Dr shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
BEFORE YOU start atheistic talk to gary and this topic
at first wipe up your atheistic face,buy airplane ticket to Oakland CA
and visit FR ask for audience with mr old Pal Camping,and request from him, that you want to kiss his a....7 times
you godless poor clown doesn't deserve even to spread one word against this 96 years old criple man sincerely true believer with bunch of human errors past 50 years,
but with more descency, respect and faith,from 1000 atheistic wicked pigs like you
FRENNY,YOU ARE COWARD,CYBER TROLL,
BABLING AND INSULTING OTHERS ONLY ON INTERNET
BECAUSE FACE TO FACE COWARD LIKE YOU NEVER WOULD BE ABLE TO CHALENGE ANY CHRISTIAN AND THEIR GOD
you wander around all day long like skunk on those thereads and insult their faiths,and their day dreams??
You realize there are spellcheckers available for all major browsers, right?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#32622 Aug 4, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Matthew 24:36
New King James Version (NKJV)
No One Knows the Day or Hour
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
Odd that Dary could make that not say what it clearly says -- until Harold proved himself wrong a second time, huh?
Gary

Buffalo, NY

#32623 Aug 4, 2013
Hi Saba:

Again, I am sorry you had a chance to ask a question or two and all your doing is delaying all my questions to you. I fully understand if you ask me a question I will answer it but you will not like the answer so your afraid to even ask me a question Saban, this was your second chance that I asked you to give me a question and thus far still void.

I explained to you that everything you share is only filtered through your churches teaching here on one hand you will say one must be born of the word and the Spirit and on the other hand you like to add water into the mix it will not wash Saban.

You have not moved from the very basic foundation of the nature of salvation this is why you believe that mankind is not born into sin then why does Jesus say to all you must be born again? The reason why is this, we are all born into sin and the word declares we go astray as soon as we are born, Psalm 58:3, you do not know what to do with the many verses I have shared so you just make some lame exuse and say I am not answering your question when the plain fact is, you had many chances when I asked you many times what is your question. The problem Saban is you know you will not like the biblical answer I share with you because it will go against your churches teaching and so what you do to dodge all this you think people don't see through this? You say I am not answering your question your poutting like a little child sad to say Saban. Please what is your question? Again, Saban, you come here with no biblical proof in what your saying below just your opinion this will not help we need the word of God. Your into a works gospel sad to say and going and getting dunked in some water thinking this will save one is nothing but boasting and the word forbids this boasting, Eph. 2:8-9. Thank you. Gary. 1 John 3:13-15
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are going to make me go back and go through all the posts with questions you've skipped over rather than taking the look yourself. I forgot you didn't like "works".
Once again, its not my church, Gary. You should be ashamed!
Once again, I/we don't believe water saves, Gary. These are beginning to be very tired lines and your dishonesty for pounding and pounding those lines after I've said over and over I don't believe it is incredible!
We have no absolute proof those people (the woman at the well/Peter etc.) weren't baptized eventually into Christ. Peter received Holy Spirit baptism and could speak in tongues and perform miracles from that point on. But what you can't seem to understand based on each of your examples is that the church and the entrance into the church through Christ had not happened yet. You OBVIOUSLY are not a workman and cannot rightly divide the Word and you should be ashamed.
I don't boast of baptism. It's simple. Anyone can do it. I boast of Jesus Christ and the work he can do in you and others in baptism.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#32624 Aug 4, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Do elaborate.
I think I already did here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T4VDJE5...

But for further reading:

"2 Peter claims to have been written by Peter. This attribution is almost universally rejected by commentators."
-- 2 Peter and Jude, Jonathan Knight, p. 22.

"Scarly anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous."
-- A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, J. N. D. Kelly, p. 235.

"The final book of the New Testament to be written was probably 2 Peter, a book almost universally recognized by critical scholars to be pseudonymous, not actually written by Simon Peter but one of many Petrine forgeries from the second century."

-- Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 234.
"....the majority of commentators argue that the book is written by someone who is using Peter's name, rather than Peter himself."

-- James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Gerald Bray, Thomas C. Oden, p.xx.
"It is generally admitted that the literary dependence of 2 Peter on Jude rules out apostolic authorship."
-- Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 7, p. 323.

"Second Peter is widely considered a clear example of pseudepigraphy."
-- The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament & Early Christian Literature & Rhetoric, David Edward Aune, p. 354.

"The Petrine authorship of II Peter has been widely denied...."
-- John: Gospel of Belief, Merrill Chapin Tenney, p. 303.

"It is generally held that the document is pseudonymous...."
-- Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, D. N. Freedman, ed., p. 1040.

"The Petrine authorship of 2 Peter has long been disputed, but only since the beginning of this century has the pseudepigraphal character of the work become almost universally recognized."
-- Peter 2: An Account of Research, Richard J. Bauckham, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, v 2.25.5, p. 3719.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32625 Aug 4, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern scholars.
What matters is that the author of Hebrews wrote a few of his own lines, copied and pasted verses from Psalms and other books to give the false impression as if God called Jesus, God, which is not true.
Hmm. Modern scholars.

And we all know no modern scholars disagree with each other. Great point bmz! I suppose I stand corrected by modern scholars.

Jesus quoted scripture too, would modern scholars consider him a plagiarist?

The writer of Hebrews penned an excellent book to attempt to keep the Hebrew brethren from turning back to Judaism. Christianity is better than Judaism in every way and the writer reminds them of this - using much of the OT doctrine of the Law of Moses to point this out. It MUST be quoted in order to do so. It's not plagiarized! I don't care what any of your UNNAMED modern scholars say!
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32626 Aug 4, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Acts 4:13 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
13 And they saw the steadfastness of Peter and of John, and when it was found that they were men unlettered, and lay men [that there were men without letters, and idiots], they wondered, and they knew them that they were with Jesus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
I do not believe that Jesus walked on water. Hence, no comments on walking on water.
So, you believe the verse from Acts that you agree with but you do not agree with verses that tell us Jesus walked on the water.

Perhaps you could share with us which Bible translation is the one with the correct information, according to unnamed "modern scholars", is true. And which should be discarded.

In other words, I don't really see how you can have it both ways, sir.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32627 Aug 4, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
Acts 4:13 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
13 And they saw the steadfastness of Peter and of John, and when it was found that they were men unlettered, and lay men [that there were men without letters, and idiots], they wondered, and they knew them that they were with Jesus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...
I do not believe that Jesus walked on water. Hence, no comments on walking on water.
The men of the Sanhedrin marveled for two reasons. 1. Peter and John spoke so boldly. 2. Peter and John were uneducated men as far as the Rabbinical schools were concerned yet they used the scriptures skillfully.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32628 Aug 4, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
Odd that Dary could make that not say what it clearly says -- until Harold proved himself wrong a second time, huh?
He tries to be skillful at making Acts 2:38 mean exactly the opposite of what it says too.

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#32629 Aug 4, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you believe the verse from Acts that you agree with but you do not agree with verses that tell us Jesus walked on the water.
Perhaps you could share with us which Bible translation is the one with the correct information, according to unnamed "modern scholars", is true. And which should be discarded.
In other words, I don't really see how you can have it both ways, sir.
He did disclose from whence his cite came: WYC.

But for clarity, let's look at all the major translations:

New International Version
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

New Living Translation
The members of the council were amazed when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, for they could see that they were ordinary men with no special training in the Scriptures. They also recognized them as men who had been with Jesus.

English Standard Version
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus.

New American Standard Bible
Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus.

King James Bible
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
When they observed the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed and recognized that they had been with Jesus.

International Standard Version
Now when the Jewish leaders saw the boldness of Peter and John and found out that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and realized that they had been with Jesus.

NET Bible
When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And when they had heard the discourse of Shimeon and of Yohannan, that they spoke it openly, they perceived that they did not know the scrolls and that they were uneducated, and they were amazed at them and recognized them that they had lived with Yeshua.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
After they found out that Peter and John had no education or special training, they were surprised to see how boldly they spoke. They realized that these men had been with Jesus.

King James 2000 Bible
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ordinary men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

American King James Version
Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

American Standard Version
Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now seeing the constancy of Peter and of John, understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered; and they knew them that they had been with Jesus.

Darby Bible Translation
But seeing the boldness of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were unlettered and uninstructed men, they wondered; and they recognised them that they were with Jesus.

Ripped from:

http://biblehub.com/acts/4-13.htm

I had to delete the last few entries to meet Topix's limits on post length.

And by the way, he does not have to believe that; he merely has to point out that it is part of your scripture.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32630 Aug 4, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I already did here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T4VDJE5...
But for further reading:
"2 Peter claims to have been written by Peter. This attribution is almost universally rejected by commentators."
-- 2 Peter and Jude, Jonathan Knight, p. 22.
"Scarly anyone nowadays doubts that 2 Peter is pseudonymous."
-- A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, J. N. D. Kelly, p. 235.
"The final book of the New Testament to be written was probably 2 Peter, a book almost universally recognized by critical scholars to be pseudonymous, not actually written by Simon Peter but one of many Petrine forgeries from the second century."
-- Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 234.
"....the majority of commentators argue that the book is written by someone who is using Peter's name, rather than Peter himself."
-- James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Gerald Bray, Thomas C. Oden, p.xx.
"It is generally admitted that the literary dependence of 2 Peter on Jude rules out apostolic authorship."
-- Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 7, p. 323.
"Second Peter is widely considered a clear example of pseudepigraphy."
-- The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament & Early Christian Literature & Rhetoric, David Edward Aune, p. 354.
"The Petrine authorship of II Peter has been widely denied...."
-- John: Gospel of Belief, Merrill Chapin Tenney, p. 303.
"It is generally held that the document is pseudonymous...."
-- Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, D. N. Freedman, ed., p. 1040.
"The Petrine authorship of 2 Peter has long been disputed, but only since the beginning of this century has the pseudepigraphal character of the work become almost universally recognized."
-- Peter 2: An Account of Research, Richard J. Bauckham, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, v 2.25.5, p. 3719.
The author claims to be Simon Peter to the churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. These were the same churches to whom Peter wrote his first epistle.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#32631 Aug 4, 2013
Saban fan wrote:
<quoted text>
The author claims to be Simon Peter to the churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. These were the same churches to whom Peter wrote his first epistle.
Of course he claimed he was Peter, child. That's what makes it a pseudograph. Had the author written in his own name or anonymously, it would not be a pseudograph, even if later wrongly attributed to Peter.

As it stands, you are relying on a liar's word -- a liar recognized as far back as Origen.
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32632 Aug 4, 2013
Gary wrote:
Hi Saba:
Again, I am sorry you had a chance to ask a question or two and all your doing is delaying all my questions to you. I fully understand if you ask me a question I will answer it but you will not like the answer so your afraid to even ask me a question Saban, this was your second chance that I asked you to give me a question and thus far still void.
I explained to you that everything you share is only filtered through your churches teaching here on one hand you will say one must be born of the word and the Spirit and on the other hand you like to add water into the mix it will not wash Saban.
You have not moved from the very basic foundation of the nature of salvation this is why you believe that mankind is not born into sin then why does Jesus say to all you must be born again? The reason why is this, we are all born into sin and the word declares we go astray as soon as we are born, Psalm 58:3, you do not know what to do with the many verses I have shared so you just make some lame exuse and say I am not answering your question when the plain fact is, you had many chances when I asked you many times what is your question. The problem Saban is you know you will not like the biblical answer I share with you because it will go against your churches teaching and so what you do to dodge all this you think people don't see through this? You say I am not answering your question your poutting like a little child sad to say Saban. Please what is your question? Again, Saban, you come here with no biblical proof in what your saying below just your opinion this will not help we need the word of God. Your into a works gospel sad to say and going and getting dunked in some water thinking this will save one is nothing but boasting and the word forbids this boasting, Eph. 2:8-9. Thank you. Gary. 1 John 3:13-15
<quoted text>
On predictable cue, you respond to my post that includes no questions.

Children ARE born into a world full of sin, you'll never get an argument from me there. But, when they are born THEY are not full of sin. This is where we differ.

So are you saying you don't answer my questions to protect me from the truth you say I do not want to hear? THAT is a new method for avoiding the subjects you don't wish to touch. Ha ha!!!!

Since you are allowing me one question per post, of which you don't answer anyways, I'll strike that last question from this earlier paragraph from the record and ask a new one for this post.

Here goes, Gary.

Don't miss it.

1 Peter 1:22 says "Seeing ye have purified your souls in your obedience to the truth unto unfeigned love of the brethren, love one another from the heart fervently."

I have taught to purify your souls means to have your sins forgiven. According to this verse I would also teach that they did this by obedience to truth. At the time their sins are forgiven (Acts 2:38) they are added to the church (Acts 2:41) and become brethren one with another.

This my question is:

If one is purified by obeying the truth it looks as if the one being purified has followed instructions. What instructions has the purified one followed in order to be purified?
Saban fan

Decatur, AL

#32633 Aug 4, 2013
Gary,
Here's another on you skipped last Tuesday it has 7 questions so it may be WAY to extreme for you to attempt to tackle. If so, just pick any one of the seven questions:

Baptism is necessary to be saved. It is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38), to wash away one's sins (Acts 22:16). It saves (1 Peter 3:21). Belief + baptism = salvation (Mark 16:16), to walk a new life (Rom. 6:4), to put on / come into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). God commands baptism, Gary (Acts 10:47-48) and is authorized by Jesus (Matt. 28:18-20).

We are buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:4). We're buried in baptism / raised up (Col. 2:12). It's a birth (John 3:3-5). We go down into the water (Acts 8: 38-39, Rom. 6:4, John 3:23), a burial / immersion (Rom. 6:3-5) to be raised out of the water to walk in "newness of life".

It washes away our sins (Acts 22:16), get into the body (Gal. 3:26-27), to be added to the Kingdom (John 3:3-5, Acts 2:47), to enter the one body (1 Cor. 12:13), to become a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17), to receive a new life (Rom. 6:4).

If not for remission of sins, then why did Peter answer as he did in Acts 2? And why did the Eunuch request baptism? And why did the Eunuch rejoice afterward in Acts 8? Why did the jailor want to be baptized in Acts 16? Why did Paul hear the instruction "arise and be baptized" in Acts 22? Why did the Romans reflect on their baptism, raised to walk a new life in Rom. 6 and the Galatians know they were sons of God, baptized into Christ in Gal. 3? Why did God (in His inspired Word) connect water and salvation in Acts 22:16, John 3:3-5, 1 Pet. 3.21, and why would Jesus say clearly that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16)?

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 min Name appears on post 612,583
"Hey!!!! Do you think I have an ODD-SHAPED HEAD... 3 min Doctor REALITY 5
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 4 min Is Homosexuality ... 100,657
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min Rosa_Winkel 853,352
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 25 min razz58 2,621
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 33 min Black Marlowe 444,086
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 57 min marge 595,764
More from around the web