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

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#34911 Apr 11, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>It'll be easier to just say "Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, Apocrypha and Enoch included.
You forgot to include many of these:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34914 Apr 12, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
You forgot to include many of these:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html
No, I didn't. Had I meant to include them, I would have.

I visit a site with many more books than the one you provided, which includes many of the books you provided, too. Apparently, you need to adhere to the doctrines of these books in order to understand 'Elohiym. I, on the other hand, do not. The law and the testimonies, found in the texts of the old covenant, are all that's necessary...as I believe.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#34917 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>.....Does John ever say, in the gospel attributed to him, that he, himself, penned "John"?
<quoted text>Really? 150-years after? According to who? And what does the account of our anointed Savior with the woman caught in adultery have to do with anything?
Well, it's according to me, goofy. And, yes, 150 years after. Oh, it's also according to the two oldest surviving copies of the text attributed to John, which date to around the end of the second century.(Yes, there is the Ryland's Fragment that dates to about 125 AD. But it's merely the size of two or three postage stamps.) Those two earliest copies did not have that pericope. And Tertullian's copy around the same time apparently didn't have chapter 21, since he refers to the end of chapter 20 as the end of the text. And of course the nature of the two chapters indicates that both were intended to be the ending, the original and the added ending.

These *facts* demonstrate that the text falsely attributed to John was in truth written by multiple writers over about a century. A community of writers, not a single individual. And given the finely honed, well crafted primary text, such material does not come from a scribe jotting down an illiterate's musings and then translating them into another language.

Even if you want to believe the text is loosely based on such musings that became oral traditions and then were crafted into a masterful literary piece in another language at a much later date, as faithful critical scholars such as Raymond Brown do (or did in his case, since he's dead), you end up with questionable traditions that were highly embellished and then modified to craft a skillful narrative that was even later edited and appended.

John is not the work of *the* John. It is a work of a community over a long time that may or may not have identified with *the* John.

Sorry for your loss.

Again.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#34918 Apr 12, 2014
A word about Topix.

BLL responded to a post from me.

I replied a couple hours ago with two posts: One about Peter and one regarding John.

Neither was abusive or in appropriate, unless you consider calling someone goofy inappropriate.

One post, the first post,#34916, was deleted.

But worse than being deleted, for me it appears as if it is there, at least when I am logged in.

Only when I returned before re-logging in did I become aware that Topix had 1. suppressed my first post regarding Peter and 2. made it appear to me it was there when logged in.

That really stinks.

Here is an image of that post as it appears when I am logged in:

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

It can be enlarged and read just fine.

How do you spell sewer rats?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34919 Apr 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
A word about Topix.
BLL responded to a post from me.
I replied a couple hours ago with two posts: One about Peter and one regarding John.
Neither was abusive or in appropriate, unless you consider calling someone goofy inappropriate.
One post, the first post,#34916, was deleted.
But worse than being deleted, for me it appears as if it is there, at least when I am logged in.
Only when I returned before re-logging in did I become aware that Topix had 1. suppressed my first post regarding Peter and 2. made it appear to me it was there when logged in.
That really stinks.
Here is an image of that post as it appears when I am logged in:
http://s1057.photobucket.com/user/Chess-Juris...
It can be enlarged and read just fine.
How do you spell sewer rats?
For the record and even though I haven't responded to your last post yet, I didn't get offended by your calling me "goofy," nor did I find it inappropriate. Considering the myriad of terms you could have used had you intended on offending me, I immediately concluded that you used the term in jest.

It's amazing how some of these posts are rated and treated. The posts from the "Maryland" group are always among the most vile and insulting, yet they remain. And they truly believe that by replacing the actual expletive with a first letter and a series of periods makes it acceptable.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34921 Apr 12, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
Well, it's according to me, goofy. And, yes, 150 years after. Oh, it's also according to the two oldest surviving copies of the text attributed to John, which date to around the end of the second century.(Yes, there is the Ryland's Fragment that dates to about 125 AD. But it's merely the size of two or three postage stamps.) Those two earliest copies did not have that pericope. And Tertullian's copy around the same time apparently didn't have chapter 21, since he refers to the end of chapter 20 as the end of the text. And of course the nature of the two chapters indicates that both were intended to be the ending, the original and the added ending.
These *facts* demonstrate that the text falsely attributed to John was in truth written by multiple writers over about a century. A community of writers, not a single individual. And given the finely honed, well crafted primary text, such material does not come from a scribe jotting down an illiterate's musings and then translating them into another language.
Even if you want to believe the text is loosely based on such musings that became oral traditions and then were crafted into a masterful literary piece in another language at a much later date, as faithful critical scholars such as Raymond Brown do (or did in his case, since he's dead), you end up with questionable traditions that were highly embellished and then modified to craft a skillful narrative that was even later edited and appended.
John is not the work of *the* John. It is a work of a community over a long time that may or may not have identified with *the* John.
Sorry for your loss.
Again.
The argument regarding John 21 is an on-going argument, for and against the chapter. The sole reason is because, none of the original texts that became the "New Testament" have survived. But, it's said that "the Nestle-Aland critical text of the New Testament lists no surviving copies of the Gospel that omit this chapter."

As far as I'm concerned, nothing in John 21 contradicts the law and testimony of 'Elohiym, and that' what matters most.
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#34922 Apr 12, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>The argument regarding John 21 is an on-going argument, for and against the chapter. The sole reason is because, none of the original texts that became the "New Testament" have survived. But, it's said that "the Nestle-Aland critical text of the New Testament lists no surviving copies of the Gospel that omit this chapter."
As far as I'm concerned, nothing in John 21 contradicts the law and testimony of 'Elohiym, and that' what matters most.
It's not actually an ongoing debate any more than it is an ongoing debate that the last few verses of Mark were a late addition, presumably to fill in for what seemed an incomplete ending at Mark 16:8. Reasonable folks still debate whether GoMark went unfinished by it primary author, or the ending was lost, or it was intentionally redacted, or the primary author intended to complete his work at 16:8.

Are there folks out their who claim Mark's ending and John 21 are original to the text? Of course. But there is no genuine debate, merely folks who don't want to accept the obvious despite overwhelming evidence or who aren't aware of that evidence. Now as to the claim that "Nestle-Aland critical text of the New Testament lists no surviving copies of the Gospel that omit [chapter 21]," I agree. The two earliest surviving copies are the two I mentioned. Both contain chapter 21. Neither contain The Pericope de Adultera, which is part of John 8, not 21. That is why I mentioned them. It is also why I mentioned Tertullian's copy from around that time, which seems to lack John 21.

But it is not merely Tertullian's citation of John 20 as the ending as the ending of the text, it is the fact that John 20 make a fine ending on its own. And John 21's ending, is very similar. What is not similar is the writing style, the vocabulary, and the theme -- the concern about a generation that, by the time of its writing, had all past without the messiah's return.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#34925 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>For the record and even though I haven't responded to your last post yet, I didn't get offended by your calling me "goofy," nor did I find it inappropriate. Considering the myriad of terms you could have used had you intended on offending me, I immediately concluded that you used the term in jest.
It's amazing how some of these posts are rated and treated. The posts from the "Maryland" group are always among the most vile and insulting, yet they remain. And they truly believe that by replacing the actual expletive with a first letter and a series of periods makes it acceptable.
His Flock wrote:
<quoted text>
Of ALL the people that are banned or posts removed, the most degusting and foul vermin that posts from Baltimore is allowed. I know not another that use this language for years from the same isp that gets away with it. Perhaps we should all report his anal and pornographic posts. Really good people are removed for nothing yet this this bottom-feeder remains. Time to change things so they do not continue to remain the same indefinitely.
Go figure.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34926 Apr 13, 2014
Chess Jurist wrote:
It's not actually an ongoing debate any more than it is an ongoing debate that the last few verses of Mark were a late addition, presumably to fill in for what seemed an incomplete ending at Mark 16:8. Reasonable folks still debate whether GoMark went unfinished by it primary author, or the ending was lost, or it was intentionally redacted, or the primary author intended to complete his work at 16:8.
Are there folks out their who claim Mark's ending and John 21 are original to the text? Of course. But there is no genuine debate, merely folks who don't want to accept the obvious despite overwhelming evidence or who aren't aware of that evidence. Now as to the claim that "Nestle-Aland critical text of the New Testament lists no surviving copies of the Gospel that omit [chapter 21]," I agree. The two earliest surviving copies are the two I mentioned. Both contain chapter 21. Neither contain The Pericope de Adultera, which is part of John 8, not 21. That is why I mentioned them. It is also why I mentioned Tertullian's copy from around that time, which seems to lack John 21.
But it is not merely Tertullian's citation of John 20 as the ending as the ending of the text, it is the fact that John 20 make a fine ending on its own. And John 21's ending, is very similar. What is not similar is the writing style, the vocabulary, and the theme -- the concern about a generation that, by the time of its writing, had all past without the messiah's return.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I've must admit that I don't particularly care for these arguments and debates, had by our scholars, as to the authenticity of the Bible, because for the most part, they're made by scholars whose sole purpose and primary intention is to discredit the Bible altogether and by extension, disprove the existence of "God." Without actual evidence, honorable scholars would agree to disagree and accept all the possibilities before them. In the case of our discussion, not one composition, letter, or what-have-you, of what became the "New Testament" survived, therefore only copies and fragments remain. What's known, for fact, is that these so-called "inclusions" appear today. In that, I have no choice in the matter but to accept the Bible "as is" while applying a most important precept, which I quoted above. I measure all things against the law and testimony of 'Elohiym. If it contradicts, I discard.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#34927 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
I've must admit that I don't particularly care for these arguments and debates, had by our scholars, as to the authenticity of the Bible, because for the most part, they're made by scholars whose sole purpose and primary intention is to discredit the Bible altogether and by extension, disprove the existence of "God." Without actual evidence, honorable scholars would agree to disagree and accept all the possibilities before them. In the case of our discussion, not one composition, letter, or what-have-you, of what became the "New Testament" survived, therefore only copies and fragments remain. What's known, for fact, is that these so-called "inclusions" appear today. In that, I have no choice in the matter but to accept the Bible "as is" while applying a most important precept, which I quoted above. I measure all things against the law and testimony of 'Elohiym. If it contradicts, I discard.
Must be no light in those two earliest manuscript that lack the Pericope Adulterae, eh?

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34928 Apr 13, 2014
Chess wrote:
Must be no light in those two earliest manuscript that lack the Pericope Adulterae, eh?
We're discussing the time when these manuscripts were being written, copied, and distributed, to all the congregations throughout the known world, all the while becoming an underground movement in order to hide from the Juggernaut of juggernauts, Rome.

Perhaps, someone should have invented laminate much sooner. Or, it might had been better if the whole Bible was engraved to stone.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#34929 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>We're discussing the time when these manuscripts were being written, copied, and distributed, to all the congregations throughout the known world, all the while becoming an underground movement in order to hide from the Juggernaut of juggernauts, Rome.
Perhaps, someone should have invented laminate much sooner. Or, it might had been better if the whole Bible was engraved to stone.
Here's the problem. Folks counted on those two manuscripts I mentioned, the oldest surviving manuscripts of John, which lacked the adulteress's tale. They were incomplete by your account. Just as Tertullian counted on a manuscript in which John ended at the last verse of John 20. And folks relied on Mark in its various forms, probably an earlier version with an original ending long ending, versions that ended at 16:8, and 4 significantly different added endings with 9 variances thereto that are known.

And yet your copy, though not supported by the oldest manuscripts, is the right one.

How convenient.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34930 Apr 13, 2014
Chess wrote:
Here's the problem. Folks counted on those two manuscripts I mentioned, the oldest surviving manuscripts of John, which lacked the adulteress's tale. They were incomplete by your account. Just as Tertullian counted on a manuscript in which John ended at the last verse of John 20. And folks relied on Mark in its various forms, probably an earlier version with an original ending long ending, versions that ended at 16:8, and 4 significantly different added endings with 9 variances thereto that are known.
And yet your copy, though not supported by the oldest manuscripts, is the right one.
How convenient.
Sure, if having to defend the Bible all the time is convenient.

The problem, though, is that your doubts are based on the doubts others - of those that might desire for nothing more than to discredit the Bible which, in turn and as they believe, will also disprove the existence of "God" - that are based on the oldest manuscripts and not the originals. As long as the original texts remain lost, then evidence is neither here, nor there. But, these so-called "inclusions" had to have originated somewhere, and they don't contradict the law and testimony of "God."
Chess

Columbus, OH

#34932 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Sure, if having to defend the Bible all the time is convenient.
The problem, though, is that your doubts are based on the doubts others - of those that might desire for nothing more than to discredit the Bible which, in turn and as they believe, will also disprove the existence of "God" - that are based on the oldest manuscripts and not the originals. As long as the original texts remain lost, then evidence is neither here, nor there. But, these so-called "inclusions" had to have originated somewhere, and they don't contradict the law and testimony of "God."
Your version of the Bible, which obviously is not based on the most reliable evidence.

I am not aware of any respected scholar in the field who seeks to disprove god.

No one proves or disproves god by seeking the most reliable texts, how they developed, when and why.

If doing so challenges you notion of god, perhaps you should do some reflection.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34933 Apr 13, 2014
Chess wrote:
Your version of the Bible, which obviously is not based on the most reliable evidence.
I prefer the Hebrew and Greek texts that are made available to us, like the Septuagint, for one.
Chess wrote:
I am not aware of any respected scholar in the field who seeks to disprove god.
Note that I said, "..of those that might desire for nothing more than to discredit the Bible" and blahblahblah. "Might" is the key-word here.
Chess wrote:
No one proves or disproves god by seeking the most reliable texts, how they developed, when and why.
Oh, I know that. That's why I also included "as they believe" in my accusation.
Chess wrote:
If doing so challenges you notion of god, perhaps you should do some reflection.
My belief in 'Elohiym is unwavering.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#34934 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>I prefer the Hebrew and Greek texts that are made available to us, like the Septuagint, for one.
<quoted text>Note that I said, "..of those that might desire for nothing more than to discredit the Bible" and blahblahblah. "Might" is the key-word here.
<quoted text>Oh, I know that. That's why I also included "as they believe" in my accusation.
<quoted text>My belief in 'Elohiym is unwavering.
The Septuagint is a Greek translation, not the closest text.

And relying on the Greek NT requires selecting a Greek compilation, and any such compilation makes choices -- what surviving text most likely reflects the closest thing we have to the original.

And that involves relying on the scholars you decry who compiled it.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#34935 Apr 13, 2014
Chess wrote:
The Septuagint is a Greek translation, not the closest text.
And relying on the Greek NT requires selecting a Greek compilation, and any such compilation makes choices -- what surviving text most likely reflects the closest thing we have to the original.
And that involves relying on the scholars you decry who compiled it.
And this brings us back to Isaiah 8:20 again. Everything is measured against the law and testimony of 'Elohiym.
Chess

Columbus, OH

#34936 Apr 13, 2014
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>And this brings us back to Isaiah 8:20 again. Everything is measured against the law and testimony of 'Elohiym.
In short, you wanna believe what you wanna believe, despite the best evidence and regardless of the thoughts of the best scholars.

I got it.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#34940 Apr 14, 2014
New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
You forgot to include many of these:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>No, I didn't. Had I meant to include them, I would have.
I visit a site with many more books than the one you provided, which includes many of the books you provided, too. Apparently, you need to adhere to the doctrines of these books in order to understand 'Elohiym. I, on the other hand, do not. The law and the testimonies, found in the texts of the old covenant, are all that's necessary...as I believe.
"Apparently, you need to adhere to the doctrines of these books in order to understand 'Elohiym."

- Oh I understand - you have a specific text by "God" that states which texts we are to use.

Please post it - or - you can be honest with me and state you don't have any such text, so what you beleive is of your own choice to believe the way you do - which I might add - is based upon men's decisions.

So, are you going to be truthful or continue to lie to yourself, me and others?

Honesty is all I ever asked, yet you provide much diversion away from it.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

#34949 Apr 18, 2014
Dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
i told you many times?
What is going on with your f....up brain?
why you enter here and spread cheap BS?
we know you are godless seed of Belzebub satan and only dark ditch without of bottom is your eternal place
a. "You told me many times?" You told me what? What you have done is shown others you are an imbecile with no regard for other people's lives or beliefs. You've not only insulted me and every other poster on this and other forums, but you seem to find joy in doing so. Those are characteristics and traits of someone with mental issues. And yet you are still a member of Topix? How can that be? Hmmm....Topix must be tolerant of your feeble mind and continuous insults of others. You are in violation of the Topix ToS. This is why I normally ignore what you say - because you can't seem to find any substance to your posts, and instead think its fun to say the unkind words you do.

Take the lollipop out of your mouth and grow-up.

BTW - You shouldn't have to repeat yourself. If you had anything viable to say, and if you said it once, that would be all that you would need. But it seems you think something you keep repeating to me is some kind of truth. I'm sorry, you are wrong.

b. There is nothing wrong with my brain. Yours, on the other hand, I'm not so sure is right. You should see a psychiatrist for a professional diagnosis.

c. I come here because it is a public forum that allows me to debate a false religion. Nothing I say is BS, otherwise you would have proven it wrong a long time ago, in which you haven't. Instead you think threats of your personal hygiene and lifestyle is all you can afford.

You've failed. Own it.

"we know you are godless seed of Belzebub satan and only dark ditch without of bottom is your eternal place."
- Your threats have no bearing to me or anyone. Any sane person will realize that you are delusional, a fraud, and a liar. My parents had nothing to do with what you think exists outside your mind. AND when I die, I'm going to be standing next to Jesus and waiting for you to arrive, just to make sure you don't get into "heaven".

In fact, I'm going to recommend to him, that you stay a human for a little bit longer.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr PadMark 673,073
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Sky Writer 31 184,617
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Chris Rather 104,609
Obama Pays Muslim Brotherhood Yearly Membership... 5 hr Chris Rather 2
Do women think men with blue eyes are more attr... (Dec '08) 6 hr Chris Rather 98
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 6 hr Rider on the Storm 4,049
News Michael Jackson's doctor: 'I told the truth' (Aug '09) 7 hr Holy Child Jehova... 395
Lido Theater, Dallas (Mar '12) 7 hr blkguylooking 471
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 hr Holy Child Jehova... 981,223
More from around the web