Why I’m no longer a Christian

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422008 Nov 23, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Nihil obstat.
6254Ditto.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#422009 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not making it up as I go. It's called looking at the entire picture and not those portions that fit our presuppositions. It's much more than just going to church and repeating what we have heard. It's about investigating and thinking beyond my own presuppositions and narrow ethnocentric experiences.
You are not looking at the whole picture at all.
If you were, you would look back for the last 10,000 years of history, and the origins of your religion and it's beliefs.
You are stuck in a revolving door...one central to the idea that your religion has always existed, and it was the very beginning of all existence, when in fact it was not.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422010 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
1 & 2 Kings were renamed to 1 & 2 Samuel. 3 & 4 Kings were renamed to 1 & 2 Kings. So 3 & 4 Kings are still in the Bible. This is just a matter of name changes. 1 & 2 Esdra were changed to Ezra and Nehemiah. It doesn't change the content at all, and so it doesn't compromise the integrity of the Laodicean Canon. Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant Churches accept 3 & 4 Esdras which are also sometimes mistakenly referred to as 1 & 2 Esdras.
Now let's move on to the debate about Romans. This, I agree is a subject of intense debate in the early church. It is without a doubt the longest of Paul's epistles. I am not sure why the Synod of Laodicea rejected it. I have researched this subject for quite some time and still don't have an answer that is satisfactory. This doesn't mean that it doesn't belong there. It just means that I am undecided about how and why it was rejected at one time in church history, but added later. It is one of my favorite NT books. The same goes for the book of Revelations.
I'm not going to sit here and just spout apologetic rhetoric just for the sake of having an answer. If I don't know something, or furthermore, if I am not convinced of it's truth, I'm not going to sit here and say any differently.
You set the rules of what you accept by saying that it is by the Laodicean criteria.

So let's see. You say III & IV Kings were changed to 1 & 2 Samuel. Let's make the comparison and see if that's true.

III Kings 1: 1-4

1 And now David had grown old, and so chilled with age that there was no warming him by heaping coverlets on his bed; 2 so his attendants asked leave of him to go and find a young maid, who should be brought to the court and cherish him by sleeping in his bosom, to give their royal master warmth. 3 And of all the fair maids in Israel they chose out one, Abisag from Sunam, who was brought into the king’s presence; 4 a fair maid indeed, who now shared the king’s bed and waited on him, yet never did the king mate with her.

1 Samuel 1: 1-4

1 There was a certain man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite[a] from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.

3 Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. 4 Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters.

Nope. That's not a match.

IV Kings 1: 1-4

1 It was after Achab’s death that the Moabites threw off their allegiance to Israel.

2 It went ill with Ochozias; he had a fall from the window of his upper room at Samaria. And he sent messengers to consult Beelzebub, the god they worship at Accaron, whether he might hope to recover from his sickness. 3 But an angel of the Lord bade Elias go to meet these messengers from Samaria on their way, and ask them, Has Israel no God of its own, that you should go and consult Beelzebub, the god of Accaron? 4 Here, then, is the Lord’s message to Ochozias, Never shalt thou leave the bed thou liest on; thou art doomed to die. So Elias went on his errand;

2 Samuel: 1-4

Then Hannah prayed and said:

“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
in the Lord my horn[a] is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.
2 “There is no one holy like the Lord;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.
3 “Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the Lord is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.
4 “The bows of the warriors are broken,
but those who stumbled are armed with strength.

Ooops1 Doesn't seem like IV Kings was changed to 2 Samuel, either.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422011 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>

Now let's move on to the debate about Romans. This, I agree is a subject of intense debate in the early church. It is without a doubt the longest of Paul's epistles. I am not sure why the Synod of Laodicea rejected it. I have researched this subject for quite some time and still don't have an answer that is satisfactory. This doesn't mean that it doesn't belong there. It just means that I am undecided about how and why it was rejected at one time in church history, but added later. It is one of my favorite NT books. The same goes for the book of Revelations.
I'm not going to sit here and just spout apologetic rhetoric just for the sake of having an answer. If I don't know something, or furthermore, if I am not convinced of it's truth, I'm not going to sit here and say any differently.
Your claim that I and II Esdras (not Esdra) was changed to Ezra and Nehemiah. Let's check that out.

1 Esdras: 1-4

1Esdr.1
[1] And Josias held the feast of the passover in Jerusalem unto his Lord, and offered the passover the fourteenth day of the first month;
[2] Having set the priests according to their daily courses, being arrayed in long garments, in the temple of the Lord.
[3] And he spake unto the Levites, the holy ministers of Israel, that they should hallow themselves unto the Lord, to set the holy ark of the Lord in the house that king Solomon the son of David had built:
[4] And said, Ye shall no more bear the ark upon your shoulders: now therefore serve the Lord your God, and minister unto his people Israel, and prepare you after your families and kindreds,

Ezra 1: 1-4

1 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing:

2 “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:

“‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. 3 Any of his people among you may go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem, and may their God be with them. 4 And in any locality where survivors may now be living, the people are to provide them with silver and gold, with goods and livestock, and with freewill offerings for the temple of God in Jerusalem.’”

No match.

2 Esdras: 1-4

1] The second book of the prophet Esdras, the son of Saraias, the son of Azarias, the son of Helchias, the son of Sadamias, the sou of Sadoc, the son of Achitob,
[2] The son of Achias, the son of Phinees, the son of Heli, the son of Amarias, the son of Aziei, the son of Marimoth, the son of And he spake unto the of Borith, the son of Abisei, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar,
[3] The son of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi; which was captive in the land of the Medes, in the reign of Artexerxes king of the Persians.
[4] And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

Jeremiah 1: 1-4

1 The words of Nehemiah son of Hakaliah:

In the month of Kislev in the twentieth year, while I was in the citadel of Susa, 2 Hanani, one of my brothers, came from Judah with some other men, and I questioned them about the Jewish remnant that had survived the exile, and also about Jerusalem.

3 They said to me,“Those who survived the exile and are back in the province are in great trouble and disgrace. The wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been burned with fire.”

4 When I heard these things, I sat down and wept. For some days I mourned and fasted and prayed before the God of heaven.

Still not looking like 'just a name change', is it?

To be continued.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422012 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
...When I say "core truths" I am speaking of the very basic concepts that all Christians believe:...
Except that not all christains believe those "truths".

Jesus was born of a virgin (How doesn't matter)
Nope. Not a core belief but the Muslims agree with you.

Jesus was baptized by His cousin
It is not agreed that John and Jesus were cousins. It is not supported by the NT.

Jesus had a 3 year ministry
Nope. There is disagreement on the time between His baptism and Death.

Jesus was killed by Roman crucifixion
Nope. Most Christians claim He was executed by the Jews. It is also unclear whether he was crucified or hung and also whether he died or survived.

Jesus was resurrected from the dead (again, how doesn't matter)
Nope. The ressurection is not required for belief in a few sects.

Jesus ascended into Heaven (once again, how doesn't matter)
Well, most believe that everyone goes to Heaven so Jesus is no different.

Jesus will return (go ahead, guess what my preemptive comment is)
Wrong again. There are preterist that do not believe in the "end times". Hiwever it is a belief in Judaisn and Islam.

What you are trying to do is claim that your bliefs are the same as 1.5 billion other people. That is 100% untrue.

"Only real Christians" dodge in 3... 2... 1....

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422013 Nov 23, 2012
Sorry, I said Jerimiah instead of Nehemiah in the previous post, but the text is correct.

Ezra was originally one book, containing what was later made into Ezra and Nehemiah. There were no name changes to the book _from_ Esdras.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422014 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
See, they call it "interpretation" and "discernment," we call it, more accurately, "making it up as you go." They do this to suit their own agendas, it's not uncommon.
It is difficult to have a "holier than thou" attitude if one has to admit that all one has in an opinion.

I think that is what annoys me most about all religions. They claim their "beliefs" are "facts".

I find that to be either dishonesty, stupidity or insanity on their part.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422015 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes it more hilarious is that they can't even agree with what they make up so often there are cyber-fights about one tiny difference all the time.
Not to mention over 1000 years of wars killing each other over differences of "interpretation".

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422016 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Minor details don't have any effect on core truths. You might wish they did, but they don't.
Like the "tiny" differences that the majority of Anglican Bishops don't believe in the deity of Jesus or the infallibility of the Bible.

<face palm>

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422017 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not making it up as I go.....
True. The Roman Chruch made up everything you believe over the last 1700 years.

You are only repeating the dogma of the RCC.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422018 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
1 & 2 Kings were renamed to 1 & 2 Samuel. 3 & 4 Kings were renamed to 1 & 2 Kings. So 3 & 4 Kings are still in the Bible. This is just a matter of name changes. 1 & 2 Esdra were changed to Ezra and Nehemiah. It doesn't change the content at all, and so it doesn't compromise the integrity of the Laodicean Canon. Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant Churches accept 3 & 4 Esdras which are also sometimes mistakenly referred to as 1 & 2 Esdras.
Now let's move on to the debate about Romans. This, I agree is a subject of intense debate in the early church. It is without a doubt the longest of Paul's epistles. I am not sure why the Synod of Laodicea rejected it. I have researched this subject for quite some time and still don't have an answer that is satisfactory. This doesn't mean that it doesn't belong there. It just means that I am undecided about how and why it was rejected at one time in church history, but added later. It is one of my favorite NT books. The same goes for the book of Revelations.
I'm not going to sit here and just spout apologetic rhetoric just for the sake of having an answer. If I don't know something, or furthermore, if I am not convinced of it's truth, I'm not going to sit here and say any differently.
As for Romans, I didn't ask you about the debate. You put out the criteria for why you don't use the Gnostic Gospels, and that reason is that they do not qualify under the criteria used by the Laodicean Council. We're not going to go off on a hunt for something else.

Since you accept the Laodicean Council's criteria, then you would have a Bible that contains those books approved by them, and one which does not contain the books banned by them. You brought the yard stick by which this is being measured.

The Revelation of John (not Revelations) was not in the discussion because it was not contested in this conversation.

When you made the statement about the criteria of the Laodicean Council, you didn't bother to mention that you might disagree with them on Romans or anything else.

You also still didn't cover the question about Baruch. But having answered so far with no real clarity of your point, I will just let that one go.

Do you think everyone who doesn't believe as you has never studied anything about the history of the Bible? Do you think we have not (and continue to) do research on things when they are presented?
If so, you are in error.

However, I would like to thank you for answering. When you said you were leaving, I assumed you were just high-tailing it for the same reasons other Christians here leave when questioned. That puts you in a much better light than most here.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422019 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
It is difficult to have a "holier than thou" attitude if one has to admit that all one has in an opinion.
I think that is what annoys me most about all religions. They claim their "beliefs" are "facts".
I find that to be either dishonesty, stupidity or insanity on their part.
I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume insanity, we can fix insanity.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422020 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> You set the rules of what you accept by saying that it is by the Laodicean criteria.
So let's see. You say III & IV Kings were changed to 1 & 2 Samuel. Let's make the comparison and see if that's true.
III Kings 1: 1-4
1 And now David had grown old, and so chilled with age that there was no warming him by heaping coverlets on his bed; 2 so his attendants asked leave of him to go and find a young maid, who should be brought to the court and cherish him by sleeping in his bosom, to give their royal master warmth. 3 And of all the fair maids in Israel they chose out one, Abisag from Sunam, who was brought into the king’s presence; 4 a fair maid indeed, who now shared the king’s bed and waited on him, yet never did the king mate with her.
1 Samuel 1: 1-4
1 There was a certain man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite[a] from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.
3 Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. 4 Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters.
Nope. That's not a match.
IV Kings 1: 1-4
1 It was after Achab’s death that the Moabites threw off their allegiance to Israel.
2 It went ill with Ochozias; he had a fall from the window of his upper room at Samaria. And he sent messengers to consult Beelzebub, the god they worship at Accaron, whether he might hope to recover from his sickness. 3 But an angel of the Lord bade Elias go to meet these messengers from Samaria on their way, and ask them, Has Israel no God of its own, that you should go and consult Beelzebub, the god of Accaron? 4 Here, then, is the Lord’s message to Ochozias, Never shalt thou leave the bed thou liest on; thou art doomed to die. So Elias went on his errand;
2 Samuel: 1-4
Then Hannah prayed and said:
“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
in the Lord my horn[a] is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.
2 “There is no one holy like the Lord;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.
3 “Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the Lord is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.
4 “The bows of the warriors are broken,
but those who stumbled are armed with strength.
Ooops1 Doesn't seem like IV Kings was changed to 2 Samuel, either.
The originals were changed. That you don't want to believe it is not my problem. I haven't cut and ran either. There's a whole lot more than any of you will ever know if you stick with your present presuppositions. Based upon the number of people now attacking my arguments, I'd say I'm doing fairly well.

WN, the comparisons you made in this post are not taking the original name changes into account. I could send you a link that explains it in better detail than I can with the time available to me.(I do have other things to do.) If you're truly interested in it and want to examine it upon it's own merit, I'll be glad to provide it. It basically says the same thing I did even though I see a few shortcomings with my own understanding in light of the material presented on the website.

See? We can both stand to learn something new. Or you can stay stuck where you are in your own presuppositions while I go on to learn new things and actually try to understand them.

Basically, 75% of the time, the evangelical apologist who has personally investigated this beyond the internet is going to be correct in contrast with those who oppose him. I have done my research, and I am satisfied that I will have the truth more often than not.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422021 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> You set the rules of what you accept by saying that it is by the Laodicean criteria.
So let's see. You say III & IV Kings were changed to 1 & 2 Samuel. Let's make the comparison and see if that's true.
III Kings 1: 1-4
1 And now David had grown old, and so chilled with age that there was no warming him by heaping coverlets on his bed; 2 so his attendants asked leave of him to go and find a young maid, who should be brought to the court and cherish him by sleeping in his bosom, to give their royal master warmth. 3 And of all the fair maids in Israel they chose out one, Abisag from Sunam, who was brought into the king’s presence; 4 a fair maid indeed, who now shared the king’s bed and waited on him, yet never did the king mate with her.
1 Samuel 1: 1-4
1 There was a certain man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite[a] from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.
3 Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. 4 Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters.
Nope. That's not a match.
IV Kings 1: 1-4
1 It was after Achab’s death that the Moabites threw off their allegiance to Israel.
2 It went ill with Ochozias; he had a fall from the window of his upper room at Samaria. And he sent messengers to consult Beelzebub, the god they worship at Accaron, whether he might hope to recover from his sickness. 3 But an angel of the Lord bade Elias go to meet these messengers from Samaria on their way, and ask them, Has Israel no God of its own, that you should go and consult Beelzebub, the god of Accaron? 4 Here, then, is the Lord’s message to Ochozias, Never shalt thou leave the bed thou liest on; thou art doomed to die. So Elias went on his errand;
2 Samuel: 1-4
Then Hannah prayed and said:
“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
in the Lord my horn[a] is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.
2 “There is no one holy like the Lord;
there is no one besides you;
there is no Rock like our God.
3 “Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the Lord is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.
4 “The bows of the warriors are broken,
but those who stumbled are armed with strength.
Ooops1 Doesn't seem like IV Kings was changed to 2 Samuel, either.
The originals were changed. That you don't want to believe it is not my problem. I haven't cut and ran either. There's a whole lot more than any of you will ever know if you stick with your present presuppositions. Based upon the number of people now attacking my arguments, I'd say I'm doing fairly well.

WN, the comparisons you made in this post are not taking the original name changes into account. I could send you a link that explains it in better detail than I can with the time available to me.(I do have other things to do.) If you're truly interested in it and want to examine it upon it's own merit, I'll be glad to provide it. It basically says the same thing I did even though I see a few shortcomings with my own understanding in light of the material presented on the website.

See? We can both stand to learn something new.

Basically, 75% of the time, I am satisfied that I will have the truth more often than not.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422022 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I know all about fires. Until I was injured as a young man, I was a professional firefighter in a much smaller city than NYC. But that's not the point. The point of that post was to say that I am constantly correcting mistakes that the skeptical raise as objections. My knowledge of world history, church history, languages, and trips to foreign lands and historical sites have provided me with a vast amount of knowledge that trumps what most laypeople know. It does not make me superior to them, but my experiences and my education do provide me with formidable skills with which to defend my own personal faith. It is not my goal to silence you or any other critic. It is my goal to cause you to ask more questions. Not so I can prove what I know, because there is certainly much more to be learned, but so that those who truly seek correct answers may find them. To that end, I am succeeding. If I come across as a "know-it-all," it's only because I have provided you with knowledge that disarms your presuppositions.
First, having been a firefighter anywhere, Kudos.
Secondly, it still does not change the preposterous comparison of an actual person who goes out and risks life and limb to a person sitting behind a computer putting out imaginary fires. This is an insult to all those brave men and women who do fight REAL fires on a daily basis.

You are not seen as a know-it-all. You are seen as someone who THINKS they know it all. There's a difference.

It is proven daily that very few Christians who have ever darkened the door of this hallowed hall knows as much as they think they know. However, I am sure that you, like others, will continue to search for that which confirms your faith, and little to nothing of that which contaminates your preformed ideas.

There are a few, but I don't personally think you are one of them. You have tried very hard to find a church within the Christian community which fits your ideas and hopes of Christianity. That's what every Christian does who is questioning their faith, whether they admit it or not. Been there, done that.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422023 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
However, I would like to thank you for answering. When you said you were leaving, I assumed you were just high-tailing it for the same reasons other Christians here leave when questioned. That puts you in a much better light than most here.
I appreciate your comments. But this is what does bother me. You assumed that I would just run. Why do you think I keep saying you assume too much? I don't run. And if I don't think my answer is correct, I won't even bother saying it is. If I speculate, I'll tell you it's speculation on my part.

And my comment about putting out other fires? I always use that analogy because my own firefighting career was stopped short because I was injured when the floor under me collapsed in a structure fire when I was in my mid twenties. That's why I sit at a desk writing history and trying to become a published author. Having a few hip surgeries will do that to a person.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422024 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
Since you accept the Laodicean Council's criteria, then you would have a Bible that contains those books approved by them, and one which does not contain the books banned by them. You brought the yard stick by which this is being measured.
The Revelation of John (not Revelations) was not in the discussion because it was not contested in this conversation.
When you made the statement about the criteria of the Laodicean Council, you didn't bother to mention that you might disagree with them on Romans or anything else.
Okay I'll grant that you have a point of contention here but only because I was not explicit enough, which is my own fault. I should have clarified my position at the beginning, and will do so now.

I agree with every book that the Laodicean Synod approved of that is currently in the 66 book Protestant Bible.

The reasons are still the same as set forth by the apostlic fathers and early church fathers, and later adopted as canonical by subsequent councils.

The general criteria are that those who wrote the current canonical gospels (and I'm only referring to the gospels plus Acts here; not any epistles or OT books) were eye witnesses to what they wrote, or had interviewed eye witnesses. That's where I stand.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#422025 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
* Based upon the number of people now attacking my arguments, I'd say I'm doing fairly well.
*
Simply because someone doesn't agree with you...questions what you have said...voices their own opinion instead...does not mean that you are getting attacked.

As you stated...this is an opinion site...meaning that what we all say is open for opposition and debate.

Did you expect to come to this site and not hear differences of opinions? Or did you think that you were so much more knowledgeable that everyone here that they would just be silent?

I admit...I am not a student of the history of Christianity so I mainly just read the conversations. I am more into what scripture means as it applies to my life and the mis-use of scripture as a weapon against someone.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#422026 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay I'll grant that you have a point of contention here but only because I was not explicit enough, which is my own fault. I should have clarified my position at the beginning, and will do so now.
I agree with every book that the Laodicean Synod approved of that is currently in the 66 book Protestant Bible.
The reasons are still the same as set forth by the apostlic fathers and early church fathers, and later adopted as canonical by subsequent councils.
The general criteria are that those who wrote the current canonical gospels (and I'm only referring to the gospels plus Acts here; not any epistles or OT books) were eye witnesses to what they wrote, or had interviewed eye witnesses. That's where I stand.
Eye witnesses??? Google "reliability of eyewitnesses" and you will find out just how reliable that they are.

You could have ten people see the same thing and get 10 different accounts of what happened. When these stories are retold there are just too many things that can influence a person on what they "think" they saw.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422027 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not hypocritical. If you truly believe that your answers are correct, then stay where you are. It is okay for us to disagree. You say I have taken the wrong direction, and I say you have. What's the problem? Neither of us can force each other to be correct. I'm not trying to force you to adopt my views. I am pointing out the details that I believe you are incorrect about. I sincerely believe that when somebody stops and is satisfied with agnosticism, or atheism, or gnosticism, they are not getting the whole story. You feel the same about those who are theists. Is this not a public forum for discussion? Aren't we allowed to disagree?
You may think that I am attempting to coerce or force you to think the way I do. How absurd is that? The truth (as I see it) is that I have more answers than you have questions, and the fact that I am confident in the soundness of those answers is bothersome to those who aren't as confident in their own answers. As I told another person here,, it's not that I'm always correct, but that my answers to your questions challenge your own presuppositions in such a way that is sends you all scrambling for more objections, while we stick to the core truths of our faith.
When I say "core truths" I am speaking of the very basic concepts that all Christians believe:
Jesus was born of a virgin (How doesn't matter)
Jesus was baptized by His cousin
Jesus had a 3 year ministry
Jesus was killed by Roman crucifixion
Jesus was resurrected from the dead (again, how doesn't matter)
Jesus ascended into Heaven (once again, how doesn't matter)
Jesus will return (go ahead, guess what my preemptive comment is)
These are the core truths we believe based upon the evidence that is available and recognizable if we set aside our own modern ethnocentric presuppositions. However, doing so requires that we admit to being flawed and needing help to be better than we currently are, which some people just cannot bear to bring upon their own intellect and conscience. It's not academic. It's emotion that drives the need to reject God.
But if you choose to be satisfied with the answers that make you more comfortable, go for it. As for myself, I want to keep searching for new questions and new answers that are grounded in truth, and not my own emotional and egotistical comfort.
Please don't start lying now. I have never said you have taken the wrong direction. Never. I said that it is my belief that you have taken that direction for the wrong reasons and explained those. So don't lie.

There was no prerequisite for Jesus to have been born of a virgin, other than a mistranslation of Jewish scriptures. Secondly, there is no proof the virgin birth of your God having happened any more than there is proof that Krishna, Frigga, Dionysus, Buddha or any of the many other Gods whose religion makes the claim. And many religions made the claim that their savior was born of a virgin before Christians did.

We have no proof outside the Bible that Jesus was baptized at all, much less by whom.

Why do you limit his ministry to 3 years? I know that's all that is in the Bible, but his life from age 12 to age 30 is missing. So you don't know how long his ministry was.

There is no records by the Romans that they killed someone who was, by Biblical tradition, the most influential person of his time. The only mention of it anywhere in history is either non-existent or missing.

There is no more proof that Jesus rose from the dead than did Ra the Sun God, Attis, Adonis, Osirus, Baal or the dozens of others who were claimed to have done so.

There is no evidence of anyone ever having arisen to heaven. In fact, there is no proof that heaven exists and outside of religion, there is no place found that resembles the heaven of the bible or any other holy book.

Jesus, according to his own words and deeds, has already returned. He returned after having being resurrected.

To be continued

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 Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 2 min inbred Genius 2,112
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 3 min Holy Jehowa Witness 33,209
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 184,816
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Holy Jehowa Witness 678,575
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 38 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 118,535
preparing to make slaves of all "human" americans 41 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 8
Play "End of the Word" ..... Part 2 3 hr andet1987 73
More from around the web