Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422000 Nov 23, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
You are being presumptuous that ALL Christians stick to those "core" beliefs.
You are also being presumptuous that all non-Christians do not stick with their "core" beliefs.
It's not presumptuous at all. If you're a Christian, this is what you believe at the very basic level. Yes there are theological debates regarding other subjects, but these core beliefs are not disputed by those who truly understand Christianity and refer to themselves as Christians.

I'll put it another way:

If your core beliefs do not include all of these, then you're not Christian.

Atheists do stick with their core beliefs. I didn't say they didn't. I said atheists and those who adamantly reject God are pushed to further and further lengths to "prove" their case. We stick to Tacitus and Josephus. We stick to the canonical gospels. It's not because we don't think, but that these are true and consistent with the available evidence. If I really was bent upon "proving" something for my own satisfaction, why would I stick to sources that atheists deny as having evidential value? I stick to Tacitus because Tacitus has historical truth. I stick to the canonical gospels because there is historical truth to it. It's just that simple.

Why complicate it?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422001 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.
Minor details don't have any effect on core truths. You might wish they did, but they don't.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422003 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'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.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422004 Nov 23, 2012
love_spell wrote:
<quoted text>
i mostly ignore your posts. you are a childish idiot and argueing with a childish idiot is like talking to a brick wall. only the brick wall has more intelligent things to say, than you.....
my vision of you is a child who stomps their foot and gives raspberries when an adult won't give into their demands.......
however to compare your delusional rantings to those of a NYC firefighter has got to be the biggest delusion of yours yet!!!!!!!
mainly because the fires these brave heros fight..........ARE REAL!!!!!!!!!!
To compare sitting at a computer putting out imaginary fires to that of an actual firefighter is disgusting.

How is he putting his life in danger in order to put out these imaginary fires? Does his partner live in fear every time he's on the computer putting out these imaginary fires? Where is the hard work, sweat and tears in sitting at a computer building your own ego?

It's very near disgusting.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422005 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.
What "core truths?" None of you can agree on any of your mythology, and when one of you actually says something intelligent you call them crazy.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422006 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 say potato, I say potatoe.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422007 Nov 23, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I saw where he said that.
And thought, "Poor lil' fella. He don't know her vewy well, do he?"
ROFL
WEll, he's leaving to put out imaginary fires on another Topix thread. I did not expect him to stay and answer to his own claim. But I am a little disappointed that he cut and ran.

“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.

“Love much, trust none”

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.

“Love much, trust none”

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.

“Love much, trust none”

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".

“Love much, trust none”

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>

“Love much, trust none”

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.

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
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 3 min Ruby88 53,323
sex (May '13) 30 min aby jogja istimewa 111
gay bottom in gurgaon (May '14) 32 min raju 10
Poll have you been completely naked when your home a... 38 min girls united states 19
Any girls wanna sex Skype? (Jan '13) 49 min girls united states 92
Poll have you ever been completely naked in public o... 57 min girls united states 10
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 1,931
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr bacon hater 816,921
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr bacon hater 97,948
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 hr RiccardoFire 39,937
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Rosa_Winkel 609,713
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr oxbow 578,539
More from around the web