“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

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#422028 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well if you see him or her, send 'em on over. We'd love to meet one.
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>I have done my research, and I am satisfied that I will have the truth more often than not.
I should think so, seeing as how Truth is subjective and relative and all.

Facts, however, are not....

So far, in skimming the past couple of days, I see that you have joined pseudo-Matthew in mistaking Zachariah's one colt for two, altho' you balk at trying to place Jesus on both of them as Matt does. And you have rationalized Jesus' failed "prophecy" as vaguely asserting that it was a platform or some such nonsense. "No stone upon another" - Prophecy fail. But let's don't be too harsh with Jesus, since the anonymous author obviously placed the words in his mouth post-calamity.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#422029 Nov 23, 2012
oops! Sorry to get in the middle, but...good stuff;)

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422030 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.
These are beliefs. They are truths for those who believe and nothing else.

If these beliefs help you and comfort you, then I'm happy for you. But please don't try to make your beliefs 'truths' to anyone outside your religion until you can provide proof outside the Bible and concurrent with the life of Jesus.

If you need a crutch to walk alone (make you a better person) then by all means use it.

I beg to differ with you on your last comment. All religions are based on emotion and ego. You are out to save yourself from something you think is wrong with you. You wish others to admit there is something wrong with them for your emotional and egoistic comfort. When they don't, you get upset. You talk about people seeing things in the correct way, but when you are challenged by other Christians who think your way is incorrect, you all come unglued.

Faith needs no proof. It is 'truth' to say something is 'truth' to anyone but you unless you do have proof. I personally took many years to come to my own set of beliefs and understanding. I am not searching for religious truth from you or anyone else. It is you who is looking for confirmation by declaring your beliefs to be 'truth'.

I know you don't see it in this way. You think you have all the answers as to how someone 'should' believe. You give no credit to God in allowing others to find him outside your parameters you have set up for yourself. You cannot set those parameters for anyone else, much less God.

It always comes down to this: If someone doesn't believe as you do, they are looking at it in the wrong way.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422031 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I am truly sorry you were injured in such a way.

If you are claiming to be 'writing' history where the Bible is concerned, you have a long way to go. Apologetics is not history. Please try to remember that and use actual historical sources instead of people who change the Bible in order to make it more palatable. Ezra was never Esdras. It was always Ezra. It contained what is now in your Bible as Nehemiah. That was always there. If you compare old copies of Ezra to the modern copies of Ezra and Nehemiah, they will match.

You can give me any sites you wish to show me where you get your information. Unlike many here, I will not dismiss them out of hand as many here do. I will look at them. But I can tell you now unless you provide information from reputable historians for historical facts, I will check other places and dismiss them if they are not confirmed by other historians.

You tell me that books of the Bible had their names changed and then when I prove to you that they are not the same books, you tell me I am looking at it in the wrong way. Those books are nothing alike and therefore it cannot be said that it's just a case of renaming them. If they were renamed, as was Ezra and Nehemiah when they were separated, they would match (just as they do before and after they were separated). They would not be a completely different narrative. But give me your source and I'll look at it.

My injuries were not caused by such a heroic effort. I was just hit by someone who couldn't see the back of my car in an oncoming hurricane. But I do know about severe injuries. Those injuries have not caused me, however, to say that what I believe is truth for everyone else, nor does it cause me to make analogies of my beliefs from the source of my injuries and compare them to someone who was injured in a way much more noble.

I suggest if you are going to use an analogy, you find one that is appropriate. No matter your past, you still cannot claim to relate to NYFD while sitting at the computer presenting your version of your sect of your religion.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#422032 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You say potato, I say potatoe.
That's Mr. Potato.

My friends call me Chip.

Wanna get baked?

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422033 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.
To which early church fathers do you refer. And why do you disagree with Romans being banned? I'd like a personal answer from your own thinking, since you said you have given it so much thought.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422034 Nov 23, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
True AnnieJ, but are you talking about testimony in a criminal court case where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard, or in relation to history where there is a little more latitude? I do mean a little. History is not held to the same standard as a criminal court case is. Doing so would be unrealistic. Also, getting back to the subject of ethnocentrism, in today's modern media where everything is on film or audio, we are more skeptical of eye-witness accounts from antiquity. We have become cynical unless we can see it for ourselves.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422035 Nov 23, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Also, people disagreeing with him doesn't mean he is correct as he assumes that is the reason for people disagreeing with him by his statement.

I would also say that Resurrectionist thinks he is more knowledgeable about the Bible and its history than anyone else here. but people who have studied actual history and the Bible itself and do not use apologetics as an answer, but use their own knowledge seem to me to be more learned to me. But that's just an opinion.

And yes, almost every Christian comes here thinking they will make their case and everyone will just be in utter awe of them and agree with them. I can't imagine having an ego large enough to think that everyone will just believe what I tell them just because it's me doing the typing.

I agree with you that true knowledge is how to apply that which you have learned in the here and now. True spiritual knowledge is not a sermon. It's a whisper.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422036 Nov 23, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
oops! Sorry to get in the middle, but...good stuff;)
Never fear. This here be an open forum, which means everyone can jump in. Your posts are always welcome by some of us, indeed, wanted.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#422037 Nov 23, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> To which early church fathers do you refer. And why do you disagree with Romans being banned? I'd like a personal answer from your own thinking, since you said you have given it so much thought.
I don't agree with Romans being banned. I think it belongs in the Bible. Perhaps I'm not presenting my thoughts clearly?

Okay, let's focus on strictly the NT. For right now, forget the rest of the Bible. We can come back to it after we get this ironed out. I get the sense that you're truly interested in my views (rather than just ridicule which tends to get a bit out of hand here, including myself among the guilty.)

Everything that is currently in the NT, regardless of whether the Synod of Laodicea endorsed it or not, is what I agree with, but not just because they voted and said so. Also, more specifically, I wish to keep my arguments focused on the 4 canonical gospels, and the book of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke. I don't mind discussing the rest at a later date. If this is agreeable to you, we'll leave it open for discussion. I'm not going to cut and run. If I don't answer right away, please don't assume that I won't answer at all. I will treat you with the same respect. I can wait.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422038 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True AnnieJ, but are you talking about testimony in a criminal court case where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard, or in relation to history where there is a little more latitude? I do mean a little. History is not held to the same standard as a criminal court case is. Doing so would be unrealistic. Also, getting back to the subject of ethnocentrism, in today's modern media where everything is on film or audio, we are more skeptical of eye-witness accounts from antiquity. We have become cynical unless we can see it for ourselves.
So are you saying that because there was no ABC news back then that eye witness testimonies were more accurate? I don't understand the comment here about 'ethnocentrism'. What does that have to do with eye witness testimony? There is certainly some of that going on around here, and it mostly isn't the non-Christians. Do you think that the Jews or the Romans were exempt in this manner?

Is this some new tack on the Christian pathway to change? To claim, as you have done 3 or 4 times now that the reason others disagree with you here is due to ethnocentrism is rather odd in the light of the fact that you exhibit the appearance of thinking yourself superior to those who don't believe as you do because of your 'culture' of Christianity. I'd say that using the word in the manner you do shows that you don't take into account the number of us who have looked at things from the Jewish point of view when studying. In fact, we have used the Jewish studies of the OT as they are the authors of those works. So ethnocentrism may apply to you more than it does to others here.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422039 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume insanity, we can fix insanity.
The will just refuse to take their Haldol.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422040 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
The originals were changed.....
True. The Christian Church has been rewriting the OT fo rthe last 1700 years.

The Hebrew origianls have been unchanged for over 2000 years and we have the proof in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Do you follow the OT or the Hebrew Scriptures like Jesus ?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422041 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
The will just refuse to take their Haldol.
We have institutions for those kind of crazies.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422042 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with Romans being banned. I think it belongs in the Bible. Perhaps I'm not presenting my thoughts clearly?
Okay, let's focus on strictly the NT. For right now, forget the rest of the Bible. We can come back to it after we get this ironed out. I get the sense that you're truly interested in my views (rather than just ridicule which tends to get a bit out of hand here, including myself among the guilty.)
Everything that is currently in the NT, regardless of whether the Synod of Laodicea endorsed it or not, is what I agree with, but not just because they voted and said so. Also, more specifically, I wish to keep my arguments focused on the 4 canonical gospels, and the book of Acts, which is a continuation of Luke. I don't mind discussing the rest at a later date. If this is agreeable to you, we'll leave it open for discussion. I'm not going to cut and run. If I don't answer right away, please don't assume that I won't answer at all. I will treat you with the same respect. I can wait.
Maybe you should go back and read my post again. I didn't ask you why you agreed with it being banned. I asked you why you disagreed.

Quote:
And why do you disagree with Romans being banned?

I'm sorry. You don't get to decide what questions I ask you. I'm sure you would rather discuss the gospels in the Bible. That's what most people are comfortable with. But I'm not here for your comfort.

You made a statement. I challenged it. That's the way things work on Topix. If you don't ever want to be challenged, then you should never type anything. Because no matter who you are, you are going to be challenged if you come as a Christian to a thread entitled 'Why I'm no longer a Christian' and start trying to prove to us that you have the 'truth', the only truth, and nothing but the truth.

We do not have faith that your 'truth' comes from fact. Therefore, it will be challenged.

If I were not interested in your views, I wouldn't hold a civil conversation with you. Period. But just because I am interested in your views does not mean that I will agree with them. If you're good with that, fine.

Your religious beliefs are just right for you and where you are in this life. Mine are just right for me and where I am in my life. I think you've probably had a really hard time coming to the point you are. You seem to be searching for something that tells you that no matter what, you are the good person you think you are. I would not argue that. But I would say it's not my idea of the reason one should search for answers to religion. I think you have to feel good about who you are and wonder why others in your religion think you're not. If you know you're a good person, then it's probably them, not you, who is in error.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422043 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>...I agree with every book that the Laodicean Synod approved of that is currently in the 66 book Protestant Bible....
So you agree with the books selected in 1650 from the ones selected 350 AND accept the ones rejected in 325 but were accepted in 1650 but NOT the ones selected 325 that were rejected in 1650.....based on absolutely no criteria at all.

<face palm>

So, is Romans in or out ?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#422044 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
True AnnieJ, but are you talking about testimony in a criminal court case where "beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard, or in relation to history where there is a little more latitude? I do mean a little. History is not held to the same standard as a criminal court case is. Doing so would be unrealistic. Also, getting back to the subject of ethnocentrism, in today's modern media where everything is on film or audio, we are more skeptical of eye-witness accounts from antiquity. We have become cynical unless we can see it for ourselves.
It is either verifiable or it is not verifiable.
I will prefer the verifiable to make conclusion.
All else is hearsay, and is useless banter.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#422045 Nov 23, 2012
Sorry for the double post. I am having problems with my mouse. It doubles or triples everything on which I click, like 'post comment'. ARGH!

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Tony17 560,584
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min It aint necessari... 778,840
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 47 min onemale 265,482
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 58 min Swedenforever 96
My wife want mee to peeing her mouth every time... 1 hr vicky9669 2
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 1 hr Mandela 37,845
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Peace_Warrior 605,359
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 21 hr risque 137
More from around the web