“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!

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#422046 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have institutions for those kind of crazies.
HA! If one does it under the guise of religionism it is accepted. If one does it as a secular citizen he/she is recommended for psychiatric treatment or institutional incarceration.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#422047 Nov 23, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! If one does it under the guise of religionism it is accepted. If one does it as a secular citizen he/she is recommended for psychiatric treatment or institutional incarceration.
That is the hypocrisy of religious and the mob rule we still adhere to.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#422048 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.
When you call a book God's inspired word...when you tell people that they need to believe...when you tell them their fate is burning in hell...don't you think that it should be "beyond reasonable doubt"?

How many times were these eye witness accounts repeated before being written down? Did the author remember them exactly as how they were related or did they add filler? Through all of the rewrites did these stories stay the same or were they tweaked to be make more sense or fit the authors opinion?

If you choose to place your fate in the hands of eye witness accounts...okay.

Truth of the matter is...you have no more proof that your faith is any more accurate than mine...nor do I have any proof concerning my faith.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422049 Nov 23, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree with Romans being banned....
But you just said you agree with the Lacedocian "criteria".

Now you are saying their methods and decissions were wrong.

Please make up your mind.

Luther wanted Revelation removed.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422050 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have institutions for those kind of crazies.
We used to. It was too expensive and most of them were/are shut down, begining in the 70's.

If they aren't suicide or homicide threats then they are turned away.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#422051 Nov 23, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
HA! If one does it under the guise of religionism it is accepted. If one does it as a secular citizen he/she is recommended for psychiatric treatment or institutional incarceration.
Yep.

Believe in zombies and vampires you are a lunatic.
Believe in a zombie god-man then drink his blood and eat his flesh every Sunday and you are a fine Christian.

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#422052 Nov 23, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
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 ?
Romans go home!

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
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 min onemale 267,466
Is Wicca a religion or an Occult? 38 min Stuart Cudahy 21
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 42 min Hidingfromyou 795,616
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 46 min mike 607,215
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 48 min Tony17 568,294
I live with my cousin, we had sex and we loved it. 1 hr this is my first ... 4
Scientific proof for God's existence 3 hr BenAdam 589
More from around the web