Comments
398,521 - 398,540 of 440,832 Comments Last updated 9 hrs ago

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422018
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422020
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422021
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422023
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422024
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422025
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422026
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422027
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422028
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

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

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

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422031
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422032
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422033
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422034
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422037
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

419 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min Tide with Beach 721,064
Last Word + 2 2 min Rosie 194
Lori Lewis lives at 4751 Bellm dr #409 5 min Terrie 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 10 min bad bob 172,473
Nine Eleven 11 min andet1987 17
So what happens if the Rams cut Michael Sams??? 11 min Cisco Kid 8
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 13 min Hotel Guest 411
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 25 min Commander Bunny 256,637
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 6 hr guido atheist infidel 115,275
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 8 hr kalei 79
Game of Thrones Ebook Download Free [PDF] (Feb '13) 12 hr Drom Jagter 54
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••