“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444562 Feb 13, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.
You are mistaiking "antichrist" in John's Epistles with "The Antichrist" of Christian invention.

A common error among those semi-literate in Proper English <wink>
Lol...

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#444563 Feb 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you pretend to believe "just in case?" That's called lying.
It works on criminals in prison...sort of...

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#444564 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>Watching you two engage in mutual masturbation with three brain cells between you is its own reward.
Your obsession with masturbation is noted... jacking the mac

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444565 Feb 13, 2013
Janitor Of The LORD wrote:
<quoted text>So many talk of the indoctrination to believe in God at a young age. The same can be said for the indoctrination to NOT believe what has not been scientifically proven, recorded, and accepted or cannot be seen or touched by most. Many are taught any such beliefs outside of those known factors is false and only of our imagination. There is no proof that the subconscious cannot be communicated with, particularly by a force powerful enough to create the heavens and earth and all that have lived within it.

Are you not aware of the senses we were given that remain inactive in many? Some of the same senses that animals possess. Why young children are so much perceptive to the outside forces before they are convinced we do not have that ability. Why many animals sense things that cannot be seen or even heard. Those that are blind generally develop those unused senses much more frequently than others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

This is just a scientific link opposed to a spiritual one. The mind is a terrible thing to waste. It has much more possibility then many give it credit for. God created us. He most certainly has a means to communicate when He wishes. "Visions" of many of the prophets and of the book of Rev. comes to mind. I don't think they can be dismissed as mere dreams.
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444566 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>This is the refutation of the Ego Christian, nothing more than assertion and ad hominem fallacies. Your Bible can not be used to prove your Bible. All it does, Ego Christian, is make you look even more foolish. Keep going. It suits you.
Thank you :)

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444567 Feb 13, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>think it over

nothing kills belief as fully as education
Lol...

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444568 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>You believe the whole Bible? Haha. Does that include all the wrong parts and all the contradictions, too? Weird.
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

Since: Mar 10

Trussville, Alabama

#444569 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
So bats are birds then?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#444570 Feb 13, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
It works on criminals in prison...sort of...
Yes, preying on the fears of other animals can easily sell snake oil, that should be the first clue that there's something wrong with religion. ;)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444571 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a question that I've wanted to ask biblical scholars for years.
In ancient apocalyptic literature, a "famous" person of the past is typically identified as the author of the text. This gives the writing both age and authority. I am not aware of a single apocalyptic writing where the author was actually the person to which the writing is attributed, except one.
Why should one consider that ApocJohn would be any different?
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I play one on Topix.

This writer was writing to a large audience -- the churches of Asia Minor.

Assuming his audience would understand who he was and would not confuse him with being the son of Zebedee, then he had to have been well known.

John the Presbyter seems to have fit that bill.

And if George the Sinner and another writer whose name I've forgotten were correct and there was an early tradition that the Apostle John died in Jerusalem before the fall of the temple at the hands of an angry mob, it might have been a given who this John was and his name carried weight.

OK. maybe we should call Ehrman and get the real answer.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444572 Feb 13, 2013
Duststomp wrote:
<quoted text>Which one?
If you're referring to Revelation vs. the Apocryphon of John, the Apocryphon is a 2nd century text written by someone pretending to be the Apostle John.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444573 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)
Sour grapes.

Demonic texts -- that was a hoot.

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444574 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)
Projection.

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444575 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
A Christian that is ignorant about their own Bible.

Big surprise, huh!

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444576 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I play one on Topix.
This writer was writing to a large audience -- the churches of Asia Minor.
Assuming his audience would understand who he was and would not confuse him with being the son of Zebedee, then he had to have been well known.
John the Presbyter seems to have fit that bill.
And if George the Sinner and another writer whose name I've forgotten were correct and there was an early tradition that the Apostle John died in Jerusalem before the fall of the temple at the hands of an angry mob, it might have been a given who this John was and his name carried weight.
OK. maybe we should call Ehrman and get the real answer.
Except that didn't actually answer the question.

Wanna see it a little differently?

Why should the criteria for determining authorship of RevJohn be different than all the other apocalypses who attribute the writings to notable characters from a previous time.

Take Daniel for instance; one of the few books in the Bible that can be comfortably dated to within a couple of years, c. 164. The margin of authorship between the character and the writing is greater, but the idea is the same.

RevJohn is the only apocalypse that I am aware of where some* try to argue that because the author claims to be John (any John), he is considered the actual author.

I think that just like Daniel, RevJohn as pseudepigrapha should be entertained.

Are you familiar with any other ancient apocalypse where the attributed author is considered* the actual author?(*aside from conservative apologists, of course)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444577 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that didn't actually answer the question.
Wanna see it a little differently?
Why should the criteria for determining authorship of RevJohn be different than all the other apocalypses who attribute the writings to notable characters from a previous time.
Take Daniel for instance; one of the few books in the Bible that can be comfortably dated to within a couple of years, c. 164. The margin of authorship between the character and the writing is greater, but the idea is the same.
RevJohn is the only apocalypse that I am aware of where some* try to argue that because the author claims to be John (any John), he is considered the actual author.
I think that just like Daniel, RevJohn as pseudepigrapha should be entertained.
Are you familiar with any other ancient apocalypse where the attributed author is considered* the actual author?(*aside from conservative apologists, of course)
I think I posted something similar not too long ago.

Ehrman in Forged treats the author as legit, if I recall, but does not go into any detail, again that I recall.

In looking at it in light of Ehrman holding that it wasn't pseudepigrapha, I see his point and can construct a case that a well-known John actually wrote it with no fraud intended.

That doesn't make it so. But I think it is possible.

I also don't know that all apocalypses were pseudepigrapha. I'll take your word for it. But comparing Rev. just to other apocalypses may artificially limiting. Why are they different from letters or gospels or other texts when it comes to such material?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444578 Feb 13, 2013
may artificially - may be artificially

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444579 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
Let's see now, texts rejected in the canonization process were demonic just a few posts before, but now that you realize one that was rejected nevertheless is quoted in the canon, it is merely extra-biblical.

And I understand exactly what the Bible is: It is a varying collection of texts written over about a thousand years by many authors -- men who sometime used false names to give their text authority they otherwise would not have carried; men who copied from other men and freely modified what they copied when it suited them, men who sometimes added to existing texts or deleted from them.

The Bible, in its various forms, represents decisions by yet other men about what to include or exclude in their collections of "scripture" written by earlier men, knowing full well that some of the texts they included were bogus.

Origin, who as Tertullian thought highly of Enoch, just as the author of Jude must have too, recognized 2 Peter as a popular fraud. A text ostensibly written by a man who is described in Acts as uneducated, a text that copies wholesale from Jude, and a text that all non-theologically motivated scholars (and many who are theologically motivated) recognize as exactly what Origin thought it was.

Men writing disparate and conflicting thoughts in numerous texts over roughly a thousand years and chosen from other texts with much rancor and disagreement by yet other men, and now argued over by men and women who all think they have the holy spirit guiding them.

That is your Bible.
Wow. That's a really long post.

“The who whating how...”

Since: Dec 12

"...with huh?"

#444580 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
Let's see now, texts rejected in the canonization process were demonic just a few posts before, but now that you realize one that was rejected nevertheless is quoted in the canon, it is merely extra-biblical.

And I understand exactly what the Bible is: It is a varying collection of texts written over about a thousand years by many authors -- men who sometime used false names to give their text authority they otherwise would not have carried; men who copied from other men and freely modified what they copied when it suited them, men who sometimes added to existing texts or deleted from them.

The Bible, in its various forms, represents decisions by yet other men about what to include or exclude in their collections of "scripture" written by earlier men, knowing full well that some of the texts they included were bogus.

Origin, who as Tertullian thought highly of Enoch, just as the author of Jude must have too, recognized 2 Peter as a popular fraud. A text ostensibly written by a man who is described in Acts as uneducated, a text that copies wholesale from Jude, and a text that all non-theologically motivated scholars (and many who are theologically motivated) recognize as exactly what Origin thought it was.

Men writing disparate and conflicting thoughts in numerous texts over roughly a thousand years and chosen from other texts with much rancor and disagreement by yet other men, and now argued over by men and women who all think they have the holy spirit guiding them.

That is your Bible.
Oh and for all your writing and semantics, you still don't seem to know what the Bible is. I'll tell you, it is The Word of God dearest, only words approved by God are in it.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#444581 Feb 13, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously didn't read the entire post. I stated that in both scenarios they will be deficient of either a father or a mother. There can be no denying this fact. But because of money, votes, and vice our no good polititians continue to place children in harms way. Some say this even constitutes as child traficking to place a child into a home where two people forfeited the natural ability to conceive a child and forfeiting the parenting process entirely. There's no way around it except for the fact that this govt is owned and run by the decadent devil himself. And it is. Just ask the Muslims.
But what can be shown is that it doesn't matter. Kids grow up just fine even with same sex couples as parents. In fact, kids with loving and nurturing same sex parents will do FAR better than kids raised by negligent or abusive biological parents.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Wyle E Coyote 809,424
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Robert F 573,968
I'm white but don't like white women? (Jan '10) 17 min Johnny 120
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 17 min trifecta1 608,166
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 34 min An NFL Fan 176,087
Rapid Cash System 47 min avataro 1
This ~ or ~ That? (game) (Dec '12) 1 hr End Times 1,624
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 2 hr Dr_Zorderz 268,865
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 3 hr Prabakaran 5,625
More from around the web