Send a Message
to Van

Comments

71

Joined

Jun 28, 2007

Van Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=M7ShF 1zbMeI For probability of life on other planets I recommned listening to Dr. Michio Kaku on youtube  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3148)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Why Bother? Although we have only been able to discuss a few of the problems faced by persons wanting to believe in the Bible, it should be obvious that the problems are insurmountable. When the ballots were cast at the great ecclesiastical councils which settled the canon, what assurance do we have that Jahweh wasn't off somewhere counting fallen sparrows instead of counting ballots before they were cast — and seeing to it that the right bishops got the poison? What assurance do we have that the forger who slipped the Trinity into Erasmus' third edition did his forging under the inspiration of a triune contradiction in arithmetic? What assurance do we have that the people who write the dictionaries of biblical Greek and Hebrew know what definitions to put into them? How will we know if we are reading about chick-peas or dove's dung? It is clearly futile to try to find the Bible in which to believe, and from which to obtain "truth." So why bother to try? The quest for absolute truth is childish, a holdover from a prescientific period of cultural evolution. Although the "truths" of science are not absolute, they do nicely in a pinch. And as for salvation, the track record of penicillin isn't too bad — even if it can cause hives! everything I posted a few minutes ago is from http://www.atheist s.org/christianity /realbible.html once again for quickdraw more like SLOW DRAW OR ADD DRAW  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3147)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

#3135 for your information I clearly gave the link so now I am to quote everything for your sake??  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3146)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Gosh your an idiot I alrady posted the source of all this information on a previous post I am only posting their words to this blog because their are many folks who are lazy to go to that site  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3145)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Suspecting a fraud, but unable to prove it, Erasmus added the verse, to later editions of his Bible, the book destined to become the Textus Receptus — the book from which the King James translators would derive the "authorized " English version of 1611. Tough luck for the Trinity, Erasmus' intuition was correct. To this day no Greek MS older than the fifteenth to sixteenth century has ever been found to contain the passage. It is now known that the verse was a fourth-century Spanish invention, finally appearing in MSS of the Latin Vulgate (the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church) around the year 800. The discovery that the oldest Bibles omit 1 John 5:7 leaves Christians without biblical "proof of the Trinity". While there are still other verses that are compatible with trinitarian doctrine, none are proof of it. Unless Christian apologists consider the Trinity trivial, they must admit that the differences in MSS are important! The magnitude of the differences between different MSS of the same book can be astonishing. One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jeremiah scroll 4QJer-b is one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic text of Jeremiah! Even in ancient times wild differences in MSS of individual books existed. The Church Father Irenaeus tells us that the MSS of Matthew's gospel used ca. A.D. 185 by the Ebionites (the original Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) lacked the first two chapters — the chapters containing the imaginary genealogy of Jesus, the - virgin birth story, the wise men, and Herod's slaughter of the innocents. Small wonder that the earliest Christians did not believe the story about Mary and the angel!  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3144)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Which Manuscripts? Even if we pretended that we could somehow know for certain that the Gospel of Matthew, say, is truly inspired and, thus, a legitimate book to be included in the canon, how could we tell if any one of the many extant MSS of Matthew contains the correct, inspired wording? Most true believers know nothing at all about this problem, because it is a well kept secret among Bible scholars that no two MSS of Matthew — or any other biblical book — are exactly alike. Worse yet, for each book there exist different families of MS types, often of approximately equal antiquity, but differing from each other in characteristic ways. To try to keep track of all the different wordings in Matthew and other books of the Bible, scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament contain a so-called apparatus criticus, a complicated system of footnotes indicating the major variant readings for each passage in the "preferred text" [see Figs. 1 and 3]. Concerning the preferred text of the Greek Bible, readers may wonder just who decides — and how — what the preferred readings should be? Space does not permit a discussion of the scientific (and sometimes very un-scientific) principles involved. We can only observe that it is both laughable and sad to see the more intelligent fundamentalists diligently learning Greek in order to "read God's word in the original tongue." Little do they suspect, while staring at the nearly footnote-free pages of their Westcott-Hort Greek testaments, the thousands of scientific and not-so-scientific decisions underlying what they see — or don't see — on each page. Bible apologists try to wave away the hundreds of thousands of variant readings in the extant MSS by saying that the differences are trivial and do not affect passages essential for Christian doctrine. "Merely spelling differences," they say. The falseness of this assertion can be seen not only in the examples given in Figs. 1-3 (variations affecting the doctrine of the virgin birth, as well as the doctrine that true disciples can drink poison and caress cobras), but also in passages striking at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. When Erasmus of Rotterdam published Europe's first Greek New Testament in 1516 he omitted the Trinitarian proof-text, 1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Needless to say, Erasmus was stoutly criticized for the omission. He defended himself by declaring that he would have included the verse (well-known in the Latin Bible) had he been able to find a single Greek MS that contained it. Soon thereafter Erasmus was presented a Greek Bible containing the verse!  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3143)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Poison was not the only way to decide questions of theology. At the "Ecumenical " Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), St. Cyril, the Pope of Alexandria, bribed enough bishops to be able to convene the Council before the arrival of the Patriarch of Antioch, whose opposition he feared. Without opposition from the delegation from Antioch it was a simple matter to condemn one Nestorius as a heretic, and to proclaim the Virgin Mary to be theotokos, or "mother of god." At the Second Synod of Ephesus (A.D. 449), Dioscoros, the Pope of Alexandria (Cyril's successor), condemned Flavian, the Pope of Constantinople, and then kicked his rival in Christ so severely that he died three days later. Summoning a mob of monks and soldiers wielding staves, swords, and chains, Dioscoros convinced the bishops who had planned to vote for Flavian to vote "correctly. " Such were the means by which truth was determined in the orthodox Catholic Church. Among the Protestants it was every sinner for himself when it came to deciding which books belonged in the Bible. Among the Protestant "reformers, " opinions differing greatly from those held by Protestants today were common. Luther didn't think Esther belonged in the Bible, but he thought highly of 1 Maccabees and Sirach. He had a low opinion of Hebrews, and Revelation he thought to be of little value, being neither apostolic nor prophetic. The Epistle of James he termed "an epistle of straw." The Swiss reformer Zwingli pronounced Revelation unbiblical. John Calvin denounced that book of ravings as unintelligible, and he forbade the pastors of Geneva to attempt to interpret it.  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3141)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Although not every church council debated which books belonged in the Bible, it is nevertheless true that issues decided by previous councils helped to shape the decisions that defined the canon. Contrary to the naive opinion that the deliberations of church councils were infused by the power of divine guidance, most of the councils — and their aftermaths — were pretty ghastly affairs. The council of Nicaea, for example, was convened in A.D. 325 by the Roman emperor Constantine — the first Christian emperor. After being converted to Christianity, Constantine put to death his wife, his son, a nephew and his wife, and had Licinius (his coemperor) and his son strangled after promising them their lives. These chores out of the way, he convened the bishops and patriarchs of the realm to define the nature of the Trinity and decide which of the squabbling factions of believers should be given the royal patent for orthodoxy. Christianity Christianity Home Being Seen Bible & Jesus Myth Biblical Contradictions Christian Fish Daniel in the Debunker's Den Did Jesus Exist? Fundamentalism Hang 'Em All How Jesus Got A Life Mary "Faker" Eddy Nativity Potpourri Of Bones and Boners Origins of Mormonism Race & Religion The Real Bible Rehnquist & Ten Taboos The Twelve: Further Fictions Spiritual Guide to Gracious Living Where Jesus Never Walked The burning question of the council was the argument between Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius claimed Jesus was essentially distinct from the Father, having been created ex nihilo by the latter. Alexander, however, claimed "as God is eternal, so is his Son — when the Father, then the Son — the Son is present in God without birth, ever-begotten, an unbegotten-begotte n." By a packed vote, Arius was condemned as a heretic, excommunicated, and exiled. Three years later, however, Constantine went soft on heresy (or changed his mind as to who were the heretics) and recalled Arius to Constantinople. On the very day Arius was to reenter the Cathedral in triumph, his bowels suddenly burst out in a privy, obviating any need to redefine orthodoxy. The orthodox considered it a miracle; the Arians knew it was murder.  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3140)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

He had a chance to type and correct his ways but when you put something and you know it is wrong and leave it for the masses which most will not even try and research and find for themselves then he is guilty of dissent and therefore he is confronted by others like you trying to defend his ignorance and by the way I already knew of Obama's name so therefore I did not find it logical to try and explain it to that bastard. Its funny that if you knew about his name you did not say anything you just allowed his skewed arguments to play on and dissent the bloggers funny lol very funny hypocrite  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3138)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Just as the list of holy books differed from Jewish community to Jewish community, so the list of books considered holy among the early Christians differed from church to church, although Christians generally preferred the larger Greek Old Testament to the smaller Hebrew one. In addition to the Jewish scriptures, each Christian community developed its own "New Testament" scriptures, creating more than a dozen different gospels and an uncertain number of epistles and apocalypses. It comes as no surprise to learn that no "Church Father" is known, who drew the line of canonicity in the same way as does the Fire-Baptized Full-Gospel Pentecostal Holiness Church of God in Christ of today. The illustrious Irenaeus (b. ca. A.D. 130), for example, considered the Shepherd of Hennas to be inspired, but rejected Hebrews, Jude, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John. Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-213) included the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas in his Bible. Tertullian (b. ca. A.D. 160) — best remembered for his dictum, Certum est, quia impossibile est ("I believe it because it's impossible") — threw out all the New Testament books except the four gospels, Acts, thirteen "Pauline " epistles, Revelation, and 1 John. As certain churches (such as those at Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople) gained in political power, each made strenuous efforts to stamp out "heresy, " and church councils were convened (often by the Roman Emperor rather than by popes or patriarchs) to vote on which books were canonical — and to anathematize those who could not buy enough votes to be on the winning side. The history of these councils is both bewildering and abominable. The Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363) included Baruch in the Old Testament, but barred Revelation from the New. The Council of Carthage (ca. A.D. 397) included Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. The most recent infallible enumeration of the Catholic canon took place at the Council of Trent (A.D. 1563), in the midst of the German Reformation. The Greek Orthodox Church closed its canon sometime in the tenth century, when it finally admitted the Book of Revelation (although it still does not use quotations from this book in its lectionaries). The Syrian Orthodox Church grudgingly adopted Revelation a century later still.  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3137)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

http://www.atheist s.org/christianity /realbible.html  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3135)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Which Books? As just mentioned, the first problem believers have to face is the problem of which books belong in the Bible, which ones don't, and how to decide. Actually, it is extremely rare for individuals to decide these questions on their own. Usually they inherit a set of "holy books" from the families they are born into. Catholic children inherit a somewhat ampler number than do Protestant children, and Jewish children get still fewer — thirty-four less than the Catholic kids do. Shortest-changed of all are Samaritan kids. They only get Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and — if they eat their lentils — Joshua. If to be "saved" one needs to have information found, say, in Revelation, 2 Paralipomenon, or Baruch, isn't it odd of god to let so many people be born into environments deficient in books needed for salvation? How comes it then, that there is such diversity of opinion as to which books are "canonical, " i.e., should be part of the official collection of "inspired " scripture? What divine principle has left the Samaritans with Bibles containing only five or six books, the Jews with thirty-nine, the Protestants with sixty-six, and the Catholics with seventy-three? Why did ancient Christians have even more books in their Bibles? In the case of the Samaritans, the small number of books in their Bible reflects nothing more significant than the fact that the Samaritans, living in the northern part of Palestine, became split off from the main center of Jewish cultural evolution — the southern kingdom of Judah — before the prophets and other writings had come to be considered "scripture " by anyone. To this day the pitiful remnant of believers calling themselves Samaritans claims all books outside the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible, the so-called Five Books of Moses) are uninspired and, therefore, uncanonical. A possible exception is the sixth book of the Bible, the Book of Joshua, which seems to be given quasi-scriptural status. Not only are the later books of the Jewish canon "unscriptural ," in the Samaritan view even the Hebrew version of the Pentateuch (the "Masoretic Text," the so-called Textus Receptus or "received text" from which our King James (KJ) and later Bibles have been translated) is no good either. It differs from the Samaritan text in more than six thousand variant readings! But alas for the beliefs of the Samaritans and the Jews, the small size of the Samaritan Bible and the six thousand variant readings of the Masoretic Text are due to no discernibly divine principle of selection: They are merely accidents of political history — and warfare. Throughout Jewish history up to the Council of Jamnia (held near the present-day city of Joppa, near the end of me first century A.D.), the list of books thought to "defile the hands" (i.e., were inspired) differed as a function of geography and political affiliation. By the time the Christian Church was formed, Greek-speaking Jews had accumulated quite a few more hand-defiling books than had their stay-at-home, Aramaic- or Hebrew-speaking cousins. When the Christians adopted the Greek "Old Testament" for their own (including the newfangled books that went with it), Palestinian Jews had to circle their wagons. At the Council of Jamnia, the Jews threw out such books as Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, and both Books of Maccabees. By a slender vote, they narrowly avoided throwing out Ezekiel, Proverbs, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. In the case of the Book of Daniel, the Jews threw out the last two chapters, settling for an even dozen. (The Catholic Book of Daniel still contains fourteen chapters.)  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3134)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

Three Problems True believers who wish to put all their faith in the Bible are faced with three problems: (1) How can one know which books are "inspired " and should be part of the scriptural canon? (2) How can one know which one — if any — of the existing contradictory manuscripts (MSS) of a given book preserves the "true" wording? (3) Assuming that one has the correct manuscript (MS) of a given book, how can one know what the particular Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words mean? As we shall see, there is no way these questions can be answered with absolute certainty. At best, believers must trust to the probabilities — not certainties — that arise from a scientific investigation of the facts surrounding the biblical texts and traditions. Believers will have to face the fact that there is no way at all to know which Bible to believe — let alone what to believe in it. Believers still have to put their "faith" in other human beings.  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3133)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

When you have something of value to add to the dialogue of your idiots pals then I may take the time to respond to you with supreme verbage so that you will pick up a dictionary and a thesaurus as opposed to caring your false bible taking from other bibles to conform to whatever denomination church you attend. THE REAL BIBLE: WHO'S GOT IT? Prologue On The Street Evangelist: Brother, you're in trouble if you put your faith in science. Science can never give you absolute truth. Science is always having to correct its mistakes. Science can't save! Heathen: You're probably right that science cannot give us absolute knowledge. But as long as it gives us information that is solid enough to stake our lives on, what more do we need? Anyhow, there doesn't seem to be any other source of information that's any more reliable — and lots that are much less reliable man science. As for saving, penicillin's record isn't too bad. Evangelist: Friend, there is something more certain than science. There is a source of absolute, unfailing truth. You don't have to go with the guesses of science any more. You can go directly to the source of all knowledge. Heathen: Really? What is it? Evangelist: The Holy Bible, brother, the Book of Books! Heathen: Which Bible is "the Holy Bible"? I mean, mere are lots of different Bibles floating around. There's the Koran — Evangelist: Sinner, I'm talking about the Christian Bible, not the false Bibles of the superstitious heathens. Heathen: Well, even if I admit that Christian Bibles are better than Muslim or Mormon Bibles, how do you know which Christian Bible is the correct one? The Catholic Bibles contain seventy-three books, the Protestant Bibles have only sixty-six. Evangelist: The Catholics are in thrall to the Devil, brother. They have some false books along with the true ones. The true Bible is the King James Version — translated without error from the original tongues into God's own English. You don't think God would let the transmission of his own word to us fall into error, do you? The King James Version has been preserved inerrant to bring the message of salvation to sinners like us. Heathen: No kidding? How do you account for the fact that some of "us" are Catholics? Why has god allowed the transmission of his word to Catholics to become corrupted? Why did god allow Protestants to be sold the first editions of the King James Version, which still contained all the seventy-three books found in the Catholic Bible?  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3131)

Oklahoma

IS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE ANTI CHRIST? read on...

I am perplexed as to how you can even type and read at the same time. I did not say Barrack it was one of your dingleberry bible sadist pal/homo Not Sure but Concerned wrote: Barrack Hussein Obama - 6 letters, 7 letters , 5 letters, scary close to 6 6 6. I don't know the future and my faith gives me peace that nothing can separate me from the love of my God. But the end times will be a time of great suffering and that concerns me for those who will suffer. I was making fun of him since he typed Barrack and he stated that they were 6 letters so shut the F up. Also in my personal defense I can say that from time to time I may misspell some words. I am not here to write you a fing novel or win the pulitzer prize you freaking religious idiots. Funny that some of you religious freaks choose to respond to others with short sentences and not write over a few sentences.  (Jun 25, 2008 | post #3130)

Q & A with Van

Headline:

"BARTENDER POUR ME SOME ISO!!"

Hometown:

SAN LUIS, ARIZONA

Neighborhood:

HARD KNOCKS

Local Favorites:

LOCAL RUCKER PARK, GYM, NIGHTCLUBS IN MEXICO.

I Belong To:

A COMMUNITY OF POLITICAL UNREST HISPANICS AGAINST HISPANICS

When I'm Not on Topix:

IM WITH TWO GIRLS AT THE SAME TIME STUDYING ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY

Favorite Things:

BOOKS, SPORTS, WEIGHT TRAINING, TOPIX, DAILY SHOW JON STEWART

On My Mind:

GIRLS WITH HUGE FAT CYSTIC ACNE

I Believe In:

AUTOMEDICATION, 9/11 WAS A COVERUP {ARMY COMMERICAL, YOU MAKE THEM STRONG! WE WILL BLOW THEM UP!!!}