Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[rayskidude]

Why does the "creator" have to know about any god that is above him that doesn't wish to be known? According to the bible this very creator was not known to anyone that it did not wish to be known to. That seems to be perfectly logical and acceptable. So why is it suddenly unacceptable for another, more powerful, god to play the same game? If the creator god can hide from those less power that it than another god can hide from that creator god. There is nothing inconsistent here.

 

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

Act 17:28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

 

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

 

This is why I quote Scripture, because people insist they know what the Bible teaches - but they do not know the "whole counsel of God." SO here we plainly see here that God has not hidden Himself. But rather, thru Creation and our own conscience; all people know God and His law intuitively - BUT we suppress that truth because of our unrighteousness.

 

Why should it know who "jesus" is?

 

How 'bout >> Because even fisherman from the backwater of Galilee knew who Jesus was, apparently they're smarter than your demiurge!!

Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

Joh 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."

Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

 

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.

Act 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

 

The universal god, the god beyond the creator essentially, owns the territory that the creator god exists within and all that the his creation exists within. So, just like the creator god himself, has dominion over those things within his territory the greater god has dominion over his territory. This includes the creator god. Obviously the creator understands this and since he has destroyed the property of his superior he knows that he must do something to make it right. The agreement, the covenant, is how this is accomplished.

 

Again I say - WOW! Do you realize how close this is to Joseph Smith's theology in Mormonism?

 

it's no worse than being told, AFTER I AM BORN, that I have a sin DEBT that I can never pay and so I MUST accept a certain set of beliefs or I will go to a place of PUNISHMENT FOREVER.

 

But you are actually told, that by His love & grace & mercy, God Himself paid the debt that was owed to Him - so you're asked to have faith in the Person & work of God on your behalf. This is not simply "a set of beliefs" - it is a life-changing, life-engaging, life-saving faith that generates a church of people "zealous of good works." as Titus tells us 3x. So I would say your clearly misunderstand the Gospel as laid out in Scripture.

 

These are all things that I have no knowledge of. A god that is unrevealed.

 

I've addressed the cause of your ignorance above.

[rayskidude]

That's the way theology works. Given a delimma, the solution is derived from thin air. Consider the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary. We don't have anything from scripture regarding her early life or her life after the crucifixion, but given what the theologians wanted to believe about her they invented immaculate conception and the Assumption. It just sounds so much better than to think that she was an ordinary girl who died and whose corpse rotted.

 

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

The Marcionites weighed the probabilities that 1) God was a mean vengeful SOB in the OT and a nice god in the NT and 2) they were two different gods, and decided that they just couldn't accept the cruelty of the OT god as consistent with the nature of the god of the NT. How many people have left religion because they could not stomach the amoral behavior of the OT God?

 

SO you're saying as you read the entire OT - you see no evidence at all that God is merciful, gracious, loving, caring, etc?

 

And you think this 'problem' - as you see it - is solved by positing 2 gods, one good and one bad, just like the Zoroastrians believed in?

[Shyone]

 

SO you're saying as you read the entire OT - you see no evidence at all that God is merciful, gracious, loving, caring, etc?

 

And you think this 'problem' - as you see it - is solved by positing 2 gods, one good and one bad, just like the Zoroastrians believed in?

Yes, I have read the entire Old Testament and the New. God did some really nice things in the Old testament, but it's like haveing a man give money to charity and go home to sexually abuse his kids. I don't give any slack for bad behavior just because of nice things done.

 

And, if God is the father of all, he sure as Hell treats some of his children badly.

 

As for Zoroastrianism, it's like writing science fiction. When the plot sucks because there are inconsistencies, you change what you have to to make the plot consistent. The old testament already has two gods, Satan and Yahweh, so what's one more?

[Ouroboros]

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

RCC, in my view, is the full extension of Christianity. That's where your Bible pretty much comes from. That's where most of your traditions, arguments, and beliefs come from.

[centauri]

That's the way theology works. Given a delimma, the solution is derived from thin air. Consider the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary. We don't have anything from scripture regarding her early life or her life after the crucifixion, but given what the theologians wanted to believe about her they invented immaculate conception and the Assumption. It just sounds so much better than to think that she was an ordinary girl who died and whose corpse rotted.

 

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

It's really amazing how a cult that practices bogus theology set the standard for the canon of the Bible, the evolution of the Trinity, trustworthy creeds of the early church, and changing the Sabbath to Sunday, which are all things Protestants embrace.

This is at least the second time you've defined the RCC as a cult.

The true Christian and preacher that calls himself "LNC" on this forum insisted that no reasonable person could call Christianity a cult and scolded me severely for suggesting it was.

Hopefully the two of you can get together and beat each other over the head with competing dogma.

[dagnarus]

Why does the "creator" have to know about any god that is above him that doesn't wish to be known? According to the bible this very creator was not known to anyone that it did not wish to be known to. That seems to be perfectly logical and acceptable. So why is it suddenly unacceptable for another, more powerful, god to play the same game? If the creator god can hide from those less power that it than another god can hide from that creator god. There is nothing inconsistent here.

 

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

Act 17:28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

 

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.

Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

 

This is why I quote Scripture, because people insist they know what the Bible teaches - but they do not know the "whole counsel of God." SO here we plainly see here that God has not hidden Himself. But rather, thru Creation and our own conscience; all people know God and His law intuitively - BUT we suppress that truth because of our unrighteousness.

 

These are all things that I have no knowledge of. A god that is unrevealed.

 

I've addressed the cause of your ignorance above.

 

Ignoring the fact that your quoting a book which most of us here would give no more authority than a fairy tale. If you say that we know intuitively through our own conscience God's law, how come when we (including you I'm assuming) read God's law about killing every single caananite, stoning non virgins, forcing rape victims to marry their rapists, stoning a person who picks up sticks on Saturday, certain people are predestined to be sent to hell to show off God's great power and wrath etc., we have to repress our conscience, should not our conscience intuitively agree with our creator.

[mwc]

This is why I quote Scripture, because people insist they know what the Bible teaches - but they do not know the "whole counsel of God." SO here we plainly see here that God has not hidden Himself. But rather, thru Creation and our own conscience; all people know God and His law intuitively - BUT we suppress that truth because of our unrighteousness.

Ummm...the "creation" would be the end result of the "creator" god or the demiurge. Of course you are aware of him. Think about it.

 

How 'bout >> Because even fisherman from the backwater of Galilee knew who Jesus was,

The jesus was from the unknowable true god. You claim he was from your demiurge. You seem to support my position here. And all this with your corrupted texts. Imagine what you could do with the true texts from Marcion? Remember he only used a variant of G.Luke and Paul. The jesus came down from above, taught the disciples of the true god, was put to death, rose again and ascended. How is this so wrong? He had to because of the rules put in place by the demiurge. You'll find them in what you call the OT. According to (Marcion's uncorrupted) Paul no one can live up to those. Fortunately the unknowable god sent jesus to fix all this. So simply belief is all it takes to escape the demiurge. You don't want to be unfairly punished by this creator god do you? Then just believe in jesus and what he truly did for you. Not the corrupted gospel that (the uncorrupted) Paul warns against. Watch out for frauds.

 

Again I say - WOW! Do you realize how close this is to Joseph Smith's theology in Mormonism?

Does it matter?

 

But you are actually told, that by His love & grace & mercy, God Himself paid the debt that was owed to Him - so you're asked to have faith in the Person & work of God on your behalf. This is not simply "a set of beliefs" - it is a life-changing, life-engaging, life-saving faith that generates a church of people "zealous of good works." as Titus tells us 3x. So I would say your clearly misunderstand the Gospel as laid out in Scripture.

So what you're saying is that I should "believe" Titus? He says it 3 times after all.

 

The thing is that I am repeating essentially what Marcion said. Should I say it 3 times?

 

You think that Titus is somehow "better" than Marcion? You think that X is better than Y? That "this" is better than "that?" Of course you do. It's all about "belief" and nothing about what "god" says. "God" says nothing. "God" has never interjected a single post in any of these conversations and never will. "God" has never interjected a single word into any conversation at any point in history and will remain silent long after we're both dead. Beliefs are all that drive "faith." You believe Titus and you don't believe Marcion. If you did believe Marcion you'd have "faith" in the unknowable god, his "jesus" and turn away from the Demiurge. You believe otherwise. Your "faith" reflects that.

 

I've addressed the cause of your ignorance above.

Ignorance of what? My purpose was originally to state, from memory, what Marcion believed. I did just that. I do think that it explains the "problems" better than the orthodox view but, and get this straight, you refute Marcion and not me when you think there is a "misunderstanding" or some level of "ignorance" here. You seem to equate my ability to state the story, and my position that it is the better explaination, as a statement of acceptance. It is not. I can also state the orthodox position as well. I do not accept it nor do I accept any of the heterodox positions. Do not be mislead.

 

Now, if you are stating that I am ignorant in my statement of what the Marcionite view was then I apologize. I welcome corrections because, as I stated, I've posted it from memory alone and I don't doubt that I made errors.

 

mwc

[Guest]

 

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

Oooo, you are so close to it Ray! Think it through now...

 

Your particular cult (whichever flavor or brand of xtianity you subscribe to) is based off of RCC, so it too is man made, bogus theology. So the conclusion is...???

[Shyone]

 

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

Oooo, you are so close to it Ray! Think it through now...

 

Your particular cult (whichever flavor or brand of xtianity you subscribe to) is based off of RCC, so it too is man made, bogus theology. So the conclusion is...???

(*crickets*)

[Guest]

* TAP * TAP *

 

Is this thing on?

[NotBlinded]

 

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

Act 17:28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.'

Oh, but being "his offspring" is by adoption only right?

[Neon Genesis]

 

Oh, but being "his offspring" is by adoption only right?

Doesn't that sound very docetic?

[NotBlinded]

 

Oh, but being "his offspring" is by adoption only right?

Doesn't that sound very docetic?

Dang it, you made me go look up docetic.

 

That had to do with Gnosticism right? Jesus being an illusion and spirit only. I like 17:28 probably for that very reason. I don't agree with the illusion part (in the unhuman aspect...hell we're all illusions), but the part about God being spirit or essence and I think Jesus was telling people that they are also "sons" of God. But, the Gnostics lost and Jesus became the one and only son regardless of what he may have been trying to say. They said, okay, Jesus was the son of God but no one else can be. This is the monotheistic mindset. Some just managed to convince themselves that one person can be holy only. Pretty silly stuff.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='29 August 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1251590234' post='480753']

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

It's really amazing how a cult that practices bogus theology set the standard for the canon of the Bible, the evolution of the Trinity, trustworthy creeds of the early church, and changing the Sabbath to Sunday, which are all things Protestants embrace.

This is at least the second time you've defined the RCC as a cult.

 

If you study Church history - you'll find that the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, Sunday worship, etc were settled prior to the establishment of the RCC as the single representative of 'Christianity.' And I would also say that, initially, the RCC sought to promote a Biblical Christianity, but that its intimate involvement in politics led to its quick degeneration into a cult which sought to compromise the Biblical message in order to appeal to the pagan populace. Even RCC historians have admitted thsi - which is why they recently eliminated many of the RCC 'saints' - because these saints were just pagan gods re-named as saints to placate pagans.

[rayskidude]

rayskidude' date='29 August 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1251590234' post='480753']

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

Your particular cult (whichever flavor or brand of xtianity you subscribe to) is based off of RCC, so it too is man made, bogus theology.

 

Sorry to disappoint you - but actually my 'brand' of evangelical Christianity is derived from Scripture. And it is a repudiation of the RCC with its Marioloatry, its papacy, its salvation of faith + works, its 6 laws of the Church, its indulgences, its Apocrypha, its belief in a purgatory, its requirement & promotion of celibacy amongst the clergy (and nuns and brothers/monks), its teaching re: baptism and original sin, its eclectic practices throughout the world, etc.

 

Just because one thing precedes another in history - there is not a necessary link between the two, especially when the two entities adamantly & definitively repudiate each other.

 

So what exactly did you think I was close to?

[centauri]

rayskidude' date='29 August 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1251590234' post='480753']

That's the way man-made, bogus theology works - and the RCC is simply the oldest, richest, and most influential cult.

 

It's really amazing how a cult that practices bogus theology set the standard for the canon of the Bible, the evolution of the Trinity, trustworthy creeds of the early church, and changing the Sabbath to Sunday, which are all things Protestants embrace.

This is at least the second time you've defined the RCC as a cult.

 

If you study Church history - you'll find that the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, Sunday worship, etc were settled prior to the establishment of the RCC as the single representative of 'Christianity.' And I would also say that, initially, the RCC sought to promote a Biblical Christianity, but that its intimate involvement in politics led to its quick degeneration into a cult which sought to compromise the Biblical message in order to appeal to the pagan populace. Even RCC historians have admitted thsi - which is why they recently eliminated many of the RCC 'saints' - because these saints were just pagan gods re-named as saints to placate pagans.

I like the way this works.

It didn’t become a cult and polluted until after the canon and doctrine had been established, which keeps these things pristine, accurate, and valid.

The use of the term Roman Catholic is itself disputed by the Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

 

Roman Catholic

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church.

 

The “Catholic Church” considers itself founded right from the time of Christ, with its authority given by Jesus and validated through Apostolic succession.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

 

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity . . . which has never deceived any one, which has taught others."

St. Irenæus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i.e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

 

The Catholic Church defines the fixation of scriptural canon for the New Testament in the period 367-405 C.E., which is well after Apostolic succession had been in place.

But in any case, it’s refreshing to see a primary sect of Christianity recognized as a cult.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

That had to do with Gnosticism right? Jesus being an illusion and spirit only. I like 17:28 probably for that very reason. I don't agree with the illusion part (in the unhuman aspect...hell we're all illusions), but the part about God being spirit or essence and I think Jesus was telling people that they are also "sons" of God. But, the Gnostics lost and Jesus became the one and only son regardless of what he may have been trying to say. They said, okay, Jesus was the son of God but no one else can be. This is the monotheistic mindset. Some just managed to convince themselves that one person can be holy only. Pretty silly stuff.

I don't remember if it was the docetics or if they were called adoptionists, but I read in Ehrman's Lost Christianities that there was an early group of Christians who believed Jesus was born an ordinary human and was adopted as God's son when he was baptized.

 

Sorry to disappoint you - but actually my 'brand' of evangelical Christianity is derived from Scripture. And it is a repudiation of the RCC with its Marioloatry, its papacy, its salvation of faith + works, its 6 laws of the Church, its indulgences, its Apocrypha, its belief in a purgatory, its requirement & promotion of celibacy amongst the clergy (and nuns and brothers/monks), its teaching re: baptism and original sin, its eclectic practices throughout the world, etc.

And fundies don't do the same thing? You should go read Bart D Ehrman's book Lost Christianities and be enlightened.

[mwc]

Sorry to disappoint you - but actually my 'brand' of evangelical Christianity is derived from Scripture. And it is a repudiation of the RCC [snip]

So you're a heretic, an apostate and possibly even an atheist?

 

mwc

[Guest]

 

Just because one thing precedes another in history - there is not a necessary link between the two, especially when the two entities adamantly & definitively repudiate each other.

 

So the fact that the catholicks voted on jesus' divinity and chose all the books you consider cannon and discarded all the books you believe are not inspired; all that has no connection to your brand of xtianity? If the catholicks never existed, your xtianity would look exactly the same? Suuurrrrre.

 

So what exactly did you think I was close to?

 

I remember the day I realized that every religion and every sub-set of every religion claims they are right and everyone else is "man-made, bogus theology". I remember my thoughts were that they couldn't all be right, even partially right, but they all could very easily be all wrong. When I allowed myself to plug that answer into the religion question, every single issue I had with scripture, theology, apologetics, etc, were resolved. What was causing my problems is I was looking for the "right" theology and/or religion. When I realized that there is no "right" religion, they are all man-made, everything made so much more sense.

 

You are (were) very close to realizing that ALL religions are "man-made, bogus theology".

[rayskidude]

You think that Titus is somehow "better" than Marcion?

 

Yes, of course. Based on all the criteria utilized by the early church fathers and bishops and congregations (not the RCC, which did not come into existence and primary prominence until after 400AD). Marcion was rightfully rejected as a heretic. I suggest you read a primer on early church history and how the Church addressed these issues. If Rome was so important, why were so many of the councils before 400AD held in Asia Minor, North Africa, the eastern Mediterranean, etc? When was the Bible translated into Latin? Look into these issues for when the RCC became prominent - and when it began to degenerate into primarily a human politico-religious organization.

 

The Pharisee Gamaliel spoke some wise words about 35AD;

Act 5:34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.

Act 5:35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men.

Act 5:36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

Act 5:37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

Act 5:38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;

Act 5:39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice,

 

Where are the Marcionites today?

[Shyone]

You think that Titus is somehow "better" than Marcion?

 

Yes, of course. Based on all the criteria utilized by the early church fathers and bishops and congregations (not the RCC, which did not come into existence and primary prominence until after 400AD). Marcion was rightfully rejected as a heretic. I suggest you read a primer on early church history and how the Church addressed these issues. If Rome was so important, why were so many of the councils before 400AD held in Asia Minor, North Africa, the eastern Mediterranean, etc? When was the Bible translated into Latin? Look into these issues for when the RCC became prominent - and when it began to degenerate into primarily a human politico-religious organization.

 

YOU are a heretic.

 

 

Where are the Marcionites today?

Ruthlessly suppressed. Which doesn't mean they were wrong.

 

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

[mwc]

Yes, of course. Based on all the criteria utilized by the early church fathers and bishops and congregations (not the RCC, which did not come into existence and primary prominence until after 400AD). Marcion was rightfully rejected as a heretic. I suggest you read a primer on early church history and how the Church addressed these issues. If Rome was so important, why were so many of the councils before 400AD held in Asia Minor, North Africa, the eastern Mediterranean, etc? When was the Bible translated into Latin? Look into these issues for when the RCC became prominent - and when it began to degenerate into primarily a human politico-religious organization.

This tells me nothing as to why Titus is "better" than Marcion.

 

This tells me why ancient orthodoxy branded Marcion as a heretic (actually it doesn't do that but "suggests" I read up on it).

 

It then starts begging questions on Rome, Latin and other non-related issues.

 

So why is Titus "better" than Marcion? Simply because the orthodoxy accepted it as such? Is that your "answer?"

 

 

The Pharisee Gamaliel spoke some wise words about 35AD;

Act 5:34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.

Act 5:35 And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men.

Act 5:36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

Act 5:37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

Act 5:38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;

Act 5:39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" So they took his advice,

He did? He spoke them?

 

Josephus Antiquities 20.5

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan

...

They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

Caspius Fadus was in Judea from 44-46. He came after the death of Agrippa I so he couldn't have arrived any sooner:

ibid 20.1.1

1. UPON the death of king Agrippa, which we have related in the foregoing book, Claudius Caesar sent Cassius Longinus as successor to Marcus, [...] president of Syria. But Fadus, as soon as he was come procurator into Judea [...]

See? A new proconsul of Syria and a new procurator after Agrippa I. 35? Quite impossible.

 

But what about Judas the Galillean? Well, he made his uprising in 6 CE. Well before Theudus. This would be the famous census from G.Luke. This Judas was well known and this error is embarrassing.

 

What could have caused someone to place it in the wrong time? One explaination is right here:

ibid 20.5.2

 

And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book.

Just after Josephus mentions Theudus he mentions the above. If whoever wrote the Acts was following Josephus, his source(s), or similar then they'd make a similar error. They'd place Judas *after* Theudas. This isn't to say that Josephus is in error. He is correct it is simply a case of reading Judas the Galillean after Theudas in the text allowing for the error we see in the Acts.

 

The Gamaliel in Acts is an invention of the author and not a reflection of the real person. I have no reason to care what his opinion is on any subject.

 

Where are the Marcionites today?

This has no bearing on why Titus is "better" than Marcion.

 

mwc

[Sybaris]

I have been a Christian for only about five months, but I was radically changed and my thought process was completely altered during the process. At the moment, however, I am trying to find some way to justify not believing in the God of the bible.

 

Didn't wade through all the posts but one of the ways to disprove the God of the Christian Bible and Jesus is Matthew 24:37-39. Jesus, who was supposedly the son of the Christian God spoke of Noah and the flood. The flood, by Biblical chronology, would have occurred around 2300 BCE. There are existing geological features and man-made structures on earth that show no signs of erosion that a flood of that magnitude would have caused (see Barringer crater and Egyptian pyramids). Quite simply, Jesus was only going by what he knew and had no supernatural powers lest he would have known it didn't happen.

 

If you want to look at some in depth analysis discounting the Bible here is a good site: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html

[rayskidude]

The Gamaliel in Acts is an invention of the author and not a reflection of the real person. I have no reason to care what his opinion is on any subject.

 

I was shooting from the hip on the 35AD date, but I simply meant to say that Truth (and esp God's truth) cannot be obliterated or defeated. God's word & people have been suppressed, oppressed, persecuted, martyred, etc >> but the Bible and Bible believers are all over this planet. You cannot say the same for Marcion or any other heretic. And whether the Bibke or Josephus has the more trusted history & chronology >> I belive the Bible has much better attestation thru manuscript evidence. No contest. Josephus = good, Bible = best.

 

Generally, when a heretic dies, so does his movement die soon afterwards. Thus my question:

 

Where are the Marcionites today?

 

This has no bearing on why Titus is "better" than Marcion.

 

Are you sure about that? Is this just based on strictly logical argument? Would it hold up to common sense and normal, everyday experience?

 

[bdp]

The Gamaliel in Acts is an invention of the author and not a reflection of the real person. I have no reason to care what his opinion is on any subject.

 

I was shooting from the hip on the 35AD date, but I simply meant to say that Truth (and esp God's truth) cannot be obliterated or defeated. God's word & people have been suppressed, oppressed, persecuted, martyred, etc >> but the Bible and Bible believers are all over this planet. You cannot say the same for Marcion or any other heretic. And whether the Bibke or Josephus has the more trusted history & chronology >> I belive the Bible has much better attestation thru manuscript evidence. No contest. Josephus = good, Bible = best.

 

Generally, when a heretic dies, so does his movement die soon afterwards. Thus my question:

 

Where are the Marcionites today?

 

This has no bearing on why Titus is "better" than Marcion.

 

Are you sure about that? Is this just based on strictly logical argument? Would it hold up to common sense and normal, everyday experience?

 

 

what is 'god's' truth and who are 'god's' people?