NotBlinded Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I have this fairly strong impression you hide yourself behind the Bible. I'd honestly like to believe there is a real you back there somewhere. It's terribly difficult to speak to that person, because what I am hearing here is not real. It's someone else. It's someone protecting themselves through false armor. The truth in that Antlerman is so dead on. I assumed that you weren't use to us conglomerated spiritual junkies where ever we can learn the messages of enlightenment, including Buddhist, Zen, Suffis, Christ, and many more. And yes, they come from Atheist too! Oh my gawd! I love it! I may have to put that in the area that asks any gods! Let see...the God of the Conglomerated Spiritual Junky! Has a great ring to it. What have I said that is "not real"? No my friend it is not false armor, you know exactly what it is, as you said yourself. Ephesians 6:11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. Forgive him for he knows not what he does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Amanda, your post made me realize something about how people look at the Bible. Let us compare the Bible to regular poetry. In poetry you read a poem and you like it because it reflects something in your life that you can recognize. Basically life and reality comes first, and the poem is a mirror of that reality. You know the poem to be correct or "true" based on your experience in life. On the other hand, if you read a poem that doesn't fit with reality or your experience, it will not be the same reflection or becoming the same "truth" to you. Now, the Bible (like the proverbs for instance) could be read in the light of what we believe and think etc, but it only means that the verses reflects what I, personally, would be believing. The problem I see with the fundamentalist is that they put the poetry before reality. In their eyes, the verses don't reflect the visible, and tangible reality, but they want reality to be reflection of the poetry. They in a sense put the cart before the horse. In our discussions, we don't disapprove using the Bible, but we don't agree to having the verses be evidence of any kind by them self. In our minds, the verses only reflects the belief, not the proof of the belief. We don't see the verses prove God, miracles or any dogma, they only mirror what the religious person wants to believe. Does it make sense? This is a (kind of) new idea to me, so correct me if I'm wrong. (Well, not completely new, but it came into a new light.) -edited for some clarifications- Take what I said here in a post in the colleseum(sp?): That's okay! It's not physical perfection I'm speaking of. I'm talking about the state of our minds. Reality is only a reflection of what we believe. Not physical reality but our actions in reality. The fall is a condition of mankind's mental state. Nothing more... Animals are perfect because they don't have this knowledge of right and wrong or good and evil. No dualities exist for them and they are one with nature. Even though we are perfect (spiritually), our imperfections are a result of believing we are separate from nature and each other which creates dualities and bolsters our egos. This in turn creates evil in the world. It is all a state of mind that has an affect on our daily lives and the lives of others. And, if you apply this state to all people in the entire world, then it becomes a collective problem that can be seen in violence on a grand scale. It does me good to remind myself that the bible and many others are speaking about the spirituality of mankind. This allows me to understand that these stories are speaking about an inner state...not some state that exists outside ourselves prior to ourselves. It we believe the latter, we keep searching for something that would solve all the evils in the world for us. It's not there...it's inside each of us, but we first have to change the way we think and reality will follow. Most have it backwards. and look at the bolded areas and then imagine people taking what they view happening in reality and putting it to words. Yes Hans! In our discussions, we don't disapprove using the Bible, but we don't agree to having the verses be evidence of any kind by them self. In our minds, the verses only reflects the belief, not the proof of the belief. We don't see the verses prove God, miracles or any dogma, they only mirror what the religious person wants to believe. Does it make sense? This is a new idea to me, so correct me if I'm wrong. (Well, not completely new, but it came into a new light.) Yeah! Yes. I like to say that "God is us". The Bible is an expression of how we create God. The God created as an expression of the culture is a reflection of that culture. The problem with fundamentalism is that they fail to recognize this, and as you say "put the horse before the cart". What's the problem in doing this? Answer: All cultures evolve. If we try to say that yesterday's God is good for all time, then you are asking culture to remain as it was 2000 years ago! The force of evolution (in this case cultural) is unstoppable. What has to happen to the created "God" in society is going to be one of two options: "God" either will evolve to continue to reflect that society’s values; or "God" will eventually fall into history like the many other gods of old. Christianity survived as long as it did because of the power of the political machine. Now it's just tradition and society needs God to be relevant. The rise of fundamentalism is a symptom of this evolution that is happening right now. Fundamentalism will never be the solution. It relevance right now is that it creates dialog about these issues of spirituality in a secular world. The majority of people will abandon it when the middle defines itself better, but of course you will always have fringe elements escaping into esotericism and religious cults. Long winded, but to say, "Yes Han. You've got it". I can't remember who said it or exactly how it goes, but some philosopher a long time ago stated that the gods will live only as long as people believe in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I think that's a great analogy HanSolo! Yet, I think that there are a lot of metaphors, allegories used to convey a thought that their language was not articulate enough to convey the real essence of the message. Also, since they were morals passed down through the generations, they had to make them interesting enough to be remembered... or only the interesting ones got remembered. It reminds me of the boxer, Muhammad Ali, when it is said that he floated like a butterfly and stung like a bee... we have to see the real meaning in the context it was used and the real meaning this is trying to convey. Hopefully we avoid the literal interpretation. That would require MAGIC. Yes! I love this place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Let's start with you doing an experiment on "atheists". We are human beings, not your inferiors. Do you have absolutely any clue how offensive that is to another human being? Do you care? Apparently you haven't read what they said to me and how they treated me. Do they care? Whether or not someone treats you fairly has nothing to do with you accepting responsibility for what you do in response. You lay claim to a higher standard, yet you are using your perception of others behaviors as an excuse. And frankly, I at a complete loss how that even relates to your comment about doing an experiment on “athiests”? Again, I am not some sort of bug, because I call myself an atheist. I was not meaning to be offensive at all, if I was I am sorry but I have done nothing wrong. The idea in the beginning was to share the word of God. (emphasis mine) So, what are you saying here? You are sorry, but you “have done nothing wrong?” That’s not an apology. Are you seeing where I’m going here? I can appreciate you making mistake in judgment and being disrespectful to others. We’re all human. But what I would say if it were me, would be something like this, “I really have no excuse for my behavior. I am sorry I offended you.” The fact that you are not doing this leads me back to my original questioning about the sincerity of your “repentance”. It takes a lot of humility in ones soul to be able to genuinely confess responsibility. I am not really hearing that in your response here. "Ye shall know them by their fruits". You're actions expose you. I do not sense the sprit of peace and humility in you anywhere. You are not listening to the humanity you are speaking to. You lack a true heart of compassion. I hear your pride, not your heart. You quote the Bible, not speak to us as human beings. Do you think I lie??? Indeed I am not listening to the rubbish and insults that are thrown at me. I am sorry my heart for Christ has come across as pride. Am I quoting the Bible now? “I am sorry my heart for Christ has come across as pride”??? How about, I’m sorry I have been acting pridefully. This is not consistent with the message of Christ? That sound more sincere Sub. Do you understand why I am saying these words are ringing hollow to me? I’m still trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. BTW, no you didn’t quote the Bible, you spoke from who you are and I genuinely appreciate it. Repeat: Actions speak louder than words. "By their fruits, you shall know them" You're actions and your words betray the condition of your heart. You still haven't said specifically what action or actions I have done. I have in your declaration of decision to go out and conduct an experiment on “athiests”. What’s more is the attitude of self-justification I am hearing as laid out above. When I refer to the saying, “You shall know them by their fruits,” that is something I fully acknowledge as an insightfully truism. “Love works no ill”, etc. Your actions follow your heart. Your actions are not reflected a heart filled with grace and humility Sub. Do you not see this from what I’ve been pointing out, and in how everyone here and elsewhere have been respondigg to you? Do you think everyone just decided to attack you because you believe differently than them? That’s not how things things really happen. For each verse you quote, another Christian could offer a thousand different ways of looking at it. I have a degree in theology, and so do a whole lot of people here. Yet somehow, you are our superior? That's sounds mighty prideful. BTW, a lot of us were exactly like you. We didn't get dumber. Don't try to convince yourself we did. So a Christian could offer a thousand different ways of looking at it, yet a lot of you guys were just like me - a Christian. Anyway, a degree in theology means nothing when trying to view the Bible in light of Christ. That is all I am doing different. I’ll clarify my wording: “Christians can offer a thousand different ways of looking at these same things”. That is true. If they are fundamentalists, then each one of them think they have the real truth and the others are wrong. What do you mean when saying that, “a degree in theology meanings nothing when trying to view the Bible in the light of Christ”? Are you saying mine and other’s training was not a “Christ Centered” theology? If so, what makes you assume that?? Absolutely my traing was all about Jesus. It was an evangelical, fundamentalist church. The fact that you see only one single way to read something betrays the single most glaring fault in your way of viewing “truth”. No two Christians read everything the same. The church has never believed one thing. When did evangelical theology begin, for instance? What have I said that is "not real"? No my friend it is not false armor, you know exactly what it is, as you said yourself. Ephesians 6:11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. FYI, brainwashing in cults use the technique of having all your thoughts follow a prescribed doctrine and theology. All I’m hoping to hear is you talking about your own feelings and your own thoughts. And by the way, "my feeling and my thoughts follow what's in the Bible", is the same sort of thing heard out of the mouths of those who followed Charles Manson. I'm suggesting you try doing this without quoting verses is an attempt to talk with you, not your programming. You can certainly speak about the bible and how you view it, but hearing things like “God said it, that settles it, and it’s good enough for me”, smacks of brainwashing. Have you washed away all contrary thoughts into full alignment with the doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmccaskill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Damn Antlerman. You handed his ass back to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 SUB_ZERO. START COLOR CODING YOUR POST. YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED 10 QUOTE FUNCTION AT A TIME there is a direct corralation seen between the performance of miracles and the preaching of the Word of God (Mark 6:12-13; Luke 9:2,6). The use of miracles by Jesus and the Apostles is to legitimize their words they speak. And is it different to what I said "Miracles" were supposed to validate the claims of the believers, and help make them stand out from the rest of the "false" religions. Likewise, Jesus is using the same method in saying that if you "don't believe what I say, then believe my miracles" which in turn arises faith in mens hearts (assuming that "works" in John 14:12 means miracles). Faith that resulted on the basis of miracles. It is quite clear from the from gospel, that miracles laid out the foundation of faith and was the core tool to convince people. People believed after they saw miracles, not the other way round. The fact that no other christian has been able to replicate not even one miracle in the that is told in the entire bible, is a proof that such miracles are nothing more than mere stories, just like every other religion. The true knowledge of Him (Jesus) is only able to be aquired once God revealed the entirety of the information that He wished to make available to mankind (later contained in what we call the New Testament), the need for miraculous confirmation of the oral Word came to an end. Scripture and verse please. Where does it say that miracles will end after "entirity of the information" is declared by human, but the preaching will continue? There is nothing in those promises which miracles are needed only for the oral Word? As you pointed out preaching is directly correlated to miracles. So if you are preaching, then you need to show miracles. No miracle, no preaching. Even a 5 year kid can understand that logic. May I remind you that the "entirety of the information" is still debated amongst the body of christ, which is why have different canons in the world. Does your god gives different "entirety of the information" to different believers? God never came down once to decide which books consisted the "entirity of the information". That was decided at the whims and preferences of men. The Mormon sect of christianity believes that the "entirity of the information" is complete with the book of Mormon. Why should I believe you and not them?What is the difference in their claims of "entirity of information" as compared to your.? 2 Peter 1:3 declares that miracles are not needed as spiritual maturity is in grasp for every single person "through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." Christ and the kowledge of Him makes "the man of God" "...adequate, equipped for every good work." Not miracles after complete revelation of His word, but knowledge of Him. Here we go again with your rewriting and kinky rationalisation. 2 Peter 1:3 mentions nothing about miracles Miraculous gifts are to be done away with when the complete Word of God is finished or "perfect" as Paul puts it. Whether the Word of God is "finished" is still disputed till this date. It is only finished in your mind. In I Corinthians verse 10 it states about "when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away." Does it say about miracles, just like the way miracles are mentioned in the other verses? I am not interested in what your interpratation of the bible. I am interested to come across a verse where Jesus said that such miracles are temporal. "Paul offered a useful illustration to clarify his point. When the church possessed only bits and pieces of God's will, as revealed through scattered miraculous gifts and the gradual production, between approximately A.D. 57 and A.D. 95, I like to see some non-fundamentalist websites which mentions about these various date. I believe the dates are still disputed. However, when the totality of God's will, which became the New Testament, had been revealed, the church then had the means available to become "a man" (13:11). Once the church had access to all of God's written Word, the means by which the Word was given (i.e., miraculous gifts) would be obsolete, useless, and therefore "put away" (13:11). Please present verses which says that once the bible is declared complete by protestant, miracles would be obsolete, or anything close to that. Which NT are you talking about. There are so many NT around. Which is one the genuine one and why?Why should I believe that you have the correct one over the orthodox version Now that the church has access to "all truth" (John16:13), the use of tongue-speaking and other miraculous enhancements in the church today would be comparableto an adult man or woman sucking on a pacifier!" Oh really, so you mean to say I should stay away from pentacostal and charismatic churches? So you r saying these churches are doing something which they should not be doing? How come I don't see you debating with these groups on CF? Do you go to these churches and tell them they should not do such thing Why doesn't Holy Spirit corrects them?They are genuine christians asking Jesus in their heart.(I know some of them personally) They claim that the holy spirit is making them speak in tongues. On the contrary these churches preach that Tongue-speaking is a sign of spiritual maturity. Once again your god tells something else to one set of believers(pentacostal), whereas to another set of believers(you) it something else. Either they are lying or you are, or there is no such thing as the HS? So much for the claims the church having access to the "truth" and HS. Once again it is proven that "truth" becomes whatever the believer wants it to become. A good example would reitirated in the following verses Mark 16:15-18 ....... Notice that "signs" will follow to who believe, and according to the bible these miracles had allegedly confirmed the words of the "true" believer. Notice how the ability to do signs, is by "preaching the good news." Indeed the signs were necessary for the infancy of the church, for the faith through not only word but by signs is needed. Notice that there is nothing in those verses which says that miracles would be temporal. The correlation between preaching and miracles are confirmed in those verses. All of us have taken the skeptical position of the Apostle Thomas. If he could get to see a miracle, then so should we. The gist of the whole Thomas example is that untill I see a miracle then only I believe, not the other way round. Indeed for the infancy of the church miracles were needed to mature it and prepare it for the entirety of the Word of God. So now you say miracles are not needed to convince skeptics like us. Now your god wants us to your personal interpretation of the believer without providing any extraordinary evidence that your interpretation is the correct one as compared to 1 billion different interpretation that are derived from the same book. Nor is your God providing any extraordinary evidence that the list of books you hold in your hand is the correct one. Should we accept your belief as true on face value, which you yourself admited is a subjective one? Please present a verse, which says that miracles were required only for the infancy of the church The bible mentions nothing about ending of miracles, specifically after the "entirety of the perfect word of god" is declared "by imperfect" humans. Most christians still claim that biblical miracles are happening all the time and this proves their god. However none of them can provide any substancial proof. If he enabled for the Holy Spirit to come to believers, then how come the believers did not follow the law, as laid down in the OT. Ezekiel 11:19-20 RSV .... Ezekiel 36:26-27 RSV ,...... This obviously a false claim about the Holy Spirit when seen in light of the Hebrew Bible(which is the true canon as proved by you) In regards to Eazekiel you do know that it is referring to Israel and their regathering after the exile right? I see so you want to say this particular doesn't apply to you, but you want the verse about the HS in the Gospel to apply to you? Mmmm cherry piiicckiing. Have the Israelite gathered completely?Last time I checked the 11 tribes of Isreal are still considered lost. So you are saying that God is gonna send his holy spirit to the Isrealite after they regroup and then make them follow all the law? The bestowal of God's Holy Spirit was a "guarantee" that Israel would never ever violate his Commandments, Statutes and Ordinances, thus insuring they would dwell forever in the Promised Land. Nothing mentioned in those verses that status quo about the Holy Spirit will change. Oh, BTW the HS is not a person in the OT. And as far as you having the "light", the bible once again debunks your claim Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. According to Isaiah, Christians like you have no light in them.because you refuse to obey the law. No according to Isaiah, Israel is supposed to walk in those ways Where does it reference Christians or gentiles in Isaiah 8?. That's easy. You claim that you follow the god of the jews. Are you (or St Paul) speaking according to to law and testimony(word)? .....NO Therefore there is no light in you or any christian. Case closed. Btw thanks for admitting that the Jews still have to obey the law, which prohibits the faith in JC The law was to be the light for the Gentiles, not Jesus. Isa 51:4 Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations. Salvation for Gentiles meant binding to God through his laws. (Isa 56:1-7) Israel(not Jesus) is the vehicle that provides a light to the Gentiles. (Isa 41:8, 42:6) In regards to Isaiah 56:1-7 did you notice how it states "For My salvation is about to come, And My righteousness to be revealed. " Why it even goes on to say that, and here is the term again, "the son of man who takes hold of it; Who keeps from profaning the sabbath," Quite a good reference to Jesus as He is yet to come, is the Son of Man in the ultimate sense and was kept from profaning the sabbath. Quite a good reference that you still don't understand hebrew parrelism nor can you read the bible. What makes you think this is talking about a particular Son of Man? Like the Daniel prophecy you are jumping on the word "son of man", and then want to proclaim it that this about Jesus. If you read carefully It says right below what must a gentile do to join God's fold Is 56:2-6 Blessed is the man who does this, the man who holds it fast, who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it, and keeps his hand from doing any evil Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." ...... And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant See no requirement of Jesus. Not only will the "Son of Man" would keep the sabbath pure but also the gentiles. People who keep the Sabbath are considered blessed. Too bad you are not one of them. I have no doubt in my ming that you will write off this verse, since it comes in the way of what you want to do, just like any other skeptic. And since you claim that everytime the OT mentions about "Son of Man", it automatically means Jesus. Here is the Jewish God instruction to his people about who not to put their trust in regarding their slavation Psa 146:3-4 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. How true. Jesus called himself the Son of man/Prince, and Jesus the man/god departed, returned to the ground, and his plans for a quick return via a second coming came to nothing. God also told his people what he was not. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Since Jesus claimed to be the son of man, he cannot be god. Also valid agent of OT God doesn't tell people to ignore God's Law, a valid agent doesn't give false prophecy, and a valid agent of God doesn't tell lies. Ironically, Jesus fits the mold of a false prophet which God warned his people to be on the look out for. Deut 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die Jesus, who presumed to speak in God's name, was put to death just as God said he should be. Those are three Bible prophecies fulfilled by Jesus that I'll wager you don't want to recognize. Of course Israel was the light to all nations during the times that this is referencing. Please show me a verse from the OT which says that the Status of of Isreal being the "light to all nations" was temporal. You don't even want to obey your christ when he says John 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. Since you claim he was also the god of the OT, the statement "my commandments" also include the OT law. No it doesn't include the OT law because Christ fulfilled the law of Old in order for a new covenant to be established on better promises. We have been over this, there is nothing in the OT which says that a king Messiah would "fulfill the law", nor does it mention a faith in a illegal human sacrifice would remove the obligation of observing the law. On contrary the messiah would bring in usher in a great era of compliance of the law. And you still haven't told us what does this fulfill mean?Does it mean that since Jesus kept the law, you are not obligated by it? And how is this a better promise when 95% of the World Population(including Jews and "False" Christians) will be tortured in hell for eternity, because your JC failed to leave any extraordinary evidence about himself. 2)What evidence did the council of men present to validate the claim that they had "authority of Christ"? What was different in the "authority" that these council had compared to the authority that Joseph Smith had? 2) Read the Nicene Creed, see what they believed? That is how they validated it, not only that but by the book that came out of those beliefs. So they validated/prooved their belief by declaring it? That's your evidence of their authority!!!!!!!!! The Mormons declare their belief and claim they have "the authority of christ" So do the RCC, JW, and every freaking christian sect that ever existed So by your logic, all these belief are true because they are declared!!!!!!! So my question still remains What was different about this declaration compared to the other declaretion? What extraordinary credentials did they the produce to verify that they were legetimate representative of God? Their beliefs could be just as wrong as any of the christian groups that you consider false. Not even you agree with the Nicene Creed, when they say they "believe in the catholic church". 3)Why did your god fail to preserve the books in the original manuscripts?Why did he let imperfect humans add words to his "perfect" book? 3) No human has added to the book and the copies of the originals are just as good and as reliable. So now we are lying for Jesus!!!!!!! This lie of yours was exposed here(Post 578) and here. Have some shame. You of all people should know that lying won't get you anywhere. 4)What was democracy doing in the declaration of God's perfect word?Is the "The Truth" subject to democractic opinion of council of men? 4) No it is based on the authority of Christ. So is Christ authority, now democratic?The desicion wasn't unanimous, so did the minority not have the authority of christ?!!! Did Jesus suddenly decide after 340 years, that his followers should now have canon, however he is gonna leave that decision with incompetent humans, who cannot agree about anything? Why was god not present for such a big event?Your god had no problem to come down to earth to prove that Moses was a valid prophet, but not here? He went to the pain of dedicating 36 verses on how to handle mildew, but on biggest event in human history he just disappeared. Some priorties..... Once again what was the proof for this "authority". Just saying that they had authority won't cut it. If Muslim/Mormom claims that the Quran/Book of Mormon had the authority of christ behind their books would you accept it? Remember the Golden Rule. Start applying it to your beliefs now. 5)What was Jesus doing in a pagan ritual of baptism?(Please answer this in the Did Jesus Sin Thread) Please answer this question in the "Did Jesus Sin Thread". Otherwise i have to assume that you agree with me that Jesus sinned by participating in a pagan ritual Some more interesting fact regarding your canon For nearly two centuries after the beginning of the Christian era, the Old Testament-- the Old Testament alone constituted the Christian canon. No other books were called scripture; no other books were considered inspired; no other books were deemed canonical. Well what is your date of the beginning of the Christian era? Somewhere after the alleged "death and resurrection" of christ. In the 1 centuary AD. Gee you should be knowing this stuff. Are you trying to find a strawman here? To Irenaeus, more than to any other man, belongs the credit of founding the Roman Catholic church; and to him also belongs the credit of founding the New Testament canon, which is a Roman Catholic work. No collection of books corresponding to our New Testament existed before the time of Irenaeus. He was the first to make such a collection, and he was the first to claim inspiration and divine authority for its books. Irenaeus is the first early church father to quote almost every book of the New Testament. He quoted or considered authentic twenty-three of the twenty-seven books--omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. So according to you if had divine authority, then therefore his list was correct?So why do your bible contain the extra books? If his list was not correct, it means that it was nothing more than a personal speculation. And what was special about his list, as compared to the competing list? So you are kinda right in your statment of him claiming divine authority for the NT. When the f**k did I or the article say that? Stop building strawman. Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. So far as is known, the first church council which acted upon this question was the Synod of Laodicea which met in 365. This council rejected the Apocryphal books contained in Augustine's list, but admitted Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. It excluded Revelation. Wait a minute, you say the Council of Nicea determined what books should consitute the Bible, meaning canon, then you say it didn't... Which is it? There you go, building strawman again Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. Please request the HS to teach you how to read. It is however you was promoting a lie Read the Nicene Creed, see what they believed? That is how they validated it, not only that but by the book that came out of those beliefs. Once again your lies are exposed. No book came out the the Nicene Creed. Are taking your lessons from Paul, who openly proudly admitted he used deception and lies to make converts (Philippians 1:18,Romans 3:7) Or did you take part in the Alpha Course, which teach people to decieve others to convert them to your cult. If anything the Council of Hippo (A. D. 393) was first to lay down the limits of the canon as discussed here were approved by Augustine and verified what was set down by Athanasius. So why does the canon need the approval of "imperfect" men? You still answered haven't this question. Who authorised them to be on this council? Various councils, following this, adopted canonical lists. One council would admit certain books and the next council would reject them. The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which admitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations. The actions of none of these councils were unanimous or decisive. The list of books adopted was adopted simply by a majority vote. A large minority of every council refused to accept the list of the majority. Some advocated the admission of books that were rejected; others opposed the admission of books that were accepted. As late as the seventh century (629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople, many different canonical lists were presented for ratification. Non of them were decisive or unanimous yet they were adopted by a majority vote, apparently some decision making happened. Some decision making happened!!!!! Boy what objective criteria. The Divine Truth of the universe was decided by "some decision making". Would accept if your govt start passing laws on decision making process which you are not even aware?Hopefully not. But you accept such standard for these councils. This just goes to prove you have double standard. If you think there wasn't some behind the scenes politics associated with the vote, you are living in a fantasy. The validity of the Holy Bible as being directly from God is one layer of Christian speculation piled on top of another. None of it can be questioned, yet it must all be believed. Really, the findings of Hippo were reiterated at the Council of Carthage. CANON IS CLOSED. I see, so once again it is men who decided about the canon, not God. I don't think you read the article carefully. (Start praying for reading skills, or join a primary school in your neighbourhood) The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which admitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations. You just admited that the catholics have been right all along then, about the Apocryphal books, being canonincal. So it is they who have the complete "truth", not you Sub_zero decide one way or the other. Was the biblical canon closed in 1)70 A.D, when the Jews declared that the Hebrew bible is complete, nulliying the need for a NT 2)397 A.D, when the catholics declared the bible to be complete with the Apocryphal books in them. Or are you again cherry picking between the two decisions of these councils, just like the way you treat your bible. And please respond to following part. As late as the seventh century (629), at the sixth Council of Constantinople, many different canonical lists were presented for ratification. Obviously some members of the body of christ did not agree with the decisions. So your "truth" is decided with the majority work. The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther . ................. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority. And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible. ...... He rejected Revelation. He says: "I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit." (Preface to Edition of 1622). To those, I would like to point you to two place, same site... It shouldn't me who you should be telling. It's Martin Luther. So right he is in hell because he did not believe in your sets of books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Faith that resulted on the basis of miracles. It is quite clear from the from gospel, that miracles laid out the foundation of faith and was the core tool to convince people. People believed after they saw miracles, not the other way round. The fact that no other christian has been able to replicate not even one miracle in the that is told in the entire bible, is a proof that such miracles are nothing more than mere stories, just like every other religion. Remember this is assuming that in John 14:12 the use of the word "works" is in reference to miracles... It is not however as the three central terms used in the Bible to designate a supernatural (as contrasted with a natural) manifestations are: (1) “miracle” (dunamis); (2) “sign” (semeion); and (3) “wonder” (teras). Scripture and verse please. Where does it say that miracles will end after "entirity of the information" is declared by human, but the preaching will continue? There is nothing in those promises which miracles are needed only for the oral Word? As you pointed out preaching is directly correlated to miracles. So if you are preaching, then you need to show miracles. No miracle, no preaching. Even a 5 year kid can understand that logic. Does your god gives different "entirety of the information" to different believers? God never came down once to decide which books consisted the "entirity of the information". That was decided at the whims and preferences of men. The Mormon sect of christianity believes that the "entirity of the information" is complete with the book of Mormon. Why should I believe you and not them?What is the difference in their claims of "entirity of information" as compared to your.? The entirety is the Old and New Testament Scriptures that are the Holy Bible today. It was not decided by mere men but what set in place beforehand by the author, God. The way that men gathered and discerened which writings were from God is by focusing on Christ as its center and other beliefs set forth in the Nicene Creed. Here we go again with your rewriting and kinky rationalisation. 2 Peter 1:3 mentions nothing about miracles That is my point... 2 Peter 1:3 NASB: "... seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." The "Him" referenced is Christ and the "true knowledge of Him" is all we need "pertaining to life and godliness." Nowhere does it mention that miracles are the source of that "true knowledge" but it is achieved through "faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Whether the Word of God is "finished" is still disputed till this date. It is only finished in your mind. Jerome (early 5th century) In a letter dated 414, Jerome appears to accept the New Testament books as fixed. Jerome, personally thought the Letter of Barnabas should have been included in the canon but is content to accept what had already come to be the consensus. “Jerome confirms that by the beginning of the fifth century, the canon of the New Testament had achieved a kind of solemn, unshakable status; it could not be altered, even if one had different opinions” (Carsten Peter Thiede, “A Testament is Born, in Christian History, issue 43, p. 29). Does it say about miracles, just like the way miracles are mentioned in the other verses? I am not interested in what your interpratation of the bible. I am interested to come across a verse where Jesus said that such miracles are temporal. Well it says it in I Corinthians 13 if you wanted to read it. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul argued that love is a more excellent attribute than miraculous gifts. After all, miraculous gifts (i.e., prophecy, tongue-speaking, supernatural knowledge, etc.) were going to fail, vanish, cease, and be done away (13:8). Please present verses which says that once the bible is declared complete by protestant, miracles would be obsolete, or anything close to that. Which NT are you talking about. There are so many NT around. Which is one the genuine one and why?Why should I believe that you have the correct one over the orthodox version Well it says it in I Corinthians 13 if you wanted to read it. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul argued that love is a more excellent attribute than miraculous gifts. After all, miraculous gifts (i.e., prophecy, tongue-speaking, supernatural knowledge, etc.) were going to fail, vanish, cease, and be done away (13:8). There is only one NT and that is in the Bible, it is followed right after the OT. Oh really, so you mean to say I should stay away from pentacostal and charismatic churches? So you r saying these churches are doing something which they should not be doing? How come I don't see you debating with these groups on CF? Do you go to these churches and tell them they should not do such thing Why doesn't Holy Spirit corrects them?They are genuine christians asking Jesus in their heart.(I know some of them personally) They claim that the holy spirit is making them speak in tongues. On the contrary these churches preach that Tongue-speaking is a sign of spiritual maturity. Once again your god tells something else to one set of believers(pentacostal), whereas to another set of believers(you) it something else. Either they are lying or you are, or there is no such thing as the HS? So much for the claims the church having access to the "truth" and HS. Once again it is proven that "truth" becomes whatever the believer wants it to become. The Pentacostal and charismatic movement is NOT Biblical. Sure some of them are Christians, but the movement is not Biblical. "Now, understand what I am saying. I am not saying that all the people in it are not Christians, some of them are, but those things that define the Pentecostal Movement are not Biblical. It is not Biblical to say, that speaking in tongues is a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit, and if you haven't spoken in tongues you haven't received the Holy Spirit--that is not Biblical. It is not even Biblical to encourage people to speak in tongues, as if that in itself, was some spiritual gift that everybody had to have. It is not Biblical to believe that God is going to heal you. It is not Biblical to believe that some people have the power to heal and can go into great places and knock people over, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that they wield this great supernatural power. " http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/qacharismatics.htm Notice that there is nothing in those verses which says that miracles would be temporal. The correlation between preaching and miracles are confirmed in those verses. Indeed, for the Apostles but in I Corinth. 13 it says that miracolous gifts will be done away with. So now you say miracles are not needed to convince skeptics like us. Back then, that is exactly why it was needed. Now your god wants us to your personal interpretation of the believer without providing any extraordinary evidence that your interpretation is the correct one as compared to 1 billion different interpretation that are derived from the same book. Nor is your God providing any extraordinary evidence that the list of books you hold in your hand is the correct one. Should we accept your belief as true on face value, which you yourself admited is a subjective one? Please present a verse, which says that miracles were required only for the infancy of the church The bible mentions nothing about ending of miracles, specifically after the "entirety of the perfect word of god" is declared "by imperfect" humans. Most christians still claim that biblical miracles are happening all the time and this proves their god. However none of them can provide any substancial proof. Perhaps this will help: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572 I see so you want to say this particular doesn't apply to you, but you want the verse about the HS in the Gospel to apply to you? Mmmm cherry piiicckiing. No, it is context. The statement was directed towards Israel not a declaration for the entire world. Have the Israelite gathered completely?Last time I checked the 11 tribes of Isreal are still considered lost. So you are saying that God is gonna send his holy spirit to the Isrealite after they regroup and then make them follow all the law? The bestowal of God's Holy Spirit was a "guarantee" that Israel would never ever violate his Commandments, Statutes and Ordinances, thus insuring they would dwell forever in the Promised Land. Nothing mentioned in those verses that status quo about the Holy Spirit will change. Oh, BTW the HS is not a person in the OT. 11:17"Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' That was able to be fulfilled because of Israel becoming a country in 1948. That had major prophetic fulfillment. Actually it is only 10 that are NOT lost at all. Once they are all re-gathered (during the millenial reign of Christ) they will be given a new spirit. That spirit is the same as a Christian, but since ISRAEL doesn't have that spirit, obviously. No the Holy Spirit will be given to Israel. No status quo was changed, and they are always guaranteed the Holy Spirit but it is up to them to accept it. That's easy. You claim that you follow the god of the jews. Are you (or St Paul) speaking according to to law and testimony(word)? .....NO Therefore there is no light in you or any christian. Case closed. Btw thanks for admitting that the Jews still have to obey the law, which prohibits the faith in JC I do not claim to follow the god of the Jews. I follow the King of the Jews, the Messiah. Here is the Jewish God instruction to his people about who not to put their trust in regarding their slavation Psa 146:3-4 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. How true. Jesus called himself the Son of man/Prince, and Jesus the man/god departed, returned to the ground, and his plans for a quick return via a second coming came to nothing. I hope you didn't mean to do this. But in Psalms 146:3-4 in NIV and NASB it doesn't say "son of man." It says "in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save." Well Jesus is immortal and saves. God also told his people what he was not. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Since Jesus claimed to be the son of man, he cannot be god. Also valid agent of OT God doesn't tell people to ignore God's Law, a valid agent doesn't give false prophecy, and a valid agent of God doesn't tell lies. The idiom "son of" means to bear the character of. So likewise one who is faithful and walks in God's ways becomes a "Son of God." Basically it is saying that God is not a man (one who does not walk in His ways) nor is He a son of man (one who walks in His ways) "that he should change his mind." Ironically, Jesus fits the mold of a false prophet which God warned his people to be on the look out for. Deut 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die Jesus, who presumed to speak in God's name, was put to death just as God said he should be. Those are three Bible prophecies fulfilled by Jesus that I'll wager you don't want to recognize. Actually, you forgot the real prophecy related to Christ. As this is a prophet that is the complete opposite of a false prophet listed in 18:20. 15"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16"This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.' 17"The LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19'It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. Please show me a verse from the OT which says that the Status of of Isreal being the "light to all nations" was temporal. Jeremiah 31:27. The fact that it speaks of a new covenant speaks of the temperol one associated with them being the light to all nations. We have been over this, there is nothing in the OT which says that a king Messiah would "fulfill the law", nor does it mention a faith in a illegal human sacrifice would remove the obligation of observing the law. On contrary the messiah would bring in usher in a great era of compliance of the law. Compliance. Since He complied and fulfilled the law of old and we base everything on Him, how are we not complying to the law? And you still haven't told us what does this fulfill mean?Does it mean that since Jesus kept the law, you are not obligated by it? And how is this a better promise when 95% of the World Population(including Jews and "False" Christians) will be tortured in hell for eternity, because your JC failed to leave any extraordinary evidence about himself. The extraordinary evidence is the Bible. And 2.1 billion people claim to be Christians. Let's take that number for the sake of argument as most of them being true Christians. That is far less than 95% of the population not believing. So they validated/prooved their belief by declaring it? That's your evidence of their authority!!!!!!!!! The Mormons declare their belief and claim they have "the authority of christ" So do the RCC, JW, and every freaking christian sect that ever existed So by your logic, all these belief are true because they are declared!!!!!!! No, because that decleration was later manifested into the Bible. The Bible is the evidence of their authority more than anything. So my question still remains What was different about this declaration compared to the other declaretion? What extraordinary credentials did they the produce to verify that they were legetimate representative of God? Their beliefs could be just as wrong as any of the christian groups that you consider false. Not even you agree with the Nicene Creed, when they say they "believe in the catholic church". They have the Bible which was created out of those beliefs. And again, the Catholic church meant a universal church based on Christ and the things put forth in the Nicene Creed. So now we are lying for Jesus!!!!!!! This lie of yours was exposed Have some shame. You of all people should know that lying won't get you anywhere. The manuscripts were written with the utmost accuracy and faithfulness. So is Christ authority, now democratic?The desicion wasn't unanimous, so did the minority not have the authority of christ?!!! Did Jesus suddenly decide after 340 years, that his followers should now have canon, however he is gonna leave that decision with incompetent humans, who cannot agree about anything? Christ's authority is in the words and books they chose to put into the Bible. The canon was always present and was widely read. The decision to collect that canon in one book called the Bible to identify with it better was made by men based upon the teachings and life of Christ. Why was god not present for such a big event?Your god had no problem to come down to earth to prove that Moses was a valid prophet, but not here? He went to the pain of dedicating 36 verses on how to handle mildew, but on biggest event in human history he just disappeared. Some priorties..... The biggest event in history is either creation itself or Jesus Christ. Either way He was there for both and is always here in Spirit. Once again what was the proof for this "authority". Just saying that they had authority won't cut it. If Muslim/Mormom claims that the Quran/Book of Mormon had the authority of christ behind their books would you accept it? I am not just saying He had the authority, He said it, many others wrote about Him as well saying the same. Somewhere after the alleged "death and resurrection" of christ. In the 1 centuary AD. Gee you should be knowing this stuff. Are you trying to find a strawman here? No, I want an answer to a question. So 1st Century A.D. right after Christ died. So with the scope of 1st century A.D. most the NT was finished, so your claim is null. So according to you if had divine authority, then therefore his list was correct?So why do your bible contain the extra books? If his list was not correct, it means that it was nothing more than a personal speculation. And what was special about his list, as compared to the competing list? It shows that the majority of books were agreed upon. Just so happens he didn't. What makes him significant is that he was the first early church father to quote almost every book of the New Testament. There you go, building strawman again Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. Please request the HS to teach you how to read. It is however you was promoting a lie The canon is the Bible, which is it, did they determine the canon of the Bible or what books should constitute the Bible or not? Once again your lies are exposed. No book came out the the Nicene Creed. Are taking your lessons from Paul, who openly proudly admitted he used deception and lies to make converts (Philippians 1:18,Romans 3:7) Or did you take part in the Alpha Course, which teach people to decieve others to convert them to your cult. Yes I know no book came out of the Creed, the beliefs were widely accepted however and the Bible came out of that. So why does the canon need the approval of "imperfect" men? You still answered haven't this question. Who authorised them to be on this council? It isn't approval it is a way to determine the validity of the divine compared to the non-divine works of writings available at the time. I see, so once again it is men who decided about the canon, not God. I don't think you read the article carefully. (Start praying for reading skills, or join a primary school in your neighbourhood) The third council of Carthage in 397 adopted the list of Augustine which admitted the Apocryphal books and Revelation and rejected Lamentations. You just admited that the catholics have been right all along then, about the Apocryphal books, being canonincal. So it is they who have the complete "truth", not you Sub_zero decide one way or the other. Was the biblical canon closed in 1)70 A.D, when the Jews declared that the Hebrew bible is complete, nulliying the need for a NT 2)397 A.D, when the catholics declared the bible to be complete with the Apocryphal books in them. Or are you again cherry picking between the two decisions of these councils, just like the way you treat your bible. In the Council of Hippo 393 a.d. the limits of the canon as discussed here were approved by Augustine and verified what was set down by Athanasius. Council of Carthage (A. D. 397) The findings of Hippo were reiterated at this council. CANON IS CLOSED Jerome (early 5th century) In a letter dated 414, Jerome appears to accept the New Testament books as fixed. Jerome, personally thought the Letter of Barnabas should have been included in the canon but is content to accept what had already come to be the consensus. “Jerome confirms that by the beginning of the fifth century, the canon of the New Testament had achieved a kind of solemn, unshakable status; it could not be altered, even if one had different opinions” (Carsten Peter Thiede, “A Testament is Born, in Christian History, issue 43, p. 29). http://www.biblebb.com/files/howbible.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Gawdamn. Why don't you guys write a fuckin book? Who can read all that shit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore * * * rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure *: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Girl! Have you come a long way or what? That was new to me, I never thought of that part, but you're absolutely right. Paul considered the Jewish religion based on fables! So who's right now? The OT, NT or Paul? You do bring up new and interesting questions Amanda. It is not Paul who writes Titus, but Titus does. The Jewish religion is not based on fables, if you payed attention to the whole passage you would realize Titus is speaking about the Jews who pervert the religion. He clearly states an example: Titus 1:16They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. Han Solo was quoting the letter of Paul to Titus. The author is listed as Paul, not Titus. Sub_zero, you are either being deceitfully and deliberately obtuse or you are as ill-informed about the Bible as we all suspected. sub_zero: Against your assertions that the bible is 100% true, and that those of its claims that are testible have been proved true: There are many statements in the bible that are not true. Note posts 150-152 by Han Solo and me on Edward Abbey's thread in the Lion's Den, i.e. A few things to prove that the Bible is not inspired by God: 1. contradictions. There are such a large number of them, discussed so often on this site and elsewhere, that I will not start listing them. 2. historical inaccuracy. falsehoods about the governor Quirinius and many others. 3. scientific inaccuracy. The Bible makes statements about geography, astronomy, biology, etc. , many of which are false. 4. general inanity of the whole system. If God wants rational creatures in heaven worshiping him, why not just start there instead of beginning the whole chancy creation? If God wants each worshiper to worship out of free will, thus requiring a period of testing on earth, then why does God confirm each saved soul in grace after death? They're not worshiping out of free will in heaven any more if their free will ended at death. Why is god called good and loving when he glories in the eternal torment of his own creatures (verses say this, I'm not making it up neither did Calvin). And on and on. 5. economy of explanation - not a proof but a reason not to bother with believing the Bible. The nature of the world as we experience it can be explained more simply and with fewer contradictions without theistic presuppositions than it can with them. Theistic presuppositions bring further, insoluble problems in their wake. 6. injustice. Why are fundamentalist christians so often on the side of oppressive power structures and not on the side of freedom and social justice? Why do they call for oppression of gays and lesbians? Many theologians in the South justified slavery from the Bible (I admit that abolitionists often appealed to the bible against slavery - so it has its good stuff in it, I'm not denying that. Abolitionism also follows from non-religious principles of the Enlightenment, though.) (Han added 7 - promises that do not come true when you try them, esp. unanswered prayer) I added 8 - prophecies that did not come true. I mentioned destruction of Tyre. Jesus' failure to return in the lifetime of those who listened to him is another set of unfulfilled prophecies. The only way you can deny all this counterevidence is to twist words out of their meanings, to invent additional entities (loads of world-wide floods, doublets of angels etc. a la Matthew, etc.), claim that the bible manuscripts either were copied wrong or translated wrong (but then - WHERE'S the Holy Spirit all that time?), and so on. Eventually your system becomes like Ptolemaic astronomy; it collapses under the weight of the countless problems it has to face, and you adopt a simpler, more economical explanation, like the realization that the bible is a human artifact on a level with many other religious texts. As far as I can see, sub_zero has not refuted the above points, just as he has not refuted many other points made in this thread. That's because he cannot. I knew he wouldn't try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 As fun as this is, I'm still interested in getting into a discussion regarding the actual existence of God with anyone...please?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Gawdamn. Why don't you guys write a fuckin book? Who can read all that shit? No shit! I guess arguing theology is a lot more fun for Zero, than having to take responsiblity for his offensive nature. Sub, are you blowing off my words to you? http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=143774 Credibility going down, down, down... I'm giving you a chance. You're Christianity is becoming a fraud now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Sub, Would you say that the miracles that Jesus proformed were a sign that he was from God? Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Blah ..... Blah..... Blah .... Blah.... Evidently it's time for another roll-out..... to review...... Post #764 As the last few days have shown .... zero is a troll. It's amazing how many forums he's participated in. Rolling out one more link..... For your reading pleasure..... http://politicalswitchboard.invisionzone.c...ult_type=topics Post #747 Update ..... Sub has also tried to troll http://www.TheologyWeb.com January 22nd 2006, 05:19 PM Inside the mindset of an atheist... Views: 101 Posted By sub_zer0 Inside the mindset of an atheist... sub_zer0, We don't allow problems from other boards to be re-hashed here. We also don't allow profanity. Please familiarize yourself with our campus decorum before making additional posts . Post #704 So... I followed the path and went to Whistlestopper, registered and found this.... a thread started by Zero. http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showth...44&page=1&pp=15 I find it hilarious how much bull**** the christians add onto their own myth, the king of the jews is now the king of kings...if jesus existed (and I doubt that to be honest) he was a cult leader, nothing more, he had by modern standards a small following, how then can he be called the 'king of kings', that is a typical dogmatic presumtion, similar to the way superman evolved better powers as time went on so he could take on better bad guys, so religion has evolved super characters that are worthy of their praise in an ever more demanding modern society." Of course there are others if you go to my webiste listed at the bottom. READ THE REST @ http://www.todayshistory.info/ Don't forget to sin-up and participate on the forum @ http://todayshistory.info/phpBB/index.php And Now.... for the latest forum zero has trolled.... http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_to...light=sub_zer0# When we look over the 101 supposed contradictions we find that they fall into 15 broad categories or genres of errors. Listed below are those categories, each explaining in one sentence the errors behind Shabbir's contradictions. Alongside each category is a number informing us how many times he could be blamed for each category. You will note that when you add up the totals they are larger than 101. The reason is that, as you may have already noticed, Shabbir many times makes more than one error in a given question. Categories of the errors evidenced by Shabbir in his pamphlet: -he misunderstood the historical context - 25 times -he misread the text - 15 times -he misunderstood the Hebrew usage - 13 times -the texts are compatible with a little thought - 13 times -Blah.... Blahhh...... Blahhhh... Don't you have anything better to do than troll forums and Blah.... Blahhh...... Blahhhh.... BTW ... my favorites folder still has more trolling sites of zero. How many does he need to see before he gets the hint????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Remember this is assuming that in John 14:12 the use of the word "works" is in reference to miracles... It is not however as the three central terms used in the Bible to designate a supernatural (as contrasted with a natural) manifestations are: (1) “miracle” (dunamis); (2) “sign” (semeion); and (3) “wonder” (teras). It is quite clear what "Works" is Jesus is talking about? The entirety is the Old and New Testament Scriptures that are the Holy Bible today. It was not decided by mere men but what set in place beforehand by the author, God. And your proof for this fantastic claim is? It is isn't difficult to convert that above statement to generic one, depending on what you consider bible The entirety is the Old and New Testament(insert what ever books you want here) Scriptures and Mormon that are the Holy Bible today. It was not decided by mere men but what set in place beforehand by the author, God. The way that men gathered and discerened which writings were from God is by focusing on Christ as its center and other beliefs set forth in the Nicene Creed. So if these men had decided any other books you would be preaching a different bible today. That is my point... 2 Peter 1:3 NASB: "... seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence." The "Him" referenced is Christ and the "true knowledge of Him" is all we need "pertaining to life and godliness." Nowhere does it mention that miracles are the source of that "true knowledge" but it is achieved through "faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." I never stated that Miracles represent True Knowledge. I said that miracles confirm the claims of the believers, and if you are preach that you need to show miracles that you are genuine representative of christ Whether the Word of God is "finished" is still disputed till this date. It is only finished in your mind Jerome (early 5th century) In a letter dated 414, Jerome appears to accept the New Testament books as fixed. Jerome, personally thought the Letter of Barnabas should have been included in the canon but is content to accept what had already come to be the consensus. “Jerome confirms that by the beginning of the fifth century, the canon of the New Testament had achieved a kind of solemn, unshakable status; it could not be altered, even if one had different opinions” (Carsten Peter Thiede, “A Testament is Born, in Christian History, issue 43, p. 29). So is Jerome God?Why should I bother about a christian opinion who lived after 500 years after the event. Does it say about miracles, just like the way miracles are mentioned in the other verses? I am not interested in what your interpratation of the bible. I am interested to come across a verse where Jesus said that such miracles are temporal. Well it says it in I Corinthians 13 if you wanted to read it. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul argued that love is a more excellent attribute than miraculous gifts. After all, miraculous gifts (i.e., prophecy, tongue-speaking, supernatural knowledge, etc.) were going to fail, vanish, cease, and be done away (13:8). All 1 Corinthians 13 is saying that love is the most important of all. It doesn't mention anyting about these miraclous gift disappearing. Right afterwards in 1 Cor 14, Paul just debunks your claim 1 Cor 14 1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.[/b] ..... 12So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. ..... 22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. ...... 24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand[h]comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. ......... 39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. Sounds to me that Paul is promoting Tongue speaking and prophecy as signs of supernatural There is only one NT and that is in the Bible, it is followed right after the OT. A Coptic christian will differ with you. You can assert whatever you want, but unless you provide supernatural proof that your list is the absolute correct word of god, I will not believe you. Oh really, so you mean to say I should stay away from pentacostal and charismatic churches? So you r saying these churches are doing something which they should not be doing? ...... Once again it is proven that "truth" becomes whatever the believer wants it to become.The Pentacostal and charismatic movement is NOT Biblical. 1 Corinths 14 just rebutted your claim Sure some of them are Christians, but the movement is not Biblical. Why do say you some? Are the rest of not saved? And if some of them are true christians, they why is it the HS not telling them that they are not following biblical movement "Now, understand what I am saying. I am not saying that all the people in it are not Christians, some of them are, but those things that define the Pentecostal Movement are not Biblical. It is not Biblical to say, that speaking in tongues is a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit, and if you haven't spoken in tongues you haven't received the Holy Spirit--that is not Biblical. It is not even Biblical to encourage people to speak in tongues, as if that in itself, was some spiritual gift that everybody had to have. It is not Biblical to believe that God is going to heal you. It is not Biblical to believe that some people have the power to heal and can go into great places and knock people over, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and that they wield this great supernatural power. " http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/qacharismatics.htm I can probably cite 100 pentacostal website which will prove the exact opposite. Big deal The Bible Becomes Whatever The Believer Wants It To Become Notice that there is nothing in those verses which says that miracles would be temporal. The correlation between preaching and miracles are confirmed in those verses. Indeed, for the Apostles but in I Corinth. 13 it says that miracolous gifts will be done away with. The verses in the Gospels mentions nothing about only the Apostles would do it. It says quite clearly about "He Who Believes will perform the miracles". So now you say miracles are not needed to convince skeptics like us Back then, that is exactly why it was needed.. So why not now?Miracles would definately prove that you are the valid representative of JC, otherwise it's your word against 2.1 Billion christians. You could one of those fake christians that the bible talks about. Now your god wants us to your personal interpretation of the believer without providing any extraordinary evidence that your interpretation is the correct one as compared to 1 billion different interpretation that are derived from the same book. ........ Most christians still claim that biblical miracles are happening all the time and this proves their god. However none of them can provide any substancial proof. Perhaps this will help: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2572 That didn't answer Jack, and it is rewriting the bible just like you I see so you want to say this particular doesn't apply to you, but you want the verse about the HS in the Gospel to apply to you? Mmmm cherry piiicckiing. No, it is context. The statement was directed towards Israel not a declaration for the entire world. The various section of the bible are always directed towards a specific group of people. The various letters of Paul are directed at the specific churches(including the one Corinthians one you mentioned). The OT and teaching of JC was directed at specific group of people(Jews) Yet Christians have to problem in declaring the entire bible is directed towards the world. What hyporcracy? When you come across a verse which comes in the way of your theological preferences, suddenly those verses don't become directed at you. How convientant? But don't worry you are not the only one follows this sort of dishonest rationalisation. Every christian does that. So may I conclude that you are saying that God will make Isreal walk in all laws of the OT in the near future? 11:17"Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' That was able to be fulfilled because of Israel becoming a country in 1948. That had major prophetic fulfillment. Actually it is only 10 that are NOT lost at all. When did I mention all are lost?Only the tribe of Judah(jews) who are found. The Isrealites have nor gathered, so this this prohecy is yet to be fulfiled. Once they are all re-gathered (during the millenial reign of Christ) they will be given a new spirit. That spirit is the same as a Christian, but since ISRAEL doesn't have that spirit, obviously. No the Holy Spirit will be given to Israel. No status quo was changed, and they are always guaranteed the Holy Spirit but it is up to them to accept it. Sp you agree with me that when the HS will be given, that will make them follow all the laws. That's easy. You claim that you follow the god of the jews. Are you (or St Paul) speaking according to to law and testimony(word)? .....NO Therefore there is no light in you or any christian. Case closed. Btw thanks for admitting that the Jews still have to obey the law, which prohibits the faith in JC I do not claim to follow the god of the Jews. I follow the King of the Jews, the Messiah. A king who never sat on the throne of David, as the prophecy demanded A king who was did have the credentials to to sit on the throne A king who contradicted the very system he claimed to uphold. A king who gave out false prophecies. There are numerous "kings" in the history, yet all of them turned out to be false The Jewish messiah is still to come Messiah Wanted Here is the Jewish God instruction to his people about who not to put their trust in regarding their slavation Psa 146:3-4 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. How true. Jesus called himself the Son of man/Prince, and Jesus the man/god departed, returned to the ground, and his plans for a quick return via a second coming came to nothing. I hope you didn't mean to do this. But in Psalms 146:3-4 in NIV and NASB it doesn't say "son of man." It says "in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save." Well Jesus is immortal and saves. So now you want to say the KJV is wrongly translated. Please tell that to the KJV advocates, who consider the NASB and NIV as Satanic translation The NIV is considered the worst translation amongst scholars, so I wouldn't quote that as authoritative You still haven't established the translators of NASB did not have a bias in their translation. It is quite likely they changed their translation because it contradicts their theology You christians can't even figure out which translation to use for your faith, and will fight to no end about such a stupid issue. God also told his people what he was not. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Since Jesus claimed to be the son of man, he cannot be god. Also valid agent of OT God doesn't tell people to ignore God's Law, a valid agent doesn't give false prophecy, and a valid agent of God doesn't tell lies. The idiom "son of" means to bear the character of. So likewise one who is faithful and walks in God's ways becomes a "Son of God." I see, so the Son of Man over here is idiom. where as in Is 56 it is talking about Jesus. How convenient? Basically it is saying that God is not a man (one who does not walk in His ways) nor is He a son of man (one who walks in His ways) "that he should change his mind." Stop rewriting the bible. The hebrew bible clearly says that God is not a "Son of Man". if you want claim that it is idiom here, and then it is also a idiom in Is 56. Ironically, Jesus fits the mold of a false prophet which God warned his people to be on the look out for. Deut 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die Jesus, who presumed to speak in God's name, was put to death just as God said he should be. Those are three Bible prophecies fulfilled by Jesus that I'll wager you don't want to recognize. Actually, you forgot the real prophecy related to Christ. As this is a prophet that is the complete opposite of a false prophet listed in 18:20 15"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16"This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.' 17"The LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19'It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. . Apparently you forget this prophecy has already fulfilled by numerous prophets in the OT(Joshua, Jeremiah etc). Any one of them can fulfill this prophecy Does Deuteronomy 18 Foretell the Coming of A Special Prophet?(Jewish Counter Missionary Site) The Fallacy of the Christian Missionary Claim As noted in Section III.A above, the New Testament asserts that Jesus is the manifestation of this allegedly special prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15&18. The analysis presented in Section IV.A is helpful in highlighting some of the many flaws that plague this popular Christian missionary claim: Ø Problem #1 – Like the prophets of Israel, Jesus chastised the people for not doing G-d's will, for turning from G-d's laws, but that is where the similarity ends. The prophets of Israel justified their pronouncements on G-d's Torah. They never acted on their own authority, always according G-d, His supremacy, and His Law (the Torah) and its immutability. On the other hand, by proclaiming his justification on his own authority, Jesus did not follow the path of the true prophets of Israel. Ø Problem #2 – A (generic) prophet was promised by Moses, one who would be like (kemo) Moses, not greater than Moses was. According to the New Testament and Christian theology, however, Jesus is much greater than Moses was. For Moses was a prophet born of earthly parents, while Jesus is for Christians the divine Son of G-d, and for Trinitarians, he is one component of the triune godhead. Ø Problem #3 – Combining some of the issues noted in the above two problems, and in view of the fact that (Trinitarian) Christians view the three components of the triune godhead as co-equals, one must wonder what kind of a god Jesus is if he can only say whatever G-d tells him to say. Ø Problem #4 – Deuteronomy 18:16 ends with the phrase in which Moses quotes the Israelites saying at Mount Sinai [Horeb]: "… Let me not continue to hear the voice of the L-rd my G-d, and let me not see this great fire any more, so that I will not die." In the New Testament it is written that Jesus was G-d manifest in the flesh, and that he came to live among the people, and that he spoke with them all the time. How, then, could this passage point to Jesus as the prophet while contradicting itself in that the people did not die as a result of his living in their midst? Ø Problem #5 – The New Testament, in which it is claimed that Jesus is the manifestation of the prophet that is foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15&18, adds: "… every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23[KJV]) Has this really happened in the world? Most of the world's population is not Christian and does not listen to Jesus, let alone know of him, yet they have not been destroyed. If the Christian apologists and missionaries say that Acts 3:23 concerns the Jewish people, they should be asked again: "Has this really happened to the Jewish people?" After all, the Jewish people are alive and well today, and are more successful now than ever before. Ø Problem #6 – Applying the litmus test. According to Deuteronomy 18:20, a prophet who presumes to speak in G-d's name something that he was not commanded and/or speaks in the name of other gods, is a false prophet who is to be punished with the death penalty. According to the New Testament, Jesus declares the following: Matthew 16:28(KJV) - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Æ This "prophecy" was not fulfilled! The generation that Jesus addressed died some 19 centuries ago! There is also his "prophecy" concerning the time he will spend in the tomb: Matthew 12:38-40(KJV) – (38) Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. (39) But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: (40) For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The "prophecy" of the "Sign of Jonah" [3 days & 3 nights] was not fulfilled! Jesus was “in the heart of the earth” 36 hours or less. According to the Gospel of Luke, he died Friday afternoon and “rose” Sunday before dawn. When the women reached his tomb, he was already gone (Lk 23:54--24:3). According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus remained in the tomb from Friday afternoon until Saturday evening at nightfall - a total of some 26 hours (Mt 28:1)! Conclusion: If Jesus was a prophet at all, he was a false prophet! Finally, it is interesting to note that, while Christian apologists and missionaries often quote Deuteronomy 18:15&18, they ignore and leave out the rest of the passage, Deuteronomy 18:20 in particular, which specifies death by execution for a false prophet. The Torah requires the following to be done with a person sentenced to die by execution: Deuteronomy 21:22-23 – (22) And if be that a man commits a sin deserving death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree [wooden pole]; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree [wooden pole], for you shall surely bury him on that [same] day, for he who is hanged is accursed by G-d; and you shall not defile your land, which the L-rd, your G-d, is giving you as an inheritance. This passage could be used to disarm claims by Christian apologists and missionaries concerning Jesus and Deuteronomy 18:15&18, since this scenario can easily be applied to the crucifixion of Jesus, i.e., implying that he was a sinner who was sentenced to death. The problems with the Christian perspective on Deuteronomy 18:9-22, as described above, provide a powerful dose of food for thought with which to challenge those who promote the false claims about this passage.. Finally, it is interesting to note that, while Christian apologists and missionaries often quote Deuteronomy 18:15&18, they ignore and leave out the rest of the passage, Deuteronomy 18:20 in particular, which specifies death by execution for a false prophet. The Torah requires the following to be done with a person sentenced to die by execution: Deuteronomy 21:22-23 – (22) And if be that a man commits a sin deserving death, and he is put to death, and you shall hang him on a tree [wooden pole]; (23) His body shall not remain all night upon the tree [wooden pole], for you shall surely bury him on that [same] day, for he who is hanged is accursed by G-d; and you shall not defile your land, which the L-rd, your G-d, is giving you as an inheritance. This passage could be used to disarm claims by Christian apologists and missionaries concerning Jesus and Deuteronomy 18:15&18, since this scenario can easily be applied to the crucifixion of Jesus, i.e., implying that he was a sinner who was sentenced to death. The problems with the Christian perspective on Deuteronomy 18:9-22, as described above, provide a powerful dose of food for thought with which to challenge those who promote the false claims about this passage.. Please show me a verse from the OT which says that the Status of of Isreal being the "light to all nations" was temporal. Jeremiah 31:27. The fact that it speaks of a new covenant speaks of the temperol one associated with them being the light to all nations. Jer 31:27 makes no mention that Israel would not be "light to all nation". There is not direct link between this verse vs the other one. We have been over this, there is nothing in the OT which says that a king Messiah would "fulfill the law", nor does it mention a faith in a illegal human sacrifice would remove the obligation of observing the law. On contrary the messiah would bring in usher in a great era of compliance of the law. Compliance. Since He complied and fulfilled the law of old and we base everything on Him, how are we not complying to the law? Are you observing the following 1)Keeping the sabbath 2)Abstaining from eating prohibited food(pork, shellfish) 3)Abstaining from celebrating pagan festival christiamas and Easter 4)Not wearing clothes of mixed fabric If the answer is no to any one of them, then you are complying with the law. And you still haven't told us what does this fulfill mean?Does it mean that since Jesus kept the law, you are not obligated by it? And how is this a better promise when 95% of the World Population(including Jews and "False" Christians) will be tortured in hell for eternity, because your JC failed to leave any extraordinary evidence about himself The extraordinary evidence is the Bible. And 2.1 billion people claim to be Christians. . And not all of these 2.1 billion christian believe in the same bible as you. The bible is different for each person. There is no one bible that all christian believe in And how is the bible a extraordinary evidence?You think a couple of male cleric deciding a list of book canonical extraordinary????/ The Muslim would declare that the Quran is the extraordinary evidence, after all there are 1.9 muslims in the world. Let's take that number for the sake of argument as most of them being true Christians. That is far less than 95% of the population not believing. But you are argueing that not all of them true christians. 95% of the world population who share your doctrine or dogma, and you declared such people as condemned. Are all of the 2.1 billions christians saved?Should I join the RCC which is "true" christian church? So they validated/prooved their belief by declaring it? That's your evidence of their authority!!!!!!!!! The Mormons declare their belief and claim they have "the authority of christ" So do the RCC, JW, and every freaking christian sect that ever existed So by your logic, all these belief are true because they are declared!!!!!!! No, because that decleration was later manifested into the Bible. The Bible is the evidence of their authority more than anything. How is the bible the evidence of their authority? The Mormons would say that the book of Mormon is the evidence of their authority. What was special in their declaration? And look carefully, you r using circular reasoning here. You consider the bible as true and was declared with authority The council made the bible Hence the council decision must be true and authortative So my question still remains What was different about this declaration compared to the other declaretion? What extraordinary credentials did they the produce to verify that they were legetimate representative of God? They have the Bible which was created out of those beliefs. That doesn't answer my question Their belief about the bible could be just as wrong as any of the christian groups that you consider false. If christina make mistakes about their doctrine then the clerics could have made a mistake even then Not even you agree with the Nicene Creed, when they say they "believe in the catholic church". The Nicene creed did not finalise on the bible. How do you know they did not make a wrong decision? And again, the Catholic church meant a universal church based on Christ and the things put forth in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene doesn't mention universal church, they mention the catholic church, and there is only one that I know off So now we are lying for Jesus!!!!!!! This lie of yours was exposed Have some shame. You of all people should know that lying won't get you anywhere. The manuscripts were written with the utmost accuracy and faithfulness. Proof please for your assertion, I showed you otherwise that the bible has been altered. So is Christ authority, now democratic?The desicion wasn't unanimous, so did the minority not have the authority of christ?!!! Did Jesus suddenly decide after 340 years, that his followers should now have canon, however he is gonna leave that decision with incompetent humans, who cannot agree about anything? Christ's authority is in the words and books they chose to put into the Bible. Please don't provide circular arguement. Had these Council decided on some books you would be singing another tune in front of me The canon was always present and was widely read. There were numerous canons present, and there isn't one universal christian canon even today he decision to collect that canon in one book called the Bible to identify with it better was made by men based upon the teachings and life of Christ. And on what authority did they make that decision? Why was god not present for such a big event?Your god had no problem to come down to earth to prove that Moses was a valid prophet, but not here? He went to the pain of dedicating 36 verses on how to handle mildew, but on biggest event in human history he just disappeared. Some priorties....T he biggest event in history is either creation itself or Jesus Christ. Either way He was there for both and is always here in Spirit.. Why is the declaration canon not a important event? This is where the "truth" is being decided, and you say this is not important?. Without the bible, you wouldn't be here Once again what was the proof for this "authority". Just saying that they had authority won't cut it. If Muslim/Mormom claims that the Quran/Book of Mormon had the authority of christ behind their books would you accept it? I am not just saying He had the authority, Yes you did, you said that people who decided the bible had the authority of Christ. Stop changing your stance Somewhere after the alleged "death and resurrection" of christ. In the 1 centuary AD. Gee you should be knowing this stuff. Are you trying to find a strawman here? No, I want an answer to a question. So 1st Century A.D. right after Christ died. So with the scope of 1st century A.D. most the NT was finished, so your claim is null. There was no NT at in the 1st centuary. Many of the books were written well into the second centuary. The early christian church used the OT as scripture, not the NT. Amongst the books of your NT, there were competing books. It was men who decided which books constitute the "word of god", not god So according to you if had divine authority, then therefore his list was correct?So why do your bible contain the extra books? If his list was not correct, it means that it was nothing more than a personal speculation. And what was special about his list, as compared to the competing list? It shows that the majority of books were agreed upon. Just so happens he didn't. What makes him significant is that he was the first early church father to quote almost every book of the New Testament. So big deal, he quoted a set of books that were later agreed on in council. Had the council agreed on some other competing set of book, you would have said that that would be praising him So his list was incorrect then, because he didn't quote the complete set of books. besides you tried to assert that he had divine authority?So under divine authority did he leave some books on purpose There you go, building strawman again Many believe that the Council of Nicea, held in 325 A.D., determined what books should constitute the Bible. This council did not determine the canon. Please request the HS to teach you how to read. It is however you was promoting a lie The canon is the Bible, which is it, did they determine the canon of the Bible or what books should constitute the Bible or not? The canon is the list of books, did they determine that list?No. Therefore they did not determine the bible Once again your lies are exposed. No book came out the the Nicene Creed. Are taking your lessons from Paul, who openly proudly admitted he used deception and lies to make converts (Philippians 1:18,Romans 3:7) Or did you take part in the Alpha Course, which teach people to decieve others to convert them to your cult. Yes I know no book came out of the Creed, the beliefs were widely accepted however and the Bible came out of that. But not completely, how do you know that others were not right? Do you go by the "majority rules" belief. By that reasoning, you should be worshipping in the catholic church, which constitute the majority of the christian body So why does the canon need the approval of "imperfect" men? You still answered haven't this question. Who authorised them to be on this council? It isn't approval it is a way to determine the validity of the divine compared to the non-divine works of writings available at the time. In the Council of Hippo 393 a.d. the limits of the canon as discussed here were approved by Augustine and verified what was set down by Athanasius. Council of Carthage (A. D. 397) The findings of Hippo were reiterated at this council. CANON IS CLOSED thank you confirming my statement You just admited that the catholics have been right all along then, about the Apocryphal books, being canonincal. So it is they who have the complete "truth", not you Since this council also adoptied apocyphal books, therefore you protestant set of books are wrong. I'll request the local catholic church to give the me "true" word of god, and help protect from the false version the canon was closed at the behest of men, not god. Jerome confirms that ty the beginning of the fifth century, the canon of the New Testament had achieved a kind of solemn, unshakable status; it could not be altered, even if one had different opinions”[ It is unshakable only because you believe it. Christians following other canons would not agree with you. The Jews would say that the canon was closed in 70 A.D Even after these long discussions about the canon, you are yet to answer the two simple question. I'll ask one last time in a way I hope you understand What authority did these Men(Irenous,Augustine,Jerome) and Council of Men(Nicene, Carthage, Hippo) have, which gave them the power to determine which books are inspired by Bible/The Truth and which are not? And what was the evidence of their authority? So untill it's your canon against others, and you are able to prove the validity of your canon, other than making mere assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Throwing gasoline on Fire = Throwing Bible verses to Sub. Notice how much easier it is for him to talk theology than being a human???? (hiding behind the bible.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Gawdamn. Why don't you guys write a fuckin book? Who can read all that shit? Here Sweetie, let me interpret for you.... Open_Minded - Thought provoking questions Sub_Zero - "blah, blah, blah.....blah, blah" Hope that helps ya a It's funny - I got that much out of it, and I even held my 'Page Down' button while scanning past it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Throwing gasoline on Fire = Throwing Bible verses to Sub. Notice how much easier it is for him to talk theology than being a human???? (hiding behind the bible.....) Gawd, that's scary AM - how did ya know I was looking for this picture for this post? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 If anyone felt like reading SubZ's response, did he answer my question? I don't have time or energy to read such friggin long post. Just wonder. If he didn't, then the question still stands. Sub_Zer0: are Cretans, or were they during the time of Paul, liars, fat and lazy? According to Paul they were in the letter to Titus. Btw, the letter Titus was written by Paul (read the first chapter mister). Fracking crazy when Christians don't read their own book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Gawdamn. Why don't you guys write a fuckin book? Who can read all that shit? Emphasis on SHIT If anyone felt like reading SubZ's response, did he answer my question? I don't have time or energy to read such friggin long post. Just wonder. I scanned it on a high level - you missed nothing - same rethorical bullSHIT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Han Solo was quoting the letter of Paul to Titus. The author is listed as Paul, not Titus. Sub_zero, you are either being deceitfully and deliberately obtuse or you are as ill-informed about the Bible as we all suspected. Thanks Ficino, I totally missed that in his post. Sub_Zer0, read this and call for a whaaaambulance: Tit 1:1-4 KJVA Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; (2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; (3) But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; (4) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. Sub_Zer0, explain this verse: Tit 1:12-13 KJVA One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (13) This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; The word "always" according to Strongs: G104 ἀεί aei ah-eye' From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); “ever”; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Here. Let's freshen things up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Here. Let's freshen things up a bit. Throwing gasoline on Fire = Throwing Bible verses to Sub. Notice how much easier it is for him to talk theology than being a human???? (hiding behind the bible.....) Gawd, that's scary AM - how did ya know I was looking for this picture for this post? How? Great minds think alike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 A Coptic christian will differ with you. You can assert whatever you want, but unless you provide supernatural proof that your list is the absolute correct word of god, I will not believe you. What will prove it to you besides the fact it is physically there, what more do you need? The absolute proof is the writing that is in the Bible, the Word of God. I can offer you no more than what is written. Why do say you some? Are the rest of not saved? And if some of them are true christians, they why is it the HS not telling them that they are not following biblical movement How could the Holy Spirit interact with one not seeing it in the proper light? They may have started out as true Christians but drifted away into the charismatic movement. The verses in the Gospels mentions nothing about only the Apostles would do it. It says quite clearly about "He Who Believes will perform the miracles". And where does it say that again? And who is it referencing? Ask yourself those questions and see if it adds up. So why not now?Miracles would definately prove that you are the valid representative of JC, otherwise it's your word against 2.1 Billion christians. You could one of those fake christians that the bible talks about. The only validity I need is His word, the Bible, specifically the NT! The various section of the bible are always directed towards a specific group of people. The various letters of Paul are directed at the specific churches(including the one Corinthians one you mentioned). The OT and teaching of JC was directed at specific group of people(Jews) Yet Christians have to problem in declaring the entire bible is directed towards the world. What hyporcracy? When you come across a verse which comes in the way of your theological preferences, suddenly those verses don't become directed at you. How convientant? But don't worry you are not the only one follows this sort of dishonest rationalisation. Every christian does that. So may I conclude that you are saying that God will make Isreal walk in all laws of the OT in the near future? I never said the Bible is directed towards the world. No the verses are specific to a person or a thing. If that person taught things in a worldly fashion it is obvious. When did I mention all are lost?Only the tribe of Judah(jews) who are found. The Isrealites have nor gathered, so this this prohecy is yet to be fulfiled. Let’s try this again. 11:17"Therefore say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel."' So when have Israel had land prior 1948? Sp you agree with me that when the HS will be given, that will make them follow all the laws. Which is centered on Christ, yes. No, they all represent the same things and say the same things. Just some are for readability more than literal renderings of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. You see the Word of God and the Good News is being spread worldwide thanks to the various translations. The KJV isn’t even based on the most updated and oldest manuscripts. The NASB updated edition is the most literal rendering of the Hebrew and Greek available. I see, so the Son of Man over here is idiom. where as in Is 56 it is talking about Jesus. How convenient? Since Jesus is Gods salvation and Isaiah 56 speaks about the “the son of man who takes hold of it;”…. I am just putting two and two together. Stop rewriting the bible. The hebrew bible clearly says that God is not a "Son of Man". if you want claim that it is idiom here, and then it is also a idiom in Is 56. It is also an idiom in Isaiah 56, but more specifically it is speaking of “the son of man who takes hold of it;” which is pretty much an implicit reference to Jesus. Ø Problem #1 – Like the prophets of Israel, Jesus chastised the people for not doing G-d's will, for turning from G-d's laws, but that is where the similarity ends. The prophets of Israel justified their pronouncements on G-d's Torah. They never acted on their own authority, always according G-d, His supremacy, and His Law (the Torah) and its immutability. On the other hand, by proclaiming his justification on his own authority, Jesus did not follow the path of the true prophets of Israel. Ø Problem #2 – A (generic) prophet was promised by Moses, one who would be like (kemo) Moses, not greater than Moses was. According to the New Testament and Christian theology, however, Jesus is much greater than Moses was. For Moses was a prophet born of earthly parents, while Jesus is for Christians the divine Son of G-d, and for Trinitarians, he is one component of the triune godhead. Ø Problem #3 – Combining some of the issues noted in the above two problems, and in view of the fact that (Trinitarian) Christians view the three components of the triune godhead as co-equals, one must wonder what kind of a god Jesus is if he can only say whatever G-d tells him to say. Ø Problem #4 – Deuteronomy 18:16 ends with the phrase in which Moses quotes the Israelites saying at Mount Sinai [Horeb]: "… Let me not continue to hear the voice of the L-rd my G-d, and let me not see this great fire any more, so that I will not die." In the New Testament it is written that Jesus was G-d manifest in the flesh, and that he came to live among the people, and that he spoke with them all the time. How, then, could this passage point to Jesus as the prophet while contradicting itself in that the people did not die as a result of his living in their midst? Ø Problem #5 – The New Testament, in which it is claimed that Jesus is the manifestation of the prophet that is foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15&18, adds: "… every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23[KJV]) Has this really happened in the world? Most of the world's population is not Christian and does not listen to Jesus, let alone know of him, yet they have not been destroyed. If the Christian apologists and missionaries say that Acts 3:23 concerns the Jewish people, they should be asked again: "Has this really happened to the Jewish people?" After all, the Jewish people are alive and well today, and are more successful now than ever before. Ø Problem #6 – Applying the litmus test. According to Deuteronomy 18:20, a prophet who presumes to speak in G-d's name something that he was not commanded and/or speaks in the name of other gods, is a false prophet who is to be punished with the death penalty. Seriously, exceedingly long post. Stay to specific topics and don’t go all over the place. #1: Jesus was God, so He can call Himself by His own authority. #2: Indeed Jesus was greater, but He was also a man born to this earth just like any other. #4: Jesus was also God in the flesh, not God the Father in spirit, which is what they saw on Mt. Horeb, God in His magnificent glory cannot be fathomed and is something quite incredible. #5: It very well could be in reference to a spiritual type of sinful death to the eternal life in Christ. Jer 31:27 makes no mention that Israel would not be "light to all nation". There is not direct link between this verse vs the other one. Israel was a light to all nations through the Mosaic covenant and the Old Law. Well the mention of another new covenant negates the fact that Israel will be the eternal light to all nations. Are you observing the following 1)Keeping the sabbath 2)Abstaining from eating prohibited food(pork, shellfish) 3)Abstaining from celebrating pagan festival christiamas and Easter 4)Not wearing clothes of mixed fabric If the answer is no to any one of them, then you are complying with the law. 1) Christ fulfilled the law so we don’t have to. 2) Christ fulfilled the law so we don’t have to. 3) Christmas is just something to celebrate Christ’s birth, it isn’t pagan, if it was they would do what the pagans do. Which I am sure is not celebrate Christ. 4) Christ fulfilled the law so we don’t have to. And not all of these 2.1 billion christian believe in the same bible as you. The bible is different for each person. There is no one bible that all christian believe in And how is the bible a extraordinary evidence?You think a couple of male cleric deciding a list of book canonical extraordinary????/ The Muslim would declare that the Quran is the extraordinary evidence, after all there are 1.9 muslims in the world. Any Christian reads and follows the Old and New Testaments which is the Bible, the Word of God. If they don’t they are not Christians. The Bible is the word of God, that is how it is extraordinary. Indeed they believe that theres is, the freedom of free will, thanks to God. How is the bible the evidence of their authority? The Mormons would say that the book of Mormon is the evidence of their authority. What was special in their declaration? And look carefully, you r using circular reasoning here. You consider the bible as true and was declared with authority The council made the bible Hence the council decision must be true and authortative Yes I know Mormons would say that, so that is their authority… Likewise for Christians and the Bible. No, the council decided what books to be canonized based on set beliefs. I am sure they chose right, just a faith thing I guess and I have no qualms about anything about the canonization process of the Bible. Proof please for your assertion, I showed you otherwise that the bible has been altered. I have already gone over this. The Dead Sea Scrolls, were found in the 20th century, they are the oldest ever found, 1000 years older than anything we had. That tells us that for a 1000 years the manuscripts that made up the Bible were transmitted and copied with the utmost care and accuracy because the older scrolls were the same as the newer ones we already had. Please don't provide circular arguement. Had these Council decided on some books you would be singing another tune in front of me But they didn’t, I’m not, so get over it. There were numerous canons present, and there isn't one universal christian canon even today No, there weren’t any canons at all. There were just writings, some from God, some not. And on what authority did they make that decision? Okay, one last time… On the belief and authority on Christ’s life and teachings. There was no NT at in the 1st centuary. Many of the books were written well into the second centuary. The early christian church used the OT as scripture, not the NT. Amongst the books of your NT, there were competing books. It was men who decided which books constitute the "word of god", not god The NT was done by the end of the 1st century. Not only did they have the OT but they had Christ and His teachings fresh in their minds, hearts and writings, which later became the NT. So big deal, he quoted a set of books that were later agreed on in council. Had the council agreed on some other competing set of book, you would have said that that would be praising him So his list was incorrect then, because he didn't quote the complete set of books. besides you tried to assert that he had divine authority?So under divine authority did he leave some books on purpose No, you did actually claim he was doing by divine authority. The canon is the list of books, did they determine that list?No. Therefore they did not determine the bible OK, good, making sure we are clear. But not completely, how do you know that others were not right? Do you go by the "majority rules" belief. By that reasoning, you should be worshipping in the catholic church, which constitute the majority of the christian body No, I go by the life and teachings of Christ which is what the some 50 religious leaders also went by and ratified the statement. Remember the Nicene Creed was a response to the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ. So why does the canon need the approval of "imperfect" men? You still answered haven't this question. Who authorised them to be on this council? It isn't approval it is a way to determine the validity of the divine compared to the non-divine works of writings available at the time. thank you confirming my statement You just admited that the catholics have been right all along then, about the Apocryphal books, being canonincal. So it is they who have the complete "truth", not you Since this council also adoptied apocyphal books, therefore you protestant set of books are wrong. I'll request the local catholic church to give the me "true" word of god, and help protect from the false version the canon was closed at the behest of men, not god. No, the council never adopted any apocrypha book. Conclusion The “evidence implies that by the beginning of the Christian era the identity of all the canonical books was well known and generally accepted” (Roger T. Beckwith, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” in The Origin of the Bible, p. 61.). What authority did these Men(Irenous,Augustine,Jerome) and Council of Men(Nicene, Carthage, Hippo) have, which gave them the power to determine which books are inspired by Bible/The Truth and which are not? And what was the evidence of their authority? So untill it's your canon against others, and you are able to prove the validity of your canon, other than making mere assertions. OK, let’s do this one more time, so you can understand it easier… Here it is! John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. That is their authority, Jesus Christ! Sub_Zer0, explain this verse: Tit 1:12-13 KJVA One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (13) This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; The word "always" according to Strongs: G104 ἀεί aei ah-eye' From an obsolete primary noun (apparently meaning continued duration); “ever”; by qualification regularly; by implication earnestly: - always, ever. The Cretians are regularly liars, what is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 Jesus-Fucking-Christ-on-a-stick you guys need to condense your conversations or take it up in a chat room...this is really getting goddamn ridiculous. or...or maybe an Arena debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted February 18, 2006 Share Posted February 18, 2006 That is their authority, Jesus Christ! Dude, you don't have to get all bent out of shape to where you start using the Lord's name in vain like that. We don't want to be the ones responsible for you going to Hell'n shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts