Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, how many "other experts" does this Bloomberg cite in [B]his expert opinion? [/B]
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, I screwed up. His name is Blomberg (since I know you like to look these people up). However, he uses his own research, the Bible, logic, and the known history of other ancient biographies to argue his position on the gospels. I'm not taking it for truth, but I see a lot of validity in his arguments.
Yeah, I like to look them up. That's why I accepted your spelling for the last three posts. And if you don't know how to spell his name, how much of his work could you have read? It's catholic school man. I've been listening to this rhetoric for years. And again, when there's a difference between a guy like this blomberg and the others who think they know best how god's message should be interpreted, then I'll give him the same amount of credence I do all the others we've discussed.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Yeah, I like to look them up. That's why I accepted your spelling for the last three posts. And if you don't know how to spell his name, how much of his work could you have read? It's catholic school man. I've been listening to this rhetoric for years. And again, when there's a difference between a guy like this blomberg and the others who think they know best how god's message should be interpreted, then I'll give him the same amount of credence I do all the others we've discussed.
Originally posted by Nellinator
It was a typo that I only noticed when you quoted me. I changed it for your benefit. Blomberg is not an idiot. Read his work and you could possibly understand that his positions are logical... but I am not sure what you are arguing to me right now.
I didn't say he was an idiot. I am accusing him of being biased and self-serving. Just like most christians. If you don't fall into the "hate anyone who's different" category and can live with the fact that your personal belief in the "truth of Christ" doesn't entitle you to a superior position in society, then my disdain is sorely misplaced. You can believe what ever you want to believe. It doesn't effect me. (until it does) And if you think it does, that's your issue. It's not my issue nor is it human society and culture's issue.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I didn't say he was an idiot. I am accusing him of being biased and self-serving. Just like most christians. If you don't fall into the "hate anyone who's different" category and can live with the fact that your personal belief in the "truth of Christ" doesn't entitle you to a superior position in society, then my disdain is sorely misplaced. You can believe what ever you want to believe. It doesn't effect me. (until it does) And if you think it does, that's your issue. It's not my issue nor is it human society and culture's issue.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you read all of it? We don't know who wrote the 4 Gospels, and 3 of them my have been copied from a unknown document. I'm not tried to fight you, just having a conversation.
* not fighting either, just conversation... maybe my posts just looks serious... 😆
* i've read majority of the Gnostics and Apocrypha... yes, the 4 Gospels have no authors within its contents...
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Okay, we'll take this one step at a time. Consider the time period. There weren't a whole lot of printing press'. The dozens of gospels that were floating around were approved or condemned by certain churches. This gospel was included as canon in one church and rejected as canon in another. It wasn't until some time around 400 AD that they all got together and decided which were indisputable and which were not. In the meantime, there were some that were always considered canon. And that's because a majority of the churches had included them.On top of that, there were contradictions in one book v. another. So around the time mentioned above, they all got together to see which books fit together the best and decided that was that. Even now the bible(depending on which infallible version of god's word you want to read: Catholic, Protestant, etc) contradicts itself.
On top of that, the "Apocrypha" was written before Jesus was born.
And Catholics believe that the question of canon wasn't settled until the 1540's. And Thomas Jefferson supported the ethical lifestyle of Jesus, but denouced him as supernatural and complied the Jefferson Bible. (I thought I'd toss that in for the benefit of everyone who believes that this country was founded on christianity) I don't think God, who divinly wrote this book, ever said which books were and were not to be included. His son, Jesus, never said which books were to be included or excluded. Even Paul mentions that God is honest, but men are liars! And Calvin, a protestant, said that it was up to the individual christian to decide which were the words of god and which were not. This illustrates an open-minded spirit to christianity that is sorely lacking in the church of today.
* so, your point basically is? should people reject all books in the Bible? banned
Originally posted by Nellinator
Bias is not necessarily bad, as some might suppose. In fact, it often gives insights that neutrality might withhold.
Originally posted by peejayd
* so, your point basically is? should people reject all books in the Bible? banned
Thank you for playing, here's your "consolation, irrelevent, out of context" prize. I invite you to submit an application to the discussion once you're on the same page as the rest of us. Cheers. Have a good night.
Originally posted by peejayd
* so, your point basically is? should people reject all books in the Bible? banned
Basically, people should be a bit more skepitical about the authors intentions in writing the bible.
The basic tenants of Christian philosophy are cool, but don't get caught up literalism and divine inspiration.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I know that some words are the same. But does that not mean that the event might have actually happened. Most of the accounts are slightly different indicating that they were not actually copied, but are similar eyewitness accounts. I am drawing on a lot of work done by Dr. Craig Bloomberg who is a leading expert on the gospels...
Pick three books about the JFK assassination and find areas that are the exact wording to each other. You will not be able to find any unless they are quoting the same source.
Originally posted by peejayd
* not fighting either, just conversation... maybe my posts just looks serious... 😆* i've read majority of the Gnostics and Apocrypha... yes, the 4 Gospels have no authors within its contents...
That is not what I meant. Did you read all of the article that I gave you the link too? What do you think about the "Q" factor?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not what I meant. Did you read all of the article that I gave you the link too? What do you think about the "Q" factor?
* as a Bible-believer, yes... it is really a fact that the 4 Gospels have no specified authors... but i still believe in its contents... 😉
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
that's a very relevant response. You really come across as the bigger, more right, man.
* loosen up, man... your blood pressure... 😂
Originally posted by peejayd
* as a Bible-believer, yes... it is really a fact that the 4 Gospels have no specified authors... but i still believe in its contents... 😉* loosen up, man... your blood pressure... 😂
1 You believe in the contents of the bible, through the paradigm of Jesus' teachings, yes? Then you must also believe and recognize the hypocrisy of the bible.
2 How am I supposed to respond to that? There's nothing wrong with my blood pressure. You infere some level of agitation that does not exist. I've been dealing with bible-thumpers all my life. It's old hat. And the funny thing is, that none of them sound any more intelligent than those that came before them...because they offer the same stupid excuses and reasoning.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Wow....you mean you are ACTUALLY curious as to know my perspective, rather than just shove your rhetoric down my throat? Dude, I'm impressed !Okay, I will tell you:
I do not beleive any book or human guideline can fully determine a universal morality. MY morality is based on Love....respect, tolerance, and appreciation for each other, especially in recognizing, accepting, and even celebrating our differences.
I beleive that as long as you are not intentionally hurting a person or animal, then you are a good person and deserve good in return. That simple.
I beleive Evil, [b]true evil
, is the promotion of conflict. Negativities such as prejudice, hatred, intolerance, ignorance, close mindedness, rape, murder, lack of concern, greed, and the like.I beleive we are ALL ONE...YES MARCELLO....even YOU AND I...you may beleive that we are not one....that you are of God, and I am of Satan, or whatever myth you'd like to push.
But you and I have MORE IN COMMON than we have in difference. We are both human beings, we are both children of this Earth. We are both mortal, imperfect, striving human beings who must learn to accept each other.
If you look at this from a third party, you will easily see that it is YOU who refuses to see me an as equal...to see me and care for me the way you care for yourself. I would easily accept you if that was what you wished. But I truly beleive you are filled with zealous bias, and irrational Hate.
Sorry...but that is what I truly beleive. You will never accept me as an equal to you because you see me as inferior because of my supposed "sins" based on a book that has no factual basis whatsoever.
I am sorry that your mind is so closed off.....but the fact that you even ASKED me about my morality gives me Hope that there is still a rational human being existant behind all the darkness. [/B]
No response Marcello ? Oh well.....I guess that was too much for you to ingest at one time.
*["Great comeback, next time try saying something useful to the conversation."]
***You cannot have a "useful" conversation with someone who is "twisted" mentally:...one who cannot differentiate between what is "normal" and what is not...who has no conception of "reality" and lives in a world of lustful fantasy. What kind of "human debris" would come on this board and boast of the things that he engages in? What makes him [and those who sympathize with his point of view] think that they can commit these acts of perversion and escape the consequences of their behaviour?
Here's my "useful" imput to this conversation: "The WAGES of SIN is DEATH...but the GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus Christ our Lord." [Romans 6:23]. There IS such a thing as SIN...whether you or they believe it or not...there is a PENALTY to be PAID for that SIN. Jesus Christ came and PAID that PENALTY for we who have TRUSTED in Him for SALVATION. I come here to tell you people to REPENT of your SINS and turn to Jesus Christ for the forgiveness that He PAID for with His BLOOD...for there is a DAY APPOINTED...when ALL the world [i.e., mankind] will come before the THRONE of Jesus Christ and give an accounting for all they have done. Those who have come to Him will see ETERNAL LIFE...those who have NOT will see only ETERNAL DEATH IN HELL.
That's my "imput"...the choice is yours.
Marchello
Its not input, its ranting and its not appreciated.
I'm sure you'd love to limit free speech, but I feel it should be protected.
The world is not black in white. Children barely see it that way. "twisted" is a point of view and has no credible basis. You've shown that you've been unwilling to see things from another point of view, which is not surprising given your totalitarian ideology.
You can call people abnormal and perverted, but there is no justification for your arbitrary assignment of these terms. In fact these actions aren't perverted and are very normal.
Not every believes what you do. In fact, most people don't so your a fool to think that you have a monopoly on "truth" when in fact all you have is an opinion that is in clear contradiction to logic, reason, and fact. Blab all you want, but its meaningless. There are plenty of street corners where I can hear that.
Go about your merry life and let people choose what they want.
Several flaws with your argument:
Sin is not death as all sin, even those who go to heaven.
Thousands of people bleed everyday unnecessarily, their suffering greater or equal to that of christ. Nothing that happened to him was special.
Monarchies went out of fashion hundreds of years ago, despite the persistence of totalitarian Christian ideologues. If you want serfdom, go right a head.
Death is an instant, you cant have an eternal death.
Most things you say, other Christians will dispute.