|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:36 pm
Um, Deidra, I hate to bring this up, but ...
... the Apocrypha usually refers to a set of books that the Catholics would consider part of the Old Testament; 3 and 4 Kings, Tobit, Additions to Esther, and so forth. And to be fair, a lot of them do predate Christ.
Oh, there are apocryphal NT books (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.), probably written to, as you say, discredit Him and His followers ... but very few religions touch those. Oh, the Catholic church used to, but I think they gave 'em up a few centuries back. Now most people don't even remember they exist, unless someone needs to try to make an anti-Biblical argument sound convincing (DaVinci Code, anyone?).
Otherwise ... excellently said, and thanks.
Time for class ... *Runs off.*
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:03 pm
Dragonbait Um, Deidra, I hate to bring this up, but ... ... the Apocrypha usually refers to a set of books that the Catholics would consider part of the Old Testament; 3 and 4 Kings, Tobit, Additions to Esther, and so forth. And to be fair, a lot of them do predate Christ. Oh, there are apocryphal NT books (Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas, etc.), probably written to, as you say, discredit Him and His followers ... but very few religions touch those. Oh, the Catholic church used to, but I think they gave 'em up a few centuries back. Now most people don't even remember they exist, unless someone needs to try to make an anti-Biblical argument sound convincing ( DaVinci Code, anyone?). . Otherwise ... excellently said, and thanks. Time for class ... *Runs off.* The NT Books were what I was thinking. Sorry I mixed things up. I was reading some arguments about the Book of Judas earlier and I guess that was what I was thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:58 am
Deidra Diamonds Four Mile Sprint Dragonbait I see this, and I gotta wonder which side you're on. I also gotta wonder why Xi keeps this forum public; we get a lot of non-member trolls. Still, at least it livens things up a bit, true? Four Mile Sprint The Claim of over "5600" documents within 100 years of Christ's death is nothing more than a sad Fabrication made up sometime in the past sixty years by well meaning Christians to try and add a sense of validity to the Histrocitiy of the bible, the actual number (Outside of the Gospels) is more like "3"non contemporary ,non Gospel sources within one hundred years of Christ's death. Really? I've got a few books dating back almost a century that mention there being a lot more than three. And more have been discovered as time went on. Quote: But "Translations" aside, and discarding the NT, even the OT is "Riddled" with fabrications Editations, mistakes in the actual time line of events, the OT that made it into our Current Bible was missing fourteen books from the Jewish Talmud of the time, and the one that Prodestant's use is missing "Seven" that were in the Catholic bible. I'm pretty sure "editations" isn't a word ... but it ought to be. I like that. Anyway, the Protestant Bible isn't "missing" seven books; the Catholic Apocrypha is a lot bigger than seven, and until fairly recently, it was printed in Protestant Bibles (albeit in a separate section). You can still find it there, in some older volumes, if you're lucky. Fabrications, etc., making it into the OT ... I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing that the Dead Sea Scrolls would have brought to light well before now, yet I haven't heard too many reports along those lines, and I do try to keep an ear out. Quote: Prior to the Babylonian capticity of the Jew's no manuscripts containing the Creation account in Genesis can be found, they all Omit it, and pick up just after the expulsion of Adam and Eve. The creation story itself is also disturbingly simmiler to the the Babylonian creation myth. The first part I'll not dispute; I haven't enough evidence either way. The second part ... well, so what? That doesn't mean it was copied from Babylon. Rather, it can mean that Babylon copied the Jews ... but my personal belief is that the two had a common basis. Quote: We have fact's that the Books Of Moses, were authored by three different people over a period of two hundred years. Three? I thought it was only two people. And the "two hundred years" ... that one's news to me. Mind you, looking over it, I don't really fully question the concept ... I also don't see what difference it makes. Maybe I'm slow. What are your sources? Quote: Al of these are cold hard facts, known among any Biblical schollar,Beliver or not. We know the OT and probably the Gospels have been edited, added to , removed from, cut and paste to no end over the 2800 years of there existence. I consider myself a scholar, even if one of lesser status than your average professor ... and I don't consider these "facts". And how you figure the Gospels have existed for 2 800 years, I can't even guess, to say nothing of the constant amendments you claim. Again I ask, what are your sources? For any of this? Quote: However this does not detract from the core of our faith and barely matters as anything further than an interlectual pique, as any Christian who has felt the Holy Spirit will tell you, for we look to Christ as our proof and guidence, and the spirit he enters us with. Not "Sola Scripture" If the only evidence I had of God was my own subjective experience, I'd not have become a Christian in the first place. And the number one way (for many people, the only way) we know of Christ's historicity is the Bible. Incidentally, I'm in that category of "Christian who has felt the Holy Spirit", and I put my subjective feelings to the test of objective Scripture. And I call your statements lies. To attack the Bible, try to tear it apart, then claim that this was nothing more than "interlectual pique" ... then essentially call both the attacks and the Bible irrelevant, because we apparently don't need the Bible ... shows you to be a liar. I know what your sig claims ... and I know about you sneaking into a Muslim group and pretending to be one of them. And you're doing the same here. If you're coming in, attacking the Bible ... you're working for the other guy. Know it or not, like it or not, you're serving Satan. I in no way attacked the bible, I simply pointed out facts pertaining to it , it's no more an attack than saying Cars cant fly is an attack on the motor industry. Of course we need the Bible and the gospels without it we would be nothing but a bunch of Spiritualists wandering around after a figure none of us could substantiate. The Bible contains the history and works of God and Christ and the obviously the prophecy pertaining to the validity of Christ's claims , and the standards that we as Christians are subsequently expected to rise to. The Gospels have not existed for 2800 years I mentioned the OT as existing for that long in one form or another(though looking back it was a poorly worded sentence, im sorry) , we know about the masses of editations(Your right it should be a word) merely from examining Jewish documents and scripture now, then, and "way" back then and pointing out all the discrepancies , sadly the Dead Sea scrolls dont really pertain to it. As for the "Three authors" of the pentetauch, Tradionally there was "E" and "A" however I read in "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong that current Jewish schollars(not the rest of the community) have been leaning towards a third author within in Deut and Lev, not authoring a whole book by any means but certianly lending his pen to certain parts for whatever reason, however it's not a widely held claim so I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, consider the statement retracted to Two authors, A and E. Regarding the number of credible Non contemporary sources, I was going of a combination of what a professor Rev John Marsland President of St Cuthberts College(A Catholic Seminary) and to my shame, Wiki told me on the matter. Regarding Babylon and creation, your right they could indeed share a common source, I just find it odd that it didnt get into the Jewish literature, untill after they had Jerusalem, then lost it and sufferd slavery to a people with a well established faith and mythos. The Majority of my sources are Books ive read over the years, information ive gleaned from previous debates(often sourced). I pulled the entire post from memory , it doenst take a huge stress of effort to find out most of what's mentioned in the post. However I do realise that as a claimant it falls upon me to substantiate the various claims i make and I will from here on endevour to do so.(Assuming this debate even carries on and you dont just dismiss me as an energetic troll as youve hinted at) In light of that very statement im also sorry you feel that way about me, Ill simply have to do better in regards to my response. I suppose the Muslim thing lends me no credence it was a Brag and a Dare that got well out of hand, very informative however and I made more than a good number of Muslim friends. One thing you must keep in mind especially regarding the manner I post , is that while im a Christian and I am (Though I only need to proove it and testify it before God) Im not one who will blindly follow my convictions when evidence is put in front of me which is obviously contrary to them. A minor look into the History of my account and my old one "Three Mile Sprint"(Possibly even my one before that "Syrokal(though don't hold your breath)) will show you that I always have been and will continue to be a Christian and an Apologetic for the faith. If it really comes to it, I can give you my facebook and you can look at all the Christian groups, and organization Im a member of and look at the date I joined them, because I would be more than happy to let you do that.(Sadly shy of meeting you this is really all I can think of on the spot to proove it) I appreciate that you judge the spirit against the scripture, but i Personally find that hard to fully do, when I know the scripture is so open to debate, and error. Perhaps this is something I will overcome, but by my current understanding of scripture and its sources, however expansive or limited that may be, it's not something that I can see happning soon. We seem to be on to differant pages with regards to the clarification of my faith, as I became Christian "purely" through the personal Gnosis of the Holy Spirit, before that all reading the Bible did was lend support to my milliant form of Atheism. It took me quite some time to come to trust the word of Gospel and of the Bible to the extent I do now. That was Five years ago , and of course a lot has changed since then. In an effort to avoid being argumentative (and because my original reply was eaten by the gaia monster) I just want to ask you a few questions. 1.Why would someone who "claims" to be a Christian be trying so hard to discredit the very Book his faith is based on? Especially by using arguments that do nothing to change the meaning of it, clarify its meaning or change/discredit the fulfillment of the prophesies contained in it. Nothing that you have said changes the Truths of the book (confirmed throughout the Book) And that TRUTH is: Jesus and Him crucified to save us from our sins. If a true Christian I would think that your energies would be better spent trying to convince others of the those things in the Bible that you believe to be Truth or that substantiates the Truth of Jesus. Or is there nothing in the Bible that you think supports its validity? Of course it changes no Truth's of the Bible as we know them, it only brings into question it's infallibility in all issues, as a document we know to be documented despite containing a vast vast majority of truth, becomes corrupted and fallible as soon as hands unguided by the spirit smear it. Quote: 2.Why would someone who claims to be a Christian think that the books of the apacropha (sp?) should be included in the Bible? These books were written after the death of Jesus with the intent to discedit Him and his followers, and the are full of contradictions and lies. I don't actually believe they should be included, I never stated as much your putting words in my mouth, the Sept were in doubt even by the Jew's before the Catholics picked them up, and like you said many of the extra scriptures after Jesus do nothing but bring him into question or put forward contradictions. Quote: 3.Why would someone who professes to be a Christian led by the Holy Spirit infiltrate a Muslum guild and go to the extent of renouncing your faith, and deceiving them so as to convince them that you were one of them? (Truth of which still stands in the comments on your page) Like I said, a Fantastic Dare! It's the result of saying "I Know enough about Islam , its scripture and it's practice that I could more than easily pass as a Muslim" and a friend going "Go on then" I don't back down, not even from idle statements, it stems from the OCD and competitive nature im blessed with. Of course it still stands in my comment page, I make no effort to hide it, why would I, im neither Ashamed nor regretful of the period, I learned a great deal from it, and became more assured in faith because of it! Quote: Call it a prank, a dare or whatever you want but it was clearly not the leading of the Holy Spirit that lead you to such a deception. If not His Spirit...than who's? Your completely right, nor was it the Holy Spirit that led me to the corner shop this morning, nor did it tell me to buy Whole Fat, or Semi skimmed milk(I went for Whole fat for the record, trying to put the weight back on, now that Fight season is coming back round) I was led by a mixture of arrogance, and a desire to prove a point I made, Was it the shimmering example of a Christian? More than likely not. Does it indicate that I am a fully fledged servant of Satan. More than likely not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:09 am
Four Mile Sprint Deidra Diamonds Four Mile Sprint Dragonbait I see this, and I gotta wonder which side you're on. I also gotta wonder why Xi keeps this forum public; we get a lot of non-member trolls. Still, at least it livens things up a bit, true? Four Mile Sprint The Claim of over "5600" documents within 100 years of Christ's death is nothing more than a sad Fabrication made up sometime in the past sixty years by well meaning Christians to try and add a sense of validity to the Histrocitiy of the bible, the actual number (Outside of the Gospels) is more like "3"non contemporary ,non Gospel sources within one hundred years of Christ's death. Really? I've got a few books dating back almost a century that mention there being a lot more than three. And more have been discovered as time went on. Quote: But "Translations" aside, and discarding the NT, even the OT is "Riddled" with fabrications Editations, mistakes in the actual time line of events, the OT that made it into our Current Bible was missing fourteen books from the Jewish Talmud of the time, and the one that Prodestant's use is missing "Seven" that were in the Catholic bible. I'm pretty sure "editations" isn't a word ... but it ought to be. I like that. Anyway, the Protestant Bible isn't "missing" seven books; the Catholic Apocrypha is a lot bigger than seven, and until fairly recently, it was printed in Protestant Bibles (albeit in a separate section). You can still find it there, in some older volumes, if you're lucky. Fabrications, etc., making it into the OT ... I'm pretty sure this is the kind of thing that the Dead Sea Scrolls would have brought to light well before now, yet I haven't heard too many reports along those lines, and I do try to keep an ear out. Quote: Prior to the Babylonian capticity of the Jew's no manuscripts containing the Creation account in Genesis can be found, they all Omit it, and pick up just after the expulsion of Adam and Eve. The creation story itself is also disturbingly simmiler to the the Babylonian creation myth. The first part I'll not dispute; I haven't enough evidence either way. The second part ... well, so what? That doesn't mean it was copied from Babylon. Rather, it can mean that Babylon copied the Jews ... but my personal belief is that the two had a common basis. Quote: We have fact's that the Books Of Moses, were authored by three different people over a period of two hundred years. Three? I thought it was only two people. And the "two hundred years" ... that one's news to me. Mind you, looking over it, I don't really fully question the concept ... I also don't see what difference it makes. Maybe I'm slow. What are your sources? Quote: Al of these are cold hard facts, known among any Biblical schollar,Beliver or not. We know the OT and probably the Gospels have been edited, added to , removed from, cut and paste to no end over the 2800 years of there existence. I consider myself a scholar, even if one of lesser status than your average professor ... and I don't consider these "facts". And how you figure the Gospels have existed for 2 800 years, I can't even guess, to say nothing of the constant amendments you claim. Again I ask, what are your sources? For any of this? Quote: However this does not detract from the core of our faith and barely matters as anything further than an interlectual pique, as any Christian who has felt the Holy Spirit will tell you, for we look to Christ as our proof and guidence, and the spirit he enters us with. Not "Sola Scripture" If the only evidence I had of God was my own subjective experience, I'd not have become a Christian in the first place. And the number one way (for many people, the only way) we know of Christ's historicity is the Bible. Incidentally, I'm in that category of "Christian who has felt the Holy Spirit", and I put my subjective feelings to the test of objective Scripture. And I call your statements lies. To attack the Bible, try to tear it apart, then claim that this was nothing more than "interlectual pique" ... then essentially call both the attacks and the Bible irrelevant, because we apparently don't need the Bible ... shows you to be a liar. I know what your sig claims ... and I know about you sneaking into a Muslim group and pretending to be one of them. And you're doing the same here. If you're coming in, attacking the Bible ... you're working for the other guy. Know it or not, like it or not, you're serving Satan. I in no way attacked the bible, I simply pointed out facts pertaining to it , it's no more an attack than saying Cars cant fly is an attack on the motor industry. Of course we need the Bible and the gospels without it we would be nothing but a bunch of Spiritualists wandering around after a figure none of us could substantiate. The Bible contains the history and works of God and Christ and the obviously the prophecy pertaining to the validity of Christ's claims , and the standards that we as Christians are subsequently expected to rise to. The Gospels have not existed for 2800 years I mentioned the OT as existing for that long in one form or another(though looking back it was a poorly worded sentence, im sorry) , we know about the masses of editations(Your right it should be a word) merely from examining Jewish documents and scripture now, then, and "way" back then and pointing out all the discrepancies , sadly the Dead Sea scrolls dont really pertain to it. As for the "Three authors" of the pentetauch, Tradionally there was "E" and "A" however I read in "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong that current Jewish schollars(not the rest of the community) have been leaning towards a third author within in Deut and Lev, not authoring a whole book by any means but certianly lending his pen to certain parts for whatever reason, however it's not a widely held claim so I probably shouldn't have mentioned it, consider the statement retracted to Two authors, A and E. Regarding the number of credible Non contemporary sources, I was going of a combination of what a professor Rev John Marsland President of St Cuthberts College(A Catholic Seminary) and to my shame, Wiki told me on the matter. Regarding Babylon and creation, your right they could indeed share a common source, I just find it odd that it didnt get into the Jewish literature, untill after they had Jerusalem, then lost it and sufferd slavery to a people with a well established faith and mythos. The Majority of my sources are Books ive read over the years, information ive gleaned from previous debates(often sourced). I pulled the entire post from memory , it doenst take a huge stress of effort to find out most of what's mentioned in the post. However I do realise that as a claimant it falls upon me to substantiate the various claims i make and I will from here on endevour to do so.(Assuming this debate even carries on and you dont just dismiss me as an energetic troll as youve hinted at) In light of that very statement im also sorry you feel that way about me, Ill simply have to do better in regards to my response. I suppose the Muslim thing lends me no credence it was a Brag and a Dare that got well out of hand, very informative however and I made more than a good number of Muslim friends. One thing you must keep in mind especially regarding the manner I post , is that while im a Christian and I am (Though I only need to proove it and testify it before God) Im not one who will blindly follow my convictions when evidence is put in front of me which is obviously contrary to them. A minor look into the History of my account and my old one "Three Mile Sprint"(Possibly even my one before that "Syrokal(though don't hold your breath)) will show you that I always have been and will continue to be a Christian and an Apologetic for the faith. If it really comes to it, I can give you my facebook and you can look at all the Christian groups, and organization Im a member of and look at the date I joined them, because I would be more than happy to let you do that.(Sadly shy of meeting you this is really all I can think of on the spot to proove it) I appreciate that you judge the spirit against the scripture, but i Personally find that hard to fully do, when I know the scripture is so open to debate, and error. Perhaps this is something I will overcome, but by my current understanding of scripture and its sources, however expansive or limited that may be, it's not something that I can see happning soon. We seem to be on to differant pages with regards to the clarification of my faith, as I became Christian "purely" through the personal Gnosis of the Holy Spirit, before that all reading the Bible did was lend support to my milliant form of Atheism. It took me quite some time to come to trust the word of Gospel and of the Bible to the extent I do now. That was Five years ago , and of course a lot has changed since then. In an effort to avoid being argumentative (and because my original reply was eaten by the gaia monster) I just want to ask you a few questions. 1.Why would someone who "claims" to be a Christian be trying so hard to discredit the very Book his faith is based on? Especially by using arguments that do nothing to change the meaning of it, clarify its meaning or change/discredit the fulfillment of the prophesies contained in it. Nothing that you have said changes the Truths of the book (confirmed throughout the Book) And that TRUTH is: Jesus and Him crucified to save us from our sins. If a true Christian I would think that your energies would be better spent trying to convince others of the those things in the Bible that you believe to be Truth or that substantiates the Truth of Jesus. Or is there nothing in the Bible that you think supports its validity? Of course it changes no Truth's of the Bible as we know them, it only brings into question it's infallibility in all issues, as a document we know to be documented despite containing a vast vast majority of truth, becomes corrupted and fallible as soon as hands unguided by the spirit smear it. Quote: 2.Why would someone who claims to be a Christian think that the books of the apacropha (sp?) should be included in the Bible? These books were written after the death of Jesus with the intent to discedit Him and his followers, and the are full of contradictions and lies. I don't actually believe they should be included, I never stated as much your putting words in my mouth, the Sept were in doubt even by the Jew's before the Catholics picked them up, and like you said many of the extra scriptures after Jesus do nothing but bring him into question or put forward contradictions. Quote: 3.Why would someone who professes to be a Christian led by the Holy Spirit infiltrate a Muslum guild and go to the extent of renouncing your faith, and deceiving them so as to convince them that you were one of them? (Truth of which still stands in the comments on your page) Like I said, a Fantastic Dare! It's the result of saying "I Know enough about Islam , its scripture and it's practice that I could more than easily pass as a Muslim" and a friend going "Go on then" I don't back down, not even from idle statements, it stems from the OCD and competitive nature im blessed with. Of course it still stands in my comment page, I make no effort to hide it, why would I, im neither Ashamed nor regretful of the period, I learned a great deal from it, and became more assured in faith because of it! Quote: Call it a prank, a dare or whatever you want but it was clearly not the leading of the Holy Spirit that lead you to such a deception. If not His Spirit...than who's? Your completely right, nor was it the Holy Spirit that led me to the corner shop this morning, nor did it tell me to buy Whole Fat, or Semi skimmed milk(I went for Whole fat for the record, trying to put the weight back on, now that Fight season is coming back round) I was led by a mixture of arrogance, and a desire to prove a point I made, Was it the shimmering example of a Christian? More than likely not. Does it indicate that I am a fully fledged servant of Satan. More than likely not Thank you for the answers and for not taking them the wrong way. As bait said there are a lot of people that come to places like this just to cause trouble. We are about testing the spirits when someone comes in posting as you did...hope you understand. Now...can we get back to the mission at hand, helping people to see why they can trust the Bible? smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:26 am
Amen, sister. But I tend to think that's what we're trying to do anyway, you and I. At least, it's what I'm working towards. I'm guilty of long posts myself ... but I dislike obscenely long, let's-repeat-the-whole-conversation posts. So I'm going to do a little editing with a broadaxe, here, and still try to keep things on track. Four Mile Sprint Deidra Diamonds 1.Why would someone who "claims" to be a Christian be trying so hard to discredit the very Book his faith is based on? Especially by using arguments that do nothing to change the meaning of it, clarify its meaning or change/discredit the fulfillment of the prophesies contained in it. Nothing that you have said changes the Truths of the book (confirmed throughout the Book) And that TRUTH is: Jesus and Him crucified to save us from our sins. If a true Christian I would think that your energies would be better spent trying to convince others of the those things in the Bible that you believe to be Truth or that substantiates the Truth of Jesus. Or is there nothing in the Bible that you think supports its validity? Of course it changes no Truth's of the Bible as we know them, it only brings into question it's infallibility in all issues, as a document we know to be documented despite containing a vast vast majority of truth, becomes corrupted and fallible as soon as hands unguided by the spirit smear it. The problem we're having is the fact that you are questioning its infallibility. If the Bible is fallible ... then we can't trust anything it says, and should throw it out. 'Cause how can we say "this part over here is fine, but toss out that verse over there"? The instant we start chopping up the Bible, when we start deciding what parts of the Bible to throw out ... we get two hundred groups who don't get along, and indeed get violent about it, but all claim to be following the same book ... kinda like the past. Or we look at a verse we through out, but it is referred to in this passage over here that we like ... we'd have to throw that out as well. And that's to say nothing of what God might have to say about people doing a hack job on His book. I imagine He'll be pretty ticked. Besides, you still haven't proven these "editations", or even given examples. I admit, I've found where a few discrepancies have been found between ancient manuscripts ... but it's always (converting to English) the difference between "I've" and "Ive": a slip of the pen, nothing more. Wait, wait, I correct myself ... there's a verse in the KJV that's not in most modern translations, and is generally reported to not be in the most ancient manuscripts; it's believed to be a medieval insert by an overzealous monk. It's the only verse I know of like that, though. Quote: Quote: 2.Why would someone who claims to be a Christian think that the books of the apacropha (sp?) should be included in the Bible? These books were written after the death of Jesus with the intent to discedit Him and his followers, and the are full of contradictions and lies. I don't actually believe they should be included, I never stated as much your putting words in my mouth, the Sept were in doubt even by the Jew's before the Catholics picked them up, and like you said many of the extra scriptures after Jesus do nothing but bring him into question or put forward contradictions. No, you didn't say they should be restored, that's true ... but you did use the term "missing". Used it twice, if I recall. And the word "missing" implies that the missing item should be restored. Quote: Quote: 3.Why would someone who professes to be a Christian led by the Holy Spirit infiltrate a Muslum guild and go to the extent of renouncing your faith, and deceiving them so as to convince them that you were one of them? (Truth of which still stands in the comments on your page) Like I said, a Fantastic Dare! It's the result of saying "I Know enough about Islam , its scripture and it's practice that I could more than easily pass as a Muslim" and a friend going "Go on then" I don't back down, not even from idle statements, it stems from the OCD and competitive nature im blessed with. Of course it still stands in my comment page, I make no effort to hide it, why would I, im neither Ashamed nor regretful of the period, I learned a great deal from it, and became more assured in faith because of it! OCD? I can sympathize. On the other hand, as I must frequently remind people, "I'm crazy, not stupid". And you gotta admit, bub ... I mean, nothing personal, but that clearly wasn't the brightest thing you could have done. Oh, you may say you're more assured in your faith ... but it sounds to me like you're just more assured in your acting ability and intellectual knowledge. Quote: Quote: Call it a prank, a dare or whatever you want but it was clearly not the leading of the Holy Spirit that lead you to such a deception. If not His Spirit...than who's? Your completely right, nor was it the Holy Spirit that led me to the corner shop this morning, nor did it tell me to buy Whole Fat, or Semi skimmed milk(I went for Whole fat for the record, trying to put the weight back on, now that Fight season is coming back round) I was led by a mixture of arrogance, and a desire to prove a point I made, Was it the shimmering example of a Christian? More than likely not. Does it indicate that I am a fully fledged servant of Satan. More than likely not Well, you admit arrogance was involved ... and again, I can sympathize with that. And while it doesn't make you a "fully fledged servant of Satan" ... it does make your walk with Christ a bit suspect. BUT ... I'm not going to tell you "get thee behind me", or anything of the sort. I'm not going to tell you that you shouldn't be here: indeed, if you want to click that little "join guild" button, I'll let you in quickly. Because I do welcome you, and I do think we can all learn from each other. And it's clear that you have a bit of scholarly knowledge, just as I, just as Xi, just as Deidra or Kenshin or Lyme or many of our other members. I just think that you have a great deal of mental knowledge, but your gnosis (to use your own term!) leaves a bit to be desired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 2:16 pm
You're right, I should make this guild private again..and probably keep it that way.
I'm really not a scholar by any means. I've studied some and tried thinking about things critically, but maybe not as much as some in this guild or as much as I should, but I think this is a little silly.
Having a competitive personality is one thing, but it really seems like you'll do just about anything to "prove yourself." Dares are really a childish way of someone trying to lure you to do something.
There are some books in the OT where the "author" is unknown (although most of us can agree it was God-breathed). But pretty much all the books can be backed up with historical evidence, and traced by genealogy. There are Roman sources external to the NT that provide evidence for events.
Jesus is the Word though. Grammatical or maybe even spelling errors don't really matter. People can make simple mistakes like that (as 'Bait mentioned), but that is irrelevant. What matters is context, historical and more importantly spiritiual.
I will probably close the thread soon unless others think it is not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:27 am
Xi, no. Leave it open ... both the thread, and the guild. I gripe about the side-effects of being public, but it's a meaningless gripe.
First, I don't like the idea of a Christian community that won't let strangers in. We're supposed to welcome people, not ask for ID cards every time someone shows up. Sure, we get trolls; that'll always happen. It's the nature of the 'Net. But don't block out one earnest seeker because of the nine trolls; the one earnest seeker is the one Christ has led here.
Second, this thread is a good idea, and needs to stay open. Yes, disagreements will happen; that's the nature of us being human. That doesn't mean that every time there's a disagreement, we just shut things down and cover it up.
Third ... let's be honest, our threads usually just collect cyber-dust. At least when there's a disagreement, people actually start posting. Are you going to kill off our only activity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 10:54 am
I'm new here but I have to say that I agree with Bait, that this should be left open. If we close it we are letting the forces of hell win. Yes we do have a few that come causing trouble and sometimes we loose the upper hand in stopping those things, and even fall to their level, but there are some that have sincere questions and are looking for the truth. I just think we need to keep better control and keep things on subject line (The Bible)and not let people stray to volitale discussions on religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 6:13 am
Four Mile Sprint Deidra Diamonds 1.Why would someone who "claims" to be a Christian be trying so hard to discredit the very Book his faith is based on? Especially by using arguments that do nothing to change the meaning of it, clarify its meaning or change/discredit the fulfillment of the prophesies contained in it. Nothing that you have said changes the Truths of the book (confirmed throughout the Book) And that TRUTH is: Jesus and Him crucified to save us from our sins. If a true Christian I would think that your energies would be better spent trying to convince others of the those things in the Bible that you believe to be Truth or that substantiates the Truth of Jesus. Or is there nothing in the Bible that you think supports its validity? Of course it changes no Truth's of the Bible as we know them, it only brings into question it's infallibility in all issues, as a document we know to be documented despite containing a vast vast majority of truth, becomes corrupted and fallible as soon as hands unguided by the spirit smear it. The problem we're having is the fact that you are questioning its infallibility. If the Bible is fallible ... then we can't trust anything it says, and should throw it out. 'Cause how can we say "this part over here is fine, but toss out that verse over there"? The instant we start chopping up the Bible, when we start deciding what parts of the Bible to throw out ... we get two hundred groups who don't get along, and indeed get violent about it, but all claim to be following the same book ... kinda like the past. Or we look at a verse we through out, but it is referred to in this passage over here that we like ... we'd have to throw that out as well. Ill clear this up, because I don't belie the bible is Infallible. However I reject the absurd notion that because some of it has been open to editation "all of it" is instantly untrustworthy, as well, that's just plain silly. The NT for example is pretty much spot on all round, free of any core contradictions, past a few dates and just when things happened within Christ's ministry, but such errors are only to be expected from the sources the Gospel writers were drawing from "people". There is nothing alarmingly wrong within 99.9% of the bible, so there is no reason to inherently distrust it, to do so would be unfounded paranoia. We can only treat scripture sceptically if we know it has been changed, or if what is mentioned within it is contradictory to other clear evidences we have. We have to use what we know of scripture, cultures of the time, history and the writing styles of the authors of the various Books , gospels, epistles etc and take it all into consideration when reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:16 am
Looks like the quoting got screwed up again, and posts are getting repetitive, so I've cleaned it up a bit. Four Mile Sprint Ill clear this up, because I don't belie the bible is Infallible. However I reject the absurd notion that because some of it has been open to editation "all of it" is instantly untrustworthy, as well, that's just plain silly. The NT for example is pretty much spot on all round, free of any core contradictions, past a few dates and just when things happened within Christ's ministry, but such errors are only to be expected from the sources the Gospel writers were drawing from "people". There is nothing alarmingly wrong within 99.9% of the bible, so there is no reason to inherently distrust it, to do so would be unfounded paranoia. We can only treat scripture sceptically if we know it has been changed, or if what is mentioned within it is contradictory to other clear evidences we have. We have to use what we know of scripture, cultures of the time, history and the writing styles of the authors of the various Books , gospels, epistles etc and take it all into consideration when reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 03, 2010 7:25 am
Four Mile Sprint Ill clear this up, because I don't belie the bible is Infallible. However I reject the absurd notion that because some of it has been open to editation "all of it" is instantly untrustworthy, as well, that's just plain silly. Well, if we can't trust any given part of it ... and most of us aren't scholars in Greek or Aramaic, so we can't check the ancient manuscripts (even assuming them to be available) ... we don't know which part to trust, do we? It's all or nothing. Quote: There is nothing alarmingly wrong within 99.9% of the bible, so there is no reason to inherently distrust it, to do so would be unfounded paranoia. I've always found paranoia to be a very healthy lifestyle. But if there's "no reason to inherently distrust it", why do you distrust it? That's how you started off this discussion, after all. Quote: We can only treat scripture sceptically if we know it has been changed, or if what is mentioned within it is contradictory to other clear evidences we have. We have to use what we know of scripture, cultures of the time, history and the writing styles of the authors of the various Books , gospels, epistles etc and take it all into consideration when reading. Okay, I'm in full agreement regarding interpreting things based on when they were written, within certain limits (and I have a perfect example, but I'll only give it if someone asks for it; I don't want to sidetrack). But you keep hinting that what we have is "contradictory to other clear evidences". You hint this a lot, but you don't back it up. So, again I ask ... can you give an example?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:18 am
Food for thought today:
I Timothy 6:20
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Have a wonderful day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
