 |
Wonder who was on that canon "committee"? Can't see anyone putting a bible together including bad stuff, or anything that called the message they wanted to convey into dispute, or contradicted the orthodoxy of the time. Don't you think the ancient kings, popes, politicians, and conquerors corrupted the bible for their own use just as they do today?
I claimed ?? - "Blatantly and wildly incorrect" ???? You're doing it again - even after I asked you to stop. Putting words into my posts that were never there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're still missing the point. Maybe this will help.Quote:
So you place yourself against the hundreds of scholars in claiming that "eternal" actually means something else. In essence you are claiming they have been duped into simply accepting something false, and a "something" that is of critical importance. It just strikes me that they would have to be incredibly unprofessional to have done such a thing.
The method used by scholars is flawed. As we know, if one tells something to someone who then tells someone, and so forth, by the time the telling gets very far down the line, it has been changed, either accidentally or to meet the agenda of the teller. Scholars should not take any such ‘preponderance’ of information over an earlier writing. The closer to the source, the more accurate the writing should be considered. In the oldest manuscript of Mark, the disciples do not find out that Jesus is risen. We have no written evidence that the disciples ever find out since all references to such are found in much later documents. In fact, since Mary is told and the disciples are not, some feel the later manuscripts were changed in order to give the disciples power to control the early church, a political agenda. Given the history of politics in Church history throughout its existence, such a theory is not far fetched. Especially if you agree with many who have read the earliest Mark that the disciples are portrayed as unbelieving, demanding of truth, and the true believers were Mary and Martha. Also, when asked the way to the kingdom of God in the earliest Mark, Jesus replied that one had to give up all of their worldly goods, forsake their families, and follow him. It is no wonder this was later changed to introduce faith as a means to salvation. Only a very, very few could even come close to this criteria. Certainly, the fragile early Church could not have survived with the criteria Jesus laid out.
I explained why. As to the purgatory reference, I gave you all you needed to know and you refused to look at it. You can lead a horse to water, but ..................................Quote:
You still have not answered why hell is temporary, but heaven is eternal. The same word is used to describe both. You also have not found a scripture that describes a person going from hell to heaven after having paid the penalty of his sins.
The is hardly accepted by the majority of scholars. The first complete Gospel is from the 4th century. Prior to that are fragments only.Quote:
According to Daniel Wallace, 43% of the NT is contained in manuscripts from the second century.
Likely? Largely settled? Are you making this up? The Bible was canonized in the late 4th century (Council of Laodicea).Quote:
I don't agree with your statement about the canon. The canon was likely largely settled by informal agreement some time during the second century.
At the time, there were over 50 gospels and over 100 epistles being used in churches. The Book of Revelation was initially omitted. It is unclear to this day how it finally did get included. Even Luther thought it so wild, he relegated it to an appendix. To this day, the Orthodox Church does not accept it.Quote:
By the time the church formalized it, there was very little disagreement over what to accept.
This argument is irrelevant.Quote:
The autographs do not exist? Name the work of antiquity for which the autographs are still in existence.
70 books, almost one million words, 40-50 different authors, composed over millenia, passed down by hand-written copies until the printing press, etc. Do you seriously maintain no changes have occurred?Quote:
There is also no evidence that the text of the NT has been changed in any substantial way since the autographs, and certainly in no way that suggests it has "evolved" in meaning or content.
My position is - I do not believe people go to hell for eternal punishment because they do not believe in Jesus. You claim that you don't understand about the punishment. I claim that I do understand, and it is not eternal. I believe that faith in Christ has nothing to do with it since babies and the mentally impaired and those who never heard of Christ cannot be liable for something they have no knowledge of. I do not believe that those who "die in their sins" go to hell since the statement is far too vague. What exactly do you mean by sin? Murder? A white lie? I do not believe sins need to be forgiven through faith in Christ. For example, a Hindu may atone for his sins by apology, recompense, or good works.Quote:
We'll see how this goes. Yes, unsurprisingly I would agree with the words of Jesus in John 8, or in many other passages including the Matt. 25 passage, Rev. 20, and John 3. "The wages of sin is death." When Jesus came at first, He came to bring the message of salvation and to pay the penalty for our sins. He will come again for the purpose of judgment. It is going to be such a terrible event that the "heavens and earth" will flee away. Those who die in their sins will be sent to hell. Those whose sins have been forgiven through faith in Christ will spend eternity in the presence of God. It is the consistent message of the New Testament. Now the punishment will be proportional in a way I don't understand, and yet recognize as being stated in several places.
Let me get this straight. You refuse to look at what I provide for further reference, yet you expect me to look at what YOU provide for further reference!Quote:
For further reference you can look at Psalm 21:8-9, Matthew 3:12; 13:49,50; 10:28; 18:8, Hebrews 10:31, Mt. 5:22, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, and 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10.
You are doing nothing more than telling us what you believe. That's fine, but it's only your opinion with no appeal to any authority. You give no scriptures. Not only that, but you then seem upset that I have refused "to look at what I (you) provide for further reference." Well, what would I look at? There is no scripture, so I am left to believe Jesus or you. I'm going with Jesus.Quote:
My position is - I do not believe people go to hell for eternal punishment because they do not believe in Jesus. You claim that you don't understand about the punishment. I claim that I do understand, and it is not eternal. I believe that faith in Christ has nothing to do with it since babies and the mentally impaired and those who never heard of Christ cannot be liable for something they have no knowledge of. I do not believe that those who "die in their sins" go to hell since the statement is far too vague. What exactly do you mean by sin? Murder? A white lie? I do not believe sins need to be forgiven through faith in Christ. For example, a Hindu may atone for his sins by apology, recompense, or good works.
You are mixing two thing together. The method used to copy manuscripts hardly amounts to, "...one tells something to someone who then tells someone and so forth." There is no "telling" going on, and it is scarcely the casual, careless method described. It was a careful, well-scrutinized system, and the result is clear.Quote:
The method used by scholars is flawed. As we know, if one tells something to someone who then tells someone, and so forth, by the time the telling gets very far down the line, it has been changed, either accidentally or to meet the agenda of the teller.
Irenaeus in the second century mentions 21 books as being accepted in the churches, all 21 of which ended up in the 4th century canon. At about the same time the Muratorian fragment mentions a very similar set of accepted books. To suggest that it was not settled until the 4th century is inaccurate.Quote:
Likely? Largely settled? Are you making this up? The Bible was canonized in the late 4th century (Council of Laodicea).
Where is your evidence that 50 gospels and 100 epistles were being used in the early churches?
Matthew and Luke are "much later" than Mark? What?Quote:
We have no written evidence that the disciples ever find out since all references to such are found in much later documents.
I think I see why you don't refer to scripture. In your mind, the Bible is such a jumbled, unreliable fairy tale that there is no point in putting any confidence in it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I believed what you believe about the Bible, I would never read it again. You stated a few days ago that you resented my supposed distorting of the image of a gentle and loving Jesus. How can you have any confidence in that? How would you know it's true that Jesus was "gentle and loving"? I honestly believe that is the greatest difference between the two of us. I regard the Bible as authoritative. You seem to regard it as a collection of nice stories but of no real historical significance, and certainly not a book one would base his life on. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is sure how it seems.
Jesus didn't write the bible and all his words and accounts are from hearsay sources, many unknown, and unverifiable. Its up to you what you believe, and that's fine with me. If what others believe is not fine with you...so what? Wars have bee fought over ones beliefs before, and we can have a war of words all you want, but who here voted for the sinner who has not repented? I guess he knows he is going to hell, and taking the country and all his fake evangelical family values true believers with him.
What a fine example you have set on how to get to heaven. Good luck with that. Your hatred of HC has served you well. Yeah lets get back to the politics of NOW, because the evidence of your own faith betrays you and you are not very repentant yourself. You have lied about wanting an HONEST discussion.
Repent sinner or burn in the eternal flames of hell! Please God open this sinners mind that he may see the path of salvation ain't through the dufus!
I agree completely with that. Never indicated otherwise.Quote:
If what others believe is not fine with you...so what?
As to your opening statement, Matthew and John gave first-hand accounts. Both were with Jesus and could scarcely be called "unknown" or "unverifiable". Luke stated this at the very beginning of his gospel. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Mark wrote his gospel from the account given to him by Peter. So your assumption that, "his words and accounts are from hearsay sources, many unknown, and unverifiable," is not accurate. In fact it is a mile away from being accurate. It is simply untrue.
I don't hate HC.
How have I lied? In what way have I conducted a discussion that was less than honest?
What about this angers you so easily? This discussion, fairly civil, was with Athos. What got you so fired up?
Not mad at all JL except when a thread is hijacked yet again by true believers justifying their faith and proselytizing for it. I get it, but at least tell the whole story of the blood, corruption, conquering and domination that spread the word as much as the preaching. I suppose they all (religions) have gone through the same thing from their ancient beginnings until now, but who believes that pure as the driven snow and innocent as lambs stuff when history says otherwise?
Can you keep it in its own thread though?
I will work on it!Quote:
Can you keep it in its own thread though?
Trump's news briefing today was so far the most bizarre. It turned into a pseudo-ish campaign rally (unethical and illegal), trumpeting (ha ha) about his achievements (but reporters refused to take the bait, which infuriated him). Pence jumped over to the mic to praise Trump with high praise for how well he has handled the pandemic. Trump assured everyone that we'll be open and back to normal very soon.
Yes but define normal, the world will take a long time to recover and there will be a much more nationalistic attitude, buy local will become normal as people support local industries, the cheap knockoffs from China won't have the same appealQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Recovery is a long way off here I think, and we probably should skip the dufus bluster pressers for a while, just to avoid false hope and false information he tries to feed the public, as we get to tornado season and all those folks with nowhere to run and hide. I think the challenge is the food supply not Chinese knock offs with so many idled workers and more to follow.
Yes food supply will be challenging all over, after years of drought harvests here are way down, particularly rice with only a 10% crop and the sheep and cattle herds are low. Finding workers will be a problem too, not many will take to the road in the great tradition of the swaggie
The virus is going to end up being great big problem #2. Great big problem #1 is going to be figuring out how to pay for all of this. As we say in Mississippi, the chickens are going to come home to roost sooner or later.
That's exactly what you asked me for - a statement of my belief. That's precisely what I gave you! Now you criticize me for "telling what I believe". That's why you have so little credibility. You have a habit of confusing yourself, like you did here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good grief! I DID refer to Scripture. You refused to read it. The internet reference had TONS of Scripture material for you in answer to your question. BUT YOU REFUSED TO READ IT.Quote:
You give no scriptures. What would I look at? There is no scripture
Now you can read my mind?Quote:
In your mind, the Bible is such a jumbled, unreliable fairy tale that there is no point in putting any confidence in it.
There's no perhaps about it! You read it on a surface level, taking the words literally and missing the essence.Quote:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I believed what you believe about the Bible, I would never read it again.
Calling Jesus gentle and loving is a common expression. Now we can see by your words you don't believe that about Jesus. That's a shocker. But it does help to explain how your Jesus can condemn those who die in their sins to everlasting punishment in hell.Quote:
You stated a few days ago that my supposed distorting of the image of a gentle and loving Jesus. How can you have any confidence in that? How would you know it's true that Jesus was "gentle and loving"?
I believe that you believe that. Closer to the truth is your regard for the Bible being authoritative as the result of an unthinking literal understanding.Quote:
I honestly believe that is the greatest difference between the two of us. I regard the Bible as authoritative.
I am confident I have more knowledge of the historical significance of the Bible than you will ever have.Quote:
You seem to regard it as a collection of nice stories but of no real historical significance.
No perhaps about it. You ARE wrong.Quote:
Perhaps I'm wrong
In your world, the Jesus who said Love Your Enemy is the same Jesus who condemns that enemy to hell for eternal punishment. The contradiction escapes you.
In order to honor what I told Tal, I have done away with my post here and moved it here. It can be read at that place. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...76#post3851676
Our generally more civil exchange has been nice.
Thank you JL, have fun. Much appreciate the consideration their is of course new developments into the dufus handling of the covid19 crisis.
It's been reported that through the FBI fema has been tracking states health supply orders and jacking them and rerouting those supplies to it's own stockpile inventories.
I can understand rationing of scarce supplies, but why are the feds acting like pirates after the states are doing the ordering? Why doesn't the feds do the orders and logistics, if they are going to control the process?
How we are going to pay for this is not a mystery, how long will it take is the mystery. We just got over paying for the last lot, here at least, but as you have no intention of paying for the last lot, why should you be concerned about paying for this lot, just add it to the slate and continuing living in utopia, where health care ensures you will have an early death and not have to worry about itQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quiet day.
Busy day.
every day is a quiet day, whatever is happening isn't happening here
Rest assured it is happening elsewhere. Hope you're knocking on wood. Our elderly are particularly hard hit.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 AM. |