responding to common objections to bible

[Rhyfelwyr]

Politics is about facts and figures, not about "belief".

Why, oh why, would you think you are secluded from society, just because I would see it as rude if you start trying to convince others that you know what happens after death and thus like to control their life choices?

I live in a rich community life, haven't heard religion mentioned once.

It's straightforward - if my beliefs are exluded from the public sphere, then I am being excluded from society. This repression can be political or social in nature.

The social aspect can be subtle but pervasive, and goes beyond a tabboo on public preaching. I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class (I can't find it online, but something like that happened). And so suddenly you have a situation where it is difficult to be a Christian (or at least that type of Christian) and be a teacher. Or a social worker. Or if you have to care for abortion patients, a nurse (though they won a recent case). And the list grows and grows until you see a situation where Christians really are excluded from many employment options - a pretty fundamental part of your role in society.

As for your comment about political ideas being about facts and figures and not "belief", this is untrue. People's political beliefs are motivated by a whole host of things in much the same ways that religious ones are.

[Kadagar_AV]

It's straightforward - if my beliefs are exluded from the public sphere, then I am being excluded from society. This repression can be political or social in nature.

The social aspect can be subtle but pervasive, and goes beyond a tabboo on public preaching. I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class (I can't find it online, but something like that happened). And so suddenly you have a situation where it is difficult to be a Christian (or at least that type of Christian) and be a teacher. Or a social worker. Or if you have to care for abortion patients, a nurse (though they won a recent case). And the list grows and grows until you see a situation where Christians really are excluded from many employment options - a pretty fundamental part of your role in society.

As for your comment about political ideas being about facts and figures and not "belief", this is untrue. People's political beliefs are motivated by a whole host of things in much the same ways that religious ones are.

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

Yes of course a teacher should be sacked for commenting on who loves who, if it wasn't in a biology class and the teachers negative comment were in the lines of "homosexuality clearly isn't a way to get more babies".

Stupid people might vote on belief. I for one prefer to vote based on facts and figures. IE communism, I am ALL FOR IT from a belief perspective. But the facts and figures steers me way, way, away from it.

Beliefs in a religion leads to compromises with logic. And I don't support that.

[Papewaio]

It's straightforward - if my beliefs are exluded from the public sphere, then I am being excluded from society. This repression can be political or social in nature.

The social aspect can be subtle but pervasive, and goes beyond a tabboo on public preaching. I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class (I can't find it online, but something like that happened). And so suddenly you have a situation where it is difficult to be a Christian (or at least that type of Christian) and be a teacher.

Being religious does not give a free pass to being a bigot.

A Christian should follow Christ. Break bread with sinners, Don't cast stones and turn the other cheek.

The teacher in question failed both general society and Jesus in particular. Only one of which is automatically forgiving.

[LittleGrizzly]

I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class
..................................

Good!

I hope efforts are taken to ensure people with such views are kept away from influencing our children!

Having been in secondary school a mere decade (and a bit) ago I can reliably inform you that teenagers, in particular teenage boys hate gay people and make their lives a misery (where they do exist and falsely accuse where they don't) more than enough as it is without teachers encouraging them to do so!

Where do you think we get these hide in the closet homophobic's that Lemur was posting about in a topic (I assume) is still on the front page?

From a combination of teachers like the one you mentioned, combine it with rampant homophobia amongst young teenagers and then add in family members who are also hate homosexuals and you have a surefire way to produce yourself a very messed up child.

[total relism]

But we Catholics do. One dunk-a-baby moment and we gotcha forever.




Specifics. (http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/if-im-baptized-as-a-catholic-does-that-mean-im-catholic-forever-even-if-i-marry-outsi)


and to atheist i believe in a imaginary man in the sky,to islam i am infidel etc i dont care what you may think of me,i do care as asked what i think of myself. but yes my aunt always tells me that, i do go to catholic church with her sometimes.


you may like
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/kfiuy6/comedy-central-presents-peace-be-with-you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k_9mXpNdgU

[Sigurd]

no i agree with baptist on baptism. I had no choice but to be Baptized as baby, not much i could do lol.

I asked if you were baptized, and you replied that you were, as a child. Then you say you agree with the baptists on this issue. I am confused. Are you baptized or not. If you agree with the baptists, then should not consider yourself baptized.


yes i believe i am saved, but as i stated their is no differences in "dogma" or theology.Wording and english language through the years from 1600 yes.

what bible dont support " evangelists" what do " evangelists" believe anyways? your suppose to evangelize?. tell me what bible says not to?. I think you misunderstand greatly,there is no entire diffident bibles that teach different theology. There is debates about proper theology. You make much of catholic/Evangelist act like they have diferent bibles. Please watch debates as i do, they dont argue text on bit,they argue meaning. Here is conservative evagalist and catholic debating on many subjects.
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/roman-catholicism-91/roman-catholicism.html

?? Dogma is church specific interpretation of principles of the bible. Of course there are differences in dogma. If not there wouldn't be 35 000 different Christian denominations. You lot.. the "born again", evangelists believe you are saved based on the KJV specific wording on this issue. While other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future. NEB does support THAT DOGMA and discards YOUR (as in your branch of Christianity) DOGMA. Meaning you can't show a debatant your view using the NEB translation. You need the KJV.


they both do claim to be christian, but what qualifies you?i base chritian on who jesus/bible,not modern sects created recently that change bible/jesus. Acording to jesus/bible they are not, so i go with that.

Do you see anywhere in my post where I claim I am better qualified at this? I merely point out that any particular self-proclaimed Christian can't pass judgment over the next self-proclaimed Christian whether this person is or is not a Christian. Why would you say Mormons are not Christian? JW are followers of Jehovah and they believe that He is distinct from Christ.



but it is, read my op for more on this, its been their since,well the op of this thread lol.

It exists.. but you don't trust translations. Do you read Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? My guess is no.. so we are back at square one. As soon as someone translates - it becomes corrupt.

[total relism]

I asked if you were baptized, and you replied that you were, as a child. Then you say you agree with the baptists on this issue. I am confused. Are you baptized or not. If you agree with the baptists, then should not consider yourself baptized.

?? Dogma is church specific interpretation of principles of the bible. Of course there are differences in dogma. If not there wouldn't be 35 000 different Christian denominations. You lot.. the "born again", evangelists believe you are saved based on the KJV specific wording on this issue. While other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future. NEB does support THAT DOGMA and discards YOUR (as in your branch of Christianity) DOGMA. Meaning you can't show a debatant your view using the NEB translation. You need the KJV.

Do you see anywhere in my post where I claim I am better qualified at this? I merely point out that any particular self-proclaimed Christian can't pass judgment over the next self-proclaimed Christian whether this person is or is not a Christian. Why would you say Mormons are not Christian? JW are followers of Jehovah and they believe that He is distinct from Christ.



It exists.. but you don't trust translations. Do you read Hebrew? Greek? Aramaic? My guess is no.. so we are back at square one. As soon as someone translates - it becomes corrupt.



no i just have not done so yet, i will do so just have not done it yet, i am waiting to do with my son. I was as baby, i do not count that as true baptism.



never said diffident opinions/theology. you claimed there were difernt bibles ,one for Evangelist one for catholic etc i said that is untrue. The differences are in how to understand the bible. That is clear to all who know/watch debates on the issue etc. the rest of your claim that Evangelist need kj to show saved based on wording in kj is completely false. almost no church uses kj anymore. Your claim can be easily refuted simply by reading a non king james version of the bible

you than claim
other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future.

please show me were?your making simple mistake in theology that had you any knowledge in bible you would not make it so. Salvation and sanctification.



i disagree fully, as what counts as being christian is what jesus/bible says. Therefore anyone who claims to be a follower must agree with him what bible says. That is why Mormons and jospeh smith are not christian.


please read op sir,until your willing this can go nowhere. I said in op we have the entire original of witch to translate from. You misunderstand what i object to in varying translations.

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, may I suggest you read more actual books rather than internet pages, and watch less debates online?

Not only would it do wonders with your English, it might also help you analyze easier. Getting spoon fed is rarely a good idea.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess we have to agree to disagree then.

Yes of course a teacher should be sacked for commenting on who loves who, if it wasn't in a biology class and the teachers negative comment were in the lines of "homosexuality clearly isn't a way to get more babies".

I will try to address LittleGrizzly/Papewaio with this bit as well.

I think you are all missing my point. My point was never that a teacher ought to have the right to do that when it harms homosexuals, or that somebody who would feel bound to express such views when asked honestly should to be allowed to be a teacher.

My point was that the beliefs and principles of Christians naturally put them in conflict with modern mainstream secular society. Due to this they cannot integrate with society, and as a result they become exluded from society.

I am not using this to advocate changing the rules to favour Christians - I am simply making an observation.

It's like you yourself have always said Kad, a healthy society is a homogenous society. Otherwise some groups will just never fit in and be happy.


Stupid people might vote on belief. I for one prefer to vote based on facts and figures. IE communism, I am ALL FOR IT from a belief perspective. But the facts and figures steers me way, way, away from it.

Well, while in a sense absolutely everything could be reduced to numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis) and assessed rationally as such, in the vast majority of cases we humans lack the knowledge or capacity to strip concepts down to that level.

For something as complicated as politics with economic, social, geopolitical etc issues, our understanding is generally inadequate to reduce all the factors involved in them and the relationships between them into a simple set of statistics. If we could we would have a formula that showed the perfect relationship between economic growth, wealth distribution, and social wellbeing.

But we don't. Hence why we use other methods such as logical deduction, theorization, historical analysis etc - it is out of this cocktail that our political beliefs come from.

If you are relying purely on what we can quantify in statistical form, then your political ideas must be very poorly developed.


Beliefs in a religion leads to compromises with logic. And I don't support that.

The concepts of God or religion are not inherently illogical since they are not inherently inconsistent - you just happen to disagree with the logic that backs them.

[Sigurd]

never said diffident opinions/theology. you claimed there were difernt bibles ,one for Evangelist one for catholic etc i said that is untrue. The differences are in how to understand the bible. That is clear to all who know/watch debates on the issue etc. the rest of your claim that Evangelist need kj to show saved based on wording in kj is completely false. almost no church uses kj anymore. Your claim can be easily refuted simply by reading a non king james version of the bible

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestants adhere to a 66 book bible.
What about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version. Clearly I have showed a difference between two 66 book bibles in this thread. It doesn't take a Master degree in documentation to spot the differences. The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma.
That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively. The Anglican has it as its official version as well as the LDS church. Then you have the Evangelical "KJV only movement" and all sorts of conservative protestants who claim KJV is the superior version. Pentecostals, presbytarians etc... about needing KJV to show saved now vs. saved later - see my post quoting KJV and NEB.



you than claim
other denominations, also Christian, believes they are not saved. It is something they await, its a life long process that will result in salvation in the future.
please show me were?your making simple mistake in theology that had you any knowledge in bible you would not make it so. Salvation and sanctification.

Again I think you misunderstand. I am not attacking your Sola fide I am not attacking that dogma. It is more or less exclusively the evangelical branches of the protestants that claim they have been saved. There is a difference when churches confuse the tenses simple present and perfect present vs simple future of the verb saved. When does it happen?
As for where... 1. Cor 1:18, 1.Cor 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15 (NEB)



i disagree fully, as what counts as being christian is what jesus/bible says. Therefore anyone who claims to be a follower must agree with him what bible says. That is why Mormons and jospeh smith are not christian.
Then show me using the bible why Mormons aren't Christian.



please read op sir,until your willing this can go nowhere. I said in op we have the entire original of witch to translate from. You misunderstand what i object to in varying translations.
I question your confidence in this. You have only what people claim is the entire bible. Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not.
120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon. The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach. Then you have the whole Hellenistic Judaism that influenced the translation of the canon of the early church - the Septuagint. It is only the "bible is infallible" crowd that claims originality and a complete compilation, typically named in this thread the entire original bible. There is no such thing that is God-sanctioned.

[total relism]

The Catholic Bible has 73 books, while the Protestants adhere to a 66 book bible.
What about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version. Clearly I have showed a difference between two 66 book bibles in this thread. It doesn't take a Master degree in documentation to spot the differences. The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma.
That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively. The Anglican has it as its official version as well as the LDS church. Then you have the Evangelical "KJV only movement" and all sorts of conservative protestants who claim KJV is the superior version. Pentecostals, presbytarians etc... about needing KJV to show saved now vs. saved later - see my post quoting KJV and NEB.


Again I think you misunderstand. I am not attacking your Sola fide I am not attacking that dogma. It is more or less exclusively the evangelical branches of the protestants that claim they have been saved. There is a difference when churches confuse the tenses simple present and perfect present vs simple future of the verb saved. When does it happen?
As for where... 1. Cor 1:18, 1.Cor 15:2, 2 Cor 2:15 (NEB)

Then show me using the bible why Mormons aren't Christian.


I question your confidence in this. You have only what people claim is the entire bible. Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not.
120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon. The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach. Then you have the whole Hellenistic Judaism that influenced the translation of the canon of the early church - the Septuagint. It is only the "bible is infallible" crowd that claims originality and a complete compilation, typically named in this thread the entire original bible. There is no such thing that is God-sanctioned.



of the original bible written, were are these differences between catholic and evangelistic bibles?that was your claim.

what about the Douay-Rheims Bible vs. King James Version.?


you have shown no differences in theology,just english language in 400 years [kj written in 1611 i think].


your claim
"The KJV WAS created to accommodate for the new protestant view on salvation and other protestant dogma. "

please support, i think your referring to Geneva bible, also they did not create to challenge catholic, they created with notes etc to better understand and show were catholic were wrong. Did not change text. as i sated earlier a simple knowledge of Catholics and watching any debate on salvation between catholic/protestant will fast show your claims false.

your claim
"That almost no Church uses KJV is completely bollocks. More or less all protestant churches use it and many baptist churches uses it exclusively"

please support.
NIV Leads 40% of Protestant pastors prefer the NIV Bible says a recent Ellison Research survey.
http://www.sermoncentral.com/illustrations/sermon-illustration-statistics-24057.asp
Most Protestant ministers tell pollsters they like NIV above all other Bibles_51704
http://www.baptiststandard.com/resources/archives/44-2004-archives/1898-most-protestant-ministers-tell-pollsters-they-like-niv-above-all-other-bibles51704
http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-shows-niv-bible-is-most-popular-among-pastors-445/
etc etc



i have asked many times before, could you please show me were a doctrine of a church teaches this saved know vs saved later idea you have?


i will ask once more, could you please show me were a doctrine of a church teaches this saved know vs saved later idea you have?
it seems you are mistaking the possiblity of losing salvation [a debate for sure] with if your saved originally.



well their are many places, but one is matt 23 were it says jesus will be last prophet. Look especially to v 37. last of all i will send my son.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21&version=NIV

the bible in many places is clear jesus is last and no more added to bible



god did decide,we have it.


claim
"120 NT books (that we know of.. could be more) competed for a spot in the compiled canon"


please support

claim
"Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not. "

please support


claim
The OT compilation and rules of copying was established 450 BC near a 1000 years after the supposed authors of the OT had written them. Who knows how many books competed for a spot in the Tanach.


please support


you have watched to much dan brown. Have you ever watched a debate on these claims/subjects?you would not make such claims had you.

The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going.
Proverbs -14.15

The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I heard it mentioned at a church meeting tonight that a school teacher was sacked for saying something negative about homosexuality to his class
..................................

Good!

I hope efforts are taken to ensure people with such views are kept away from influencing our children!

Having been in secondary school a mere decade (and a bit) ago I can reliably inform you that teenagers, in particular teenage boys hate gay people and make their lives a misery (where they do exist and falsely accuse where they don't) more than enough as it is without teachers encouraging them to do so!

Where do you think we get these hide in the closet homophobic's that Lemur was posting about in a topic (I assume) is still on the front page?

From a combination of teachers like the one you mentioned, combine it with rampant homophobia amongst young teenagers and then add in family members who are also hate homosexuals and you have a surefire way to produce yourself a very messed up child.




It would depend, for me, on the level of education. At the primary level, I'm far more interested in stuffing their little heads full of facts, basic mathematics, etc.
At what is usually, in the USA, called a middle school level, I would prefer teachers to continue with progressively more difficult operations and the beginings of critical evaluation, but would probably prefer that sex and sexuality not be the focal subject for such nascent critical efforts. In High School and college, they SHOULD begin to address the more challenging and threatening subjects. At that stage, I am less against a teacher addressing the issue but would want instruction to clearly delineate between fact and opinion.

Let the teacher express their opinion -- as long as they label it as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

and to atheist i believe in a imaginary man in the sky,to islam i am infidel etc i dont care what you may think of me,i do care as asked what i think of myself. but yes my aunt always tells me that, i do go to catholic church with her sometimes....
I understood your point without you having to restate it. I was simply having a bit of fun (while noting Catholic doctrine on the issue).

[LittleGrizzly]

It depends how long you stay in Education I guess and what type of courses you study...

I am pretty sure homosexuality was barely mentioned to us in school, negative opinions, positive opinions or just general facts I can't really remember anything.

When we got the school rules (which I doubt many if any children actually read them all) there was probably a mention of bullying on sexuality not being allowed but outside of that I think it was just basically never mentioned (by the teachers in the classroom)

I chose R.E. as an option and I don't think it was really discussed there either. I do think we didn't delve too much into anything that could be controversial though in R.E. though...

Outside of that I am not really sure what subject a discussion of homosexuality would arise in, I did leave school a good 11 years ago now so things might have changed a bit.

It seemed like the right way to do it to me, schools should discourage discrimination and bullying of people because of their sexuality but I don't think teachers should be talking about it in a positive light or a negative one, at least not to children in comprehensive school (16 and under)

I think such a conversation would be mostly pointless anyway, teenage boys are particularly immature when it comes to homosexuality so any attempt to approach it as a positive would likely backfire and any negative approach could just fuel the flames of their homophobia.

Once they move onto college/sixth form (16-18) or University (18+) then it would probably work a bit better.

Though I do wonder if I can ever justify somebody pronouncing a negative view of homosexuality as a teacher in an educational establishment...

I mean they are not exactly the same but I cannot justify a teacher in an educational establishment casting Black people in a negative light...

[InsaneApache]

You know what guys, as an atheist my view is this. This is your life. No rehearsals, no second chances. This is it. After this, it will be like before you were born. Nothing. Just enjoy it. It don't last long.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

claim
"Humans, not God decided what should be biblical and what should not. "

please support


Here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html#P1497_696002) is a translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25, written in the Early 4th Century. In this section he lists those books which he deems canonical, then those accepted by most, but rejected by him, then those commonly rejected, he closes by listing those books which are accepted by other denominations but rejected by him.

By contrast, here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html) is the first attested list of what would become a standard 27-book canon, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

This suggests, rather strongly, that the Bible in its standard form now has been compiled by men, whether the original books were inspired by God or not...

[Slyspy]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/are-you-being-persecuted-2013033064361

[total relism]

I understood your point without you having to restate it. I was simply having a bit of fun (while noting Catholic doctrine on the issue).

ok sorry my bad, did you like those video links?. pretty funny.



Here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html#P1497_696002) is a translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 3.25, written in the Early 4th Century. In this section he lists those books which he deems canonical, then those accepted by most, but rejected by him, then those commonly rejected, he closes by listing those books which are accepted by other denominations but rejected by him.

By contrast, here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html) is the first attested list of what would become a standard 27-book canon, in a letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in 367.

This suggests, rather strongly, that the Bible in its standard form now has been compiled by men, whether the original books were inspired by God or not...


yeah i got the book. I disagree fully with your claim, Muslims have compiled a book as well as Mormons Jehovah witness etc. Does that make gods word or bible any less? That today many modern liberals see all religions as equal, does that make gods true word [assuming there is one] no longer true?.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

It is entirely your right to disagree, should you choose to do so: I am merely supplying the evidence you requested, which I, and I am sure many others, both religious and irreligious, accept. I am making no claim as to whether the Bible is indeed the word of God, though I personally disagree with that assessment.

My point is that, working from Church sources, between c. 325 AD and 367 AD the Canon was compiled from existing works. As such at some point a churchman or council of churchmen has made a decision as to what is the word of God and what isn't. Even if they books themselves are the word of God, man is fallible, how would one know whether they omitted a text that ought to be considered Canonical, even if you accept the authenticity of those in the modern Canon.

I am aware that I probably won't change your mind - I just want to demonstrate that there is reasonable evidence that the New Testament Canon, while it may be divinely inspired, was the product of human authorship and editing...


With regard to translation issues, all I have to say is:

πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε

[total relism]

It is entirely your right to disagree, should you choose to do so: I am merely supplying the evidence you requested, which I, and I am sure many others, both religious and irreligious, accept. I am making no claim as to whether the Bible is indeed the word of God, though I personally disagree with that assessment.

My point is that, working from Church sources, between c. 325 AD and 367 AD the Canon was compiled from existing works. As such at some point a churchman or council of churchmen has made a decision as to what is the word of God and what isn't. Even if they books themselves are the word of God, man is fallible, how would one know whether they omitted a text that ought to be considered Canonical, even if you accept the authenticity of those in the modern Canon.

I am aware that I probably won't change your mind - I just want to demonstrate that there is reasonable evidence that the New Testament Canon, while it may be divinely inspired, was the product of human authorship and editing...


With regard to translation issues, all I have to say is:

i agree with above was my point. Man can create anything he wants and call it gods word [mormons islam jw add new books in 1500's etc] he cannot change what is gods or what god has done. I recommend watching debates on the supposed gospels etc and other nt books that were supposed "left out". I think you will find clear distinction from them and gods word.


last part
nice.

[Rhyfelwyr]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/are-you-being-persecuted-2013033064361

Obviously those questions were meant to be rhetorical, but strictly speaking, a lot of Christians would be effectively excluded from many official positions because they are either outright barred, or have to take oaths in conflict with their beliefs.

Although most of these issues would affect atheists as well.

We are a constitutional monarchy after all, our head of state is also head of the established church.

[Kadagar_AV]

He is everywhere... in the heavens and Earth.
He makes the stars shine, yet He cannot be seen.
He is noble, abundant, and fills the universe.
He can lift you into the sky and bring you gently down.
He can take many forms.
He can heal. He can kill.
He can help create, and He can help destroy.

Praise be unto He.
Helium.

He He He....

Also great at parties, I might add.

[Kadagar_AV]

Obviously those questions were meant to be rhetorical, but strictly speaking, a lot of Christians would be effectively excluded from many official positions because they are either outright barred, or have to take oaths in conflict with their beliefs.

Although most of these issues would affect atheists as well.

We are a constitutional monarchy after all, our head of state is also head of the established church.

I honestly think it's good that politicians don't let their religious side cloud their ability. In Sweden, we just had a politician who got sacked because he was also chairman for an Islamist organization. Main argument was that he couldn't reasonably be able to uphold the women's view of both organizations at the same time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I honestly think it's good that politicians don't let their religious side cloud their ability.

Maybe so, but I wasn't talking about that.

I'm saying that in the UK, you have to swear allegiance to the Queen, who also happens to be head of the established Anglican Church, in order to do a whole host of things, from being a MP, to a policeman, to serving in the army, etc.

Some Christians and indeed atheists might not be happy with that.

For some positions the discrimination is even more outright. For example, you have to be in communion with the Church of England to be monarch.


In Sweden, we just had a politician who got sacked because he was also chairman for an Islamist organization. Main argument was that he couldn't reasonably be able to uphold the women's view of both organizations at the same time.

This happened in Sweden?!?!

[Kadagar_AV]

Maybe so, but I wasn't talking about that.

I'm saying that in the UK, you have to swear allegiance to the Queen, who also happens to be head of the established Anglican Church, in order to do a whole host of things, from being a MP, to a policeman, to serving in the army, etc.

Some Christians and indeed atheists might not be happy with that.

For some positions the discrimination is even more outright. For example, you have to be in communion with the Church of England to be monarch.

I see your point, but the base of it isn't OK in my view. The problem here is that the Queen, and England, still have an official religion that clearly is allowed to operate within the state, and with the state.

I think religion and politics should be far, FAR, apart.

We don't want to be USA dumb (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp)

You know, separate fact from fiction and all that. I am not saying politicians, teachers, lawyers and so on can't be religious. I am saying I would be the first to write "dumb" on their foreheads if they ever let it inspire their work life.




This happened in Sweden?!?!

"Sweden" might be very politically incorrect to say, not to mention that it is a racist slur (obviously). Sweden prefers to be called "New-Sweden" these days, if I got them right (can any all-equal-human-being-from-the-territory-that-used-to-be-known-as-Sweden confirm?)

[Rhyfelwyr]

I see your point, but the base of it isn't OK in my view. The problem here is that the Queen, and England, still have an official religion that clearly is allowed to operate within the state, and with the state.

I think religion and politics should be far, FAR, apart.

We don't want to be USA dumb (http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp)

It's been suggested that the existence of an established church in Britain and the Scandinavian countries might actually help explain why these are the same countries where religion tends not to have much of an influence in political life.

I guess if the major faith in the country has established status, then its followers feel less marginalised and threatened, and as a result religion is never a dividing point or source of protest on political matters.

[Ironside]

"Sweden" might be very politically incorrect to say, not to mention that it is a racist slur (obviously). Sweden prefers to be called "New-Sweden" these days, if I got them right (can any all-equal-human-being-from-the-territory-that-used-to-be-known-as-Sweden confirm?)

I've heard nysvenskar (new swedes) as a term for immigrants yes, not sure how common. Never heard it in any other content.

He (Omar Mustafa) got forced to resign because of his track record of commonly inviting speakers with controversial opinions (read blatant extremists) and not distancing himself enough from their opinions.

[Papewaio]

I guess if the major faith in the country has established status, then its followers feel less marginalised and threatened, and as a result religion is never a dividing point or source of protest on political matters.

Then why are the leadership in the Church of England claiming they feel persecuted?

[Brenus]

"Then why are the leadership in the Church of England claiming they feel persecuted?" The Queen? Well, if topless Duchess of Cambridge's pictures are really Religious Persecutions...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Then why are the leadership in the Church of England claiming they feel persecuted?

I think we are seeing an Americanization of political divides - because of things like the internet, people in the UK are being exposed to the whole religion/abortion/gay marriage issues that go on in the US, and we're starting to divide ourselves along Christian Right/liberal atheist lines.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think we are seeing an Americanization of political divides - because of things like the internet, people in the UK are being exposed to the whole religion/abortion/gay marriage issues that go on in the US, and we're starting to divide ourselves along Christian Right/liberal atheist lines.

I would agree with this to be honest, if i have to listen to another abortion or same sex marraige row I will keel over with frustration and or anger /boredom.

Ireland is down the swaney an there all the time arguing social issues, hey zealots on both sides park your row outside there is actual work to be done

[Brenus]

“we're starting to divide ourselves along Christian Right/liberal atheist lines.”
Err, it is a bit of a simplification. Big debate in the lefties ranks about it, as it can be the open door for renting of the female bodies (surrogate mothers) as marriage means right for adoption and right for assisted fecundity, so open the gates for renting uterus for males couples following principles of equality in front of the law. It exits yet, but some fear it could lead to a legalisation of this. It can lead to human trafficking (young poor girls paid to carry babies for rich westerners, and capitalism being capitalism, more than one if possible).
And usually, marriage is not a lefty value...
On the other side, the right and extreme right is as well divided as some want to have to pre-natal right of adoption (so foetus become person), but more traditionalists prefer the idea of couples as man and woman, model of good parenting, without any consideration of the divorce reality and single mothers phenomenon that disqualifies this idea.

[Kadagar_AV]

How did I miss this post? You just summed up why I love my language so much. Other languages are bland by comparison. Why do you think Americans don't speak other languages? We're still trying to figure out our own. :creep:

Hero!

Hjälte!

Held!

THIS is what I love about languages. One simple word, so different connotations.

Translation of words only go so far - I actually have to think in English to be able to communicate properly here.

But with that said, English is a far off echo off of my original thoughts...

Men om jag skriker från hjärtat (likt Ronjas vårskrik) här, kan ni aldrig ana vad jag menar, än mindre följa med i mer teoretiska begrepp.

Translation: Words that honestly can't be translated. You can Google it, but you will not actually understand it without being born and bred.

[Beskar]

In the UK, there is actually ham in the hamburger. It is usually a mixture of beef with pork in the contents. In shops, they are usually called 'Beef Burgers' and chicken ones are called 'Chicken Burgers'.


Men om jag skriker från hjärtat (likt Ronjas vårskrik) här, kan ni aldrig ana vad jag menar, än mindre följa med i mer teoretiska begrepp.

"But if I scream from the heart (like Ronjas vårskrik) here, you can never guess what I mean, let alone follow more theoretical concepts."

But there are many such examples in many different languages, it isn't language specific.
It is like citing Blood Brothers, An Inspector Calls, or even Shakespeare and say they could not be understood if translated into a different language.

[Kadagar_AV]

In the UK, there is actually ham in the hamburger. It is usually a mixture of beef with pork in the contents. In shops, they are usually called 'Beef Burgers' and chicken ones are called 'Chicken Burgers'.



"But if I scream from the heart (like Ronjas vårskrik) here, you can never guess what I mean, let alone follow more theoretical concepts."

But there are many such examples in many different languages, it isn't language specific.
It is like citing Blood Brothers, An Inspector Calls, or even Shakespeare and say they could not be understood if translated into a different language.

Of course there are many such examples from any nations culture. Maybe less so in English because of its mongrel status (or more so, because of its mongrel status?).

Ronja is a character from an Astrid Lindgren book. In the movie / TV series, there is this scene where she does a "spring cry". Every Swede can relate to it, but it really is an untranslatable feeling that is hard to put in words.

For a Swede, language and ethnicity and culture goes hand in hand. Is it the same in English? American English, Jamaican English, Australian English and so on... As English doesnt have a shared ethnicity, I guess it's more the culture that creates this bond, rather than the language?

Shakespeare is about as close a common factor you have as anything, or?

To be, or not to be...

I guess Hollywood can also be seen as a big influencer there.... "Luke, I am your father"

[Conradus]

I guess Hollywood can also be seen as a big influencer there.... "Luke, I am your father"

And that line's never been said :D

[Papewaio]

I say it all the time.

Of course it helps that it is my son's name...

[Beskar]

I say it all the time.

Of course it helps that it is my son's name...

Does your son have a reason to question his parentage often?

[Papewaio]

How often do seven year olds get upset with parental rules...

[Kadagar_AV]

How often do seven year olds get upset with parental rules...

Depends on how often you sit down and explain the reason for the rules :)

[Papewaio]

A lot. Kids tend to need to be told multiple times for some rules. Leading by example helps.

He likes to do the dishes with me because he sees that as a grown up priviledge. He doesn't like to go to bed early because staying up late is also a grown up priviledge... conversely he doesn't like being women up at 6:00am even if that is a grown up action.

[Kadagar_AV]

A lot. Kids tend to need to be told multiple times for some rules. Leading by example helps.

He likes to do the dishes with me because he sees that as a grown up priviledge. He doesn't like to go to bed early because staying up late is also a grown up priviledge... conversely he doesn't like being women up at 6:00am even if that is a grown up action.

I know it was a spelling error... Gave me quite a laugh though, but then I love inappropriate humour...

[Slyspy]

In the UK, there is actually ham in the hamburger.

Do what?

[The Lurker Below]

Do what?

That is pretty awful, eh? It sounds almost as bad as a chicken omelette.

[LittleGrizzly]

That is pretty awful, eh? It sounds almost as bad as a chicken omelette.

If I have eaten a hamburger rather than just a beef burger (living in the UK I guess I would have) then it is such a small amount you don't even notice the taste...

I can imagine chicken going quite nicely in an omelette...

[Kadagar_AV]

I did a Hamburger some weeks ago...

As a sidenote: we SO need flags with the roman alphabet on them.

[Slyspy]

That is pretty awful, eh? It sounds almost as bad as a chicken omelette.

No, it isn't that. I just think it is a bizarre misconception.

[Hax]

For a Swede, language and ethnicity and culture goes hand in hand. Is it the same in English? American English, Jamaican English, Australian English and so on... As English doesnt have a shared ethnicity, I guess it's more the culture that creates this bond, rather than the language?

How deep is the connection between the Swedish-speaking minority in western Finland and "Sweden proper"?

[Fragony]

Not sure don't hurt me but isn't Ronja a girl in that book

Ecit, yes she is Ronja de Roverdochter (dutch tanslation)

[Sigurd]

I have been busy building...

TR... I will not be able to provide you with links to sources on the internet for my claims. Most of it comes from literature way before the internet. Mostly are books written by scholars from different denominations. People that devoted a life time to the study of these things. I just think it too sad that they are no longer with us to withstand the flow of this age's Arianism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Monarchiansim, Monothelitism or Gnosticism. Which I believe is the result of an unchecked evolution of the protestant movement. There are no body of Protestantism that can dictate or claim divine ruling on dogma or doctrine. With no such authoritative clergy - anyone can go in any direction or interpretation of the canon, establish a church and lay down dogma to be followed and claim that all other denominations are an abomination to God.

I have spent 2 decades in the middle of this and have discussed (debated) with many followers of such. What I found was that the evangelists (I need to put some sort of umbrella on them) lack a common doctrinal foundation. The diversity of opinions on basic doctrine like salvation is astonishing. Rhyfelwyr, our resident ultra protestant, understood immediately the nuance of the different salvations. And I believe it is because he actually has talked to people with different opinions on this specific topic. I have met people from the same church or denomination which had 3 different views on a simple single doctrine. Where is a Paul when needed? Someone who can say: you are wrong - this is what God's opinion on this matter is.

To spout Dan Brown on me is just sad and desperate bad form. I am disappointed.



well their are many places, but one is matt 23 were it says jesus will be last prophet. Look especially to v 37. last of all i will send my son.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21&version=NIV

the bible in many places is clear jesus is last and no more added to bible

Definition of a prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

You claim Jesus was the last one? I guess we can just throw out the NT then, since it was written without divine inspiration by men, not having prophetic gifts.
Peter, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark and Paul were just making stuff up if they were not directly quoting Jesus. This is the consequence of what you are claiming...

Besides, whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not has nothing to do with the claim of being Christians or not (Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus).

[total relism]

I have been busy building...

TR... I will not be able to provide you with links to sources on the internet for my claims. Most of it comes from literature way before the internet. Mostly are books written by scholars from different denominations. People that devoted a life time to the study of these things. I just think it too sad that they are no longer with us to withstand the flow of this age's Arianism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Monarchiansim, Monothelitism or Gnosticism. Which I believe is the result of an unchecked evolution of the protestant movement. There are no body of Protestantism that can dictate or claim divine ruling on dogma or doctrine. With no such authoritative clergy - anyone can go in any direction or interpretation of the canon, establish a church and lay down dogma to be followed and claim that all other denominations are an abomination to God.

I have spent 2 decades in the middle of this and have discussed (debated) with many followers of such. What I found was that the evangelists (I need to put some sort of umbrella on them) lack a common doctrinal foundation. The diversity of opinions on basic doctrine like salvation is astonishing. Rhyfelwyr, our resident ultra protestant, understood immediately the nuance of the different salvations. And I believe it is because he actually has talked to people with different opinions on this specific topic. I have met people from the same church or denomination which had 3 different views on a simple single doctrine. Where is a Paul when needed? Someone who can say: you are wrong - this is what God's opinion on this matter is.

To spout Dan Brown on me is just sad and desperate bad form. I am disappointed.


Definition of a prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.

You claim Jesus was the last one? I guess we can just throw out the NT then, since it was written without divine inspiration by men, not having prophetic gifts.
Peter, James, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark and Paul were just making stuff up if they were not directly quoting Jesus. This is the consequence of what you are claiming...

Besides, whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not has nothing to do with the claim of being Christians or not (Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus).



i agree 100% with your first paragraph. that is why just because Mormons Jehovah witness claim to be true christian does not make them.



second, i agree as well, people dont read bible much anymore and instead listen to what others tell them to believe, very very dangerous. You sound like my pastor lol.



but if i remember right your claim was their are books that should be in bible that are not, there gospels, all i can say from watching debates/responses are they are not included for clear reasons.



jesus was last prophet sent, yes i claim because i believe what the bible says on the issue. If your not aware the nt was written by apostles of jesus about jesus, the last prophet. The bible again claims and jesus that the disciples had [and i believe] divine inspiration. So no one was making anything up as you claim.


just what Joseph smith contradicts was my point. As you pointed out yourself first paragraphs, people can change, believe, and say anything, that does not make it so.

[Sigurd]

i agree 100% with your first paragraph. that is why just because Mormons Jehovah witness claim to be true christian does not make them.

Even between denominations seemingly very alike, there are fundamental differences. Take your "faith" (I put it in quotes because I am assuming) and compare it with a similar evangelical faith - the Pentacostals. Outwardly they seem the same, some pentacostals adhere to special appearance for women, but that is not the general norm. But if you look into the dogma - you find different views on important principles like the Godhead or salvation. Baptists hold to once saved always saved, while the pentacostals believe you can fall from grace.
There are also some unclear differences on Trinitianism. If you ask one Baptist he might agree with a Pentacostal, but a Baptist can disagree with another Baptist or a Pentacostal will not agree with a Baptist and his fellow Pentacostal on the nature of the Godhead. This tells me they don't have a set Dogma on this issue and its members are free to interpret as they want = not a principle of faith.
But then the Pentaostals will say that Baptists are not true Christians because they are not speaking in tongues, as true Christians do or should do.



second, i agree as well, people dont read bible much anymore and instead listen to what others tell them to believe, very very dangerous. You sound like my pastor lol.

I believe this is true for the majority of church goers - even Mormons and JWs. They don't quite know their faith's gospel principles. I have been in situations where I instruct the debater on their supposed belief. "Well you say that as an individual, but your faith has an official doctrine on said matter, which is this..."



but if i remember right your claim was their are books that should be in bible that are not, there gospels, all i can say from watching debates/responses are they are not included for clear reasons.

I believe those reasons are clear, but entangled in the making of dogma. If it doesn't conform to what you are about to introduce as THE GOSPEL PRINCIPLES, you throw it out for dross.
I will ask you this - you might now of the tradition of not destroying records regarded as holy (The Judaic tradition of hiding worn out scripture in caches because you were no allowed to destroy it). Some believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a cache. But later finds suggest that these were preserved for a later audience. Written (copied I might say) onto new sheets, bound up and preserved. This because as they say - to preserve them from corruption. Not a corruption of the media they were recorded on, but from meddling hands. They were convinced that texts were tampered with.
Same with the Nag-Hammadi codexes, which were preserved by Christians. The reason for hiding the codexes are not clear, but they were hidden around the time where the discussion of what is cannon and what is not raged in the early church. There were found other caches involving texts from the NT era all around the area of Israel (Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt) and I believe the number of different texts are about 120.

It is common for most Christians today to not question why. Why only the books found in NT today?
Who gave the greek doctor Athanasius authority to decide what was canon and what was not? He together with many of the early church doctors were educated in Alexandria by the crew who made the Pentauch. The bunch of them NeoPlatonists.
I might sound conspiratorial here... but why not the skepticism towards a complete Bible? and I am not basing any of this on mr Brown. These questions come from among others the scholars that worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library:
H. F. Weiss, W. Richter, H. A. Brongers, Carl Schmidt, Edgar Hennecke, William Schneemelcher, Montague R. James, Solomon Zeitlin, Alan H. Gardiner, H. Nibley, James Robinson and Walter C. Till. And many more who wrote commentaries on this subject.



jesus was last prophet sent, yes i claim because i believe what the bible says on the issue. If your not aware the nt was written by apostles of jesus about jesus, the last prophet. The bible again claims and jesus that the disciples had [and i believe] divine inspiration. So no one was making anything up as you claim.

No.. no that is a cop out. If what you say is true... "no divine inspiration after Jesus", then you can't regard the letters of Paul or the Revelations of John as inspired texts. And should be removed from the Bible - the book that includes only that which was inspired. In fact - all scripture not directly quoting a saying of Jesus, the last prophet should be removed. I suggest you revise your evangelical dogma of Jesus being the last prophet. Clearly Peter was one and Paul was one if what they wrote was considered inspired by dr. Athanasius.

[total relism]

Even between denominations seemingly very alike, there are fundamental differences. Take your "faith" (I put it in quotes because I am assuming) and compare it with a similar evangelical faith - the Pentacostals. Outwardly they seem the same, some pentacostals adhere to special appearance for women, but that is not the general norm. But if you look into the dogma - you find different views on important principles like the Godhead or salvation. Baptists hold to once saved always saved, while the pentacostals believe you can fall from grace.
There are also some unclear differences on Trinitianism. If you ask one Baptist he might agree with a Pentacostal, but a Baptist can disagree with another Baptist or a Pentacostal will not agree with a Baptist and his fellow Pentacostal on the nature of the Godhead. This tells me they don't have a set Dogma on this issue and its members are free to interpret as they want = not a principle of faith.
But then the Pentaostals will say that Baptists are not true Christians because they are not speaking in tongues, as true Christians do or should do.


i agree with you as i said before, i just dont know what this has to do with anything related to topic. I go to a baptist church yet think most likely you can fall from grace etc. Your picking a few debatable topics like trinity etc im not sure what the point is. Nowhere does the bible say you must believe in the trinity of god or use the word trinity. You claim differences on salvation yet have never supported that. What does this have to do with translation of the bible?. I think your main problem is thinking that somehow people have to outworldey or do rituals etc the same and that counts as "faith". i think you have missed the whole bible my friend.




I believe this is true for the majority of church goers - even Mormons and JWs. They don't quite know their faith's gospel principles. I have been in situations where I instruct the debater on their supposed belief. "Well you say that as an individual, but your faith has an official doctrine on said matter, which is this..."


agreed, but your mistake i think is thinking that somehow the authority is in what a churches stance is on a subject instead of bible, the very thing you blame people for doing. Do you not see that?.





I believe those reasons are clear, but entangled in the making of dogma. If it doesn't conform to what you are about to introduce as THE GOSPEL PRINCIPLES, you throw it out for dross.
I will ask you this - you might now of the tradition of not destroying records regarded as holy (The Judaic tradition of hiding worn out scripture in caches because you were no allowed to destroy it). Some believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a cache. But later finds suggest that these were preserved for a later audience. Written (copied I might say) onto new sheets, bound up and preserved. This because as they say - to preserve them from corruption. Not a corruption of the media they were recorded on, but from meddling hands. They were convinced that texts were tampered with.
Same with the Nag-Hammadi codexes, which were preserved by Christians. The reason for hiding the codexes are not clear, but they were hidden around the time where the discussion of what is cannon and what is not raged in the early church. There were found other caches involving texts from the NT era all around the area of Israel (Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt) and I believe the number of different texts are about 120.

It is common for most Christians today to not question why. Why only the books found in NT today?
Who gave the greek doctor Athanasius authority to decide what was canon and what was not? He together with many of the early church doctors were educated in Alexandria by the crew who made the Pentauch. The bunch of them NeoPlatonists.
I might sound conspiratorial here... but why not the skepticism towards a complete Bible? and I am not basing any of this on mr Brown. These questions come from among others the scholars that worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library:
H. F. Weiss, W. Richter, H. A. Brongers, Carl Schmidt, Edgar Hennecke, William Schneemelcher, Montague R. James, Solomon Zeitlin, Alan H. Gardiner, H. Nibley, James Robinson and Walter C. Till. And many more who wrote commentaries on this subject.
.


Well i agree many just think the bible so it must be the right books, may i suggest its because they believe in divine inspiration?. You keep giving authority to man, in that case the bible is the works of man and i care not for it. I say its gods word as it claims and god stamped divine authority on the apostles and no other. But a great book showing for you how man never decided what goes in bible, only recognized what was already divinely inspired is
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

also has responses to why other books are left out.


I have no problem with you being skeptical of right books in bible i was myself. That is what debates/material are for. What books do you feel should be included in canon that are not?.




No.. no that is a cop out. If what you say is true... "no divine inspiration after Jesus", then you can't regard the letters of Paul or the Revelations of John as inspired texts. And should be removed from the Bible - the book that includes only that which was inspired. In fact - all scripture not directly quoting a saying of Jesus, the last prophet should be removed. I suggest you revise your evangelical dogma of Jesus being the last prophet. Clearly Peter was one and Paul was one if what they wrote was considered inspired by dr. Athanasius.

never said that your creating a strawman argument,i said jesus was last prophet. I alredy showed were jesus said he was last sent,also look at jude 3 were it says bible was sent once for all. If you believe Mormons are correct [starting to think you are one] i suggest these.

What Do Mormons Really Believe
http://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-Really-Believe-ebook/dp/B005FH5D2S
debate 1-2 Mormons -VS- Christianity - DEBATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxQfbdYYSA
you can also find many debates/books/videos found here
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/mormonism-109/mormonism.html

the fact is Mormon doctrine contradicts bible in many areas as those debate show, but this thread is not on mormons. Jesus was last prophet sent if we accept the bible, i do you don so we will never agree on this issue.

[Sigurd]

i agree with you as i said before, i just dont know what this has to do with anything related to topic. I go to a baptist church yet think most likely you can fall from grace etc. Your picking a few debatable topics like trinity etc im not sure what the point is. Nowhere does the bible say you must believe in the trinity of god or use the word trinity. You claim differences on salvation yet have never supported that. What does this have to do with translation of the bible?. I think your main problem is thinking that somehow people have to outworldey or do rituals etc the same and that counts as "faith". i think you have missed the whole bible my friend.

Did you completely miss my point where the Pentacostals declare anyone not using (having) the gift of tongues as not Christian. That means you my friend. Do you agree that they might have a point? Or do you agree that they should shut their trap mouth and keep silent over something they shouldn't make a judgement call on? It is not for the Pentacostals to declare Baptist not Christian as it is not for Baptists to declare Mormons not Christians. As long as someone declare themselves a follower of Christ - they have the right to that label.



agreed, but your mistake i think is thinking that somehow the authority is in what a churches stance is on a subject instead of bible, the very thing you blame people for doing. Do you not see that?.

Divine inspiration was given to few not the many. As the NT are full of examples of. Paul declared doctrine and the churches followed. Individual interpretations were frowned upon and corrected by the church leaders.



Well i agree many just think the bible so it must be the right books, may i suggest its because they believe in divine inspiration?. You keep giving authority to man, in that case the bible is the works of man and i care not for it. I say its gods word as it claims and god stamped divine authority on the apostles and no other. But a great book showing for you how man never decided what goes in bible, only recognized what was already divinely inspired is
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

also has responses to why other books are left out.

Sorry... I don't trust Josh McDowell as an authority on this matter. He is in contradiction to many of the authoritative scholars I mentioned. This man is an Creationist with the big C... Pseudo science is what follows his wake.



I have no problem with you being skeptical of right books in bible i was myself. That is what debates/material are for. What books do you feel should be included in canon that are not?.

How about the Apocryphon of John or Gospel of Phillip?



never said that your creating a strawman argument,i said jesus was last prophet. I alredy showed were jesus said he was last sent,also look at jude 3 were it says bible was sent once for all. If you believe Mormons are correct [starting to think you are one] i suggest these.

I don't think you interpret Matthew 21 (not 23 as you wrote) correctly. How does that parable directed at the Jews translate to Jesus being the last prophet?
It states that servants of God will collect what is produced by the vineyard, but the tenants killed those servants, and lastly the heir of the vineyard. Then he proceeds to tell them that the vineyard will be taken from them and given to other more faithful tenants... now who will collect the produce from them? If you equate servants with prophets - then naturally there will be prophets collecting from the new tenants.. those who have been given the vineyard. And I believe Christians see themselves as those tenants.. only.. they don't believe the servants exist..



What Do Mormons Really Believe
http://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-Really-Believe-ebook/dp/B005FH5D2S
debate 1-2 Mormons -VS- Christianity - DEBATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxQfbdYYSA
you can also find many debates/books/videos found here
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apologetics/mormonism-109/mormonism.html

the fact is Mormon doctrine contradicts bible in many areas as those debate show, but this thread is not on Mormons. Jesus was last prophet sent if we accept the bible, i do you don so we will never agree on this issue.

Sorry... I don't believe in anti-literature. Its of the devil :sneaky: Christians should get over themselves being un-christian towards each other. After Chick publications, I don't believe any anti-something literature is produced with other intent than being malicious and evil.
Again... I don't think the Bible does ever state that Jesus was the last prophet. Check my definition of a prophet / servant and stop vomiting rehashed evangelical anti-mormon bullshit. It's poor form and poor usage of the scriptures.

[Rhyfelwyr]

second, i agree as well, people dont read bible much anymore and instead listen to what others tell them to believe, very very dangerous. You sound like my pastor lol.

Indeed, but it's arguably more dangerous for Joe Blogg to consider himself a theologian just because he has a rudimentary understanding of Christianity.

Last Sunday, one guy at my church delivered the evening teaching on the issue of where we go after we die. He said that we go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades, temporary heaven and hell respectively. This would be the traditional mainstream Protestant understanding of things.

But I heard after the service one girl advocating another position to him - the idea of 'soul sleep', or that we die in the atheist sense until the Resurrection. She based this on a few quotes here and there, and seems to have fallen victim to the ambiguity regarding the meaning of words that studying verses in isolation can create.

The debate reminded me of Calvin's 'Psychopannychia', which was a small work dedicated to denouncing the idea of soul sleep that the Anabaptists of his time believed in. He did a thorough job, showing the scriptural evidence in support of Abraham's Bosom/Hades or the whole Sheol idea, as well as highlighting the fact that the Resurrection speaks specifically about our bodies, and that the soul, or life of a person is, through the scripture, seen as distinct from the body.

I got talking to somebody else before I could butt in - the speaker appeared to say to the girl that she might be right. I don't condemn them for it - I've been exposed to the same ideas over time and once gave them some credence. The scripture is so large that its very easy for people to be mislead by nit-picked verses.


Rhyfelwyr, our resident ultra protestant, understood immediately the nuance of the different salvations. And I believe it is because he actually has talked to people with different opinions on this specific topic.

You're on the mark. By accident, I've become something of a connoisseur of modern Protestantism. I've attended variously a liberal Church of Scotland congregation, a more traditional one, a Scottish Gospel Hall, a Northern Irish Gospel Hall (BIG culture gap across the sea there), and upon returning to Scotland, what I would call a more US-style Evangelical church (it was a Gospel Hall but they changed it to 'church' for practical rather than doctrinal reasons). I have attended all these for a good while each, with the exception of the Scottish Gospel Hall. I've also been exposed to more fringe beliefs through people I have known, from weird crypt-pagan Masonic stuff, to British Israelism.

I've always had some dialogue about doctrine at these places, because in all but the Church of Scotland ones, they certainly don't waste time in asking you where you stand, lol. Walking into a Gospel Hall and being asked "are you saved" was a bit of a culture shock for me.

Sigurd, while you are right to note the differences within different strands of Protestantism, it is also worth noting that I felt welcome, and as part of a Christian community, in all those environments, bar the first two. They are, on the whole, on the same page. I suspect that the Catholic Church would in reality have just as broad a spectrum of beliefs within its followers.

Still, personally I do not believe in being lax when it comes to what you believe. Christians today are conditioned by atheists to think that they have to be a certain way - that they have to allow any errors within their brethren out of some sort of sense of Christian charity. Or indeed, as you put it:


Christians should get over themselves being un-christian towards each other. After Chick publications, I don't believe any anti-something literature is produced with other intent than being malicious and evil.

This idea is wrong, and unscriptural. Dissention because of ego or a false sense of righteousness is condemned by Paul in the scripture - but a thirst for truth is not - "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)". Thirsting after righteousness was not in and of itself the bad trait of the Pharisees - their desire to be seen and respected for it was.

Calvin actually put it brilliantly in that very Psychopannychia text I mentioned:

"in the present day, persons may be seen giving full scope to a carping, biting, scoffing temper, who, if you were only to lay a finger on them, would make a lamentable outcry that "the Unity of the Church is rent in pieces, and Charity violated!" To such let this be our answer: First, That we acknowledge no Unity except in Christ; no Charity of which He is not the bond; and that, therefore, the chief point in preserving Charity is to maintain Faith sacred and entire. Secondly, That this Discussion may proceed without any violation of charity, provided the ears with which they listen correspond with the tongue which I employ."


It is common for most Christians today to not question why. Why only the books found in NT today?
Who gave the greek doctor Athanasius authority to decide what was canon and what was not? He together with many of the early church doctors were educated in Alexandria by the crew who made the Pentauch. The bunch of them NeoPlatonists.
I might sound conspiratorial here... but why not the skepticism towards a complete Bible? and I am not basing any of this on mr Brown. These questions come from among others the scholars that worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library

Of course it is fair enough to ask questions about what should qualify as canonical. Some of the great Reformers even changed their opinions regarding the issue.

But some people use the question marks over certain texts to rubbish the whole concept of a divine scripture - this is wrong, and shown to be contrary to the beliefs of the earliest Christians by the sheer volume of textual evidence that indicates that they did believe in the concept of scriptural texts. This would most obviously apply to the Old Testament, which Jesus references as scripture on a number of occasions. Of course it has changed very slightly in its composition - but like I said we can see that Jesus believed in the idea of scripture. So modern Christians should as well.

Otherwise they will become heretics like PVC and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm only goading you Philipvs!

Now you might say that the idea of a New Testament should be a lot more contentious. But consider 2 Peter 3:16 - "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

So we have a letter where it shows that the Pauline Epistles (or at least some of them) were consider scripture. Now, while it would be circular logic to claim that as a scriptural source, it validates its claim as to what is scripture; it at least is a valuable source in indicating that the concept of New Testament scripture existed amongst the early believers. The quite casual and passing way in which their scriptural authority is mentioned indicates that this was a fairly accepted and non-contentious issue - long before Athanasius was around.

Naturally this still leaves room for contention over what precise texts are canonical. But we have to realise that the concept of a New Testament canon permeated the early church - surely a point of huge significance.

[Empire*Of*Media]

wow what a long Discussion !!
if you would speak about Islam it would Take more than some years !!!!:laugh4:
Jesus its not only what is in the Bible !! you think Jesus as a Relegion !! your wrong !! jesus was a great person like Zoroastra (Zarathushtra) or gandhi or buddha!!
but the matter is in medieval times some catholic popes took power and told many shits about Jesus !! and Completely Wrong !!
and the other matter is for those that dont believe in GOD (not relegion!) is the Mind Control of the Zionists & The FreeMasons (if you know who are they!!) that control the world and have USA-Europe-Israel and Jews and much of economies of the world and Specially the Culture Changer and mind controller THE HOLLYWOOD !!!

[Hax]

Your posts hurt my eyes.

[Sigurd]

Indeed, but it's arguably more dangerous for Joe Blogg to consider himself a theologian just because he has a rudimentary understanding of Christianity.
:sneaky:



Last Sunday, one guy at my church delivered the evening teaching on the issue of where we go after we die. He said that we go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades, temporary heaven and hell respectively. This would be the traditional mainstream Protestant understanding of things.

But I heard after the service one girl advocating another position to him - the idea of 'soul sleep', or that we die in the atheist sense until the Resurrection. She based this on a few quotes here and there, and seems to have fallen victim to the ambiguity regarding the meaning of words that studying verses in isolation can create.

The debate reminded me of Calvin's 'Psychopannychia', which was a small work dedicated to denouncing the idea of soul sleep that the Anabaptists of his time believed in. He did a thorough job, showing the scriptural evidence in support of Abraham's Bosom/Hades or the whole Sheol idea, as well as highlighting the fact that the Resurrection speaks specifically about our bodies, and that the soul, or life of a person is, through the scripture, seen as distinct from the body.

I got talking to somebody else before I could butt in - the speaker appeared to say to the girl that she might be right. I don't condemn them for it - I've been exposed to the same ideas over time and once gave them some credence. The scripture is so large that its very easy for people to be mislead by nit-picked verses.

I think your view is more in line with what the canon and extra-canonical material says on the matter. A temporary place for the righteous and another for the unrighteous awaiting judgement.
There are too many instances of where it indicates a continuation of "life" even without the body. You have Jesus on the cross stating that "today you will join me in paradise". You have Elijah and Moses appearing to Peter, James and John on the mountain. And the verse in Matthew (since we are currently there in this discussion anyway)

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”


(Matt 22:31-32)


He declares Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as among the living.


I've always had some dialogue about doctrine at these places, because in all but the Church of Scotland ones, they certainly don't waste time in asking you where you stand, lol. Walking into a Gospel Hall and being asked "are you saved" was a bit of a culture shock for me.

What would be your answer? Yes, No or awaiting a declaration from the Saviour upon Judgement day.



Sigurd, while you are right to note the differences within different strands of Protestantism, it is also worth noting that I felt welcome, and as part of a Christian community, in all those environments, bar the first two. They are, on the whole, on the same page. I suspect that the Catholic Church would in reality have just as broad a spectrum of beliefs within its followers.

Still, personally I do not believe in being lax when it comes to what you believe. Christians today are conditioned by atheists to think that they have to be a certain way - that they have to allow any errors within their brethren out of some sort of sense of Christian charity. Or indeed, as you put it:
[Sigurd stating that Christians need to get off their high horses]

This idea is wrong, and unscriptural. Dissention because of ego or a false sense of righteousness is condemned by Paul in the scripture - but a thirst for truth is not - "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)". Thirsting after righteousness was not in and of itself the bad trait of the Pharisees - their desire to be seen and respected for it was.

Righteousness and truth.. I don't think you can equate those as you did there. I think two persons can be equally righteous even though their beliefs might differ severely on important principles.
But that was a side step.. what I wanted to frown upon was the idea that you can tell someone they are non-christian. Someone with faith in Christ, following the two great commandments - shouldn't been told they go to hell, because they don't agree with your particular 1/35000th dogma on a particular principle. That is simply Pharisaic.
Christians ... take a step back and look across the expanse of ten thousands of churches and denominations, you can't all have THE truth, it's simply impossibly illogical. But they all still profess to have THE truth in their little trenches, taking pot shots at each other.



Of course it is fair enough to ask questions about what should qualify as canonical. Some of the great Reformers even changed their opinions regarding the issue.

But some people use the question marks over certain texts to rubbish the whole concept of a divine scripture - this is wrong, and shown to be contrary to the beliefs of the earliest Christians by the sheer volume of textual evidence that indicates that they did believe in the concept of scriptural texts. This would most obviously apply to the Old Testament, which Jesus references as scripture on a number of occasions. Of course it has changed very slightly in its composition - but like I said we can see that Jesus believed in the idea of scripture. So modern Christians should as well.

What makes scripture divine? Is the criterion being referenced? If so.. I'll add those to the missing scripture in the bible. Within the Bible there are references to texts not found in the Bible itself... why are these not compiled with the others? you will find thousands of references to existing bible scripture in non-canonical writings of the early fathers.. true (as rehashed by bible thumpers to the point of ad nauseam), but they discard the fact that these same fathers are pulling quotes from other scriptural texts not found in the bible. Why not just add them to the Bible? They were surly considered to be authorative enough to be used in theology writings of the early church.



Now you might say that the idea of a New Testament should be a lot more contentious. But consider 2 Peter 3:16 - "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

So we have a letter where it shows that the Pauline Epistles (or at least some of them) were consider scripture. Now, while it would be circular logic to claim that as a scriptural source, it validates its claim as to what is scripture; it at least is a valuable source in indicating that the concept of New Testament scripture existed amongst the early believers. The quite casual and passing way in which their scriptural authority is mentioned indicates that this was a fairly accepted and non-contentious issue - long before Athanasius was around.

Naturally this still leaves room for contention over what precise texts are canonical. But we have to realise that the concept of a New Testament canon permeated the early church - surely a point of huge significance.
Looking in the NEB translation, it states:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience with us is our salvation, as Paul, our friend and brother, said when he wrote to you with his inspired wisdom. And so he does in all his other letters, wherever he speaks of this subject, though they contain some obscure passages, which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin, as they do the other scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

To me it looks like Paul was quoting scripture in his letters and that Peter think them obscure - though canonical. But Peter do think Paul has inspired wisdom or prophetic gifts. I also think that the NT does not contain all of Paul's letters.
Using this in debate on particularly questioned principles, does nothing more than affirm that individuals oups.. sorry, the ignorant and unstable are not qualified to interpret scripture.


wow what a long Discussion !!
if you would speak about Islam it would Take more than some years !!!!:laugh4:
Jesus its not only what is in the Bible !! you think Jesus as a Relegion !! your wrong !! jesus was a great person like Zoroastra (Zarathushtra) or gandhi or buddha!!
but the matter is in medieval times some catholic popes took power and told many shits about Jesus !! and Completely Wrong !!
and the other matter is for those that dont believe in GOD (not relegion!) is the Mind Control of the Zionists & The FreeMasons (if you know who are they!!) that control the world and have USA-Europe-Israel and Jews and much of economies of the world and Specially the Culture Changer and mind controller THE HOLLYWOOD !!!
I'll let you deal with this one TR... :sneaky:

[Brenus]

"I'll let you deal with this one TR... :sneaky:" That is mean...:laugh4:

[Empire*Of*Media]

"I'll let you deal with this one TR... :sneaky:" That is mean...:laugh4:

what does that mean !!!!!!

[total relism]

Did you completely miss my point where the Pentacostals declare anyone not using (having) the gift of tongues as not Christian. That means you my friend. Do you agree that they might have a point? Or do you agree that they should shut their trap mouth and keep silent over something they shouldn't make a judgement call on? It is not for the Pentacostals to declare Baptist not Christian as it is not for Baptists to declare Mormons not Christians. As long as someone declare themselves a follower of Christ - they have the right to that label.


Divine inspiration was given to few not the many. As the NT are full of examples of. Paul declared doctrine and the churches followed. Individual interpretations were frowned upon and corrected by the church leaders.


Sorry... I don't trust Josh McDowell as an authority on this matter. He is in contradiction to many of the authoritative scholars I mentioned. This man is an Creationist with the big C... Pseudo science is what follows his wake.


How about the Apocryphon of John or Gospel of Phillip?


I don't think you interpret Matthew 21 (not 23 as you wrote) correctly. How does that parable directed at the Jews translate to Jesus being the last prophet?
It states that servants of God will collect what is produced by the vineyard, but the tenants killed those servants, and lastly the heir of the vineyard. Then he proceeds to tell them that the vineyard will be taken from them and given to other more faithful tenants... now who will collect the produce from them? If you equate servants with prophets - then naturally there will be prophets collecting from the new tenants.. those who have been given the vineyard. And I believe Christians see themselves as those tenants.. only.. they don't believe the servants exist..



Sorry... I don't believe in anti-literature. Its of the devil :sneaky: Christians should get over themselves being un-christian towards each other. After Chick publications, I don't believe any anti-something literature is produced with other intent than being malicious and evil.
Again... I don't think the Bible does ever state that Jesus was the last prophet. Check my definition of a prophet / servant and stop vomiting rehashed evangelical anti-mormon bullshit. It's poor form and poor usage of the scriptures.


as i said before i judge on what bible says, you judge on what people claim, even though you admitted to claims not equaling true theology. Mormons are not just a denomination. But yes all believe they are correct, what i or anyone else says does not equal truth, what the bible says does, if we believe it is true as i do.



sorry still no idea what your point is on this, what your trying to say/argue.



well assuming its all true, good thing its not his opinion but scholars/facts he presents, be careful you don't indoctrinate yourself.



well i admit i have never herd of Apocryphon of John before. But it is a Gnostic writing
is a 2nd-century AD Sethian Gnostic Christian text of secret teachings
The opening words of the Secret Book of John are "The teaching of the saviour, and the revelation of the mysteries and the things hidden in silence, even these things which he taught John, his disciple." The author John is immediately specified as "John, the brother of James — who are the sons of Zebedee." The remainder of the book is a vision of spiritual realms and of the prior history of spiritual humanity yet john died around 90 ad.
"an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures"

detailing of classic dualistic Gnostic mythology that has survived; as one of the principal texts of the Nag Hammadi library, it is an essential text of study for anyone interested in Gnosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphon_of_John


Gnostic gospels- why they are not from god or part of bible.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1139
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1111http:/
/www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=CCNT1526



Gospel of Philip
is one of the Gnostic Gospels, a text of New Testament apocrypha, dating back to around the 3rd century
a collection of gnostic teachings and reflections, a "gnostic anthology"
The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 300 AD, while Philip himself died 80 AD, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most scholars hold a 3rd century date of composition
Much of the Gospel of Philip is concerned with Gnostic views of the origin and nature of mankind
places the date "perhaps as late as the 2nd half of the 3rd century" and places its probable origin in Syria
gospel of phillip
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=CCNT1524

Gnostic gospels
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1139
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1111http:/
/www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=CCNT1526


landowner-god
vineyard-isreal
tenant-Religious leaders
slaves-profets
v37 finally last sent the son
notice 45 leaders knew he was speaking of them
jesus did die and was killed, but as we know he rose from the grave.

but in the end this is not mormon debate, jude, Deuteronomy, revaluations,these passages and more all refute mormons as christian.



well you seem the most bias ant knowledge person i know of. I gave you references with debates with top mormons in world many times over on many subjects,yet you dont care. The thing is you dont care what bible says or what moroms teach, you care not of truth but what you want to be true, and i care not of mormons on this thread.







I'll let you deal with this one TR... :sneaky:


"I'll let you deal with this one TR... :sneaky:" That is mean...:laugh4:


not much to deal with, baseless claims with no support and not really sure what hes saying.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Synopsis of Empire's post.

1) Jesus was not divine, but a human prophet after the manner of Buddha or Zoroaster.

2) The Catholic Church, during medieval times, distorted the message of Jesus for its own political ends, assigning meanings to his teachings that Christ would not have assigned and establishing doctrines and practices designed to promote and spread their power more than any faith effort.

3) (conjecture on my part) Since Jesus was a prophet and not divine, the Western Church is predicated on a lie and therefore invalid, however well or poorly intentioned.

4) Real geo-political power is in the hands of a quiet conspiracy/secret society comprised of Zionists (not all Jews, but those advocating an "Imperialist" Jewish agenda) and Free-Masons (that well-known secret society with so many "leading lights" among its membership).

5) Modern power has shifted from the theocratic imperialism (medieval church as controlled by #4 above) through nationalism/capitalism (still under #4 above, even in the "democratic" USA where it was better hidden) to the modern version of cultural imperialism (still controlled by #4 above and operating on an even more pervasive, albeit less militaristic, model of dominance).


So, TR and Siggy, he isn't so much arguing a point with either of you as he is attacking the basic given that Jesus is divine. Doesn't matter how elegant your arguments if the opponent can assert that your basic given premise is wrong. The arguments become moot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

:sneaky:

Haha! Nice one, but I saw it coming.

I do not consider myself one of those people I described, since I trust in intellectual study rather than cherry-picked verses from a single translation, and I do not furiously advocate every fanciful doctrine that comes my way without first looking thoroughly into things and consulting better minds than my own.


I think your view is more in line with what the canon and extra-canonical material says on the matter. A temporary place for the righteous and another for the unrighteous awaiting judgement.
There are too many instances of where it indicates a continuation of "life" even without the body. You have Jesus on the cross stating that "today you will join me in paradise". You have Elijah and Moses appearing to Peter, James and John on the mountain. And the verse in Matthew (since we are currently there in this discussion anyway)

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”


He declares Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as among the living.

It's nice to be in agreement!


What would be your answer? Yes, No or awaiting a declaration from the Saviour upon Judgement day.

Well at the time I wasn't sure what they meant by that so I blurted out something unconvincing-sounding about going to a different church previously.

But as for what you are getting at, I would say yes. More out of conviction than anything else. If you think I am shown to be out of line by scripture, I would be happy to discuss it.


Righteousness and truth.. I don't think you can equate those as you did there. I think two persons can be equally righteous even though their beliefs might differ severely on important principles.
But that was a side step.. what I wanted to frown upon was the idea that you can tell someone they are non-christian. Someone with faith in Christ, following the two great commandments - shouldn't been told they go to hell, because they don't agree with your particular 1/35000th dogma on a particular principle. That is simply Pharisaic.
Christians ... take a step back and look across the expanse of ten thousands of churches and denominations, you can't all have THE truth, it's simply impossibly illogical. But they all still profess to have THE truth in their little trenches, taking pot shots at each other.

If the bolded bit is an argument against advocating sound doctrine then it is surely ad hominem - "there are lots of different claims to the truth, therefore there is no truth"

As for the conflation of righteousness and truth - it is appropriate in as much that is through saving faith in Jesus Christ that we are may stand righteous before God. No matter how thoroughly somebody adheres to the law, without him "there is none righteous, no, not one".

Regarding telling self-identifying Christians that they are not really Christians, that is not Pharasaic if they do not hold to core Christian beliefs (minor points of doctrine is another matter). We can discuss who is right, but we can't both be right.


What makes scripture divine? Is the criterion being referenced? If so.. I'll add those to the missing scripture in the bible. Within the Bible there are references to texts not found in the Bible itself... why are these not compiled with the others? you will find thousands of references to existing bible scripture in non-canonical writings of the early fathers.. true (as rehashed by bible thumpers to the point of ad nauseam), but they discard the fact that these same fathers are pulling quotes from other scriptural texts not found in the bible. Why not just add them to the Bible? They were surly considered to be authorative enough to be used in theology writings of the early church.

Looking in the NEB translation, it states:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience with us is our salvation, as Paul, our friend and brother, said when he wrote to you with his inspired wisdom. And so he does in all his other letters, wherever he speaks of this subject, though they contain some obscure passages, which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin, as they do the other scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

To me it looks like Paul was quoting scripture in his letters and that Peter think them obscure - though canonical. But Peter do think Paul has inspired wisdom or prophetic gifts. I also think that the NT does not contain all of Paul's letters.
Using this in debate on particularly questioned principles, does nothing more than affirm that individuals oups.. sorry, the ignorant and unstable are not qualified to interpret scripture.

I have been neither ignorant nor unstable in this case, since you are arguing against something I never said. I have said there is overwhelming evidence in support of the concept that a divinely inspired scripture is part of the Christian faith. I did not say that any of the evidence I gave does, of itself, show what particular texts ought to be considered part of that scripture.

Equally, your assertion regarding 2 Peter 3:16 that the "obscure passages" called "scripture" refer to Paul's quotations of Old Testament writings rather than his own in general is well, just that - an assertion. And one that seems to me to be likely false - the early church would never have considered the Old Testament "obscure", although Paul's own writings certainly could be considered such by people that weren't familiar to them. Furthermore, he rarely quotes the Old Testament to such as extent that it would form an entire passage in his epistles. Therefore it would see most likely that the passages referred to as scripture were indeed Paul's own writings. Certainly, this is the consensus view I have seem amongst theologians.

[Sigurd]

but in the end this is not mormon debate, jude, Deuteronomy, revaluations,these passages and more all refute mormons as christian.

Baseless claims. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.



well you seem the most bias ant knowledge person i know of. I gave you references with debates with top mormons in world many times over on many subjects,yet you dont care. The thing is you dont care what bible says or what moroms teach, you care not of truth but what you want to be true, and i care not of mormons on this thread.

Compared to denominical Christians, I am considered very objective. And I am an Agnostic, not a Mormon. I do have Mormon friends as I have Evangelical friends and even JW friends. An old friend of mine, a 70 year old JW woman from Glasgow, taught me near all I know about Egyptology.
And nice Argumentum ad Hominem by the way... I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors.

You trying to tell me what the Bible says on these issues is... kinda contradictory of what you try to tell us not to do - to listen to what other people's interpretations are. I think you are indeed heavily influenced by what evangelical preachers write about e.g. the Mormons. Those preachers are today's Caiaphas, Ananias and the Sanhedrin. Judge ye by their fruits.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have been neither ignorant nor unstable in this case, since you are arguing against something I never said. I have said there is overwhelming evidence in support of the concept that a divinely inspired scripture is part of the Christian faith. I did not say that any of the evidence I gave does, of itself, show what particular texts ought to be considered part of that scripture.

Equally, your assertion regarding 2 Peter 3:16 that the "obscure passages" called "scripture" refer to Paul's quotations of Old Testament writings rather than his own in general is well, just that - an assertion. And one that seems to me to be likely false - the early church would never have considered the Old Testament "obscure", although Paul's own writings certainly could be considered such by people that weren't familiar to them. Furthermore, he rarely quotes the Old Testament to such as extent that it would form an entire passage in his epistles. Therefore it would see most likely that the passages referred to as scripture were indeed Paul's own writings. Certainly, this is the consensus view I have seem amongst theologians.

I am a Theologian who agrees with Sigurd!

[Sigurd]

Regarding telling self-identifying Christians that they are not really Christians, that is not Pharasaic if they do not hold to core Christian beliefs (minor points of doctrine is another matter). We can discuss who is right, but we can't both be right.

You don't think a Pentacostal telling a Baptist that he is not Christian for not speaking in tongues is Pharasaic? Or any evangelical saying that Mormons are going to Hell? Are they not being condemning towards fellow disciples?
And what is the core Christian beliefs anyway... have you reached a cross-denomination consensus? Or are we still in some obscure trench that have decided on some universal core beliefs.
IF you define core Christian as one who recognize Jesus Christ as his/her saviour, and that it is only through faith in Him that salvation is possible. They worship Him as God and take upon themselves His name and try to follow his example by being charitable... then this label befalls more than those under the evangelical umbrella.



I have been neither ignorant nor unstable in this case, since you are arguing against something I never said. I have said there is overwhelming evidence in support of the concept that a divinely inspired scripture is part of the Christian faith. I did not say that any of the evidence I gave does, of itself, show what particular texts ought to be considered part of that scripture.

Equally, your assertion regarding 2 Peter 3:16 that the "obscure passages" called "scripture" refer to Paul's quotations of Old Testament writings rather than his own in general is well, just that - an assertion. And one that seems to me to be likely false - the early church would never have considered the Old Testament "obscure", although Paul's own writings certainly could be considered such by people that weren't familiar to them. Furthermore, he rarely quotes the Old Testament to such as extent that it would form an entire passage in his epistles. Therefore it would see most likely that the passages referred to as scripture were indeed Paul's own writings. Certainly, this is the consensus view I have seem amongst theologians.

Paul did indeed quote scripture in his letters, and as you say they were not referenced and was not complete, hence obscure passages. But you can't say he never quoted whole passages of scripture as the canon does not contain all his letters. Peter does indicate that these letters circulated in the early church (if it was indeed Peter who wrote 2 Peter and not some obscure church Father in the 2nd century Gnostic influenced church), but there are no index over Pauline letters. And before any of you tell me ad nauseam of a closed canon, let me direct you to the following passages:


In my letter I wrote that you must have nothing to do with loose livers* [sic]. I was not, of course, referring to pagans who lead loose lives or are grabbers and swindlers or idolaters. To avoid them you would have to get right out of the world.
(1 Cor 5:9-10)



It was by a revelation that his secret was made known to me. I have already written a brief account of this, and by reading it you may perceive that I understand the secret of Christ.
(Eph 3:3-4)


And when this letter is read among you, see that it is also read to the congregation at Laodicea, and that you in return read the one from Laodicea.
(Col 4:16)

*as written

So we have a missing letter to the Corinthians, a letter that was sent before the first letter to Corinth. There should also be another letter to the Ephesians and a letter to Laodicea. Maybe there are more..?

[total relism]

Synopsis of Empire's post.

1) Jesus was not divine, but a human prophet after the manner of Buddha or Zoroaster.

2) The Catholic Church, during medieval times, distorted the message of Jesus for its own political ends, assigning meanings to his teachings that Christ would not have assigned and establishing doctrines and practices designed to promote and spread their power more than any faith effort.

3) (conjecture on my part) Since Jesus was a prophet and not divine, the Western Church is predicated on a lie and therefore invalid, however well or poorly intentioned.

4) Real geo-political power is in the hands of a quiet conspiracy/secret society comprised of Zionists (not all Jews, but those advocating an "Imperialist" Jewish agenda) and Free-Masons (that well-known secret society with so many "leading lights" among its membership).

5) Modern power has shifted from the theocratic imperialism (medieval church as controlled by #4 above) through nationalism/capitalism (still under #4 above, even in the "democratic" USA where it was better hidden) to the modern version of cultural imperialism (still controlled by #4 above and operating on an even more pervasive, albeit less militaristic, model of dominance).


So, TR and Siggy, he isn't so much arguing a point with either of you as he is attacking the basic given that Jesus is divine. Doesn't matter how elegant your arguments if the opponent can assert that your basic given premise is wrong. The arguments become moot.


the claim of church changing doctrine or creating jesus divinity is easily shown false. I wrote alittle on it in my op, this applies to pre 400 ad and earlier let alone middle ages.

Church change doctrine/edit bible?

we have manuscript evidence from before any of the councils so if they had changed any doctrine we would have known about it.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011...testament.html
the above link to video also shows the impossibility of any one group or council changing the NT documents.

We have manuscripts from different time/places that give evidence to the original as they all agree. How do muitple lines of manuscripts differ in country of orgigin/time agree on text if edited over time?


If the catholic church changed doctrine in 4th century , why not add or subistute doctrine to fit theology/church systems? Contradicts bible in many issues the church does?.

All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,#A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986.
#"virtually the entire New Testament could be reproduced from citations contained in the works of the early church fathers. There are some thirty-two thousand citations in the writings of the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicea (325)" (Moreland,#Scaling the Secular City, p. 136).



Baseless claims. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.


Compared to denominical Christians, I am considered very objective. And I am an Agnostic, not a Mormon. I do have Mormon friends as I have Evangelical friends and even JW friends. An old friend of mine, a 70 year old JW woman from Glasgow, taught me near all I know about Egyptology.
And nice Argumentum ad Hominem by the way... I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors.

You trying to tell me what the Bible says on these issues is... kinda contradictory of what you try to tell us not to do - to listen to what other people's interpretations are. I think you are indeed heavily influenced by what evangelical preachers write about e.g. the Mormons. Those preachers are today's Caiaphas, Ananias and the Sanhedrin. Judge ye by their fruits.


true baseless claim, supported by references,but as i said i dont care to argue if mormons are christian on this thread. I showed a few places where bible says no but we clearly have diffident authorities.


It was not attack on you,but your denial and bigotry against certain people references. That was directly related to your response. You claim to be objective, your last post shows otherwise.

you than say this
"I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors."


yet you show how bigited you are by your post and intolerant of what you call born again christian. How is showing bionically and referencing debates intolerant? I am in no way intolerant of mormons, i do however as a christian object to the claim they have the truth or jospeh smith was a prophet. Otherwise i would be what you would call a bigoted mormon as i would think they are true.


i agree fully, that is why i only use bible for reasons not my opinions. Those debates you will not see opinions but biblical text used to make points. people just say that is your intepritation when the bible is clear on something they dont want to hear often.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

TR: one problem is that even while citing Biblical passages, you are presenting your own opinion. When approaching a verse one must decide whether it is literal, a metaphor, an allegory etc... Even if one takes a literal reading, the precise import is often unclear. Accepting the Bible as divinely inspired is all well and good, but how do you know whether your interpretation is correct?

What makes your opinion on these verses superior to Sigurd's or Rhyf's? Each of you favours different authorities outside of the Bible itself to supplement your argument: the others will probably not agree with the those authorities. But you cannot claim that you present manifest facts by citing a passage which you interpret in a particular way and dismiss alternative readings as 'opinion': to do so is facetious at best.

For any given text, historical, religious, or fictional, there are as many readings as there are readers.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You don't think a Pentacostal telling a Baptist that he is not Christian for not speaking in tongues is Pharasaic? Or any evangelical saying that Mormons are going to Hell? Are they not being condemning towards fellow disciples?
And what is the core Christian beliefs anyway... have you reached a cross-denomination consensus? Or are we still in some obscure trench that have decided on some universal core beliefs.

You keep prodding me over the particulars here but why should I even need to answer that?

Any faith, any belief system is dependent upon a certain set of beliefs, certain interpretations of texts or the world around them - without them they have no beliefs, and would make for an empty and meaningless body of believers.

You can quibble over whether some groups are too rigid in excluding others for differing from them in the above regards - but ultimately you have to acknowledge that this exclusion has to occur on some level.

Do you feel that there are no core Christian beliefs based on your understanding of the scriptures?


IF you define core Christian as one who recognize Jesus Christ as his/her saviour, and that it is only through faith in Him that salvation is possible. They worship Him as God and take upon themselves His name and try to follow his example by being charitable... then this label befalls more than those under the evangelical umbrella.

Indeed it does, you said that as if you thought I reckoned otherwise.


Paul did indeed quote scripture in his letters, and as you say they were not referenced and was not complete, hence obscure passages. But you can't say he never quoted whole passages of scripture as the canon does not contain all his letters. Peter does indicate that these letters circulated in the early church (if it was indeed Peter who wrote 2 Peter and not some obscure church Father in the 2nd century Gnostic influenced church), but there are no index over Pauline letters.

Regarding the "obscure passages" issue - as I said, Old Testament excerpts would never have been regarded as obscure, neither were they used extensively enough to form entire passages - so they were neither obscure nor passages!

As for being unable to say he never quotes entire passages because we don't have all his letters - maybe I can't but I can certainly say that it is most likely he did not, unless they differed radically from all his writings that we do have - and to think this would be baseless.


And before any of you tell me ad nauseam of a closed canon, let me direct you to the following passages:


In my letter I wrote that you must have nothing to do with loose livers* [sic]. I was not, of course, referring to pagans who lead loose lives or are grabbers and swindlers or idolaters. To avoid them you would have to get right out of the world.
(1 Cor 5:9-10)



It was by a revelation that his secret was made known to me. I have already written a brief account of this, and by reading it you may perceive that I understand the secret of Christ.
(Eph 3:3-4)


And when this letter is read among you, see that it is also read to the congregation at Laodicea, and that you in return read the one from Laodicea.
(Col 4:16)

*as written

So we have a missing letter to the Corinthians, a letter that was sent before the first letter to Corinth. There should also be another letter to the Ephesians and a letter to Laodicea. Maybe there are more..?

EDIT 2: Sorry, maybe missed your point there.

Anyway, I neither reject the value of revelation outside the scripture, or the idea that other letters from Paul circulated in the early church - they were not necessarily canon though.

EDIT: Oh and Philipvs, you don't count! :tongue:

[Sigurd]

It was not attack on you,but your denial and bigotry against certain people references. That was directly related to your response. You claim to be objective, your last post shows otherwise.

you than say this
"I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors."

yet you show how bigited you are by your post and intolerant of what you call born again christian. How is showing bionically and referencing debates intolerant? I am in no way intolerant of mormons, i do however as a christian object to the claim they have the truth or jospeh smith was a prophet. Otherwise i would be what you would call a bigoted mormon as i would think they are true.

I was not arguing for the Mormons having truth or Joseph Smith being a true prophet. I was arguing against your claim that they are not Christians. And I don't think you showed using the scriptures that Jesus was the last prophet. I am not saying that Joseph is one, but I can't see that there couldn't be any prophets after Christ. My argument was that if you believe the Bible to be 100% truth, then you must accept that the Apostles + Paulus was considered prophets in the early church. All lived after Jesus.
I am not intolerant of born agains, but I am intolerant of the fact that they spend time tearing down other denominations through their anti-literature. And Christians shouldn't support them by using what they wrote in their debate - at least not aquire these writings and distribute them. Had I been a man of faith - I would have called these things devil-born, inspired by the evil one himself.

There are wolfs in sheep clothing among you... and it doesn't take long to ferret them out. You just need to hint to certain inflamed issues, and all hell breaks loose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@totar relism: Surely Jesus can't be the last prophet when revelation talks about the two prophets in the end times?

In fact, what about Paul's comments:

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (Romans 12:6)"

Granted there might be some subtlety that has been lost in translation, I wouldn't know.

[total relism]

TR: one problem is that even while citing Biblical passages, you are presenting your own opinion. When approaching a verse one must decide whether it is literal, a metaphor, an allegory etc... Even if one takes a literal reading, the precise import is often unclear. Accepting the Bible as divinely inspired is all well and good, but how do you know whether your interpretation is correct?

What makes your opinion on these verses superior to Sigurd's or Rhyf's? Each of you favours different authorities outside of the Bible itself to supplement your argument: the others will probably not agree with the those authorities. But you cannot claim that you present manifest facts by citing a passage which you interpret in a particular way and dismiss alternative readings as 'opinion': to do so is facetious at best.

For any given text, historical, religious, or fictional, there are as many readings as there are readers.


true for sure, but given the passages sited i see no reason to take them any other way but literal,in fact what would they mean if not. But i really dont care of talking on mormons and if they are christian anymore,nothing to do with topic.



I was not arguing for the Mormons having truth or Joseph Smith being a true prophet. I was arguing against your claim that they are not Christians. And I don't think you showed using the scriptures that Jesus was the last prophet. I am not saying that Joseph is one, but I can't see that there couldn't be any prophets after Christ. My argument was that if you believe the Bible to be 100% truth, then you must accept that the Apostles + Paulus was considered prophets in the early church. All lived after Jesus.
I am not intolerant of born agains, but I am intolerant of the fact that they spend time tearing down other denominations through their anti-literature. And Christians shouldn't support them by using what they wrote in their debate - at least not aquire these writings and distribute them. Had I been a man of faith - I would have called these things devil-born, inspired by the evil one himself.

There are wolfs in sheep clothing among you... and it doesn't take long to ferret them out. You just need to hint to certain inflamed issues, and all hell breaks loose.

i care not to talk of mormons anymore, i will say this last. they are completely diffident religion not a different denomination,the rest just shows again your bigotry and not wanting to see the truth of who/what Mormons are.




@totar relism: Surely Jesus can't be the last prophet when revelation talks about the two prophets in the end times?

In fact, what about Paul's comments:

"Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith (Romans 12:6)"

Granted there might be some subtlety that has been lost in translation, I wouldn't know.


great point sir,but who are the two witnesses? are they not Moses and Elijah?. They are not new sent, they are old returning. Also surely you would not claim this refers to jospeh smith?.


yes many gift given to some,not new prophet scripture added as mormons have done.

[Rhyfelwyr]

great point sir,but who are the two witnesses? are they not Moses and Elijah?. They are not new sent, they are old returning. Also surely you would not claim this refers to jospeh smith?.

yes many gift given to some,not new prophet scripture added as mormons have done.

I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.

But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?

[Sigurd]

I think TR realizes that he has been defeated on this issue and is trying to wiggle out of it without losing his position on the high horse.
To put a nail into this issue once and for all:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
(Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
(Acts 15:23)

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
(Acts 21:10-11)



Not going to interpret this. Let the Bible speak its literal KJV self.

[drone]

Thread needs moar Navaros. :sad:

[total relism]

I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.

But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?


agreed fully, but do you see a differences in a spiritual gift and new scripture being written?. These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet.



I think TR realizes that he has been defeated on this issue and is trying to wiggle out of it without losing his position on the high horse.
To put a nail into this issue once and for all:

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
(Acts 13:1)

And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
(Acts 15:23)

And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judæa a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
(Acts 21:10-11)



Not going to interpret this. Let the Bible speak its literal KJV self.





I would say i make distinction from spiritual gift given and new scripture written as josph smith.These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. The fact remains basically jospeh smith/mormons are not christian. That is last post on off topic mormons for me. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet. In fact i gave mutiple bible verse saying jesus was last such as matt 21,jude and duternomy, but here is another.

luke 16.16
heb 1 1-2

b-4
matt 21
jude
deuetrnomy

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't regard Joseph Smith as a prophet. Elijah and Moses are not new as such, although I guess they are still to come - but I guess there's no point arguing this because it really just depends on how you want to define things.

But what about what Paul wrote in Romans 12:6 - does that not indicate that prophecy was a gift that believers were granted, at least in the early (yet post-Resurrection) church?

I believe the general theory for most of the last 1800~ years is that one of the witnesses is Elias and the other Enoch.

[Sigurd]

I would say i make distinction from spiritual gift given and new scripture written as josph smith.These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. The fact remains basically jospeh smith/mormons are not christian. That is last post on off topic mormons for me. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet. In fact i gave mutiple bible verse saying jesus was last such as matt 21,jude and duternomy, but here is another.

Clearly Agabus was not just confirming what was from God and what was not.. He gave a specific prophecy about what would happen to Paul.
The Bible name them prophets. All after Christ's death. I am not even interpreting these scriptures. You said Jesus was the last prophet. Yet the Bible name several people prophets in Acts.. the book written about the time after Christ's ministry. And it is you who keep bringing in Mormons here... I didn't even mention them in my last post.
Does the Bible name these men as prophets or not?

[Kadagar_AV]

Clearly Agabus was not just confirming what was from God and what was not.. He gave a specific prophecy about what would happen to Paul.
The Bible name them prophets. All after Christ's death. I am not even interpreting these scriptures. You said Jesus was the last prophet. Yet the Bible name several people prophets in Acts.. the book written about the time after Christ's ministry. And it is you who keep bringing in Mormons here... I didn't even mention them in my last post.
Does the Bible name these men as prophets or not?

Oh c'mon, it aint no fair to bring logicalz inta a godheads talkin!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh c'mon, it aint no fair to bring logicalz inta a godheads talkin!

Pipe down - without us there'd be no priests' daughters.

So be quiet and grateful.

~;)

[Kadagar_AV]

Pipe down - without us there'd be no priests' daughters.

So be quiet and grateful.

~;)

As much as I like the intention of what you say... I am for a world where girls sexuality wouldn't have to be stigmatised by their upbringing.

The christian church view on sex create more problems than they solve, imho.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Oh mY God !! Why you Think Catholicism Is The Main Christianity ?!?! Catholicism was made by some selfish priests & & Cardinals & popes in 500 AD !!

We Have a better Christianity like Protestanism & Armenian Orthodox and the extincted ARYAN CHRISTIANITY !! They Believe that Jesus was a great person sent by god ! simply like Gandhi & Mother Teresa & ..... !! How a Wise man can accept that Jesus is GOD ?!? and Their power equal ?!! but they created Laws and som nonsense shits about Christianity (like that Priests & Nuns Never should marry!!)

Everything Good that would go to Europe & Western, would be Preversed & Corrupted in Those Times(Specially Ancient Rome & Greece), Even Christianity !! (and even Mithrayism!!)

[Sigurd]

Oh mY God !! Why you Think Catholicism Is The Main Christianity ?!?! Catholicism was made by some selfish priests & & Cardinals & popes in 500 AD !!

We Have a better Christianity like Protestanism & Armenian Orthodox and the extincted ARYAN CHRISTIANITY !! They Believe that Jesus was a great person sent by god ! simply like Gandhi & Mother Teresa & ..... !! How a Wise man can accept that Jesus is GOD ?!? and Their power equal ?!! but they created Laws and som nonsense shits about Christianity (like that Priests & Nuns Never should marry!!)

Everything Good that would go to Europe & Western, would be Preversed & Corrupted in Those Times(Specially Ancient Rome & Greece), Even Christianity !! (and even Mithrayism!!)
It would help if you quote the post you object to. I can't see that any of us have promoted Catholicism as the main Christian faith.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh mY God !! Why you Think Catholicism Is The Main Christianity ?!?! Catholicism was made by some selfish priests & & Cardinals & popes in 500 AD !!

We Have a better Christianity like Protestanism & Armenian Orthodox and the extincted ARYAN CHRISTIANITY !! They Believe that Jesus was a great person sent by god ! simply like Gandhi & Mother Teresa & ..... !! How a Wise man can accept that Jesus is GOD ?!? and Their power equal ?!! but they created Laws and som nonsense shits about Christianity (like that Priests & Nuns Never should marry!!)

Everything Good that would go to Europe & Western, would be Preversed & Corrupted in Those Times(Specially Ancient Rome & Greece), Even Christianity !! (and even Mithrayism!!)

That's absurd.

[Conradus]

It would help if you quote the post you object to. I can't see that any of us have promoted Catholicism as the main Christian faith.

Isn't it the largest denomination, in terms of numbers of believers?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I believe the general theory for most of the last 1800~ years is that one of the witnesses is Elias and the other Enoch.

Maybe so, I guess it's just speculation though. Maybe I've been lazy in just going along with the Evangelical trend of thinking it is Elijah and Moses - come to mention it I've no idea why we set on those two.


agreed fully, but do you see a differences in a spiritual gift and new scripture being written?. These gifts were taken after apostle age as well. They were there to confirm who was from god or of god/holy spirit in early church. You can have gist of profacy in nt apostle times,without being a prophet.

I thought your claim was that Jesus was the last prophet of any sort - rather than anything relating in particular to scripture.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe so, I guess it's just speculation though. Maybe I've been lazy in just going along with the Evangelical trend of thinking it is Elijah and Moses - come to mention it I've no idea why we set on those two.

Elijah and Enoch are the only Prophets recorded as ascending to heaven alive. Most theologians agree that Moses died, although it is euphemistically stated, because no other fate is recorded for him. Enoch was carried up in a whirlwind and Elijah rode a chariot of fire into heaven.

In traditional Christian theology, Moses would have been in Hell, possibly still is.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Elijah and Enoch are the only Prophets recorded as ascending to heaven alive. Most theologians agree that Moses died, although it is euphemistically stated, because no other fate is recorded for him. Enoch was carried up in a whirlwind and Elijah rode a chariot of fire into heaven.

Doesn't it only say that Elijah went to heaven (and even then there could be some subtlety lost in translation, since Jesus says no man has ascended to heaven)? We are not told where Enoch went. Still, you may well be right it could be those two - maybe we'll find out at the time!


In traditional Christian theology, Moses would have been in Hell, possibly still is.

What sort of traditional Christian theologian says this?!

I'm pretty sure the standard Protestant respose is that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in Jesus the same way Christians have been since the Resurrection.

And I'm not sure but I think Catholics say that Moses etc went to heaven after the Resurrection, having been in purgatory or Abraham's Bosom or whatever beforehand.

[total relism]

Clearly Agabus was not just confirming what was from God and what was not.. He gave a specific prophecy about what would happen to Paul.
The Bible name them prophets. All after Christ's death. I am not even interpreting these scriptures. You said Jesus was the last prophet. Yet the Bible name several people prophets in Acts.. the book written about the time after Christ's ministry. And it is you who keep bringing in Mormons here... I didn't even mention them in my last post.
Does the Bible name these men as prophets or not?


Maybe so, I guess it's just speculation though. Maybe I've been lazy in just going along with the Evangelical trend of thinking it is Elijah and Moses - come to mention it I've no idea why we set on those two.



I thought your claim was that Jesus was the last prophet of any sort - rather than anything relating in particular to scripture.


as i said b-4 i make distinction, it was my fault falsely assuming others had my starting meaning of word so my bad. When i think of prophets i think who is of god who is not, Muhammad, jospeh smith etc that was what brought us on this talk. When i think prophet, i think adding scripture, not a early spiritual gift given to true believers [no longer] for a short time proving the work of god/holy spirit in nt times. Bible is done,no more prophets adding scripture, revaluations was last.



.In traditional Christian theology, Moses would have been in Hell, possibly still is.

matt 17 1-11

hebrews 11 23-29

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What sort of traditional Christian theologian says this?!

I'm pretty sure the standard Protestant respose is that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in Jesus the same way Christians have been since the Resurrection.

And I'm not sure but I think Catholics say that Moses etc went to heaven after the Resurrection, having been in purgatory or Abraham's Bosom or whatever beforehand.

In the Catholic Medieval theology (so that's the first 1500 years) the Jewish prophets were in Hell, though possibly without torment, until Jesus freed them when he himself entered Hell.

The Protestant response - method of saving aside - would need to be the same. Nobody gets into heaven (dead) until after Christ's Death.

Now - the "possibly still is" comes from the fact that certain Christian sects interpret entry into heaven as only coming after the Apocalypse -in which case everyone who dies is currently in some kind of Limbo, in Hell, because there's nowhere else to go.

[Sigurd]

In the Catholic Medieval theology (so that's the first 1500 years) the Jewish prophets were in Hell, though possibly without torment, until Jesus freed them when he himself entered Hell.

Which is quite aligned to Rhyf's belief in Abraham's bosom. The spirits in prison/paradise.
But you have the canonical claim that Elijah and Moses appeared to Peter, James and John on the mount of transfiguration as TR referenced in his last post. This was before Christ's death. Now if Moses couldn't be released from Hell/Paradise before Christ's death, then you must assume that he didn't die, like Elijah and Enoch.

About Enoch: Genesis 5:24 claim that God took him.
The LDS faith (sorry TR) claim that Enoch with his entire city of Zion was taken from the earth and will at a future day return with all its citizens. Not entirely baseless as you will find references for this in the Apocrypha (2 Baruch , Apocryphon of John).

Jude in the New Testament quotes Enoch..


It was to them that Enoch, the seventh in descent from Adam, directed his prophecy when he said: 'I saw the Lord come with his myriads of angels, to bring all men to judgement and to convict all the godless of all the godless deeds they had committed, and of all the defiant words which godless sinners had spoken against him.'
(Jude:14-15)


The book (Book of Enoch?) this quote is from, is lost. A missing scripture that was quote-worthy in the early church.

[total relism]

In the Catholic Medieval theology (so that's the first 1500 years) the Jewish prophets were in Hell, though possibly without torment, until Jesus freed them when he himself entered Hell.

The Protestant response - method of saving aside - would need to be the same. Nobody gets into heaven (dead) until after Christ's Death.

Now - the "possibly still is" comes from the fact that certain Christian sects interpret entry into heaven as only coming after the Apocalypse -in which case everyone who dies is currently in some kind of Limbo, in Hell, because there's nowhere else to go.

[/B]

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
revaluations 13.8

[Pannonian]

[/B]

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
revaluations 13.8

There's the book of revaluations again. Can anyone explain to me what its central tenet is, and how it affects the themes of Christianity?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There's the book of revaluations again. Can anyone explain to me what its central tenet is, and how it affects the themes of Christianity?

It's actually really interesting when you read it in it's literary context (Classical literature and dream-visions).

The most interesting thing is that John describes everything in two dimensions, rather than three, which implies he's recounting images he's seen rather than events he's "experienced" for lack of a better word.

Basically though - the world is going to end now that Christ is dead, and then God will decide who goes to heaven and who doesn't. The rest is window dressing.

[Greyblades]

It is interesting to read a first person account (kinda sorta) of what happens when god stops caring about human free will and decides to clean the slate.

You know, in the narritive of the bible, I wonder if god did that sort of thing every time he did a do-over, and Noah just missed it.

[HopAlongBunny]

Unless its about what humans will "freely create"; liberated by Christ yet refusing to follow the path of peace.

[Pannonian]

It's actually really interesting when you read it in it's literary context (Classical literature and dream-visions).

The most interesting thing is that John describes everything in two dimensions, rather than three, which implies he's recounting images he's seen rather than events he's "experienced" for lack of a better word.

Basically though - the world is going to end now that Christ is dead, and then God will decide who goes to heaven and who doesn't. The rest is window dressing.

That's the Book of Revelations, isn't it? I'm wondering what the Book of Revaluations describes, and what its literary, cultural and historical context is. Perhaps it was written after a particularly bad bout of inflation during the late Roman empire, and the government wanted to enlist the church's help in propagating a new currency standard by finding support for it in the bible.


[/B]

All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
revaluations 13.8

In that context, the lamb in total relism's quote could refer to the old debased currency that was increasingly adulterated with base metals and was thus purged from the economy ("slain from the creation of the world"), and the beast whom all inhabitants of the earth shall worship could refer to the brand spanking new currency.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is interesting to read a first person account (kinda sorta) of what happens when god stops caring about human free will and decides to clean the slate.

I expect that what you consider to be 'free will' is really no freedom at all.

[drone]

I'm wondering what the Book of Revaluations describes, and what its literary, cultural and historical context is. Perhaps it was written after a particularly bad bout of inflation during the late Roman empire, and the government wanted to enlist the church's help in propagating a new currency standard by finding support for it in the bible.

If I'm not mistaken, it was written by Marcus Aurelius's accountant after he came across some mushrooms during the conquest of the Germanic tribes.

[Papewaio]

What is free will?

Is it the ability to choose without influence of an outside agency?
The ability to choose without a predetermined outcome based on fixed internal rules?

Is free will an illusion or does a RNG break the first order illusion to replace it with a second order one?

[Beskar]

Free Will is arguably the internal decision created in the mind. However, there are many external influences which can affect the internal judgement, such as social constructions: conformity, authority, etc artificial inducers: drugs (medicine and illegal), shock therapy.

So one could hypothetical argue that whilst we have Free Will, people would choose free tasty cookies over the contents of a public toilet. So the feedback from the decisions created by free will are statistically measurable and thus, could be altered for you to produce a more desired outcome, such as replacing the public toilet option for £20.

[Greyblades]

I expect that what you consider to be 'free will' is really no freedom at all.

Hey, don't judge me, I'm only parroting what they teach me.

"Mr priest why doesn't god stop people from being bad"
"Why my son, it's because god loves us and doesn't want to infringe on our free will."
"Oh, but why does god make the pharaoh harden his heart when he's asked to free the jews?"
"Just shut up and drink your communion wine already kid, you're holding up the line."

[Pannonian]

If I'm not mistaken, it was written by Marcus Aurelius's accountant after he came across some mushrooms during the conquest of the Germanic tribes.

I remember that one. It was the companion piece to Meditations, titled Hallucinations.

[Kadagar_AV]

Free Will is arguably the internal decision created in the mind. However, there are many external influences which can affect the internal judgement, such as social constructions: conformity, authority, etc artificial inducers: drugs (medicine and illegal), shock therapy.

So one could hypothetical argue that whilst we have Free Will, people would choose free tasty cookies over the contents of a public toilet. So the feedback from the decisions created by free will are statistically measurable and thus, could be altered for you to produce a more desired outcome, such as replacing the public toilet option for £20.

How did God plan the free will, together with the brain altering parasites that has infected roughly 50% of the human population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis)?

[Sigurd]

What is free will?

Is it the ability to choose without influence of an outside agency?
The ability to choose without a predetermined outcome based on fixed internal rules?

Is free will an illusion or does a RNG break the first order illusion to replace it with a second order one?
In religion, free will is the ability to choose evil over good. "I give unto you a commandment, but you may act according to your own conscience". Free will does however not exempt from any consequences.

[Papewaio]

Well you couldn't be held responsible without free will.

[HopAlongBunny]

But you can be held responsible for imperfect knowledge?

[Kadagar_AV]

But you can be held responsible for imperfect knowledge?

If you have some sort of internet connection, in many situations.... YES!

[Papewaio]

But you can be held responsible for imperfect knowledge?

Married? I'm pretty sure saying "I didn't know" is a winning position with the wife...

[HopAlongBunny]

It just strikes me as ironic to have a "perfect" god, create imperfect beings, and then threaten to burn them in Hell for imperfections built into them.

Hmmm, not ironic i guess: cruel/sadistic perhaps.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How did God plan the free will, together with the brain altering parasites that has infected roughly 50% of the human population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis)?

When I first found out about that parasite I had nightmares (I was about 15 at the time).

[total relism]

It just strikes me as ironic to have a "perfect" god, create imperfect beings, and then threaten to burn them in Hell for imperfections built into them.

Hmmm, not ironic i guess: cruel/sadistic perhaps.


that is islam, this thread is suppose to be bible. Read op for biblical answer.



How did God plan the free will, together with the brain altering parasites that has infected roughly 50% of the human population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis)?

read op

[Pannonian]

that is islam, this thread is suppose to be bible. Read op for biblical answer.




read op

total relism's MO:

1. Unable to answer question?
2. "read op".

[Brenus]

“Free will does however not exempt from any consequences.” Ah, the same free will that have the abused women at home. “But darling, I don’t want to beat you up. I love you. But you force me to beat you up because you don’t do as you are told, you don’t freely obey the Rules I imposed so I am obliged to beat you up… And you love me too, or I will take care of the second eye...”

[Sigurd]

“Free will does however not exempt from any consequences.” Ah, the same free will that have the abused women at home. “But darling, I don’t want to beat you up. I love you. But you force me to beat you up because you don’t do as you are told, you don’t freely obey the Rules I imposed so I am obliged to beat you up… And you love me too, or I will take care of the second eye...”
Jesus doesn't beat women... couldn't resist.
But yeah, men are free to beat up women if that's their fantasy. Consequences for such is not.

It is the religious answer to free will. You are free to choose damnation and likewise choose liberation. But the small writing says damnation is default unless you utter "Jesus is Lord" (Christianity).
Even the most pious person, the most innocent infant is damned by default without Jesus. This is my understanding of Christian salvation. But according to Calvinism you are predestined to damnation whether you choose it or not. Likewise those predestined to salvation. Its a rigged system.

[total relism]

total relism's MO:

1. Unable to answer question?
2. "read op".

Pannonian MO

1] dont read op, than post on thread
2 objection answered on op so ignore.

[Beskar]

I have to honest, I prefer Supernatural (TV shows) approach to it all. It is basically a parallel universe where mythology, legends and religion are all true.

[total relism]

I have to honest, I prefer Supernatural (TV shows) approach to it all. It is basically a parallel universe where mythology, legends and religion are all true.

i prefer there be no god and i decide truth and what i want to be true,were party and adultery are good things. That is utill the day b-4 i die, than i want their to be haven with me included no matter what.

[Hax]

What's wrong with partying?

[Brenus]

Same question. And with adultery if partners are willing?

[Moros]

What's wrong with partying?
They pray to a wine creating deity who even feasts when he's about to get killed, so I guess there can't be much wrong with partying according to their religion...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Same question. And with adultery if partners are willing?

That's easy - when you get married you promise not to commit adultery.

Want to have lots of sexual partners?

Don't get married.

Want to get married?

Don't complain.

[Moros]

That's easy - when you get married you promise not to commit adultery.

Want to have lots of sexual partners?

Don't get married.

Want to get married?

Don't complain.
Isn't sex before marriage against Christian beliefs?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't sex before marriage against Christian beliefs?

So is killing - but the Templars did a lot of killing keeping the roads open in the Holy land (and not just Muslims).

Adultery is a far worse sin than "fornication". The Former involves one person breaking an oath, which is one of the greatest sins for a Christian, and it harms the cuckold despite them having done nothing wrong. Adultery also often leads to violence, family breakup, not uncommonly people are injured or murdered, sometimes the children also.

The issue around sex is something that has bothered the clergy but it honestly wasn't a big deal until the Renaissance.

Read Dante's Inferno, see where "lust" is in Hell as compared to betrayal.

[Brenus]

"That's easy - when you get married you promise not to commit adultery." Only in the Religious ones. The Laic one, you promise to rise yours kids and to help each others (well, if I remember well, as it was a long time ago).

[Sigurd]

Only in the Religious ones.
My guess you are not married... :sneaky:

[Moros]

My guess you are not married... :sneaky:

It's not because the Scandinavians forgot how to oppress women, everybody else did. ~;)

[Brenus]

Twice...~;)

[Greyblades]

So is killing - but the Templars did a lot of killing keeping the roads open in the Holy land (and not just Muslims).
Well, technically its believed the proper translation of the original text was "thou shalt murder" not "thou shalt not kill."