Is there a Bible/ New Testament expert in the house?

[Skull-1]

What do you consider a winner?

The person with the most meth who just happens to stay up late enough to be the last person to reply to a topic hes in , or the first person who finally realizes hes wasting his valuable time and research replying to an immature person online?


That sums it up. He just tries to get the last word...

[Skull-1]

Blake is actually making points.

Is this really due to some powerful weed and Rolling Rock beer or is it public knowledge? (remember the www and it's postings will be the Bible of 2116

and many posters will scoff at it.

He makes no point at all. The scriptures are reliable. Purple vs crimson is a gnat. Easily explained but irrelevant to the point being made.

[xmas1997]

Uh oh, you guys have attracted Mouses' attention.
Be prepared for some funny shit. :lol

[Skull-1]

Uh oh, you guys have attracted Mouses' attention.
Be prepared for some funny shit. :lol
He definitely has wit.

[ismael-robert]

Yeah mouse skull did already answer the question of the color differences in great detail but he really shuldnt have to because its a mute point. Thats the point I tried to make in discussing the heart and spirit in which the bible is read. Are u reading it in such a way that a slight differences in hue are going to cause you to miss out on salvation? Or you going to read it in a way that says these guys r msking same point from different perspectives cause theyre different eye witness accounts. If each one said same thing then blake would be waving the collusion flag.

[ismael-robert]

In the extra biblical information I posted note theyre jewish so last thing theyd want is to document anything that led to Christ s credibility yet they wrote it anyway so seem like reliable sources to me

[Blake]

He makes no point at all. The scriptures are reliable. Purple vs crimson is a gnat. Easily explained but irrelevant to the point being made.

You didn't explain it at all. You called it irrelevant and ran away.

Why would you believe in a God that can't decide what color of robe he was wearing?

[Blake]

Yeah mouse skull did already answer the question of the color differences in great detail but he really shuldnt have to because its a mute point. Thats the point I tried to make in discussing the heart and spirit in which the bible is read. Are u reading it in such a way that a slight differences in hue are going to cause you to miss out on salvation? Or you going to read it in a way that says these guys r msking same point from different perspectives cause theyre different eye witness accounts. If each one said same thing then blake would be waving the collusion flag.

If they got the color of the robe wrong, whose to say they copied Jesus' words correctly?

why would anyone think that two sources that conflict with each other are 100% reliable?

[ismael-robert]

Go back to post 195 for explanation on colors

[Skull-1]

Yeah mouse skull did already answer the question of the color differences in great detail but he really shuldnt have to because its a mute point. Thats the point I tried to make in discussing the heart and spirit in which the bible is read. Are u reading it in such a way that a slight differences in hue are going to cause you to miss out on salvation? Or you going to read it in a way that says these guys r msking same point from different perspectives cause theyre different eye witness accounts. If each one said same thing then blake would be waving the collusion flag.


I explained in equally excruciating detail about colors. Blake obviously wasn't paying attention.

It is truly not relevant. My eyes see colors differently. It could be that simple. But the reality is, it is a gnat meant to stumble people. That's what God does.

How about the differing accounts of Christ battling the Pharises over divorce? In one Gospel Jesus poses the question. In another they pose the question. The answer is the SAME. Thus it really doesn't matter.

The Gospels are not literal history either. They may differ in minor details but those details are gnats. Not relevant because the spiritual truths remain unaffected.


The inerrant consistency of scripture is seen in Exodus 39:1 ......

Moreover, from the blue and purple and scarlet material, they made finely woven garments for ministering in the holy place as well as the holy garments which were for Aaron, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.


..........


Thus scarlet, red, purple, etc. would all be accurate

THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN.

[ismael-robert]

Blake again its not they got it wrong they wrote from their own perspective. In one persons eyes one color was fominant in anothers they saw a different color or chose to be more detailed. Like skull said if a maroon car drove by some people will be more technical n say a maroon car drove by while others may call it by its base color of red...again u going to be like pharisees who thought they were too right to see that the messiah was right in front of them? Blinded by pride.

[DMC]

The difference wouldn't matter for normal claims of historicity. When extraordinary claims are made, the allowable variation for proof is much much less. You cannot use a sloppy reference for a perfect application.

[HI-FI]

you lost me at Blake

[Blake]

Go back to post 195 for explanation on colors

I noted it. It was just a long winded way of saying details don't matter.

i.e. God is a sloppy editor.

[Blake]

I explained in equally excruciating detail about colors. Blake obviously wasn't paying attention.

It is truly not relevant. My eyes see colors differently. It could be that simple. But the reality is, it is a gnat meant to stumble people. That's what God does.

How about the differing accounts of Christ battling the Pharises over divorce? In one Gospel Jesus poses the question. In another they pose the question. The answer is the SAME. Thus it really doesn't matter.

The Gospels are not literal history either. They may differ in minor details but those details are gnats. Not relevant because the spiritual truths remain unaffected.


The inerrant consistency of scripture is seen in Exodus 39:1 ......

Moreover, from the blue and purple and scarlet material, they made finely woven garments for ministering in the holy place as well as the holy garments which were for Aaron, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.


..........


Thus scarlet, red, purple, etc. would all be accurate

THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE BROKEN.

So now you're saying the Old Testament is relevant? And that the two colors are actually two separate colors?

Make up your mind.

[Blake]

Blake again its not they got it wrong they wrote from their own perspective. In one persons eyes one color was fominant in anothers they saw a different color or chose to be more detailed. Like skull said if a maroon car drove by some people will be more technical n say a maroon car drove by while others may call it by its base color of red...again u going to be like pharisees who thought they were too right to see that the messiah was right in front of them? Blinded by pride.

from that view, I don't see why anyone would trust the author.

[ismael-robert]

Because some people have soft hearts. Some have child like faith. Some had to put their pride aside. Some were ready to give up selfish living. Lets be honest here. The real reason people don't come to faith isn't because slight variances in color its something deeper that has hardened their hearts and pride prevents them from admitting it. Scared to look weak and vulnerable. But it was when I became weak n vulnerable that He was able to take over n lead me. Again if all books said same yall would scream collusion n just make more excuses for unbelief. Go look collusion up then lets get deeper past your superficial excuses. The differences are there to trip up the prideful.

[Blake]

Because some people have soft hearts. Some have child like faith. Some had to put their pride aside. Some were ready to give up selfish living. Lets be honest here. The real reason people don't come to faith isn't because slight variances in color its something deeper that has hardened their hearts and pride prevents them from admitting it. Scared to look weak and vulnerable. But it was when I became weak n vulnerable that He was able to take over n lead me. Again if all books said same yall would scream collusion n just make more excuses for unbelief. Go look collusion up then lets get deeper past your superficial excuses. The differences are there to trip up the prideful.

It's not about pride. It's about logic.

It's illogical to believe in the Bible.

[Blake]

Because some people have soft hearts. Some have child like faith. Some had to put their pride aside. Some were ready to give up selfish living. Lets be honest here. The real reason people don't come to faith isn't because slight variances in color its something deeper that has hardened their hearts and pride prevents them from admitting it. Scared to look weak and vulnerable. But it was when I became weak n vulnerable that He was able to take over n lead me. Again if all books said same yall would scream collusion n just make more excuses for unbelief. Go look collusion up then lets get deeper past your superficial excuses. The differences are there to trip up the prideful.

It's not about pride. It's about logic.

It's illogical to believe in the Bible.

[xmas1997]

The truth is, it is illogical to argue about the Bible.
And even more illogical to use it as a basis for proving arguments in the first place!
Next we will be using Rogets Thesuarus to prove the theory of gravity, when all we have to do is drop a rock!
The fact is no book ever proved anything, and most especially not one as misunderstood and misquoted as the Bible.
As I've said many many times before, you can pick and choose, cafeteria style, any scripture you want, to prove any point you want.
It is that nebulous!
I've been reading all the points each of you have posted. No offense meant, but none of you, without exception, have made a single valid sustainable point, sorry.
This exercise has failed and gravitates quickly toward being an exercise in futility. Every one of you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Either that, or you are possessed with too much pride for your own good. And pride comes before a fall. Or are you so vain, or insecure, that you need to show how superior you are?
You might all try a little humility, and drop the superior attitudes, it would gain you more credibility.
The fact is, none of you are experts! Face it. Be humble.
End of story!
:lol

[Blake]

The truth is, it is illogical to argue about the Bible.


If you want to put it on the shelf next to the Iliad, ok, but if it becomes a basis for public policy, then it's open for argument and scrutiny.

[xmas1997]

If you want to put it on the shelf next to the Iliad, ok, but if it becomes a basis for public policy, then it's open for argument and scrutiny.

No one of any rational intelligence would ever use it for that basis, especially in this Age of Enlightenment.
To do so would do nothing but expose their ignorance.
Like some said, might as well argue The Lord of the Rings, or your example, the Illiad, or my example, Rogets Thesaurus.
How about War and Peace? Or The Oaspe? Or Betty Crockers Cookbook? Or Seuss' Green Eggs And Ham? :lol
It is pointless, and nothing more than an exercise in futility, simply because it is one opinion against another's.
For as many humans that are on this planet, there will be that same amount of opinions on interpretation.
I, for one, won't accept someone else's opinion for fact. That is why it is better to be the doubting Thomas.
If there is indeed a God, Universal Consciousness, All Mighty Savior, Jesus, Mohamid, Great White Tree, whomever you want to call it or him or her, then It will be made known to each of us deep inside of us in a very personal and subjective way, have no fear about that.
No one human is superior, that is why to be humble is a virtue.
Hopefully I have offended no one because that was not my intent.
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

No one of any rational intelligence would ever use it for that basis, especially in this Age of Enlightenment.
To do so would do nothing but expose their ignorance.

You'd think so, but it's happening in this age.

Gays still can't get married in many states and creationists are still trying to push God into science books.

[xmas1997]

You'd think so, but it's happening in this age.

Gays still can't get married in many states and creationists are still trying to push God into science books.

That is the exception, not the rule. And many of those are the "old guard" and are dying off, not to be morbid about it, just life moving ever forward.

[Blake]

That is the exception, not the rule. And many of those are the "old guard" and are dying off, not to be morbid about it, just life moving ever forward.

They're still alive, still pressuring politicians and they are right when they say "Bible God hates homosexuality"

[xmas1997]

They're still alive, still pressuring politicians and they are right when they say "Bible God hates homosexuality"

Pardon me for a slight correction.
Bible God hates the act of homosexuality, not the homosexuals themselves.
Thus if a gay is truly seeking his God through his own conscience, who are we to judge?
I Am That I Am

[ismael-robert]

Xmas I can't believe you're a believer you sound just like an atheist. I'm not here just to argue...I'm hoping to lead people to the truth. Secondly, yes if we did use the Bible to run this country it would be problem free. The Puritans came here bringing Christianity. The freedom of religion they brought was not freedom from religion, aka atheism, they brought the freedom to choose what form of Christianity you wanted to practice: catholic, Baptist, puritan, etc....that's why they left to not have Catholicism forced upon them. I recently watched the movie Monumental and it shows how our original government was drafted upon the teachings of the Bible...why do you think we have the greatest country in the nation and all those atheistic and muslim countries suck? Look xmas as we move more towards "enlightenment" this country is falling farther apart. Moving closer towards world war III as God is taking His hand off us cause we're basically asking Him too....but ultimately I fear not because the Bible PREDICTED all this. In the end the world will be at its lowest and Christ will return to judge. People will be absolutely convinced there is no God because of all the suffering, but those few who stay loyal to the end will be saved.
xmas the Bible is the word of God. Don't you think the creator would know the best way for His creation to live? If so then we should be living by it. If there is a God do you people think He created you for your purpose or His? Takes some humility to realize you're just a vessel and tool for His purposes and glory. It is illogical not to believe in God because of the simple fact there's order in this earth and universe. Do you think all this could come about from randomness??? Disorder creates further disorder and NEVER leads to order! I bet you atheist believe there's good and evil in this earth. So if you believe there's good you have to have something to measure good by...that means you believe in morals...if you believe in morals then they had to have an origin...that means ultimately there was a moral law giver...if you have no moral law giver you have no morals and if we destroy the meaning and need for morals we're going to destoy this society and earth...it's just a matter of time.

[ismael-robert]

God established His laws and rules for our protection and so we could live life to the fullest. Homosexuality despite those people's beliefs is not God's best for them...there are scientific and psychological studies showing that they do not live happier, healthier lives. Their life expectancy is actually like 20 years less than the heterosexual. They're parenting skills have been shown to be worse than two heterosexual parents. There are a number of other health conditions and issues that arise out of their style of sex other than AIDS.
Secondly if you want to adopt it then you need to be prepared to adopt every form of "love". So lets not be hipocrytes here...you need to accept pedophile relationships, incest relationships, people with animal relationships, people with car/inanimant object relationships...and thus we have opened the door for the further degradation of society and the meaning of family. Let me tell you those people are already coming out raising their arguments for marriage! Smaller sins lead to bigger sins....Christians are trying to cut it off before it gets worse.

[ismael-robert]

Yall don't like Christianity get out and go live in an atheist nation or Islamic nation and you'll come crawling back. One of your great atheist heroes actually converted to theism after spending some time in Russia I believe...I can't put my finger on his name but maybe I'll look it up after I change oil on my car...he saw what a society absent of God looks like and it horrified him.

[xmas1997]

It was not my intention to offend anyone by expressing my beliefs, they are my beliefs, and I have no intention of pushing them on anyone. Save your insults for someone else, please.
I believe in God, I talk to Him often, not that He answers me back, but I do talk.
There is no simple answer to the questions you pose, so I won't insult your intelligence by giving you a patent answer.
I will say that my beliefs are a tad bit out of the ordinary and some are contrary to the party line of mainstream religions because of experience, and very subjective experiences at that, plus following my conscience.
I won't bore you with my qualifications or extensive studies of faiths and religions. That would just make you think I was another of the know-it-alls who post here, and thus counterproductive.
Allow me to pose a question to you.
Do you believe it is your God given duty to lead others to the truth, evangelize so to speak?
And if so, why?
If we all have God given consciences, don't you think God is powerful enough, intelligent enough, and pervasive enough to do this to each and every one of us in His own way, knowing full well the best most comprehensive way to get through to us?
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

Secondly, yes if we did use the Bible to run this country it would be problem free.

lol leviticus

awesome opinion, tbh

[Blake]

Yall don't like Christianity get out and go live in an atheist nation or Islamic nation and you'll come crawling back. One of your great atheist heroes actually converted to theism after spending some time in Russia I believe...I can't put my finger on his name but maybe I'll look it up after I change oil on my car...he saw what a society absent of God looks like and it horrified him.

what exactly is horrifying about an atheistic society?

[xmas1997]

I personally think all of you have awesome opinions on this subject.
It seems like you are arguing over semantics.
I guess my point is, when ever we get together to discuss God, should it not be in an atmosphere of love?
And not with all of the derision, contention, and desires to feel superior?
Just asking.
When you get right down to it it is one opinion against another, that is all it is.
Why get so pissed off that someone else has a different opinion?
Are we saying we can never learn a new facet about God, or that God even exists in the first place?
Or are we elevating ourselves over everyone including God, in the Holy name of God, by insisting we are right, that our opinion is the ONLY valid opinion?
Think about it.
But do so out of love if you do, then tolerance and forgiveness can take precedence, don't you think?

[xmas1997]

This "I am right, you are wrong" attitude is what is destroying this world, and pits religion against religion, in some cases the same religion against itself.
That, plus the "I want what you have" attitude will be our downfall, not whether we believe in God or not, or how we choose to believe in God if we do believe, and definitely not judging others beliefs as evil just because they differ from our beliefs.
Our consciences know the difference between good and evil, we are not idiots. We might be ignorant, but we are not idiots.
In our conscience we know how bad pedophilia is, or murder, or woman beating, or beating the elderly, or stealing.
It does not matter if you believe in God or not, that is a matter for your conscience.
No one has a right to dictate to others based on their beliefs. We have free wills. This country was founded on basic freedoms, not religious intolerance.
That is why humility, tolerance, and forgiveness are crucial.
And it should all evolve from love.

[Leetonidas]

Yall don't like Christianity get out and go live in an atheist nation or Islamic nation and you'll come crawling back. One of your great atheist heroes actually converted to theism after spending some time in Russia I believe...I can't put my finger on his name but maybe I'll look it up after I change oil on my car...he saw what a society absent of God looks like and it horrified him.

how about you shut the fuck up you bible thumping retard. I can live wherever the fuck I want, this nation is supposed to be separated from church so your god crap can go fuck itself. the founders sought freedom of persecution from their ideas here so you can suck a fat cock. if you want your faggish religious crap shoved into everything possible take your bitch ass to Saudi Arabia and become a muslim. you're all worshipping the same non-entity :lol

also rofl at the last line. cus America is sooooo clean cut and awesome with its outright bigotry towards gays minorities, stupid ass christians attempting to retardify science classes, and idiots like you voting in the bibletards that sanction our Airforce to drone strike innocent people around the globe and arm terrorists to support our interests. :lol you're a fucking sheep, just as the church intended.

[Leetonidas]

:cry when they say freedom of religion they meant freedom to choose which version of christianity they liked :cry

fucking idiot :lol

[Leetonidas]

God established His laws and rules for our protection and so we could live life to the fullest. Homosexuality despite those people's beliefs is not God's best for them...there are scientific and psychological studies showing that they do not live happier, healthier lives. Their life expectancy is actually like 20 years less than the heterosexual. They're parenting skills have been shown to be worse than two heterosexual parents. There are a number of other health conditions and issues that arise out of their style of sex other than AIDS.
Secondly if you want to adopt it then you need to be prepared to adopt every form of "love". So lets not be hipocrytes here...you need to accept pedophile relationships, incest relationships, people with animal relationships, people with car/inanimant object relationships...and thus we have opened the door for the further degradation of society and the meaning of family. Let me tell you those people are already coming out raising their arguments for marriage! Smaller sins lead to bigger sins....Christians are trying to cut it off before it gets worse.

Scientific studies also show that the universe wasn't created by a god, there is no supreme being in the clouds, and that atheists are smarter than stupid ass people like you. :lol way to support the science that benefits your stupidity, hypocrite :lol

[Leetonidas]

dp

[Blake]

When you get right down to it it is one opinion against another, that is all it is.
Why get so pissed off that someone else has a different opinion?


Depends on what is done with the opinion.

[xmas1997]

Regardless of the opinion, an antagonistic spirit will never resolve anything. It just breeds more antagonism.
I don't see the point in arguing about something based on faith.
Faith is an intangible quality and it is subjective in nature like thoughts or ideas.
That is why it seems the argument is really about who's opinion has more merit or validity.
But in the final analysis they are still only opinions which can't be proven except by faith, ones own personal faith.
And no one can fully know another persons faith, it is way too subjective.
You can generalize, but even generalizations have nuances that not everyone can agree with, so you are back to opinions again.
In a crazy way, it really is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? :lol
You could argue for years about that and still not get to the bottom of it all.
If you see yourself as an enlightened (not to be confused with superior) individual, then you realize that it is one opinion versus another opinion, and on and on we go.
It is almost like a vicious circle with no end in sight.
And if approached from an attitude of love, then there should be no antagonism, rather a sharing of opinions.

[mouse]

The truth is
The fact is, none of you are experts!

I disagree..... what do you consider "an expert" ? a person with a piece of paper / certificate hanging on the sheetrock wall of the office of the assistant manager at the local Walmart?

I go by what I read in a topic and can always tell if the person is an expert on a subject.

[ismael-robert]

xmas my statements are never to offend you and you have not offended me. What I'm simply stating is you're a contradiction. Because a Christian is someone who holds the Word of God to be TRUTH not opinion. To rely on your emotions or conscience is to rely on something that's unreliable because we're flawed humans. We're emotionally unstable! There is plenty of evidence for Christianity that I do believe I base my faith on fact. I do not feel I'm superior at all. God issued the Great Commission and said spread my Gospel to the ends of the earth. Do I feel like it is a duty, no...I desire to do this out of love. Yes, God is powerful enough to reach whoever He wants to reach, but we are His hands and feet. We are His tools of choice. In the story of Moses splitting the Red Sea He could've split it Himself, but He told Moses raise your staff. He worked THROUGH Moses and He works through us. I look forward to that day when He says, "Well done my good and faithful servant". Did you read the story of the talents. Do you remember He casts out the servant into outer darkness who did not invest His talents? I'm not arguing, I'm not mad, I'm not being contentious I'm just putting out there what I know...it's up to everyone else if they want to accept it or not.
What's wrong with an atheistic society...just look at Leetonidas response...you want a bunch of people like that running around running things with all that anger and bitterness...I hope you're not a parent with that tongue.
The separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state-over taxation or the state influencing one religion like Catholicism which is what the Puritans ran from...but the church was never meant to blocked out from its influence on the state. What were the ideas/ideals the Puritans escaped for? Their ideals of being able to practice their Protestant faith freely cause they were receiving so much persecution. Wrong again on the muslim comparison. My God is a Trinity that includes the Father, Son, Holy Spirit...their false God is something named allah.
Let me ask you how one can be a bigot against homosexuality...because here's another news flash homosexuality isn't a race. And so far your precious science hasn't been able to show that homosexuality is anything more than a choice. Why should someone get rights over a lifestyle choice? If I was a drunk and I prefer to drive while I'm drunk you going to support legalizing drunk driving so I can be free in the lifestyle choice I made?
Science has proven God doesn't exist??? Your best THEORY on creation is the big bang and that actually is pretty consistent with what the Bible teaches lol! You really think it's a TRUE Christians intention to have a politician do evil??? You really want to blame us for their actions? Please don't overgeneralize and put blame on God or Christians for people's INDIVIDUAL choices that go against what our God teaches. And Lee there have been well known atheist with knowledge beyond yours that converted so don't act like it's so impossible or even insulting. I would take none of the glory if anyone of you wanted to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and none of the credit. God and Christ love yall despite your insults and He sent His Son to die for your sins and you repay Him with insults...look at yourselves...truly....that takes a special kind of person...but we're evolving/progressing right???

[xmas1997]

I disagree..... what do you consider "an expert" ? a person with a piece of paper / certificate hanging on the sheetrock wall of the office of the assistant manager at the local Walmart?

I go by what I read in a topic and can always tell if the person is an expert on a subject.

:lol
Not necessarily, although a degree helps it doesn't automatically make someone an expert. And I won't go so far as to say I can always tell if a person is an expert on a subject because I've been wrong too many times to be that definite.
Rather, I base it on what you said you do, on the same things you do, what they write or say.
And of course these are merely our opinions which we make based upon their opinions, right?

I look at the text and in what context they post, as well as to how they react to criticism, and if their posts reflect any consistency.
Among other things such as intuition, my own experiences, etc., that is part of my criteria for my opinion as to whether someone is an expert or not especially in such a nebulous subject as this thread is. The study of theology takes most of ones life IMHO.
Thus IMHO no one, including myself, are experts here.

Even though I've spent much of my life studying this very subject, it still does not make me an expert in this field. It has never been my primary field, rather it has been one of my interesting hobbies, like physics, psychology, meta physics, and para physics, among others. As a musician I've explored many subjects on my way to inspirations, nothing more.

[DisAsTerBot]

wow. You can't be a bigot against homosexuality because homosexuality isn't a race. just wow. Please remove yourself from life.

[xmas1997]

xmas my statements are never to offend you and you have not offended me. What I'm simply stating is you're a contradiction. Because a Christian is someone who holds the Word of God to be TRUTH not opinion. To rely on your emotions or conscience is to rely on something that's unreliable because we're flawed humans. We're emotionally unstable! There is plenty of evidence for Christianity that I do believe I base my faith on fact. I do not feel I'm superior at all. God issued the Great Commission and said spread my Gospel to the ends of the earth. Do I feel like it is a duty, no...I desire to do this out of love. Yes, God is powerful enough to reach whoever He wants to reach, but we are His hands and feet. We are His tools of choice. In the story of Moses splitting the Red Sea He could've split it Himself, but He told Moses raise your staff. He worked THROUGH Moses and He works through us. I look forward to that day when He says, "Well done my good and faithful servant". Did you read the story of the talents. Do you remember He casts out the servant into outer darkness who did not invest His talents? I'm not arguing, I'm not mad, I'm not being contentious I'm just putting out there what I know...it's up to everyone else if they want to accept it or not.
What's wrong with an atheistic society...just look at Leetonidas response...you want a bunch of people like that running around running things with all that anger and bitterness...I hope you're not a parent with that tongue.
The separation of church and state was to protect the church from the state-over taxation or the state influencing one religion like Catholicism which is what the Puritans ran from...but the church was never meant to blocked out from its influence on the state. What were the ideas/ideals the Puritans escaped for? Their ideals of being able to practice their Protestant faith freely cause they were receiving so much persecution. Wrong again on the muslim comparison. My God is a Trinity that includes the Father, Son, Holy Spirit...their false God is something named allah.
Let me ask you how one can be a bigot against homosexuality...because here's another news flash homosexuality isn't a race. And so far your precious science hasn't been able to show that homosexuality is anything more than a choice. Why should someone get rights over a lifestyle choice? If I was a drunk and I prefer to drive while I'm drunk you going to support legalizing drunk driving so I can be free in the lifestyle choice I made?
Science has proven God doesn't exist??? Your best THEORY on creation is the big bang and that actually is pretty consistent with what the Bible teaches lol! You really think it's a TRUE Christians intention to have a politician do evil??? You really want to blame us for their actions? Please don't overgeneralize and put blame on God or Christians for people's INDIVIDUAL choices that go against what our God teaches. And Lee there have been well known atheist with knowledge beyond yours that converted so don't act like it's so impossible or even insulting. I would take none of the glory if anyone of you wanted to accept Christ as Lord and Savior and none of the credit. God and Christ love yall despite your insults and He sent His Son to die for your sins and you repay Him with insults...look at yourselves...truly....that takes a special kind of person...but we're evolving/progressing right???

You make some great points, as does everyone here including lee, IMHO. However it was not my intention to criticize posters in particular, but rather to criticize the general attitude or aura that this discussion had gravitated to, namely contention and ridicule. That will solve nothing.
Getting into pissing contests beget more pissing until everyone is just swimming around in piss. Nothing revelatory will come of that except that maybe we finally decide it is time to shit for a change. :lol

I do disagree with some of the things you have postulated as criteria for being Christian, or what makes one a Christian however, but honestly, they are minor in comparison to the overall theme of this thread.

Plus IMHO you may be too harsh with respect to homosexuals. I too once thought it to be a choice but my precious science as you call it, has found genetic evidence for it to be much more than the simplistic notion that it is merely a choice.
So my Christian conscience tells me I should refrain from judgement, rather I should leave that to God and the individual.
Thus my statement that God does not hate or condemn the individual who is homosexual who is seeking Him with love, but condemns the Act of Homosexuality itself. That is the sin.
In other words, it is not wrong to be or feel that he/she is homosexual, whereas it is wrong to engage in the homosexual activity. Do you see the difference?

The separation of church and state is another long subject, some which you have said I agree with and some I don't, but let's leave that for another time, this is getting too long as it is.

[Jesus]

:lmao at this thread

[xmas1997]

I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of God, at least not in my lifetime, or ever.
One thing that science has shown us is this: the more we know ....... the more we do not know, or that there is more to know.
In other words, the more we discover, we realize that there is a hell of a lot more that we still need to discover or uncover.
You may as well ask where does infinity end? :lol
Science to me is just another tool to use, not an end all unto itself.
As for being a Christian?
There is a lot more to it than simply your statement of someone who holds the Word of God to be Truth not opinion.
IMHO, it is the action or their acts that determine if one is Christian, how closely one acts like Jesus Christ, and reflects the works the works of Christ as Christ did in their own workings and deeds, attitudes and demeanors.
This tells me that I should not confine my studies to one great book alone. I seriously doubt that Christ did. I bet Jesus read extensively and was well versed in every faith at the time.
So IMHO to say that the Bible, or Dead Sea Scrolls, or other accounts of the life of Christ, are the SOLE and ONLY Word of God, is to be the epitome of naivety.
But then of course, these are my opinions, MY opinions. I do not push them on anyone. These things are for others within their personal consciences to wrestle with, emotionally or pragmatically or however.
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

lmao "your precious science"

Fwiw, literal translation says that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea, which would make more sense.

[xmas1997]

lmao "your precious science"

Fwiw, literal translation says that the Israelites crossed the Reed Sea, which would make more sense.

:lol
How right you are.
Translating the Bible literally seems pretty naive IMHO. I was going to say ignorant, but I tempered my opinion. :lol
I say this because if you look at the history of the Bible, or even other great theological books and texts like the Torah, Koran, etc. we find they have been translated into so many languages, doctored so many times, and put together indiscriminately depending upon the times, that it is a wonder if any reflect all the teachings that they are supposed to.
Thus to say the Bible is the one and only Word of God IMHO is to be extremely naive.
Who said it was?
I'll tell you who.
Some man somewhere in some time period who wanted to control us for whatever purpose he had in mind.
That is why IMHO the true and real final authority on anything is deep inside between you and your conscience!
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

If you're a Christian, you have to believe in a literal translation. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Skull-1]

:lol
How right you are.
Translating the Bible literally seems pretty naive IMHO. I was going to say ignorant, but I tempered my opinion. :lol
I say this because if you look at the history of the Bible, or even other great theological books and texts like the Torah, Koran, etc. we find they have been translated into so many languages, doctored so many times, and put together indiscriminately depending upon the times, that it is a wonder if any reflect all the teachings that they are supposed to.
Thus to say the Bible is the one and only Word of God IMHO is to be extremely naive.
Who said it was?
I'll tell you who.
Some man somewhere in some time period who wanted to control us for whatever purpose he had in mind.
That is why IMHO the true and real final authority on anything is deep inside between you and your conscience!
I Am That I Am

Xmas, stop feeding the troll. Flake is incapable of reading comprehension.

The natural (carnal) person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we (the spiritual people not the carnal) have the mind of Christ. - 1 Cor 2:14-16

Block him and move on.

The OT is parable, prophecy (Mat 11:13, Mat 26:54, Luke 16:16, etc.) and testimony (John 5:39, Isa 53:9, etc.) of Jesus. He explained why (Mark 14:49, Mat 13, etc.). He gives you a huge clue that God spoke in parables (John 5:19) The Epistles back it up (Heb 1:1, 1 Tim 1:4, Tit 1:4, 2 Tim 4:4 and 7, 2 Peter 1:16, etc.).

There was no Exodus or Red Sea crossing. That story is a parable. A very deep parable about (modern) Christianity and the elect, who are in Christ.

Eccl 1:9 ...

Ignore the troll so he can argue with the voices in his head.

[Blake]

Xmas, stop feeding the troll. Flake is incapable of reading comprehension. Block him and move on.

The OT is parable, prophecy (Mat 11:13, Mat 26:54, Luke 16:16, etc.) and testimony (John 5:39, Isa 53:9, etc.) of Jesus. He explained why (Mark 14:49, Mat 13, etc.). He gives you a huge clue that God spoke in parables (John 5:19) The Epistles back it up (Heb 1:1, 1 Tim 1:4, Tit 1:4, 2 Tim 4:4 and 7, 2 Peter 1:16, etc.).

There was no Exodus or Red Sea crossing. That story is a parable. A very deep parable about (modern) Christianity and the elect, who are in Christ.

Eccl 1:9 ...

Ignore the troll so he can argue with the voices in his head.

The OT is also law according to you and Jesus.

Which means that includes all the crazy Leviticus laws.

[DisAsTerBot]

lol "voices in his head" coming from the guy who prays to the man in the sky
:rollin

[Skull-1]

The OT is also law according to you and Jesus.

Which means that includes all the crazy Leviticus laws.


Ehhhhhhhh. Wrong answer.

There is but one law and that's the Law of Christ.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. - Gal 3:24


I could go on for pages but I am not getting sucked into this again. You are getting your ass kicked all over the board. Just admit defeat and slink away back to the rock you crawled out of. I have the sword and you simply cannot defeat me with scripture.

[Skull-1]

lol "voices in his head" coming from the guy who prays to the man in the sky
:rollin
Who says He is in the sky? That's also stupid.

[DisAsTerBot]

so he's crazy because he disagrees with your religion? talk about stupid.

[Blake]

Ehhhhhhhh. Wrong answer.

There is but one law and that's the Law of Christ.

So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. - Gal 3:24


I could go on for pages but I am not getting sucked into this again. You are getting your ass kicked all over the board. Just admit defeat and slink away back to the rock you crawled out of. I have the sword and you simply cannot defeat me with scripture.

Jesus clearly said he did not want to abolish OT law.

You clearly, in big font, referred to OT law.

You can't back out of that now. It's right here in this thread for me to quote at will.

[Blake]

Who says He is in the sky? That's also stupid.

Where is he?

[xmas1997]

If you're a Christian, you have to believe in a literal translation. Otherwise, what's the point?

I thought I just went through a detailed explanation of all of that, or at least what I believe, since I call myself a Christian.
The point is it is ones' "Christ like actions that truly define one as a Christian, not words" IMHO, and especially not a belief in any particular book, or simply because someone says I must believe certain things.

Ismael, you make some awesome points.

Skull, you make some equally awesome points.

Blake, you do too, IMHO you should not take things so literally, if that is what you're doing. A literal translation will set you up for mistakes due to mans' inherent imperfections. If you are not doing that, then I stand corrected.

All of you make great points, but I have different views on some things that I have tried to share with all of you. I don't ask any of you to follow my path, just read and ponder where my path has taken me.
If it is similar, then great. If not, then that is ok too. I caution you not to allow your ego to get the better of you as it has me on occasion because things get muddled when that happens.

Skull and I have had huge arguments over this, but after I quit allowing my ego to get the better of me I realized that we were saying a lot of the same things. We still disagree on a number of issues though, but that is ok, hopefully we can at least agree to be able to disagree and still respect each others' opinion and experiences.

Just so you know, whenever I am penned down to choosing a particular faith to be called, like on applications, I usually say I am a cafeteria Catholic (I pick and choose what parts I accept and what parts I don't according to my experiences, studies, and conscience), but having studied many of the deeper mysteries of almost every faith and religion including Wiccan, Mayan, American Indian, and Druidic, I am probably closer to being metaphysical in my spirituality. I hope that does not offend the atheists, agnostics, or anyone else. It was not my intention to do that.
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

I thought I just went through a detailed explanation of all of that, or at least what I believe, since I call myself a Christian.
The point is it is ones' "Christ like actions that truly define one as a Christian, not words" IMHO, and especially not a belief in any particular book, or simply because someone says I must believe certain things.

So you don't really believe that Jesus died and rose again for you and your sins

[xmas1997]

So you don't really believe that Jesus died and rose again for you and your sins

How on earth did you derive that from anything I said?:lol
That is part of my faith, I do believe that. But guess what? Here comes a bombshell for you to bash me with: I also believe Jesus when He said "you will do theses things and Greater things than I". Thus I feel it is possible for any one of us to rise from the dead, if that is God's Will.
Ok, guys, bash away starting in 3.......2........1.......
:lol
Here's another zinger: I think God has a fantastic sense of humor. Debate that for a while! :lol

[Blake]

How on earth did you derive that from anything I said?:lol
That is part of my faith, I do believe that. But guess what? Here comes a bombshell for you to bash me with: I also believe Jesus when He said "you will do theses things and Greater things than I". Thus I feel it is possible for any one of us to rise from the dead, if that is God's Will.
Ok, guys, bash away starting in 3.......2........1.......
:lol
Here's another zinger: I think God has a fantastic sense of humor. Debate that for a while! :lol

So you're just picking the things out of the Bible you like and disregarding the rest.

I don't see how you can call yourself a true Christian if you are going to downplay or disregard Jesus' words.

[xmas1997]

So you're just picking the things out of the Bible you like and disregarding the rest.

I don't see how you can call yourself a true Christian if you are going to downplay or disregard Jesus' words.

Who said I was downplaying or disregarding Jesus' words?
Not to my knowledge I am doing that.
What I said was that I am picking and choosing from the Christian Catholic faith what I believe.
I already know most of what is told in most of the Bibles. Did you notice I used Bible in the plural?
That is because there are so many of them these days, including the missing books from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Anyway, please try not to quote me so literally. You need to also read between the lines of what I have written and what I intentionally left out.
Like I said when I first started replying in this thread, there is so much material that can be discussed that it would take us all years to discuss it all, even if we agreed on everything.
I tried to capsulize my beliefs for the benefit of making lots of points.
Please try to resist penning me down to a single issue.
We are dealing with opinions of what each of us believe and the whys and wherefores.
I never asked you to believe what I believe, nor will I. Your beliefs are shaped by the combinations I described earlier, and many are the same that shaped mine, some are not.
But all are valid.
All I asked was for you to read mine, take what you like, and disregard the rest, as your conscience dictates.

[Blake]

Who said I was downplaying or disregarding Jesus' words?


:
Thus to say the Bible is the one and only Word of God IMHO is to be extremely naive.
Who said it was?

[xmas1997]

And ..................

[DMC]

:lmao at this thread

What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us?

[xmas1997]

What if God was one of us? Just a slob like one of us?

:lol

Then like I said, he has one hell of a sense of humor!

[Skull-1]

Jesus clearly said he did not want to abolish OT law.

You clearly, in big font, referred to OT law.

You can't back out of that now. It's right here in this thread for me to quote at will.
He came to FULFILL the law (Mat 5:17). Which law? There is the Law of Moses. The Law of the Prophets. The law of sin and death. The law of works. The law of faith. The Law of Christ. The Law of the Spirit. The Law of God. Etc. etc. etc. (Romans 3, Romans 8, ad infinitum) Don't be a stupid ass and try to act like an expert on things you cannot POSSIBLY understand. The paradigm shifted with John. Jesus tells you that also (Luke 16:16, Mat 11:13, etc.).

Finally, being "under the law" doesn't have the connotation you incorrectly assert--and since you can't even get parables correct it is impossible to teach you what that means. Being under the law does not absolve your accountability TO the Law of Christ. The law is for the unrighteous (1 Tim 1:9). But all are judged under the Law of Christ. This is very deep water here. You have no hope of understanding it.

MOSES IS A PARABLE that applies to this day. Most Christians are "under the law of Moses" and don't even know how or why... It is because they are not dead to sin and are thus held captive to the law. They can't see anything but Moses. They never actually see Christ. All these divorced and remarried pastors are not in Christ. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM NOR ANY OF THOSE IN THEIR CONGREGATIONS LIVING THAT SAME WAY. Thus the parable aspect of Moses comes true right before our eyes and nobody but the few even sees it. Fascinating stuff.

Also there is no "OLD" or "NEW" Testament. They are just the scriptures and they are categorized as The Law, The Prophets, The Gospels, and the Epistles.

I really don't want to get into this. You are an obvious troll. I am wasting my time here.

[Blake]

And ..................

John 1

Jesus is the word, etc.

[Blake]

He came to FULFILL the law (Mat 5:17). Which law? There is the Law of Moses. The Law of the Prophets. The law of sin and death. The law of works. The law of faith. The Law of Christ. The Law of the Spirit. The Law of God. Etc. etc. etc. (Romans 3, Romans 8, ad infinitum) Don't be a stupid ass and try to act like an expert on things you cannot POSSIBLY understand. The paradigm shifted with John. Jesus tells you that also (Luke 16:16, Mat 11:13, etc.).

Finally, being "under the law" doesn't have the connotation you incorrectly assert--and since you can't even get parables correct it is impossible to teach you what that means. Being under the law does not absolve your accountability TO the Law of Christ. The law is for the unrighteous (1 Tim 1:9). But all are judged under the Law of Christ. This is very deep water here. You have no hope of understanding it.

MOSES IS A PARABLE that applies to this day. Most Christians are "under the law of Moses" and don't even know how or why... It is because they are not dead to sin and are thus held captive to the law. They can't see anything but Moses. They never actually see Christ. All these divorced and remarried pastors are not in Christ. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM NOR ANY OF THOSE IN THEIR CONGREGATIONS LIVING THAT SAME WAY. Thus the parable aspect of Moses comes true right before our eyes and nobody but the few even sees it. Fascinating stuff.

Also there is no "OLD" or "NEW" Testament. They are just the scriptures and they are categorized as The Law, The Prophets, The Gospels, and the Epistles.

I really don't want to get into this. You are an obvious troll. I am wasting my time here.

Any command from God's mouth is a law.

And you need to make your mind up about the Old Testament. First it's just a parable, next it's a reference, now it doesn't exist.

You're a hack. You don't know shit.

[TSA]

I always find it amusing that hardcore atheists can quote the bible just as well as hardcore Christians.

[xmas1997]

I always find it amusing that hardcore atheists can quote the bible just as well as hardcore Christians.

It is like I always said, you can use it to prove or disprove practically anything, which only goes to show you cannot use it in that manner.

[ismael-robert]

Question: "Did the Israelites in the book of Exodus cross the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?"

Answer: The Hebrew word translated “red” in some 23 Old Testament verses dealing with the Exodus is the Hebrew word suph whose root is thought to be of Egyptian origin and meant a reed, especially the papyrus. So, while it is true that the Hebrew words yam suph can be translated “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea,” the question that must be asked is, which is the best translation of the words to correctly convey the meaning of the Hebrew passages? Also, we must take into consideration whether these passages, most commonly translated “Red Sea,” are in fact referring to what today is known as the Red Sea or are they, as some liberal scholars assert, really referring to a marshy area by the Rea Sea or possibly some smaller, shallower lake nearby? This is crucial because, if it was not the Red Sea, then the Israelites could have crossed without God’s miraculous intervention of parting the sea and stopping the heavier Egyptian chariots. This is really the crux of the debate: did God miraculously intervene, as the Bible says He did, or was the crossing by the Israelites simply a natural event?

When we look at the many different passages in the Scripture where the term yam suph or “Red Sea” is used, it becomes very clear that it is correctly translated as “Red Sea” and is indeed referring to the large body of water commonly called the Red Sea or Gulf of Suez. The only way that one could look at these verses and believe they are speaking of some shallow lake or marshy area is if one has a preconceived bias towards that translation, ignoring not only the historical evidence but, more importantly, the scriptural context. The Scriptures give us a clear understanding that the body of water the Israelites crossed was a large and deep body of water, and the only one in that area fitting that description is the Red Sea.

One evidence that “Red Sea” is the correct translation and the correct body of water is found in the Greek Septuagint from 200 B.C. This is the earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible known, and the words yam suph are consistently translated with the Greek words eruthros thalassa or “Red Sea” (see Acts 7:36; Hebrews 11:29). Therefore, the historical evidence is that these words in the Bible do refer to the actual Red Sea and not some lesser body of water. Further evidence comes from the context of the passages themselves. First, the sea had to be deep enough to drown the Egyptian army and destroy their chariots. Those liberal scholars who want to say this is referring to some shallow, marshy area have to throw out the context of the passages or believe that a whole Egyptian army can be drowned in a couple of feet of water. Also, in 1 Kings 9:26 we see King Solomon building a fleet of ships on the shore of the Rea Sea in the land of Edom—hardly practical if the body of water known as the Red Sea is merely a marshy area or small shallow lake. Clearly, the body of water yam suph refers to can be none other than the Red Sea.

The context of the passages and the way the words yam suph have been translated throughout history make it clear that the Israelites did indeed cross the Red Sea, a 1,350-mile-long body of water extending from the Indian Ocean. In some places, the Red Sea is more than 7,200 feet deep and more than 100 miles wide. While the Israelites would have crossed the Red Sea in what is now known as the Gulf of Suez, this is the large body of water God supernaturally parted, and He used it to destroy the Egyptian army and allow the Israelites to pass safely through, just as the Scriptures describe.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/red-reed-sea.html#ixzz2giR41pfc

[Skull-1]

Question: "Did the Israelites in the book of Exodus cross the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?"

Answer: The Hebrew word translated “red” in some 23 Old Testament verses dealing with the Exodus is the Hebrew word suph whose root is thought to be of Egyptian origin and meant a reed, especially the papyrus. So, while it is true that the Hebrew words yam suph can be translated “Sea of Reeds” or “Reed Sea,” the question that must be asked is, which is the best translation of the words to correctly convey the meaning of the Hebrew passages? Also, we must take into consideration whether these passages, most commonly translated “Red Sea,” are in fact referring to what today is known as the Red Sea or are they, as some liberal scholars assert, really referring to a marshy area by the Rea Sea or possibly some smaller, shallower lake nearby? This is crucial because, if it was not the Red Sea, then the Israelites could have crossed without God’s miraculous intervention of parting the sea and stopping the heavier Egyptian chariots. This is really the crux of the debate: did God miraculously intervene, as the Bible says He did, or was the crossing by the Israelites simply a natural event?


......

The Scriptures give us a clear understanding that the body of water the Israelites crossed was a large and deep body of water, and the only one in that area fitting that description is the Red Sea.

....

The context of the passages and the way the words yam suph have been translated throughout history make it clear that the Israelites did indeed cross the Red Sea, a 1,350-mile-long body of water extending from the Indian Ocean. In some places, the Red Sea is more than 7,200 feet deep and more than 100 miles wide. While the Israelites would have crossed the Red Sea in what is now known as the Gulf of Suez, this is the large body of water God supernaturally parted, and He used it to destroy the Egyptian army and allow the Israelites to pass safely through, just as the Scriptures describe.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/red-reed-sea.html#ixzz2giR41pfc


The Exodus is a parable... It did not happen as a literal event. It happens within each generation....to each person who winds up in Christ....

[Skull-1]

Any command from God's mouth is a law.

And you need to make your mind up about the Old Testament. First it's just a parable, next it's a reference, now it doesn't exist.

You're a hack. You don't know shit.


Lmfao at the idiot who can't even understand what a parable is. Shut the f--k up, stupid.

The Spirit of Christ shows what is necessary pretty clearly. It is laid out in the Gospels and Epistles plain as day once you know where to look--which you do not. The clothes you wear don't offend God, but stealing another person's spouse certainly does.

Paul told us to reject the OT traditions in numerous places. You would reject it any way.

Jesus pronounced all foods clean. So that's gone.

Paul rejected the Sabbath as a particular day. That's gone.

On and on and on.

I occasionally use OT and NT for expediency. But that is not what they are.

I have demonstrated my mastery of the scriptures for all to see. It is pointless arguing with a troll. Truth to you doesn't matter so this is just entertainment in your twisted eyes.


You should just quit now. You will never beat me in this, not in a million years.

[ismael-robert]

No there is no science linking homosexuality to genetics and no it is not a race...race is black, Hispanic, white, etc. Not homosexual, heterosexual, mime, scientist or any other choice of life. I agree xmas and please don't read my statements and come to conclusions about my opinions on homosexuals. I have a care and concern for them as well. I even have what one may call brotherly love. I desire them to repent from their CHOICE of lifestyle in order that they may discover God's best for them. I have no problem with being their friend or them coming to my church, etc. I also didn't intend to say that a Chrisitian SOLELY is one who takes the Bible as the Word of God, just another part of them...I agree with everything you said about being like Christ. But I don't understand your statement that we can learn to be like Christ by reading books that don't mention Him? That is a far assumption to say He read other books...He was an expert on the OT...as Son of God I can imagine He had it all memorized...probably from birth...as God He had really little need to read anything as God is all knowing...it's possible while here on earth in His humanity He didn't have access to omnipotence or it was limited to what His Father revealed to Him. It's naïve to think there's other works of God and that He didn't give us access to them. In order to be classified as scripture there can be no errors or contradictions. That is how we know whether something was inspired by God or not. We also have books that claim Lordship authorship for example they says "the Lord says"...other books have authors claiming they are eyewitness accounts...we have writers in the New Testament calling other NT writers' books scripture! finally we can look at historical evidence outside the Bible...early historians and the early church fathers quote from every book of the New Testament and no other...this was BEFORE the councils that supposively gave us the Bible...so the books that weren't included were because of massive errors. Again with thousands of historical manuscripts stretching from numerous distant regions and finding negligible differences shows us that the Bible has been translated with extreme accuracy. The idea that it is wrought with edits is false. Did you see my earlier post about how the later translation of Isaiah contained hardly any differences from the version dug up in Dead Sea Scrolls? And the differences did NOT distort the meaning or message.
The Bible can be used for anything but control. The New Testament gives authority to ALL believers. It calls them priests, saints, kings, etc. The New Testament destroyed the need for authority so again to make the assumption it could be used for control is false. Catholicism tried it and failed.
The Bible is a literal translation in that it is literature. So it contains symbolic language like anthropomorphisms, metaphors, etc so no we don't have to take it literally as in word for word.

Use M-A-P-S to guide you through Biblical reliability:
Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, Statistics
Have you tried to show someone the historical reliability of the Scriptures, and not known where to start? A quick trip to your
local well-stocked Christian bookstore likely will overwhelm you. Where among the dozens of impressive, comprehensive
reference books should you start?
Fortunately, while there is a wealth of information available to support the reliability of Scripture, you don’t have to burn, the
midnight oil to give a reasonable answer to those who ask, “How can we know the Bible is reliable?” Four basic principle chart
your way to understanding basic biblical reliability.
Remember the word MAPS and you will be able to chart
Bible reliability.
Manuscripts
Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manu script copies of the original documents penned
by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How
can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main
manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym — BEE — will help you remember these).
The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the
original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the
time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious text ual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger
bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.
We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approxi mately 10,000 from
the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of
1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the
original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with
the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest
quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.
The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts
or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition
and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly
evident.
The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the
authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the
events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the
Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he
chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament.
The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he
gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1 -3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples
“were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the
eyewitness credibility of its writers.
The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events,
geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no
historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical a ccuracy. The
Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven
time and again.
Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular hist orians who were almost
contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus
(around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100 -110) make direct
reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even
skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong
external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.
Archaeology
Returning to our MAPS acronym, we have established ,the first principle, manuscript reliability. Let us consider our second
principle, archaeological evidence. Over and over again, comprehensive field work (archaeology) and careful biblical
interpretation affirms the reliability of the Bible. It is telling when a secular scholar must revise his biblical criticism in light of
solid archaeological evidence.
For years critics dismissed the Book of Daniel, partly because there was no evidence that a king named Belshazzar ruled in
Babylon during that time period. However, later archaeological research confirmed that the reigning monarch, Nabonidus,
appointed Belshazzar as his co-regent whi1e he was away from Babylon.
One of the most well-known New Testament examples concerns the Books of Luke and Acts. A bi blical skeptic, Sir William
Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament.
However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — of the
historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Prophecy
The third principle of Bible reliability is Prophecy, or predictive ability. The Bible records pred ictions of events that could not be
known or predicted by chance or common sense. Surprisingly, the predictive nature of many Bible passages was once a popular
argument (by liberals) against the reliability of the Bible. Critics argued that the prophecies actually were written after the events
and that editors had merely dressed up the Bible text to look like they contained predictions made before the events. Nothing
could be further from the truth, however. The many predictions of Christ’s birth, life and death (see below) were indisputably
rendered more than a century before they occurred as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah and other prophetic books as well
as by the Septuagint translation, all dating from earlier than 100 B.C.
Old Testament prophecies concerning the Phoenician city of Tyre were fulfilled in ancient times, including prophecies that the
city would be opposed by many nations (Ezek. 26:3); its walls would be destroyed and towers broken down (26:4); and its stones,
timbers, and debris would be thrown into the water (26:12). Similar prophecies were fulfilled concerning Sidon (Ezek. 28:23; Isa.
23; Jer. 27:3-6; 47:4) and Babylon (Jer. 50:13, 39; 51:26, 42-43, 58; Isa. 13:20-21).
Since Christ is the culminating theme of the Old Testament and the Living Word of the New Testament, it should not surprise us
that prophecies regarding Him outnumber any others. Many of these prophecies would have been impossible for Jesus to
deliberately conspire to fulfill — such as His descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:3; 17:19; Num. 24:21-24); His
birth in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2); His crucifixion with criminals (Isa. 53:12); the piercing of His hands and feet at the crucifixion
(Ps. 22:16); the soldiers’ gambling for His clothes (Ps. 22:18); the pie rcing of His side and the fact that His bones were not
broken at His death (Zech. 12:10; Ps. 34:20); and His burial among the rich (Isa. 53:9). Jesus also predicted His own death and
resurrection (John 2:19-22). Predictive Prophecy is a principle of Bible reliability that often reaches even the hard-boiled skeptic!
Statistics
Our fourth MAPS principle works well with predictive prophecy, because it is Statistically preposterous that any or all of the
Bible’s very specific, detailed prophecies could have been fulfilled through chance, good guessing, or deliberate deceit. When
you look at some of the improbable prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, it seems incredible that skeptics — knowing the
authenticity and historicity of the texts — could reject the statistical verdict: the Bible is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the
Son of God, just as Scripture predicted many times and in many ways.
The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years by forty different human authors in three different languag es (Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek), on hundreds of subjects. And yet there is one consistent, noncontradictory theme that runs through it all: God’s
redemption of humankind. Clearly, Statistical probability is a powerful indicator of the trustworthiness of Sc ripture.
The next time someone denies the reliability of Scripture, just remember the acronym MAPS, and you will be equipped to give
an answer and a reason for the hope that lies within you (1 Pet. 3:15). Manuscripts, Archaeology, Prophecy, and Statistics not
only chart a secure course on the turnpikes of skepticism but also demonstrate definitively that the Bible is indeed divine rather
than human in origin.

[xmas1997]

Thanks, Ismael, you put a lot of work into your post and it is much appreciated.
Now, if everyone could do what you just did, maybe more would be willing to share, rather than ridicule. Somehow I think you and I are closer to agreement than the others, but I also want to explore where skull is coming from just as you do if he will share instead of be so critical and harsh.

Skull, you have a very unorthodox view of things that is very interesting, intriguing even, that I haven't heard in while. I had a friend who believed the way you do and I often wished I had had more time to pick his mind.
If you would please try to explain it a little more coherently and in more detail you might find a more receptive audience from everyone. Clearly you have some important things to say and explain, but you seem to be jumping around your points so much that you are hard to follow where you are going with things.
A little less ridicule would be nice too, my friend. I think you would find Blake to be more receptive too if he understood why you are saying some of the things you say.
None of us can assume we know what the other is trying to point out just because we think they should already be aware of something.
You have a lot to share, skull. Share it with us. And don't be concerned whether or not any of us agree.
Sometimes friendly disagreements are the best way for some to better understand. Ridicule won't aid that understanding process.

Blake, I also ask that you share your feelings about this too. You have made many awesome points as have skull and Ismael. If we can stay away from the ridicule we might all learn something or at the very least be pleasantly entertained. You do not have to believe what any of us say, rather just listen to their points and try not to judge them, then we can better understand your points. I have a feeling we are all in agreement in a general sense, but it is the particulars that are tripping us up. I have studied Zoroastrianism, is that where you are coming from?

Lee, if you want in this too, I am equally interested in your point of view as well. If I read you right, you tend to represent the atheistic view which is as welcome as the others IMHO. To be well rounded a person must look at all sides of an issue, and since my father was an agnostic I know full well of things such as a Universal Consciousness.

Fuzzy, you had a lot of great points you were making too. Where did you go? Come back.

If indeed there is a God, and I contend there is, it behooves us all to explore every side to every issue, but this cannot be done in a spirit of contention, ridicule, and ego contests of wills.
At least I don't think it can.

[Skull-1]

I jump around because Blake is doing that. When he gets his butt kicked in one area he jumps to some other topic, usually one I have already covered with him.... I also jump around because the scriptures do that.... They are not linear and one has to work hard to keep up. Took me years to reach this level of comprehension. It is not easy to follow. If it were then more than a few would find it....

[Leetonidas]

http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/12530441941910.jpg

[xmas1997]

I jump around because Blake is doing that. When he gets his butt kicked in one area he jumps to some other topic, usually one I have already covered with him.... I also jump around because the scriptures do that.... They are not linear and one has to work hard to keep up. Took me years to reach this level of comprehension. It is not easy to follow. If it were then more than a few would find it....

I understand. We are dealing with a topic that is very complicated and causes hackles to rise especially when our knowledge is questioned. I can tell this is something that means a lot to you, but as Ismael said, you have a tendency to be a bit harsh when you are questioned, try to not do that if you can, ok? As they say (whoever "they" are :lol) you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
I think Blake would like to share too, but you kind of raised his hackles when you ridiculed him is what I sense.
Ismael definitely is interested as am I. I seriously doubt blake stayed in this discussion merely to refute you. And he did stay.
Hell, even Lee seems somewhat intrigued and I think he leans toward an atheistic view.
That's ok, maybe if you start at the beginning, and please don't assume anything, that adds confusion.
Better to be wordy than vague. You will be questioned, but don't get frustrated, ok? :lol
Ridicule just makes more ridicule and that is counterproductive, as you and I well know. We even have our own thread upstairs to testify to that, right? :lol
I think Blake has some awesome points to make to this discussion. He raises some pertinent questions to be sure. And he knows about Zoroastrianism which I know of too, so there is a lot that can be shared by all. Ismael certainly has his shit together too, I appreciate the detail he is willing to share.
Would love to get some similar detail from you.
This is a subject I've studied all my life and is behind most of the music I write. I am not a Jesus freak, I am a seeker of the Truth, as are you, Ismael, fuzzy, Blake, and countless others are.
If we approach this subject with a bit of love (sounds corny) we might all of us have something to learn.
Why else are any of us doing this anyway?
Hell, even Mouse might chime in with his brand of humor to keep things light.
All are welcome, right?

[xmas1997]

Skull, what can I say?
Why don't you start at the beginning if that is possible?
Then allow a few questions, a few constructive doubts, and go from there.
And heaven forbid, leave the ego at home, you won't be bashed by most of us for anything controversial.
And if that happens, ignore them.

[Skull-1]

Skull, what can I say?
Why don't you start at the beginning if that is possible?
Then allow a few questions, a few constructive doubts, and go from there.
And heaven forbid, leave the ego at home, you won't be bashed by most of us for anything controversial.
And if that happens, ignore them.
I will think about it. Seems a waste of time.

[Blake]

I understand. We are dealing with a topic that is very complicated and causes hackles to rise especially when our knowledge is questioned. I can tell this is something that means a lot to you, but as Ismael said, you have a tendency to be a bit harsh when you are questioned, try to not do that if you can, ok? As they say (whoever "they" are :lol) you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
I think Blake would like to share too, but you kind of raised his hackles when you ridiculed him is what I sense.
Ismael definitely is interested as am I. I seriously doubt blake stayed in this discussion merely to refute you. And he did stay.
Hell, even Lee seems somewhat intrigued and I think he leans toward an atheistic view.
That's ok, maybe if you start at the beginning, and please don't assume anything, that adds confusion.
Better to be wordy than vague. You will be questioned, but don't get frustrated, ok? :lol
Ridicule just makes more ridicule and that is counterproductive, as you and I well know. We even have our own thread upstairs to testify to that, right? :lol
I think Blake has some awesome points to make to this discussion. He raises some pertinent questions to be sure. And he knows about Zoroastrianism which I know of too, so there is a lot that can be shared by all. Ismael certainly has his shit together too, I appreciate the detail he is willing to share.
Would love to get some similar detail from you.
This is a subject I've studied all my life and is behind most of the music I write. I am not a Jesus freak, I am a seeker of the Truth, as are you, Ismael, fuzzy, Blake, and countless others are.
If we approach this subject with a bit of love (sounds corny) we might all of us have something to learn.
Why else are any of us doing this anyway?
Hell, even Mouse might chime in with his brand of humor to keep things light.
All are welcome, right?

:tu

[Blake]

I jump around because Blake is doing that. When he gets his butt kicked in one area he jumps to some other topic, usually one I have already covered with him.... I also jump around because the scriptures do that.... They are not linear and one has to work hard to keep up. Took me years to reach this level of comprehension. It is not easy to follow. If it were then more than a few would find it....

If it's that hard to comprehend and we're all going to Heaven any way, what's the point?

[Blake]

I always find it amusing that hardcore atheists can quote the bible just as well as hardcore Christians.

i find it more amusing that many hardcore Christians can't quote the Bible as well as hardcore atheists.

On second thought, it's quite sad.

[xmas1997]

i find it more amusing that many hardcore Christians can't quote the Bible as well as hardcore atheists.

On second thought, it's quite sad.

Blake, do you follow any particular faith or that you most identify with, or are you agnostic or what?

[Blake]

..... the term yam suph or “Red Sea” is used, it becomes very clear that it is correctly translated as “Red Sea” and is indeed referring to the large body of water commonly called the Red Sea or Gulf of Suez. The only way that one could look at these verses and believe they are speaking of some shallow lake or marshy area is if one has a preconceived bias towards that translation, ignoring not only the historical evidence but, more importantly, the scriptural context..........

lol preconceived bias



- A computer simulation has recreated what might be the parting of the Red Sea.- The simulation is not on the Red Sea, which runs the wrong direction for the wind described in the Bible.- A large lake in northern Egypt, on the edge of the Mediterranean could match the biblical "Sea of Reeds," or Red Sea.

To drive away the waters and part the Red Sea, Moses needed a different location than previously thought, according to a new study on the miraculous biblical event.Previous studies of wind, waves and bathymetry have called on hurricane strength winds blowing from the northwest to push away the water. This exposed a long reef which allowed Moses and the Israelites to escape the advancing cavalry of Pharaoh.

The problem is: It would be nearly impossible for Israelites to stand in such a wind, much less walk to safety.What's more, the Book of Exodus includes some nice meteorological details: "(T)he Lord drove the sea away all night with a strong east wind and turned the sea-bed into dry land."

"If you are going to match the biblical account, you need the wind from the east," said researcher Carl Drews of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Drews has been studying the Red Sea story for years as a student and now has published a paper on the matter, which was his master's thesis, in the journal*PloS One............

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/moses-red-sea-parting.htm

[Blake]

Blake, do you follow any particular faith or that you most identify with, or are you agnostic or what?

If you're gonna label me something, I guess the closest thing would be agnostic.

[xmas1997]

If you're gonna label me something, I guess the closest thing would be agnostic.

Well, I didn't mean to insult you with a label, just wanted to know where you are coming from.
I don't care much for labels either. But like I said, when stuck between a hard place and a rock, I call myself a cafeteria Catholic which to my mind is Christian.
My father is agnostic.
You pose some great questions and now I see it is from a general agnostic point of view. My father does the same.
Yet we allow each other to disagree as long as neither of us push our beliefs on the other. In fact we find lots of humor whenever we discuss God or as he calls it, the Universal Consciousness.
Having been raised as a Catholic for the most part, I see nothing wrong with picking and choosing the parts I agree with and don't agree with inside the faith.
My beliefs are that I am still Christian at my foundation, although some of the many things I believe do not strictly follow Christian tenets. I am referring to my metaphysical leanings which are a bit more esoteric than the average drugstore Christian can usually handle. But then I do not dictate what they should believe and I expect the same consideration.
The dogmatic, fanatical self righteous Christians (whom I call Jesus freaks) are the ones I have a hard time tolerating.
Anyway hopefully we can have some decent sharing of opinions now without all the ridicule. Keeping my fingers crossed on that one because some people just love to ridicule, that's their nature to be disrespectful.
Humor is greatly welcomed though. Without that I would not be here. Blah blah blah :lol

[Blake]

Having been raised as a Catholic for the most part, I see nothing wrong with picking and choosing the parts I agree with and don't agree with inside the faith.



Matthew 5
17*Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18*For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19*Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What do you think "the law" means? No trick question, just honest answer.

[xmas1997]

What do you think "the law" means? No trick question, just honest answer.

Back then there was a need to have a common ground in order to govern the early Jews which in essence were a theist government even though they had kings. They needed order and they needed rules to explain this order. IMHO they went overboard with this to the point of nitpicking everything. One could easily say they were quite anal. :lol
An example is forbidding the consumption of pork. Back then it would have made sense because it was riddled with worms, disease, etc., but today it does not because pork is highly regulated. It could just as easily been cattle like it is in India, but I digress, and cows in India are revered rather than eaten.
Keep in mind this is the simplistic view of the law.
There is a deeper significance. And that has to do with Gods Law.
To explain that takes a bit of time and a suspension of your basic beliefs, as well as a suspension of reality that only now in this day and age of scientific discoveries, atomic theory and all, are we just barely beginning to understand especially if you do not have faith in God in the first place. I do not know if I can explain it without you thinking I am completely loony. :lol
So if I may, let's just leave it at the simplistic view.
Or if someone else wants to weigh in here you are welcome to do so.

[Blake]

Back then there was a need to have a common ground in order to govern the early Jews which in essence were a theist government even though they had kings. They needed order and they needed rules to explain this order. IMHO they went overboard with this to the point of nitpicking everything. One could easily say they were quite anal. :lol
An example is forbidding the consumption of pork. Back then it would have made sense because it was riddled with worms, disease, etc., but today it does not because pork is highly regulated. It could just as easily been cattle like it is in India, but I digress, and cows in India are revered rather than eaten.
Keep in mind this is the simplistic view of the law.
There is a deeper significance. And that has to do with Gods Law.
To explain that takes a bit of time and a suspension of your basic beliefs, as well as a suspension of reality that only now in this day and age of scientific discoveries, atomic theory and all, are we just barely beginning to understand especially if you do not have faith in God in the first place. I do not know if I can explain it without you thinking I am completely loony. :lol
So if I may, let's just leave it at the simplistic view.
Or if someone else wants to weigh in here you are welcome to do so.

This is beyond just being a bit anal:


Leviticus 20:13

King James Version (KJV)13*If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If God is the same today as he's always been, then he wants to kill the gay today.

[ismael-robert]

Its also sad atheist spend so much time debunking a myth and are so angry. Jesus said the law wouldn't pass till all fulfilled. It was fufilled on cross. God doesn't want to kill gays He wants them to repent and be holy to be in His presence but people choose their desires over His soHe gives them what They ask for on jjudgement day.

[ismael-robert]

If God wants to create a stray wind He can lol

[Mr. Slave]

Its also sad atheist spend so much time debunking a myth and are so angry. Jesus said the law wouldn't pass till all fulfilled. It was fufilled on cross. God doesn't want to kill gays He wants them to repent and be holy to be in His presence but people choose their desires over His soHe gives them what They ask for on jjudgement day.


Jeezus Chryyst!!!

[ismael-robert]

If u ask me theres lil point in researching other books or faiths cause Judiaism is the oldest and original. The faith God created and intended us to follow until His Son arrived as Judiaism predicted. God wouldn't contadict Himself with other faiths or make the one He established look incorrect. Those are the works of Satan to deceive us from His truth.

[mouse]

topics like these make me feel even better supporting Alternative Design.

[Skull-1]

What do you think "the law" means? No trick question, just honest answer.

That is a VERY deep and fair question with an equally deep answer.

The Reader's Digest version is: If "all of the law and the prophets prophesied until John" and the prophecy is about Christ... Then the fulfilment of those prophecies is Him. Also remember that He said, "All will be judged on the day of judgment by the words I have spoken" not the words the (fictional/composite) Moses spoke.

God spoke through many ways it said in Hebrews 1 but now speaks through His Son. The law Christ is fulfilling is not the Law of Moses for certain because He overturned that stuff. But again, people continue to abide by it with their covenant breaking and false gospel stupidity (tithing, church on "the Sabbath", remarriage, etc.).

Divorce and remarriage is the most visible of these things. Anyone who is hard of heart is not under or in Christ. They are under sin and death, the Law of Moses....the flesh. It is really simple once you see it. But almost no one does.

[Skull-1]

Its also sad atheist spend so much time debunking a myth and are so angry. Jesus said the law wouldn't pass till all fulfilled. It was fufilled on cross. God doesn't want to kill gays He wants them to repent and be holy to be in His presence but people choose their desires over His soHe gives them what They ask for on jjudgement day.God gets what He wants... The potter makes the clay... Stop worrying about gays and get the heterosexuals to repent from their adulterous remarriages. That's far more pressing and a bigger offense to God. Not covenant keeping (asunthetos--another word absolutely abused by evil bible translators) comes before homosexuality on the list of issues (1 Cor 6:9).


Leave homosexuals alone. They're not stealing the wives of other men or husbands of other women.

Fix the adultery in the church. That's what Jesus meant about the log and the mote in the eye.... And He spoke about adultery quite a lot. Homosexuality....not so much.

[xmas1997]

God gets what He wants... The potter makes the clay... Stop worrying about gays and get the heterosexuals to repent from their adulterous remarriages. That's far more pressing and a bigger offense to God. Not covenant keeping (asunthetos--another word absolutely abused by evil bible translators) comes before homosexuality on the list of issues (1 Cor 6:9).


Leave homosexuals alone. They're not stealing the wives of other men or husbands of other women.

Fix the adultery in the church. That's what Jesus meant about the log and the mote in the eye.... And He spoke about adultery quite a lot. Homosexuality....not so much.

I have this feeling that you and I believe roughly the same things, and that they are metaphysical in essence.
We have differences, sure, such as you prefer to use scripture for your examples.
Whereas I do not like using them in that manner because others throughout the ages have used them perversely to justify their personal agendas.
I prefer to use modern-day examples to show my contentions and proofs.
I could be wrong. If so, let me know.
In any case, as long as we agree to be able to disagree, then we can respect each other's beliefs.

[silverblk mystix]

If you're gonna label me something, I guess the closest thing would be agnostic.




a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of theexistence or nature of God or of anything beyond materialphenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


Does the red part apply to you also?

[Skull-1]

I have this feeling that you and I believe roughly the same things, and that they are metaphysical in essence.
We have differences, sure, such as you prefer to use scripture for your examples.
Whereas I do not like using them in that manner because others throughout the ages have used them perversely to justify their personal agendas.
I prefer to use modern-day examples to show my contentions and proofs.
I could be wrong. If so, let me know.
In any case, as long as we agree to be able to disagree, then we can respect each other's beliefs.

I have several gay, bi, and lesbian friends. The only ones I give jazz to are the few who attend church. My primary advice is to get out of said church because they're being taught lies. Their sex life is not my priority. The rest I just tease mercilessly for mutual laughs.

There are way too many hypocrite so-called Christians. They pick on homosexuals OUTSIDE the faith to divert attention from the extreme wickedness WITHIN it.

[xmas1997]

I have several gay, bi, and lesbian friends. The only ones I give jazz to are the few who attend church. My primary advice is to get out of said church because they're being taught lies. Their sex life is not my priority. The rest I just tease mercilessly for mutual laughs.

There are way too many hypocrite so-called Christians. They pick on homosexuals OUTSIDE the faith to divert attention from the extreme wickedness WITHIN it.

I have nothing against homosexuals either. That is not my sexual preference.
As I said once before, it is the ACT of homosexuality that is the sin, not the person themselves.
If a gay is refraining from the act, and actively seeking the love of God through their conscience, then who am I to judge them?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That is a VERY deep and fair question with an equally deep answer.

The Reader's Digest version is: If "all of the law and the prophets prophesied until John" and the prophecy is about Christ... Then the fulfilment of those prophecies is Him. Also remember that He said, "All will be judged on the day of judgment by the words I have spoken" not the words the (fictional/composite) Moses spoke.

God spoke through many ways it said in Hebrews 1 but now speaks through His Son. The law Christ is fulfilling is not the Law of Moses for certain because He overturned that stuff. But again, people continue to abide by it with their covenant breaking and false gospel stupidity (tithing, church on "the Sabbath", remarriage, etc.).

Divorce and remarriage is the most visible of these things. Anyone who is hard of heart is not under or in Christ. They are under sin and death, the Law of Moses....the flesh. It is really simple once you see it. But almost no one does.

IOW, I will pick and choose what I want because Jesus is like a Wild Draw 4. Neither Paul nor Jesus makes it that clear cut but you can pick and choose through that as well apparently.

[xmas1997]

IOW, I will pick and choose what I want because Jesus is like a Wild Draw 4. Neither Paul nor Jesus makes it that clear cut but you can pick and choose through that as well apparently.


Hey hey fuzzy, glad you came back to the discussion!
Now if we can also get some more of Mouse's humor, then I can laugh a little more.
Thank God that God has such a varied sense of humor.
What a boringly pious world this would be without it. :lol

Skull, Christians don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, practically every faith have their share, including those who do not believe in a deity. I think ignorance is the basis for it though.

[Skull-1]

IOW, I will pick and choose what I want because Jesus is like a Wild Draw 4. Neither Paul nor Jesus makes it that clear cut but you can pick and choose through that as well apparently.
No, they don't make it that clear, but if I take you through the process you will get lost at the first turn. So thank me for distilling it down so that you STILL can't get it, fuzzynumbnuts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, they don't make it that clear, but if I take you through the process you will get lost at the first turn. So thank me for distilling it down so that you STILL can't get it.

Once again a claim that an argument can be made but not being made.

You're typical in today's US Christianity in that you pick and choose what you want to follow. Between Luther and Emmerson it seems every American thinks they are the arbiter of God's will. You just take it a step further and think that you suffer as He has suffered and that you somehow can relate to the divine. It's hubris from a faith big on humility and knowing your place relative to God. It's ironic considering that you are buying what Paul is selling. If you believe the rapture is nigh then best hope you are right in what you are choosing as needing repentance or that god buys gross generalities.

[Skull-1]

Once again a claim that an argument can be made but not being made.

You're typical in today's US Christianity in that you pick and choose what you want to follow. Between Luther and Emmerson it seems every American thinks they are the arbiter of God's will. You just take it a step further and think that you suffer as He has suffered and that you somehow can relate to the divine. It's hubris from a faith big on humility and knowing your place relative to God. It's ironic considering that you are buying what Paul is selling. If you believe the rapture is nigh then best hope you are right in what you are choosing as needing repentance or that god buys gross generalities.. The rapture is not literal either.

Please try to grow a brain or stop discussing a topic you clearly do not grasp.

I am anything but typical. I reject everything in "today's Christianity" because the scriptures do not teach those things. Luther is a pathetic racist joke.

But, yes, I have been defrauded and withstood suffering for the gospel. Not to His extent, yet, thankfully. But make no mistake this path is anything but easy.

Luke 6:40 - "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained fully trained fully trained will be like his teacher."


The scripture cannot be broken.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

fuzzynumbnuts.

You edited your post to add this in, liar? How about you tell us of your friendship with Stephen Hawking, astronauts and your sci-fi book-writing?

[Skull-1]

You edited your post to add this in, liar? How about you tell us of your friendship with Stephen Hawking, astronauts and your sci-fi book-writing?
Yep. I edited it nine minutes BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE your reply. It was appropriate, you moronic dbag.

I am not going to tell you anything. It is a waste of keystrokes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

. The rapture is not literal either.

Please try to grow a brain or stop discussing a topic you clearly do not grasp.

I am anything but typical. I reject everything in "today's Christianity" because the scriptures do not teach those things. Luther is a pathetic racist joke.

But, yes, I have suffered for the gospel. Not to His extent, yet, thankfully.

Luke 6:40 - "A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained fully trained fully trained will be like his teacher."


The scripture cannot be broken.

:lol broken
:lol suffered
:lol teacher

You completely missed the point I was making about Luther and Emmerson. You can claim what you like but you pick and choose just like the rest. Claiming your choice is teh right one using the same methods as they notwithstanding.

Whether or not the rapture is 'literal' or whatever else intellectual copout you choose to pick and choose, judgement is what is it is. Best hope the eternal God doesn't go back 4000 years.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep. I edited it nine minutes BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE your reply. It was appropriate, you moronic dbag.

I am not going to tell you anything. It is a waste of keystrokes.

Again, you show your true self. Your lack of self control is noted, monkey.

[xmas1997]

If u ask me theres lil point in researching other books or faiths cause Judiaism is the oldest and original. The faith God created and intended us to follow until His Son arrived as Judiaism predicted. God wouldn't contadict Himself with other faiths or make the one He established look incorrect. Those are the works of Satan to deceive us from His truth.

I disagree that they are works of Satan. If what you say were correct then there would be no need to read any books at all. That would mean that any book except the Bible were works of Satan.

I can only answer for me. I read those other books to get a better understanding of their religion or faith to see what they believe and why they believe it. Also it gives me a great frame of reference to see the differences and similarities in what I already know or feel is truth.
And for the most part there are more similarities than there are differences IMHO.

As for Satan? Do you believe that God created Satan? If so, and if He knows all things, then why would He make evil?
If not, and Satan is the fallen archangel Lucifer, then again why, because isn't God all knowing?
I have an answer for this but I would like to see your rationale first.

[Skull-1]

:lol broken
:lol suffered
:lol teacher

You completely missed the point I was making about Luther and Emmerson. You can claim what you like but you pick and choose just like the rest. Claiming your choice is teh right one using the same methods as they notwithstanding.

Whether or not the rapture is 'literal' or whatever else intellectual copout you choose to pick and choose, judgement is what is it is. Best hope the eternal God doesn't go back 4000 years.


I do not pick and choose anything. I accept everything according to the rules scripture lays out (for those who are not blind to see).

[Skull-1]

Again, you show your true self. Your lack of self control is noted, monkey.


Insert ape sounds here.

I am perfectly under control. My harshness with you is justified and fully intended--without remorse. Like John the Baptist haranguing Herod and Herodias. You've earned it.

[xmas1997]

Geez, do you guys only want to badger, bait, ridicule, and argue with each other?
Or do you want to share some knowledge?
I sincerely thought this thread was about a great topic, not a pissing contest.
If everyone would simmer down maybe we might get a better understanding of things.
Just asking.

[Skull-1]

Geez, do you guys only want to badger, bait, ridicule, and argue with each other?
Or do you want to share some knowledge?
I sincerely thought this thread was about a great topic, not a pissing contest.
If everyone would simmer down maybe we might get a better understanding of things.
Just asking.


Every time I attempt to bring understanding it is rejected. Just like the prophets. Just like Christ.

The carnal simply will not see.

[xmas1997]

Every time I attempt to bring understanding it is rejected. Just like the prophets. Just like Christ.

The carnal simply will not see.

Have you considered that you may have to get through a lot of false pride, or a lot of preconceived notions, or even lots of prior programming?
You are just going to have to knuckle down and have a lot more patience, tolerance, and forgiveness if your message is ever going to get through. You are going to have to be more Christ like and resist judging someone harshly just because they might not understand your point or opinion.
After reading most of the posts, what I see is your frustration, or perplexity, getting the best of you and thus spoiling you getting your view out.
Obviously your view is wanted, but the putting people down is not.
No one likes being belittled just because they may disagree, or do not understand. Just put yourself in their shoes and look at it.
You've got some awesome news to share. Be as Christ like as you can be and share it. You are not talking to the Pharisees here, you are talking to Spurs Talk fans, some with lots of knowledge and some with very little.

[mouse]

Geez, do you guys only want to badger, bait, ridicule, and argue with each other?
Or do you want to share some knowledge?


You do realize your in the Club, right?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do not pick and choose anything. I accept everything according to the rules scripture lays out (for those who are not blind to see).

That's what most modern Christians claim. You just change the 'rules' so that you can pick and choose what you want. 'This is not literal.' 'This verse means I can ignore certain things from the Old Testament and not others.'

Your just as cliche.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Every time I attempt to bring understanding it is rejected. Just like the prophets. Just like Christ.

The carnal simply will not see.

Bullshit. You want to make overbearing statements that you are unable to support or articulate and then play this martyr bullshit when you are called on it.

When pressed on anything you resort to calling the individual a moron, say that you could explain it then don't, claim that someone else can explain it etc. What you never do is articulate a logical response.

[xmas1997]

You do realize your in the Club, right?

Yeah, but it was good enough to get you to post some of your humor which I always get a kick out of. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Insert ape sounds here.

I am perfectly under control. My harshness with you is justified and fully intended--without remorse. Like John the Baptist haranguing Herod and Herodias. You've earned it.

Uh huh. I question you and show zero deference and you start with the 'moron' and other childish antics. You respond to every post I make to you with obvious anger. You are a robot in this regards.

Now we can talk about whether or not anger is justified etc. I myself believe that the stoicism that current internet culture seems to find virtue in is meaningless but that is besides the point. You are only able to behave when people are actively trying to mollify you. That is yet another basis for axis-1.

[mouse]

Yeah, but it was good enough to get you to post some of your humor which I always get a kick out of. :lol

Trust me my intentions are not to TRoll or disrupt any topic I'm just merely posting the facts as I see them.

Since I support Alternative Design I can't really join in on the conversation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And another comparison of oneself to a Biblical figure. John's anger at Herod is not like you getting upset and calling people morons on an internet message board. Why not compare yourself to Moses or Jesus again. ffs.

I still want to hear about sci-fi, astronats and Hawking. Have you been diagnosed with an axis-1 disorder?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Trust me my intentions are not to TRoll or disrupt any topic I'm just merely posting the facts as I see them.

Since I support Alternative Design I can't really join in on the conversation.

sup mouse.

[Skull-1]

Have you considered that you may have to get through a lot of false pride, or a lot of preconceived notions, or even lots of prior programming?
You are just going to have to knuckle down and have a lot more patience, tolerance, and forgiveness if your message is ever going to get through. You are going to have to be more Christ like and resist judging someone harshly just because they might not understand your point or opinion.
After reading most of the posts, what I see is your frustration, or perplexity, getting the best of you and thus spoiling you getting your view out.
Obviously your view is wanted, but the putting people down is not.
No one likes being belittled just because they may disagree, or do not understand. Just put yourself in their shoes and look at it.
You've got some awesome news to share. Be as Christ like as you can be and share it. You are not talking to the Pharisees here, you are talking to Spurs Talk fans, some with lots of knowledge and some with very little.

Yes, I do as I had to get through that stuff myself. Nothing I say will get through. The only reason God penetrated my skull was through severe suffering on a deep personal and professional level that began to open my eyes....

I have done this over and over with many. Being nice or being harsh makes no difference. God only allows a very few to see.


You err not KNOWING the scriptures. - Matt 22:29

That was me. But no longer, at least as far as God allows...

[Skull-1]

Uh huh. I question you and show zero deference and you start with the 'moron' and other childish antics. You respond to every post I make to you with obvious anger. You are a robot in this regards.

Now we can talk about whether or not anger is justified etc. I myself believe that the stoicism that current internet culture seems to find virtue in is meaningless but that is besides the point. You are only able to behave when people are actively trying to mollify you. That is yet another basis for axis-1.


You started out with condescension, not deference, so you get the sword. Humble yourself and ask serious questions or stfu and butt out of the discussion as you contribute nothing.

You use language and assertions that have no basis. People like you think there are "good" words and "bad" words when all are just words... Silly in the extreme.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You started out with condescension, not deference, so you get the sword. Humble yourself and ask serious questions or stfu and butt out of the discussion as you contribute nothing.

You use language and assertions that have no basis. People like you think there are "good" words and "bad" words when all are just words... Silly in the extreme.

I never qualified any semantics but that is besides the point. Have you ever been diagnosed with an axis-1 disorder?

[mouse]

sup mouse.

Just watching you guys go at it and reminding myself why AD is the best way to explain us being on this earth.

[Skull-1]

Bullshit. You want to make overbearing statements that you are unable to support or articulate and then play this martyr bullshit when you are called on it.

When pressed on anything you resort to calling the individual a moron, say that you could explain it then don't, claim that someone else can explain it etc. What you never do is articulate a logical response.


I have supported everything I have said. Call all the bullshit you want. Doesn't detract an iota from the truth I have written.

It is pointless to explain the complex, veiled, invisible things until you accept the plain, obvious, and visible things. What I have shared here is Pre-K and K level and you can't grasp even one tiny sliver of it.

"If you do not believe me when I show you the earthly/visible things, how will you believe the Heavenly/invisible things?" John 3:12

[Skull-1]

I never qualified any semantics but that is besides the point. Have you ever been diagnosed with an axis-1 disorder?

You dont qualify semantics directly, but you qualify other things and attribute to them labels you don't even comprehend.

Have you ever been diagnosed with Internet Tool Troll Disorder, Axis Moronicus Maximus?


You definitely have a comprehension disorder so that would qualify as Axis 1. Or as we say in Texas, "He is ate up with the dumbass."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You dont qualify semantics directly, but you qualify other things and attribute to them labels you don't even comprehend.

Have you ever been diagnosed with Internet Tool Troll Disorder, Axis Moronicus Maximus?


You definitely have a comprehension disorder so that would qualify as Axis 1. Or as we say in Texas, "He is ate up with the dumbass."

You remind me of scientologists that is for sure. Things I do not understand? You really going back to that tactic? Your right, I use words that mean things to express myself. Welcome to the concept of language. At least I am direct and not intending to mislead by a veil of bullshit, unsubstantiated assertions, and outright lies.

I have not been diagnosed by any such thing. Now you are avoiding the question. That is telling. In fairness, i was wrong in saying axis 1. I am being told that what I am attributing to you is an axis 2 disorder. Sorry about that.

I stand by that though. An axis-2 disorder is attributable to people that demonstrate particular antisocial behavior. We went through this before but I don't just pretend an argument was already made and front on it like you do so lets revisit how you in particular fit.

1) overimportance of self - you equate yourself to John, Jesus, and God on the regular
2) exaggeration of authority - you lie about knowing astronauts, Hawking and being a sci-fi author so as to seem more credible. you have talked about how god grants you thre right to judge. you act as if your interpretation is the only valid one.
3) expecting constant praise - when xmas started trying to mollify you by saying nice things about you, you settled down, the moment i start questioning you revert right back to form
4) unrealistic expectations on treatment by others - if people do not agree with you or kiss your ass then you behave as you do. we also can go back to your comparison of treatment to that of biblical martyrs
5) fantasizing about power and success - sci-fi book club with astronauts and stephen hawking.

Here is a whole list http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms

Now anyone can read and judge for themselves.

See how that is much more compelling then making shit up, fronting it and then doing nothing whatsoever to support your position? I am not kidding, I really do think you have a mental disorder.

[xmas1997]

One of you two are going to have to be the bigger man and resist from mud slinging.
Granted we are at The Club and should expect the worst.

Fuzzy, has it gone beyond the point of no return, and now you can only sling mud? I hope not because I enjoyed reading your views.

Skull, is it more important to sling mud, or to get your news to the few? I hope you will tell us what you have learned.

You both have made some very valid points when you were not preoccupied with bashing. I've been there, done that, it isn't easy to extricate yourself from it when you feel wronged, but if your news is more important than your pride , then you will though. Skull and I have bashed each other to death in the recent past for example.

Mouse, thanks for the tip about Blake and Stump. Stump was always quick with the humor too, but I have no idea which stump it is. :Lol
I do know that without humor, even sacrilegious humor is greatly appreciated by me. I don't offend easily. :lol
Plus it lightens an already deep subject and allows perspective.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not mindlessly trying to insult him by calling him a moron, idiot, or the like.

He does display the attributes of what I am describing and it goes a long way towards explaining why he behaves as he does.
He did claim to be a sci-fi author, know several people that have walked on the moon, and be on speaking terms with Stephen Hawking.

Now if pointing that out is 'slinging mud' then so be it but I think it's true or not true as depending.

And what valid points has he really made? He has said all manner of things and I am not saying that they are all wrong but most of what I get out of him is his overbearing megalomania. I find discussing abnormal psychology and how his behavior correlates getting closer to the root of things than 'arguing' with him.

Do you not think he fits many of the traits that I have listed to a fucking tee? I am just hoping that he is trolling.

[xmas1997]

I am not mindlessly trying to insult him by calling him a moron, idiot, or the like.

He does display the attributes of what I am describing and it goes a long way towards explaining why he behaves as he does.
He did claim to be a sci-fi author, know several people that have walked on the moon, and be on speaking terms with Stephen Hawking.

Now if pointing that out is 'slinging mud' then so be it but I think it's true or not true as depending.

And what valid points has he really made? He has said all manner of things and I am not saying that they are all wrong but most of what I get out of him is his overbearing megalomania. I find discussing abnormal psychology and how his behavior correlates getting closer to the root of things than 'arguing' with him.

Do you not think he fits many of the traits that I have listed to a fucking tee? I am just hoping that he is trolling.

I hope you don't feel I was offending you.
Yes, many do fit. And I definitely see what you are saying.
But I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
I also see where skull is easily offended. But most of us are easily offended when it comes to very very personal issues and experiences that we have had especially when our credibility on such personal things is brought into question.
I am. And I bet you are too.
No, all I ask is we try to get skull to open up a little and share some of his revelations if he can and if he will.
Some people just close up and leave. At least he is still here. But he may just close up and that is his choice. Ismael tried to get him to open up too, but I don't think he read that.
I wish he would just start at the beginning, and allow us to make up our own minds.
That is what I did.
I didn't have to post anything or answer any questions, especially when I had my doubts that any one would understand, or that they would think I was way out in left field somewhere, but I shared anyway, and come what may.

[Skull-1]

The guy obviously doesn't know my professional background--military and civilian--education, current trade and responsibilities, nor the social circles I orbit within (or have orbited in my past). That's why he laughs at the notion that I shake hands with entertainers, world leaders from American Presidents to Saudi Royalty, sports icons, religious leaders of supposed high repute, astronauts, engineers, members of the Mars Rover Mission, writers, you name it. He calls that a mental disorder but I assure you, lifting Stephen Hawking into a G450 is not delusion--it is hard work involving dozens of people and I have done it repeatedly.

So what?

I hold an Apostle in higher esteem than any of the Presidents I have made laugh or shaken hands with.

But the picture on my desk from one of my moonwalker friends is real, as is the hardcover publisher copy of my first novel, neither of which matter. Both will be dust and "there will be no remembrance" (Eccl 1).

[Skull-1]

I am offended period. Ease is not a factor.

When Blake asked a serious question I took him seriously.

I will not withhold contempt when a modern day Pharisee mocks me or my Teacher, nor do I have to.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The guy obviously doesn't know my professional background--military and civilian--education, current trade and responsibilities, nor the social circles I orbit within (or have orbited in my past). That's why he laughs at the notion that I shake hands with entertainers, world leaders from American Presidents to Saudi Royalty, sports icons, religious leaders of supposed high repute, astronauts, engineers, members of the Mars Rover Mission, writers, you name it. He calls that a mental disorder but I assure you, lifting Stephen Hawking into a G450 is not delusion--it is hard work involving dozens of people and I have done it repeatedly.

So what?

I hold an Apostle in higher esteem than any of the Presidents I have made laugh or shaken hands with.

But the picture on my desk from one of my moonwalker friends is real, as is the hardcover publisher copy of my first novel, neither of which matter. Both will be dust and "there will be no remembrance" (Eccl 1).

So does anyone believe him? I don't.

[mouse]

When Blake asked a serious question I took him seriously.
.

Did you record the time and date so you can continue that conversation with same person using the Blake name in another cubicle?


Trust me it makes the debate so much easier.

[xmas1997]

I am offended period. Ease is not a factor.

When Blake asked a serious question I took him seriously.

I will not withhold contempt when a modern day Pharisee mocks me or my Teacher, nor do I have to.

Well, it turns out that Blake, and chump too, are actually more than one person using the same name, according to Mouse.
But if you don't want to share, far be it from me to press you on it.
I was sincerely interested. I wanted to see if we shared much the same or similar viewpoints is all.
You read mine. I'm sure you didn't agree with everything I wrote.
I just wanted to see if we shared any commonalities. I suspected that you had touched into metaphysics as had I.
We all have egos we have to deal with, and pride. None of us are immune.
But honestly, fuzzy, is no Pharisee, not even close. He is just another average Joe like you and I.
And I could read his frustration in trying to understand what you were saying and why you were saying it.

Right now I could use a stiff drink! Or a really good laugh. Mouse? Where are you?

[Skull-1]

Did you record the time and date so you can continue that conversation with same person using the Blake name in another cubicle?


Trust me it makes the debate so much easier.


I hear ya. I saw your post on that elsewhere. Pretty funny stuff. It must have been Blake #47.

[Skull-1]

So does anyone believe him? I don't.
You don't believe Christ either and He has way more horsepower than I do.

Oh, and guess what? I don't give a flip in either case.

[mouse]

how about a blast from the past....


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=4

[xmas1997]

Chill out guys, seriously.

Skull, take us to lesson one, if you will.

[Skull-1]

Well, it turns out that Blake, and chump too, are actually more than one person using the same name, according to Mouse.
But if you don't want to share, far be it from me to press you on it.
I was sincerely interested. I wanted to see if we shared much the same or similar viewpoints is all.
You read mine. I'm sure you didn't agree with everything I wrote.
I just wanted to see if we shared any commonalities. I suspected that you had touched into metaphysics as had I.
We all have egos we have to deal with, and pride. None of us are immune.
But honestly, fuzzy, is no Pharisee, not even close. He is just another average Joe like you and I.
And I could read his frustration in trying to understand what you were saying and why you were saying it.

Right now I could use a stiff drink! Or a really good laugh. Mouse? Where are you?


I have no ego.

I am just right/correct. And in the off chance I am wrong, I can't do a thing about it because God wants it that way for His purposes. I take no credit for what I know. I am just one of the few God picked. Taking credit for this is like taking credit for winning the lottery.

[mouse]

Shill out guys, seriously.

Skull, take us to lesson one, if you will.

edited.

[xmas1997]

I have no ego.

I am just right/correct. And in the off chance I am wrong, I can't do a thing about it because God wants it that way for His purposes. I take no credit for what I know. I am just one of the few God picked. Taking credit for this is like taking credit for winning the lottery.

Not interested in establishing your credentials.
Rather what is it that you know?
Will you share?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't believe Christ either and He has way more horsepower than I do.

Oh, and guess what? I don't give a flip in either case.

More hubris. Note is was not addressing you. Whether you 'care' is besides the point other than the last symptom is described as


Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

You can make baseless claim after baseless claim. I have seen no indication that anyone gives it credence. I certainly do not. Just like everything else, you do nothing to support your claims. You are empty and without meaning beyond so much wind.

[xmas1997]

At this point, I am pretty sure skull won't share what he knows.
That is ok.
Not everyone is willing to share what they know in forums like this.
It just sets them up for ridicule.
And that is more than some are willing to bear, or bare, no pun intended.
Anyway, glad I was able to share what I've learned over the years, for what it is worth.
Hope it helps.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He is not sharing because he is talking out of his ass. Either he is trolling or he is earnest in meeting every criteria for an axis 2 disorder. It is what it is.

[Skull-1]

At this point, I am pretty sure skull won't share what he knows.
That is ok.
Not everyone is willing to share what they know in forums like this.
It just sets them up for ridicule.
And that is more than some are willing to bear, or bare, no pun intended.
Anyway, glad I was able to share what I've learned over the years, for what it is worth.
Hope it helps.
I have been sharing since this started.....and I am not under obligation to establish credentials the world holds dear but are worthless to God. Truth is truth. Usually God picks people of no reputation, so why I got sucked into this I do not know (other than I am not famous, of course).

(And I am fully aware I am being trolled from multiple angles.)

Truth is truth. People with credentials out their asses don't have the command of scripture that I do. The Pharises had plenty of credentials and we see how much use they were to them.

I will give you a mystery, the key to which I have provided. Answer the meaning of this riddle and we will proceed.

If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? - 1 Cor 9:11

Read the passage and explain it.

Fizzylimpnuts can't, but I can.

[mouse]

I hear ya. I saw your post on that elsewhere. Pretty funny stuff. It must have been Blake #47.

______^ Gets it...


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MallenDocumenataries/th_NASALiesaboutmoon.jpg (http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/MallenDocumenataries/NASALiesaboutmoon.mp4)

[xmas1997]

I have been sharing since this started.....and I am not under obligation to establish credentials the world holds dear but are worthless to God. Truth is truth. Usually God picks people of no reputation, so why I got sucked into this I do not know (other than I am not famous, of course).

(And I am fully aware I am being trolled from multiple angles.)

Truth is truth. People with credentials out their asses don't have the command of scripture that I do. The Pharises had plenty of credentials and we see how much use they were to them.

I will give you a mystery, the key to which I have provided. Answer the meaning of this riddle and we will proceed.

If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? - 1 Cor 9:11

Read the passage and explain it.

Fizzylimpnuts can't, but I can.

You make a mistake if you think I was trolling you.
I was being sincere with you.
All I wanted was to share knowledge and experiences.
I'm sorry if you think I was trolling you.

[Skull-1]

You make a mistake if you think I was trolling you.
I was being sincere with you.
All I wanted was to share knowledge and experiences.
I'm sorry if you think I was trolling you.


Answer the riddle.

[xmas1997]

Answer the riddle.

No, you think me a troll.
And riddles are games.
Why should I humor you?
I gave of my knowledge and experiences freely, without riddles, games, or anything in the spirit of good will.
Can you not do the same for me?
Ok, I give up, what do you mean?

[Skull-1]

Explain the verse.


Amyone?

[xmas1997]

Explain the verse.


Amyone?
No one knows.
So now will you be so kind as to share your knowledge and experiences on this topic?
Seriously, no one wants to play these cat and mouse games with you. Most of us just want to share what we know and believe.
If you do not want to share yours, then why are you here?

[Th'Pusher]

I have supported everything I have said.

You really have not supported anything you've said. You've repeatedly claimed you're right and you know you're right and if people can't understand it's because they're not on your level of understanding...that they're living in the flesh, while you're on a higher spiritual plane.

That may work for people who want to believe in your premise, but anyone seeking actual truth and understanding would be highly disappointed with your performance in this tread.

[xmas1997]

Ok, I'll take a stab at it in the spirit of cooperation and sincerity.
It means that since we were given deeper truths of the spiritual, then why are we still concerned with the earthly things that consume most of our efforts?
There.
That is my guess.
Please, no more riddles.

[Skull-1]

You really have not supported anything you've said. You've repeatedly claimed you're right and you know you're right and if people can't understand it's because they're not on your level of understanding...that they're living in the flesh, while you're on a higher spiritual plane.

That may work for people who want to believe in your premise, but anyone seeking actual truth and understanding would be highly disappointed with your performance in this tread.


What thread are you reading, dummy? I have supported every word with scripture. You're just not able to see what is plainly before you.


Show me a lack of support for my assertions. You can't. You won't. You will throw out a previously refuted straw man based on your carnal tradition, I will destroy it, you will call me a liar, and the cycle will repeat....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fizzylimpnuts can't, but I can.

I'm in your room, Raleigh.

For someone that claims to so many things you never ever seem to do any of them. All you do is bluster.

[Skull-1]

Ok, I'll take a stab at it in the spirit of cooperation and sincerity.
It means that since we were given deeper truths of the spiritual, then why are we still concerned with the earthly things that consume most of our efforts?
There.
That is my guess.
Please, no more riddles.

Incorrect.

I have provided all the pieces of this puzzle....


Come on geniuses. What does it mean? Ask your pastor. He will have no clue. Likely he will link it to tithes. But he won't come close.


Sowing and reaping. Spiritual and carnal. Earthly and heavenly.

There is a parable in the Gospels that applies.

[Skull-1]

I'm in your room, Raleigh.

For someone that claims to so many things you never ever seem to do any of them. All you do is bluster.

I lay out the the principles. You just talk about an axis you do not even understand in your high minded, utterly failed insult attempt.... Glad someone put you out of your misery. I finally hinted at it when my laughter at your stupidity could no longer contain itself.

[xmas1997]

Incorrect.

I have provided all the pieces of this puzzle....


Come on geniuses. What does it mean? Ask your pastor. He will have no clue. Likely he will link it to tithes. But he won't come close.


Sowing and reaping. Spiritual and carnal. Earthly and heavenly.

There is a parable in the Gospels that applies.

Well, I gave it stab is all.
Now, can you try to be specific and detailed as to what you are trying to say?

[Skull-1]

Well, I gave it stab is all.
Now, can you try to be specific and detailed as to what you are trying to say?


Yes, you did. Think it over for a day or two and see if your answer changes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I lay out the the principles. You just talk about an axis you do not even understand in your high minded, utterly failed insult attempt.... Glad someone put you out of your misery. I finally hinted at it when my laughter at your stupidity could no longer contain itself.

More attempts to belittle me and still no doing that which you claim. It's transparent.

[xmas1997]

Skull, this is a discussion.
Do you not want to discuss?
Why are you here if you just want to play cat and mouse?
Do you not want to share?
If so then just say so and quit beating around the bush.
What are you afraid of? Ridicule? Seems to me you have already received plenty of that so what does it matter now?
If you have something relevant to say or to add, then by all means do so.
Otherwise, why even be in this discussion if you are not going to discuss your views.
Sure, it is risky, but everyone can learn a little something.
And just because someone does not agree with your opinions is no reason not to still reveal them.
That is why they are opinions.
You said if someone answered you would proceed, but instead you are being evasive.
If you really and truly have something to add and say, then please do so.
Could it be that you really have nothing pertinent to say, because if so, you doing a damn good job of not really explaining anything.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you put me off.
How is that Christ like? He never evaded a question and He explained things in many different ways because people had a hard time understanding what He was saying.
Why is that so hard for you to do? Do you have nothing to say except ridicule?
If you do, then you have been invited to say it numerous times now, but instead you give a riddle, and then say the answer is wrong, but refuse to explain why it is wrong, or even what is right.
Discuss, please. Unless you have nothing to discuss.

[Th'Pusher]

What thread are you reading, dummy? I have supported every word with scripture. You're just not able to see what is plainly before you.


Show me a lack of support for my assertions. You can't. You won't. You will throw out a previously refuted straw man based on your carnal tradition, I will destroy it, you will call me a liar, and the cycle will repeat....

I'm reading this tread, and from and unbiased observers position you're logic has been thoroughly dismantled. You've not been able to refute any point. You simply revert to faith based rabble while pretending you're the smartest guy in the room. You had no rebuttal to Fuzzy regarding the consistency of the text post-Constantinople which was, and still is, the foundation of your argument.

[Skull-1]

I'm reading this tread, and from and unbiased observers position you're logic has been thoroughly dismantled. You've not been able to refute any point. You simply revert to faith based rabble while pretending you're the smartest guy in the room. You had no rebuttal to Fuzzy regarding the consistency of the text post-Constantinople which was, and still is, the foundation of your argument.


Again, texts older than that period have INTERNAL inconsistencies that do not hold up to scrutiny.

Those older texts conflict with each other on many points yet at least one, if not the other, harmonizes with the BMT on EVERY point.


Game. Set. Match. BEYOTCH.

[xmas1997]

Well, I give up, skull.
You apparently either do not want to share, or have nothing to share.
Maybe fuzzy was right.
I tried to be open and forthcoming with you, but you put me off.
All that was asked for was a mature discussion among adults.
I won't bother you anymore because apparently just asking you questions was somehow offensive to you.
You should have seen your duty to help those who were seeking and aided them.
Instead you play riddle me this.
I'm sorry to say but I don't see any spirit of good will coming from you.
I tried. I see you doing your best to make confusion instead of bringing light to this discussion.
Good luck with that.

[Skull-1]

I want to give others a chance to try....

This isn't about you, Xmas

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I lay out the the principles. You just talk about an axis you do not even understand in your high minded, utterly failed insult attempt.... Glad someone put you out of your misery. I finally hinted at it when my laughter at your stupidity could no longer contain itself.

Put me out of my misery? More wind.

An axis disorder is just several different personality disorders grouped as defined by the DSM, the shrink handbook more or less. The disorders are just groupings of symptoms. I listed symptoms of the one that fits your bill, narcissistic personality disorder, and matched them with your behavior. They matched alarmingly. I have ran into others that behave very similar to how you do. There was a guy who posted here, pop tech, that acts just like you do if he is more organized. Your behavior sticks out like a sore thumb.

What is it that I do not understand?

You have laid out a set of assertions and done nothing to justify them. You really do not even do that much anymore you just posture as if you have when you really have laid nothing out but bluster.

Basically the principles that you have laid out are:

1) You are mistreated just like a litany of biblical martyrs and thus your hostility. turn that cheek indeed.
2) You understand scripture in a way that most everyone cannot.
3) Scripture, assumingly your interpretation of it, is immutable.

You sound like a cultist, tbh. You are claiming to be god's arbiter and interpreter. Everyone else is wrong, you are right blah blah blah. Oh and a bunch of lies about Saudi royals and whomever else you come up with. I am just waiting for you to start talking about how god talks directly to you.

If you are not trolling, you really need to go see shrink. You are not god's chosen one. There are not many treatments for people like you but at least try.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I want to give others a chance to try....

This isn't about you, Xmas

Of course not, because as with everything else, from your perspective everything is about you. Classic narcissist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, texts older than that period have INTERNAL inconsistencies that do not hold up to scrutiny.

Those older texts conflict with each other on many points yet at least one, if not the other, harmonizes with the BMT on EVERY point.


Game. Set. Match. BITCH.

This is nonsense.

They are inconsistent but they are not....

If thy are different then some of them are going to to differ from Constantine's version. Just because one was chosen by Constantine does not mean that was the 'correct' one. It just means he chose one and ignored the rest.

[DMC]

I'm reading this tread, and from and unbiased observers position you're logic has been thoroughly dismantled. You've not been able to refute any point. You simply revert to faith based rabble while pretending you're the smartest guy in the room. You had no rebuttal to Fuzzy regarding the consistency of the text post-Constantinople which was, and still is, the foundation of your argument.

That's because he doesn't understand well developed exegesis of the bible. Instead, he's indoctrinated into the herd with catch phrases and well worn verses. Now and again you will encounter a theist who tries to present an apologetic based argument for the existence of God. They fail miserably but they try and they copy each other and call their flaccid attempt a success, when among peers. In the academic world however, they are laughed at like the pseudo scientists they are.

Those here have no such abilities or understanding. Instead, they attack like a lion but defend like a lamb. They try to keep one foot in the physical world and one in the imaginary mystic world, and they use one to argue for the other, conveniently escaping to the other when they've painted themselves into an epistemological corner.

[xmas1997]

There are many gospels that were not included in the Bible but should have been IMHO such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and The Lost Sayings Gospel, and The Q Document.
These are considered non-canonical texts, canon texts are considered inspired from God but this is really just opinion of the scholars at the times the Bible was first put together at I think the council of Nicea.

They are all interesting and much was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospel of Mary was probably Mary Magdalene and has a special revelation from Jesus. This led to a conflict with Peter who may have considered her a rival to his authority.
The Gospel of Peter contains lots of accounts of Jesus during His resurrection.
The Gospel of Thomas has to do with Jesus secret sayings.
The Gospel of Judas depicts him as Jesus most loyal disciple and an innocent martyr.
The Lost Q Source contains the sayings of Jesus.
There are a few other books as well.
So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

[boutons_deux]

There are many gospels that were not included in the Bible but should have been IMHO such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and The Lost Sayings Gospel, and The Q Document.
These are considered non-canonical texts, canon texts are considered inspired from God but this is really just opinion of the scholars at the times the Bible was first put together at I think the council of Nicea.

They are all interesting and much was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospel of Mary was probably Mary Magdalene and has a special revelation from Jesus. This led to a conflict with Peter who may have considered her a rival to his authority.
The Gospel of Peter contains lots of accounts of Jesus during His resurrection.
The Gospel of Thomas has to do with Jesus secret sayings.
The Gospel of Judas depicts him as Jesus most loyal disciple and an innocent martyr.
The Lost Q Source contains the sayings of Jesus.
There are a few other books as well.
So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

:lol

[Blake]

. The rapture is not literal either.

.......

The scripture cannot be broken.

what makes this contradiction especially impressive is that it came just a few sentences apart

[Blake]

So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

Centuries? That sucks.

[xmas1997]

Blake, how many posters are you?
I was told there are at least three different people depending on which cubical you are in at any given time.
How can I tell each of you apart?

[Blake]

Blake, how many posters are you?
I was told there are at least three different people depending on which cubical you are in at any given time.
How can I tell each of you apart?

just me.

[boutons_deux]

whatever happened to Phenonemaul? is he/she back as another name?

[DMC]

There are many gospels that were not included in the Bible but should have been IMHO such as the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and The Lost Sayings Gospel, and The Q Document.
These are considered non-canonical texts, canon texts are considered inspired from God but this is really just opinion of the scholars at the times the Bible was first put together at I think the council of Nicea.

They are all interesting and much was preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospel of Mary was probably Mary Magdalene and has a special revelation from Jesus. This led to a conflict with Peter who may have considered her a rival to his authority.
The Gospel of Peter contains lots of accounts of Jesus during His resurrection.
The Gospel of Thomas has to do with Jesus secret sayings.
The Gospel of Judas depicts him as Jesus most loyal disciple and an innocent martyr.
The Lost Q Source contains the sayings of Jesus.
There are a few other books as well.
So it is now well known that the Bible is not complete, but hopefully someday will be. Unfortunately mainstream Christianity does not recognize these books as of yet. But the truth always has a way of coming out. It may take centuries, but the truth will come out.

It's a myth that the Council of Nicaea constructed the Bible.

[xmas1997]

Then when did it happen?

[DMC]

Then when did it happen?
For what you probably know of the "bible", check with the British and Foreign Bible Society.

[Skull-1]

what makes this contradiction especially impressive is that it came just a few sentences apart
You understand what parable and metaphor mean, right? Silly me, of course you don't--we have 15 pages proving that. I should never have posited the question.

[Skull-1]

This is nonsense.

They are inconsistent but they are not....

If thy are different then some of them are going to to differ from Constantine's version. Just because one was chosen by Constantine does not mean that was the 'correct' one. It just means he chose one and ignored the rest.

It is called collation or cross check, and I can see why your feeble mind can't figure it out.

When the two oldest texts have obvious, but differing errors (omissions, transcriptional mistakes, or stupid scribal confusions like the one that says Jesus bled out and THEN got pierced with the sword, etc.).........but in every instance of an error the one without the mistake agrees with the BMT.......then we can fairly confidently assert the accuracy of the BMT. It was more faithfully preserved than any other text or group of texts.

If an older, less error prone manuscript exists, it has not been found.


Constantine didn't "choose" anything.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is called collation or cross check, and I can see why your feeble mind can't figure it out.

When the two oldest texts have obvious, but differing errors (omissions, transcriptional mistakes, or stupid scribal confusions like the one that says Jesus bled out and THEN got pierced with the sword, etc.).........but in every instance of an error the one without the mistake agrees with the BMT.......then we can fairly confidently assert the accuracy of the BMT. It was more faithfully preserved than any other text or group of texts.

If an older, less error prone manuscript exists, it has not been found.


Constantine didn't "choose" anything.

His proxies certainly did. You are still woefully ignorant of the history of the Church. You still have no answer to the actions of guys like Nestor and their policy of excising people that differed from one vision with a torch and sword. The Bible as we know it was put together by men. We do not even know who all of these proxies were.

I am well aware of the concept of cross verification. It seems you do not understand it.

:lol error prone

Look up confirmation bias and assumption. There is nothing saying that Constantine's was the 'correct' version and the other versions are error prone. I hate having to repeat myself but you seem only able to repeat the same very basic canned nonsense. Instead as has been pointed out, it's an assumption you make based only on faith. Who is to say that one of the earlier texts is not correct. You can call me a moron but we both know its not true but when I call you naive it certainly is demonstrated on merit, narcissist.

Let's make an assumption that the Bible is indeed the work of God and there is/was a perfect rendition. If that were the case then a 'cross check' of another perfect version would come back precisely the same. Further, piecemealing a bit here and a bit there does not demonstrate that another is a perfect whole. IT means that pieces in an of themselves may both be correct but this is supposed to be the divine word and not a jigsaw puzzle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what makes this contradiction especially impressive is that it came just a few sentences apart

NPD-boy is special in how he alone can discern the word of God.

He also is friends with Saudi royals, astronauts, and Stephen Hawking. He has had two sci-fi books published. I am still waiting for anyone to say they believe that horseshit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You understand what parable and metaphor mean, right? Silly me, of course you don't--we have 15 pages proving that. I should never have posited the question.

You pick and choose greater than all the rest!

Revelations is now a parable, guys. We can figure whatever figurative shit we want as long as we pass it by our resident prophet here to make sure it's okay.

[DMC]

The obvious truth of all the books of the bible is that they are stories told by men. Jesus, as capable as he supposedly was, couldn't write a single word for anyone to read, yet his disciples could.

Oddly enough, and tellingly enough, there's no "Book of Jesus".

In fact, there's no evidence that either of the big 3 ever wrote anything. Moses said God wrote the 10 Commandments, yet God couldn't do it in front of scores of people who would have been utterly convinced had they seen the writing occur. The Holy Spirit never wrote anything and as I said, Jesus never put pen to paper.

What god would sacrifice his son, want people to believe in his son as a savior, yet depend on those who were not meeting his standards to spread the word of a son who spent some 33 years or so on the planet?

Tolkien makes more sense tbh.

[xmas1997]

The obvious truth of all the books of the bible is that they are stories told by men. Jesus, as capable as he supposedly was, couldn't write a single word for anyone to read, yet his disciples could.

Oddly enough, and tellingly enough, there's no "Book of Jesus".

In fact, there's no evidence that either of the big 3 ever wrote anything. Moses said God wrote the 10 Commandments, yet God couldn't do it in front of scores of people who would have been utterly convinced had they seen the writing occur. The Holy Spirit never wrote anything and as I said, Jesus never put pen to paper.

What god would sacrifice his son, want people to believe in his son as a savior, yet depend on those who were not meeting his standards to spread the word of a son who spent some 33 years or so on the planet?

Tolkien makes more sense tbh.

I don't expect you or any one else to believe this, and that is ok, but there is a new body of evidence from recent discoveries suggesting that Jesus actually did write a Gospel, and that is the Gospel of Thomas which has never been included in the modern or ancient Bible.
For those of you interested, look up "The Perennial Tradition". These are some of the deeper esoteric teachings of early Christianity from Paul, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Valentinus, and Marcion among others outlining a more gnostic or hidden view. Has anyone ever noticed how much different Paul's writings were from the others? This is no coincidence. Paul was versed in the esoteric teachings given him directly from Jesus.
However, it is the exoteric (public) view of Christianity that we have today which was given to us during Constantine's day and the Council of Nicea. And for the rank and file average everyday Christian, that is all that is needed.
Yet if one seeks, the esoterical teachings will be brought to him.
The Perennial Tradition is an esoteric (secret) tradition.
There are many seeds pretending to be plants.
I Am That I Am

[Blake]

You understand what parable and metaphor mean, right? Silly me, of course you don't--we have 15 pages proving that. I should never have posited the question.

oh cool, back to the parable bullshit.

[Blake]

I don't expect you or any one else to believe this, and that is ok, but there is a new body of evidence from recent discoveries suggesting that Jesus actually did write a Gospel, and that is the Gospel of Thomas which has never been included in the modern or ancient Bible.
For those of you interested, look up "The Perennial Tradition". These are some of the deeper esoteric teachings of early Christianity from Paul, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Valentinus, and Marcion among others outlining a more gnostic or hidden view. Has anyone ever noticed how much different Paul's writings were from the others? This is no coincidence. Paul was versed in the esoteric teachings given him directly from Jesus.
However, it is the exoteric (public) view of Christianity that we have today which was given to us during Constantine's day and the Council of Nicea. And for the rank and file average everyday Christian, that is all that is needed.
Yet if one seeks, the esoterical teachings will be brought to him.
The Perennial Tradition is an esoteric (secret) tradition.
There are many seeds pretending to be plants.
I Am That I Am

So Jesus waited 1000 extra years to give us his book.

Thanks a lot bin laden

[xmas1997]

So Jesus waited 1000 extra years to give us his book.

Thanks a lot bin laden


As I said I didn't expect any of you to believe this.
And that is ok.

[Skull-1]

His proxies certainly did. You are still woefully ignorant of the history of the Church. You still have no answer to the actions of guys like Nestor and their policy of excising people that differed from one vision with a torch and sword. The Bible as we know it was put together by men. We do not even know who all of these proxies were.

I am well aware of the concept of cross verification. It seems you do not understand it.

:lol error prone

Look up confirmation bias and assumption. There is nothing saying that Constantine's was the 'correct' version and the other versions are error prone.


....

Let's make an assumption that the Bible is indeed the work of God and there is/was a perfect rendition. If that were the case then a 'cross check' of another perfect version would come back precisely the same. Further, piecemealing a bit here and a bit there does not demonstrate that another is a perfect whole. IT means that pieces in an of themselves may both be correct but this is supposed to be the divine word and not a jigsaw puzzle.


And as the Divine Word of God it is inspired purely by accident into the perfection it is. Constantine had no version. The canon was established over centuries and was fairly well codified even before the Council of Nicea.

You are not only stupid, you are ignorant. There are corrupt copies and there are those that are, best we can tell, true to their source. The two oldest extant have the same original source material (OSM) as the BMT does. Through careful examination and simple common sense the departures from the original can be spotted in the older texts, proving that the BMT is closest to the OSM. It isn't hard. But you're not that bright, soi guess it is hard...

As for the rest, the Bible is quite a miracle in its consistency, continuity, and brilliance. It came out just right in part by accident, but so be it.


Even then, the mystery remains. Scripture, as assembled, does not support a trinity. Yet that was the bias for many in assembling the canon. Funny that they assembled a canon that invalidates their bias. But again, only to those who can see.

Even with transcriptional errors the truth still comes through because of the massive number of failsafes built into it, but these are veiled, as God intended.

The BMT is as close to perfect compared to the non-existent OSM as there is, so far. Strangely enough, English translators pick and choose what version to use in different places, turning the truth of God into a lie as prophesied.

The Word of God is veiled. It is a mystery. Constantine and the rest merely served their prophetic purpose without realizing it.

[Skull-1]

You pick and choose greater than all the rest!

Revelations is now a parable, guys. We can figure whatever figurative shit we want as long as we pass it by our resident prophet here to make sure it's okay.


Correct. Parable.

(Oh, and it is REVELATION, Mister Smart Guy. It isn't plural. Apocalypse. Singular. And I am supposed to believe you have the slightest clue about anything scriptural? Don't make me laugh, rookie.)

Are you so stupid that you believe Jesus is gonna ride out of the sky on a horse? Don't fear the rapture. When he lands in NYC it will take him a few months to ride all the way to the west coast.


IDIOT.

[THEGOAT]

Correct. Parable.

(Oh, and it is REVELATION, Mister Smart Guy. It isn't plural. Apocalypse. Singular. And I am supposed to believe you have the slightest clue about anything scriptural? Don't make me laugh, rookie.)

Are you so stupid that you believe Jesus is gonna ride out of the sky on a horse? Don't fear the rapture. When he lands in NYC it will take him a few months to ride all the way to the west coast.


IDIOT.

The people I go to when I want a better understanding of the bible never call me names for disagreeing, even when I argue. You're the type of person that make people like me (on the fence about religion), not want to practice it. You're arrogant and obnoxious.

[Skull-1]

The people I go to when I want a better understanding of the bible never call me names for disagreeing, even when I argue. You're the type of person that make people like me (on the fence about religion), not want to practice it. You're arrogant and obnoxious.


Well, be nice and you'll get the nice side. Act like a jerk and I will lose patience very quickly.

flake and lumpyfuzznuts made their choice.

People with humility and a desire to learn deserve respect. I am quite patient with the sincere.

[Blake]

As I said I didn't expect any of you to believe this.
And that is ok.

If it's that illogical, why do you believe it?

[xmas1997]

There are many seeds pretending to be plants.

[Blake]

And as the Divine Word of God it is inspired purely by accident into the perfection it is.

Is it an accident or is it inspired. Make up your silly mind.



As for the rest, the Bible is quite a miracle in its consistency, continuity, and brilliance. It came out just right in part by accident, but so be it.

the Bible says God is omnipotent and omniscient.

If the Bible was an accident, then he's not and the Bible fails right there.

[Skull-1]

Is it an accident or is it inspired. Make up your silly mind.



the Bible says God is omnipotent and omniscient.

If the Bible was an accident, then he's not and the Bible fails right there.

An accident by men, not by God, moron.

[Blake]

Correct. Parable.

(Oh, and it is REVELATION, Mister Smart Guy. It isn't plural. Apocalypse. Singular. And I am supposed to believe you have the slightest clue about anything scriptural? Don't make me laugh, rookie.)

Are you so stupid that you believe Jesus is gonna ride out of the sky on a horse? Don't fear the rapture. When he lands in NYC it will take him a few months to ride all the way to the west coast.


IDIOT.

But you believe Jesus rose from the dead, correct?

[Skull-1]

But you believe Jesus rose from the dead, correct?


He rises from the dead in every generation....

[Blake]

An accident by men, not by God, moron.

if it's divinely inspired, then it's no accident, moron.

You are trying to have it both ways. It makes you a moron, moron.

[Blake]

He rises from the dead in every generation....

so you're making fun of someone believing in Revelation singular, but you are serious about a street magician returning from the dead.

You're a phony and a hypocrite, tbh.

[Skull-1]

so you're making fun of someone believing in Revelation singular, but you are serious about a street magician returning from the dead.

You're a phony and a hypocrite, tbh.

Yawn. It is you who say I am.


Yawn.

[Skull-1]

if it's divinely inspired, then it's no accident, moron.

You are trying to have it both ways. It makes you a moron, moron.


It can be both. Just like literal things can also be parables. (Though not all parables can be literal.)


Dolt.

[Skull-1]

We are going round in the same circles. You and lumpydumbnuts are beyond help. Enjoy your little sand box.


Alpha Mike Foxtrot.

[Blake]

Yawn. It is you who say I am.


Yawn.

That makes about as much sense as believing in a God sending himself to kill himself in order to bring himself back from the dead.

Get back to more name calling, Christian. :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And as the Divine Word of God it is inspired purely by accident into the perfection it is. Constantine had no version. The canon was established over centuries and was fairly well codified even before the Council of Nicea.

You are not only stupid, you are ignorant. There are corrupt copies and there are those that are, best we can tell, true to their source. The two oldest extant have the same original source material (OSM) as the BMT does. Through careful examination and simple common sense the departures from the original can be spotted in the older texts, proving that the BMT is closest to the OSM. It isn't hard. But you're not that bright, soi guess it is hard...

As for the rest, the Bible is quite a miracle in its consistency, continuity, and brilliance. It came out just right in part by accident, but so be it.


Even then, the mystery remains. Scripture, as assembled, does not support a trinity. Yet that was the bias for many in assembling the canon. Funny that they assembled a canon that invalidates their bias. But again, only to those who can see.

Even with transcriptional errors the truth still comes through because of the massive number of failsafes built into it, but these are veiled, as God intended.

The BMT is as close to perfect compared to the non-existent OSM as there is, so far. Strangely enough, English translators pick and choose what version to use in different places, turning the truth of God into a lie as prophesied.

The Word of God is veiled. It is a mystery. Constantine and the rest merely served their prophetic purpose without realizing it.

Repeating your original arguments to my rebuttals doesn't contribute much. It just means you are not very creative nor quick thinking. That we have been at this for days speaks quite a bit about you for all of your comments about me being stupid and ignorant.

Lets go over issues you never address.

1) You grant that the copies prior to Constantine are not consistent. You grant that they are not all identical to your preferred copies commissioned by Constantine. You try and gloss that over by saying 'best we can tell' or your faith based mumbo jumbo but it still is what it is.

2) You still are completely unable to in any way respond to my points about the history for the first three centuries of the church. Rome was not sacked and the dark ages begin to roll until 100 years after Constantine commissioned the works you are so fond of. Nevertheless, it's not like the early christians were anything like the aristocrats that dominated theology post Constantine.

This led to two main issues. First was the fact that the religion of slaves and the subjugated is quite often not looked on fondly by the powers that be. Second, there was no central authority to prevent the various schisms that would occur. The early church was primarily comprised of bisphorics in major Mediterranean city states like the ones Paul wrote to. The denunciation of arianism is the one that is primarily pointed to but it was hardly the first and even less so the most violent. This was a brutal age in descent where disagreements ended up with factions literally impaled or dragged behind chariots through the streets.

What you characterize as 'inspired purely by accident' was the above. Who knows what the hell went on, what was changed, lost, or anything else. Playing like what Paul wrote to those early churches was held true much less the shit that was written before then is just laughable. Jesus couldn't write nor did he finish his Kabbalah.

But hey I am glad that you like your canon produced by 4th century politicians and how consistent it has been ever since.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Correct. Parable.

(Oh, and it is REVELATION, Mister Smart Guy. It isn't plural. Apocalypse. Singular. And I am supposed to believe you have the slightest clue about anything scriptural? Don't make me laugh, rookie.)

Are you so stupid that you believe Jesus is gonna ride out of the sky on a horse? Don't fear the rapture. When he lands in NYC it will take him a few months to ride all the way to the west coast.


IDIOT.

Are you so stupid you believe magic sky man impregnated Mary?
Are you so stupid you believe Jesus banished demons into pigs?
Are you so stupid you believe Jesus' heart and brain ceased functioning for over 48 hours and reanimated?

Your method of picking and choosing is not special. You just underscore how stupid the thing really is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

An accident by men, not by God, moron.

Way to tap dance around the theology of free will.

If I make my dog take a shit on the rug is it an accident? Your tap dancing around your belief in the resurrection is noted as well. Intellectual and spiritual cowardice all rolled into one.

[Blake]

http://162.243.26.248/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Stephen-Hawking-Supports-Assisted-Suicide1.jpg

"I have a restraining order against skull"

[jeebus]

http://i.imgur.com/u2nHs7Q.jpg

[Leetonidas]

Just gonna leave this here


It turns out that there is no archaeological evidence of any kind relating to a separate settlement of religious people in Egypt during that time. There is also no evidence of any kind relating to a mass migration across the Sinai Peninsula.

If things did indeed happen as it says in the Bible (and the Torah), there would have to be some archaeological evidence. But there is none.

Further, there is no evidence of any kind that Egypt even used slaves, and certainly no evidence that they enslaved an entire nation. The workers that built the pyramids are known to be well payed Egyptians. The pyramids weren’t even built in the right time period, being 800 to 2,000 years older than the supposed “Exodus”.

The same techniques used to track the migration patterns of ancient humans by examining DNA also show that there was absolutely no procreation between ancient Egyptians and ancient Israelites during the time that the story was supposed to have taken place. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if an entire nation was enslaved for hundreds of years, surely there would have been some inter-breeding.

In short, this story never happened.

And this isn’t even “news” – of course, the scientific community is across the subject, but even conservative Jewish sources admit that there is no evidence (but they still have faith! And some stuff about metaphors and such…)

[Skull-1]

Just gonna leave this here


Lee, since we are friends....


There was no Exodus. Moses did not part the Red Sea. I have maintained that consistently. It is a parable. The scriptures make that clear to anyone with spiritual eyes to see it (even an atheist can probably see it out of simple logic). Some of us have even lived that parable...

I was just like every other stupid Christian believing all of that stuff was literal. I read dozens of times the passages that say it isn't, but never noticed. But little by little I was shown the clues. Now I laugh at the folly of it. As a parable though, it is right on.

[Blake]

Lee, since we are friends....


There was no Exodus. Moses did not part the Red Sea. I have maintained that consistently. It is a parable. The scriptures make that clear to anyone with spiritual eyes to see it (even an atheist can probably see it out of simple logic). Some of us have even lived that parable...

I was just like every other stupid Christian believing all of that stuff was literal. I read dozens of times the passages that say it isn't, but never noticed. But little by little I was shown the clues. Now I laugh at the folly of it. As a parable though, it is right on.

Do you laugh at yourself for believing that Jesus rose from the dead?

If not I'll do the laughing for you.

Lol skull

[Leetonidas]

Lee, since we are friends....


There was no Exodus. Moses did not part the Red Sea. I have maintained that consistently. It is a parable. The scriptures make that clear to anyone with spiritual eyes to see it (even an atheist can probably see it out of simple logic). Some of us have even lived that parable...

I was just like every other stupid Christian believing all of that stuff was literal. I read dozens of times the passages that say it isn't, but never noticed. But little by little I was shown the clues. Now I laugh at the folly of it. As a parable though, it is right on.

I know it's just a story, the whole book is just stories. :lol It just seems odd for all these religious texts to be full of so much stuff that didn't happen or that are historically inaccurate. It's also weird that the authors of all these texts would purposely make it into some crazy hidden message you have to discover on your own. You got your own views, but I don't buy into that. When this was written thousands of years ago, it was meant literally and the people who followed believed that it was 100% fact.

Just to ask a question since you know a lot about da bible, from the versions I've read it seems like there is no really mention of the fall of Lucifer, it just kinda puts him as banished to hell to torture souls and corrupt people without explaining how it came to that. It's been awhile since I read it maybe I'm forgetting something but I don't remember reading that part

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So since there is no evidence of the parting of the red sea, the prophecy of the four horsemen of the apocolypse, or any of the other obvious bullshit does that mean God and Jesus and everything else that is claimed is also a 'parable' that we can mae to be whatever the hell that we feel like it. Or what you can interpret because your special?

Lies cop outs and cowardice. It's noted how you gave up on arguing the consistency of the texts. I guess that we can chalk those up to parables that are figurative. How about repentance and the 10 commandments. Or are you stupid enough to believe that God showed up to Moses in the form of the burning bush to hand down those commandments?

[DMC]

I don't expect you or any one else to believe this, and that is ok, but there is a new body of evidence from recent discoveries suggesting that Jesus actually did write a Gospel, and that is the Gospel of Thomas which has never been included in the modern or ancient Bible.
For those of you interested, look up "The Perennial Tradition". These are some of the deeper esoteric teachings of early Christianity from Paul, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Valentinus, and Marcion among others outlining a more gnostic or hidden view. Has anyone ever noticed how much different Paul's writings were from the others? This is no coincidence. Paul was versed in the esoteric teachings given him directly from Jesus.
However, it is the exoteric (public) view of Christianity that we have today which was given to us during Constantine's day and the Council of Nicea. And for the rank and file average everyday Christian, that is all that is needed.
Yet if one seeks, the esoterical teachings will be brought to him.
The Perennial Tradition is an esoteric (secret) tradition.
There are many seeds pretending to be plants.
I Am That I Am

Where is this "new evidence"?

[Skull-1]

I know it's just a story, the whole book is just stories. :lol It just seems odd for all these religious texts to be full of so much stuff that didn't happen or that are historically inaccurate. It's also weird that the authors of all these texts would purposely make it into some crazy hidden message you have to discover on your own. You got your own views, but I don't buy into that. When this was written thousands of years ago, it was meant literally and the people who followed believed that it was 100% fact.

Just to ask a question since you know a lot about da bible, from the versions I've read it seems like there is no really mention of the fall of Lucifer, it just kinda puts him as banished to hell to torture souls and corrupt people without explaining how it came to that. It's been awhile since I read it maybe I'm forgetting something but I don't remember reading that part

I have no doubts that people believed it literally. Christ set the record straight that it was not a literal history and Paul backed him up. ("For once God winked at people's ignorance, but no longer." - I forget where that is, but it is in the Epistles.) It is a parable and a prophecy that is repeated over and over and over again in every generation. Writing a literal history wouldn't have a FRACTION of the impact that a spiritual parable does.

(Some things I would consider historical, but perhaps not quite history--the Gospels and the Epistles contain a lot of stuff that I would consider firsthand accounts. But much of that also is a parable and a prophecy. Too much to get into at the moment, but, for example, Peter backsliding into the circumcision party and getting a chewing out by Paul likely happened--and happens to a certain few people in every generation.)

And don't worry about the whole Lucifer thing. It is just another parable. If you as someone who doesn't read the Bible gets confused......no disdain from me. But for people who have spent their entire lives in the "church" and think that there is some guy running around with horns and a pitchfork. LMAO. :)

[Skull-1]

For those who would like a more detailed description than I have been able to provide on some aspects of my argument. Reprinted without permission. Hopefully it is of some use to someone. I certainly enjoyed it. And yes, I am a proponent of the Majority Text for numerous reasons. What we read in our English Bible is not a pure translation of anything. It takes a lot of research to figure it all out. There are enough signposts and failsafes for the discerning reader, but one has to be careful.


(ALL EMPHASIS MINE.)


http://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/201...cfallview1.pdf (http://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/divorcemcfallview1.pdf)


LESSON 1:

The Alexandrian Text was a text, confined to Egypt, whereas the Majority
Text has been found throughout the Christian world, which means throughout the Roman Byzantine Empire (hence the alternative name for the Majority Text is the Byzantine Text). MS Aleph (or Codex Sinaiticus) is not to be trusted. It errs, and errs badly on occasions. Unfortunately the pool of MSS making up its Text-type (Alexandrian/Egyptian) is too small to know where it has departed from its text-type. For this reason, and in contradistinction to the Majority Text,
it is sometimes referred to as the Minority Text. It is in a minority as regards extant manuscript witnesses and geographical spread. This small base of manuscripts constitutes an inherent weakness in establishing what is the Egyptian/Alexandrian Text-type. The Majority Text, on the other hand,
does not have this inherent weakness because of the multiplicity of MSS in its pool, and its unbounded geographical spread. However, we lack a critical edition of both Text-types.

The NU88 text is basically the text of two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is the direct descendant of Westcott and Hort’s 1881 edition. This can be proved by the observation that in the Gospel of John the NU has altered the Westcott-Hort text in only 167 places (most of them spelling differences), and in every instance it has replaced those readings with the Majority Text. Westcott &
Hort worked on the simple rule that where B and a agreed, that was the original text. They departed from this rule on only eight occasions (all of them spelling differences).

An exact copy of the original text which had been exactly recopied for ten generations and is dated to 1000 years after Christ, is to be preferred to a first copy which was carelessly copied and which can be dated to 100 years after Christ. It is, therefore, a sound principle of textual criticism that the date of a manuscript has absolutely no bearing on its faithfulness to the original text. The date of a manuscript is meaningless and irrelevant. It is a common error among text-critics to assume that the older a manuscript is, the more faithful it is to the original text. The two concepts are unrelated.

LESSON 2:

Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament illustrates how we can all find a way of justifying our preferred reading. He was not making his comments from a neutral position. He made it known that he regarded the Aleph-B text as the nearest thing to the original text and he regarded the Byzantine Text as an inferior Text-type because he uncritically followed Hort’s subjective opinion (not based on facts) that the Majority Text was the creation of the Byzantine Church in the fifth century. This overriding, flawed assumption influenced every decision he made in his Commentary. We need a neutral commentary, not one whose set aim is to produce an eclectic text, but one which will explain how the Text-types come to differ from each other at each point of disagreement.

In the end, scholarship must choose between Text-types, not between MSS, and certainly not a pick-and-mix approach to establish the autograph text, as is done in all modern attempts to reconstruct the original text. The significance of the Majority Text is that it is not an eclectic text. Because of this feature it stands apart from all previous editions, revisions, and reconstructions of the Greek text of the New Testament.



THE SUPERIORITY OF THE MAJORITY TEXT

The object of this Appendix is to show that the Reformation Churches were misled in 1881 into giving up the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text, the Koine Text, the Textus Receptus, or simply MT90) in favour of a local Egyptian Text. The Egyptian text came into prominence through Westcott
and Hort in the late nineteenth century. Their text was based mainly (if not solely) on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The criterion used was, where these two manuscripts agreed against the MT, their text was to be preferred every time. This criterion still dominates all modern Greek texts of the New Testament.

Westcott and Hort succeeded in replacing the Majority Text with a local, Egyptian text using three false assumptions, namely, that the older a manuscript was the nearer it was to the original text. Secondly, that scribes were more likely to add words here and there in the copying process, than omit them. The latter criterion can be double-edged, in that if a copyist thinks this has happened to the copy he is about to re-copy and sets out to omit what he regards as redundancies, then he will end up with a shorter text, which is the case with the Egyptian text. It is about 3% shorter overall when compared to the MT. All modern English translations are based on this local, Egyptian text, which is a corrupt form of the Majority Text.

Their third assumption was that the Majority Text did not exist before the fifth century. They believed that it was created by an individual called Lucian. It is then postulated that his text was then taken up by the major centres of Christianity, particularly Constantinople, where it became the official text of the Church, resulting in the loss of almost all other text-types. There is no evidence for this conjecture. No modern scholar now accepts this concocted scenario, but it was accepted in 1881 as a probable fact, and the damage was done before it could be challenged. As a result the Revised Version of 1881 was not the revision of the Authorized Version that it was intended to be, but a version heavily influenced by Westcott and Hort’s new Greek text.


WHY SHOULD CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARS BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE EGYPTIAN TEXT?

The reason why the Egyptian text should not be accepted is that it is a corrupt text.

There are two blunders in the Egyptian Text that should alert all conservative-evangelical ministers of the Gospel to the nature of that corrupt text. In Matthew 27:49 Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have transported part of John 19:34 to this place. Their addition, which appears to have come from memory as the Greek words are in a different order, reads: “Now another taking a spear he plunged into his side and out came water and blood.” What betrays this addition as a blunder is the position where it was added in Matthew’s narrative. In John, it occurs after Jesus is dead, and the spear thrust was to make sure Jesus was dead. But in Matthew, it is added at a point where Jesus was still alive.


The second blunder in the Egyptian text occurs in Luke 4:44, where “Galilee” was replaced with “Judaea” in the Egyptian text, resulting in Jesus conducting two major preaching tours in two places at the same time. The error is found mainly in the local, Egyptian text. Apart from these obvious blunders, there are over 200 instances in the Gospels where the Egyptian text has omitted words due to homoioteleuthon (‘similar ending’). This mechanical error occurs when the same word occurs nearby and the scribe’s eye shifts forward to the same or similar word, resulting in an omission.

The sheer volume of these mechanical errors in the Egyptian text suggests that it goes back to an early, sloppy copy, or a rushed copy made by a careful scribe. There is also internal evidence that the copy from which all the Egyptian manuscripts are descended was made from an old, worn copy, which was unreadable in places. In these instances the scribe had to guess what the text read.

On top of these obvious blunders and scribal mistakes, there are, in addition, thousands of minor changes to the Majority Text, hundreds of which do not affect the translation, but the fact that these alterations were made at all should make one suspicious of following a scribe who is that careless in copying out the Word of God for the next generation.

In the following section it can be shown that: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, Sinaiticus agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, Vaticanus agrees with the MT. This means that all disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came about because one or other has departed from the Majority Text. The MT lies behind both manuscripts, and their differences are due entirely to their failure to reproduce it.

(SNIP)

There are about 9,166 differences between the Majority Text and the combined errors in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the four Gospels alone.

(A glaring error occurs in MS B which contradicts itself at Acts 10:19. There it states that two men came to visit Peter in Joppa, but in 11:11 it states there were three. It is the only manuscript to contain this contradiction.)

There are two important facts that emerge from a comparison of the texts of Eras, CP and MT. The first remarkable fact is that in only six cases do Eras, CP and MT all disagree. The second remarkable fact is the figure of 82 agreements between Eras and CP against the Majority Text. This shows that the Greek MSS consulted by Eras and CP came from a common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor four or five generations back, when these 82 divergences from the MT were introduced.

From these two totals we can make the following important observation: Wherever Erasmus differs from CP, CP agrees with the MT, and wherever CP differs from Erasmus, Erasmus agrees with the MT. This means that all disagreements between Erasmus and the Complutensian come about because one or other departs from the Majority Text.

Why is this important? The answer is that we find an identical situation between MS B (Codex Vaticanus), MS a (Codex Sinaiticus) and the Majority Text. This can be demonstrated from a comparison between Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Sin.) and the Majority Text (MT) in the Gospel of John. Three important facts emerge.

The first is that in only 29 cases do Vat., Sin., and MT all disagree.


The second fact is that Vat. and Sin. agree against the Majority Text in 666 cases. This shows that the text copied by Vat. and Sin. came from a common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor four or five generations back. If we deduct the 666 divergences from the MT—plus the 29 where they each disagree—from their combined disagreements with the MT, which is 1529 variants, we can make the following important observation: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, which happens 610 times, Sinaiticus agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, which happens 890 times, Vaticanus agrees with the MT.

An identical study was carried out on Luke’s Gospel which produced the same pattern. There are 14 cases where Vat., Sin., and MT all disagree. The second fact is that Vat. and Sin. agree against the Majority Text in 1157 cases. It is this large number of shared disagreements that constitutes the Egyptian Text as a distinct text-type, and so distinguishes it from the MT. These shared disagreements are found in the local Egyptian text (*95).

(*95 - It was never a universal text, like the MT. This shows that the text copied by Vat. and Sin. came from a local, Egyptian common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor going back to the second century.)


If in Luke we deduct the figure of 643 divergences of Vaticanus from the MT—plus the 14 where they each disagree—from their (B+a) combined disagreements with the MT, which is 1425 variants, we can make the following significant observation: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, which happens 643 times in Luke, Sinaiticus always agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, which happens 768 times, Vaticanus always agrees with the MT.

The conclusion is inescapable, namely, all disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus come about because one or other departs from the Majority Text.

In the copying of Luke, Sinaiticus has moved further way from the text of
Vaticanus, which is closer to the MT. It is the same in the copying of John. Sinaiticus has moved further way from the text of Vaticanus, which is closer to the MT. The same goes for Matthew and Mark; Vaticanus is closer to the Majority Text.

(SNIP)

The only English version I would recommend at the present time is the New King James Version (NKJV), but it can only be a stop gap translation because it does not translate the Majority Text as its main text. We need to lay the TR aside and give a straight translation of the Majority Text to the next generation.

[Skull-1]

So since there is no evidence of the parting of the red sea, the prophecy of the four horsemen of the apocolypse, or any of the other obvious bullshit does that mean God and Jesus and everything else that is claimed is also a 'parable' that we can mae to be whatever the hell that we feel like it. Or what you can interpret because your special?

Lies cop outs and cowardice. It's noted how you gave up on arguing the consistency of the texts. I guess that we can chalk those up to parables that are figurative. How about repentance and the 10 commandments. Or are you stupid enough to believe that God showed up to Moses in the form of the burning bush to hand down those commandments?


Hey, dumba--. We're done. Got it? I already explained it through Christ and Paul's own words as clearly as can be shown. Your failure to comprehend is not a failure of the facts. Toss all the lies you want my way. I have explained it plainly and simply. You obviously cannot read. Might wanna' check on that Axis 1 Disorder of yours.

The discussion is over.

HE WHO HAS EARS LET HIM HEAR.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey, dumba--. We're done. Got it? I already explained it through Christ and Paul's own words as clearly as can be shown. Your failure to comprehend is not a failure of the facts. Toss all the lies you want my way. I have explained it plainly and simply. You obviously cannot read. Might wanna' check on that Axis 1 Disorder of yours.

The discussion is over.

HE WHO HAS EARS LET HIM HEAR.

And yet again with the claim of an argument having been made and no argument. Your bible is only 'consistent' after a certain point and that point was was constantine's commision. We still have no idea what happened after what was a very dark period of chistianity in the interim. You can quote Paul in galatians saying that he ws inspired by Jesus but Jesus ws still dead at that point. Are you stupid enough to think that dead people talk to the living?

You may want me to b e done but as long as you come one here saying stupid things, I am going to call you on them. You are not my audience so deal with it because not even putting me on ignore will stop me. You notice how people have come on here and talked about what I have had to say? That is why I do this and not for your cowardly Christianity of convenience. I know your emotionally crippled ass will lie and front. It's what your type does. You are not unique and its what people like you do. We have gone down the checklist and you meet the criteria.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

MS Aleph (or Codex Sinaiticus) is not to be trusted. It errs, and errs badly on occasions. Unfortunately the pool of MSS making up its Text-type (Alexandrian/Egyptian) is too small to know where it has departed from its text-type. For this reason, and in contradistinction to the Majority Text,
it is sometimes referred to as the Minority Text. It is in a minority as regards extant manuscript witnesses and geographical spread. This small base of manuscripts constitutes an inherent weakness in establishing what is the Egyptian/Alexandrian Text-type. The Majority Text, on the other hand,
does not have this inherent weakness because of the multiplicity of MSS in its pool, and its unbounded geographical spread. However, we lack a critical edition of both Text-types.

Way to not think for yourself.

This is stupid. It should read: we will discard this because its inconvenient to our narrative. That it is older should and thus closer to the original should mean that it is closer to the original but in your brain the one that has been passed down 900 more years is the one to be trusted. If nothing else it underscores the point that has been made from the beginning: they are not consistent. As I pointed out: confirmation bias and might as well throw in plain stupid logic.


The NU88 text is basically the text of two manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It is the direct descendant of Westcott and Hort’s 1881 edition. This can be proved by the observation that in the Gospel of John the NU has altered the Westcott-Hort text in only 167 places (most of them spelling differences), and in every instance it has replaced those readings with the Majority Text. Westcott &
Hort worked on the simple rule that where B and a agreed, that was the original text. They departed from this rule on only eight occasions (all of them spelling differences).

An exact copy of the original text which had been exactly recopied for ten generations and is dated to 1000 years after Christ, is to be preferred to a first copy which was carelessly copied and which can be dated to 100 years after Christ. It is, therefore, a sound principle of textual criticism that the date of a manuscript has absolutely no bearing on its faithfulness to the original text. The date of a manuscript is meaningless and irrelevant. It is a common error among text-critics to assume that the older a manuscript is, the more faithful it is to the original text. The two concepts are unrelated.

A later copy differs from an early copy and so we should conclude that the new copy is the valid one. That is just stupid. You can call it a 'common error' but in the world I live in the closer to the source you are the more reliable it is. But again it still underscores the point: they are not the same and deviate to a significant degree.


Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament illustrates how we can all find a way of justifying our preferred reading. He was not making his comments from a neutral position. He made it known that he regarded the Aleph-B text as the nearest thing to the original text and he regarded the Byzantine Text as an inferior Text-type because he uncritically followed Hort’s subjective opinion (not based on facts) that the Majority Text was the creation of the Byzantine Church in the fifth century. This overriding, flawed assumption influenced every decision he made in his Commentary. We need a neutral commentary, not one whose set aim is to produce an eclectic text, but one which will explain how the Text-types come to differ from each other at each point of disagreement.

In the end, scholarship must choose between Text-types, not between MSS, and certainly not a pick-and-mix approach to establish the autograph text, as is done in all modern attempts to reconstruct the original text. The significance of the Majority Text is that it is not an eclectic text. Because of this feature it stands apart from all previous editions, revisions, and reconstructions of the Greek text of the New Testament.

The part that I get from this is that this guy think that we shouldn't bother recreating the original. Do I need to walk you through why that is asinine and further how it blows your notion that the text has been faithfully reproduced.


The object of this Appendix is to show that the Reformation Churches were misled in 1881 into giving up the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text, the Koine Text, the Textus Receptus, or simply MT90) in favour of a local Egyptian Text. The Egyptian text came into prominence through Westcott
and Hort in the late nineteenth century. Their text was based mainly (if not solely) on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The criterion used was, where these two manuscripts agreed against the MT, their text was to be preferred every time. This criterion still dominates all modern Greek texts of the New Testament.

Westcott and Hort succeeded in replacing the Majority Text with a local, Egyptian text using three false assumptions, namely, that the older a manuscript was the nearer it was to the original text. Secondly, that scribes were more likely to add words here and there in the copying process, than omit them. The latter criterion can be double-edged, in that if a copyist thinks this has happened to the copy he is about to re-copy and sets out to omit what he regards as redundancies, then he will end up with a shorter text, which is the case with the Egyptian text. It is about 3% shorter overall when compared to the MT. All modern English translations are based on this local, Egyptian text, which is a corrupt form of the Majority Text.

So basically his text is to be preferred because he says so? That's nice.


Their third assumption was that the Majority Text did not exist before the fifth century. They believed that it was created by an individual called Lucian. It is then postulated that his text was then taken up by the major centres of Christianity, particularly Constantinople, where it became the official text of the Church, resulting in the loss of almost all other text-types. There is no evidence for this conjecture. No modern scholar now accepts this concocted scenario, but it was accepted in 1881 as a probable fact, and the damage was done before it could be challenged. As a result the Revised Version of 1881 was not the revision of the Authorized Version that it was intended to be, but a version heavily influenced by Westcott and Hort’s new Greek text.

Well we know it didn't exist prior to 300 Ad so as for our disucssion who cares.



WHY SHOULD CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARS BE SUSPICIOUS OF THE EGYPTIAN TEXT?

The reason why the Egyptian text should not be accepted is that it is a corrupt text.

There are two blunders in the Egyptian Text that should alert all conservative-evangelical ministers of the Gospel to the nature of that corrupt text. In Matthew 27:49 Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have transported part of John 19:34 to this place. Their addition, which appears to have come from memory as the Greek words are in a different order, reads: “Now another taking a spear he plunged into his side and out came water and blood.” What betrays this addition as a blunder is the position where it was added in Matthew’s narrative. In John, it occurs after Jesus is dead, and the spear thrust was to make sure Jesus was dead. But in Matthew, it is added at a point where Jesus was still alive.

So a piece of one gospel in a later work is shown to be moved in the newer work and the presumption is that the movement is the fault of the older work. What do confirmation bias mean? The logic is just plain retarded.



The second blunder in the Egyptian text occurs in Luke 4:44, where “Galilee” was replaced with “Judaea” in the Egyptian text, resulting in Jesus conducting two major preaching tours in two places at the same time. The error is found mainly in the local, Egyptian text. Apart from these obvious blunders, there are over 200 instances in the Gospels where the Egyptian text has omitted words due to homoioteleuthon (‘similar ending’). This mechanical error occurs when the same word occurs nearby and the scribe’s eye shifts forward to the same or similar word, resulting in an omission.

He has no basis as to why the 'egyptians scribes' did a damn thing. Fronting like he did is fun but it like most of his conclusions are based on nothing more than wishful thinking or at best logic that is not mutually exclusive with other possibilities. This guy over and over blaming the older text for being wrong when they differ over and again is mindboggling.


The sheer volume of these mechanical errors in the Egyptian text suggests that it goes back to an early, sloppy copy, or a rushed copy made by a careful scribe. There is also internal evidence that the copy from which all the Egyptian manuscripts are descended was made from an old, worn copy, which was unreadable in places. In these instances the scribe had to guess what the text read.

What a convenient self serving theory. Your guy is quite the sophist. Maybe the very original copy was shitty to begin with or any other possibility. All of these points he is making are bsed on unsubstantiated assumption. It's obvious what he wants to believe and its sophistry at its finest the whole way.


On top of these obvious blunders and scribal mistakes, there are, in addition, thousands of minor changes to the Majority Text, hundreds of which do not affect the translation, but the fact that these alterations were made at all should make one suspicious of following a scribe who is that careless in copying out the Word of God for the next generation.

It just doesn't stop. There is no basis for this other than it would be nice for his conclusion if that was the case.


In the following section it can be shown that: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, Sinaiticus agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, Vaticanus agrees with the MT. This means that all disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus came about because one or other has departed from the Majority Text. The MT lies behind both manuscripts, and their differences are due entirely to their failure to reproduce it.

(SNIP)

The conclusion that should be drawn from this is that none of them can be trusted. Seeing how these were put together in the first place I would take from it that they were all doctored and untrustworthy and not that one of them is good even though they all are dissimilar. That is just my assumtion though and there is no basis for that. In the end who the hell knows.


There are about 9,166 differences between the Majority Text and the combined errors in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the four Gospels alone.

Mind you that these are only 3 copies and you are here granting the argument that has been made from the beginning. You picking an author that likes one best and willing to go sophist to conclude it notwithstanding.


(A glaring error occurs in MS B which contradicts itself at Acts 10:19. There it states that two men came to visit Peter in Joppa, but in 11:11 it states there were three. It is the only manuscript to contain this contradiction.)

There are two important facts that emerge from a comparison of the texts of Eras, CP and MT. The first remarkable fact is that in only six cases do Eras, CP and MT all disagree. The second remarkable fact is the figure of 82 agreements between Eras and CP against the Majority Text. This shows that the Greek MSS consulted by Eras and CP came from a common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor four or five generations back, when these 82 divergences from the MT were introduced.

From these two totals we can make the following important observation: Wherever Erasmus differs from CP, CP agrees with the MT, and wherever CP differs from Erasmus, Erasmus agrees with the MT. This means that all disagreements between Erasmus and the Complutensian come about because one or other departs from the Majority Text.

Why is this important? The answer is that we find an identical situation between MS B (Codex Vaticanus), MS a (Codex Sinaiticus) and the Majority Text. This can be demonstrated from a comparison between Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (Sin.) and the Majority Text (MT) in the Gospel of John. Three important facts emerge.

The first is that in only 29 cases do Vat., Sin., and MT all disagree.


The second fact is that Vat. and Sin. agree against the Majority Text in 666 cases. This shows that the text copied by Vat. and Sin. came from a common ancestor, albeit probably an ancestor four or five generations back. If we deduct the 666 divergences from the MT—plus the 29 where they each disagree—from their combined disagreements with the MT, which is 1529 variants, we can make the following important observation: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, which happens 610 times, Sinaiticus agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, which happens 890 times, Vaticanus agrees with the MT.

An identical study was carried out on Luke’s Gospel which produced the same pattern. There are 14 cases where Vat., Sin., and MT all disagree. The second fact is that Vat. and Sin. agree against the Majority Text in 1157 cases. It is this large number of shared disagreements that constitutes the Egyptian Text as a distinct text-type, and so distinguishes it from the MT. These shared disagreements are found in the local Egyptian text (*95).

(It was never a universal text, like the MT. This shows that the text copied by Vat. and Sin. came from a local, Egyptian common ancestor, albeitprobably an ancestor going back to the second century.)


If in Luke we deduct the figure of 643 divergences of Vaticanus from the MT—plus the 14 where they each disagree—from their (B+a) combined disagreements with the MT, which is 1425 variants, we can make the following significant observation: Wherever Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus, which happens 643 times in Luke, Sinaiticus always agrees with the MT, and wherever Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, which happens 768 times, Vaticanus always agrees with the MT.

The conclusion is inescapable, namely, all disagreements between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus come about because one or other departs from the Majority Text.

In the copying of Luke, Sinaiticus has moved further way from the text of
Vaticanus, which is closer to the MT. It is the same in the copying of John. Sinaiticus has moved further way from the text of Vaticanus, which is closer to the MT. The same goes for Matthew and Mark; Vaticanus is closer to the Majority Text.

(SNIP)

The only English version I would recommend at the present time is the New King James Version (NKJV), but it can only be a stop gap translation because it does not translate the Majority Text as its main text. We need to lay the TR aside and give a straight translation of the Majority Text to the next generation.[/quote]

This si just more of the same assumptions and wishful thinking. Changes are made and it is the older copy that is flawed blah blah blah blah according tot his guy. He obviously has other scholars that disagree with him -surprise surprise- but he at no point provides certainty in anything. He wants to be lieve what he wants to believe just like our resident narcissist.

[Skull-1]

And yet again with the claim of an argument having been made and no argument. Your bible is only 'consistent' after a certain point and that point was was constantine's commision. We still have no idea what happened after what was a very dark period of chistianity in the interim. You can quote Paul in galatians saying that he ws inspired by Jesus but Jesus ws still dead at that point. Are you stupid enough to think that dead people talk to the living?

You may want me to b e done but as long as you come one here saying stupid things, I am going to call you on them. You are not my audience so deal with it because not even putting me on ignore will stop me. You notice how people have come on here and talked about what I have had to say? That is why I do this and not for your cowardly Christianity of convenience. I know your emotionally crippled ass will lie and front. It's what your type does. You are not unique and its what people like you do. We have gone down the checklist and you meet the criteria. You are absolutely the most ridiculous and vapid douchebag it has ever been my displeasure to run up against. 1) The truth is learned one of two ways: direct revelation, which Paul had, or through an Apostle (teacher). Paul said Christ taught him everything and I believe it. Divine inspiration is an amazing thing. 2) Biblical canon did not begin nor end with Constantine so get off his nuts already. 3) The "Constantine Influence" has much in it that defies scripture, even in the current, non-BMT translations, so looks like his plans backfired any way. You're just too stupid to see it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are absolutely the most ridiculous and vapid douchebag it has ever been my displeasure to run up against. 1) The truth is learned one of two ways: direct revelation, which Paul had, or through an Apostle (teacher). Paul said Christ taught him everything and I believe it. Divine inspiration is an amazing thing. 2) Biblical canon did not begin nor end with Constantine so get off his nuts already. 3) The "Constantine Influence" has much in it that defies scripture, even in the current, non-BMT translations, so looks like his plans backfired any way. You're just too stupid to see it.

If you are going to insult me and actually have me care I would recommend actually referring to reality and applying it to me and not just mindless flails. For example coming up with a list of symptoms of a severe mental disorder and identifying traits and how your behavior specificly matches them. All you are doing is make me laugh at you at this point because you are acting like an angry 12 year old. You see this behavior in middle school.

Of course you don't like me. I imagine that given your disorder, my questioning you probably downright infuriates you. As I said you are not unique or novel in your behavior.

You can believe whatever you like there is still no objective basis for said belief and as you continually refuse to even address: Jesus was still dead.

So lets just be clear here though: are you so stupid that you believe dead people talk to the living?

[Skull-1]

The conclusion that should be drawn from this is that none of them can be trusted. Seeing how these were put together in the first place I would take from it that they were all doctored and untrustworthy and not that one of them is good even though they all are dissimilar. That is just my assumtion though and there is no basis for that. In the end who the hell knows.

Two things we can somewhat agree upon, at least. Finally. Although I have more trust in the BMT than any other. (And yet, not matter how any of them are translated, one with spiritual eyes still can connect and align all the dots. One who can't see can't see. Simple as that. There are simply too many correlating passages to fool everyone. The TR is garbage. Most modern translations do not lean at all on the BMT. Yet even with that, the truth is still in there--although translational bias creates errors that aren't even in the Alexandrian/Egyptian Texts.)

[Skull-1]

Of course you don't like me. I imagine that given your disorder, my questioning you probably downright infuriates you. As I said you are not unique or novel in your behavior.

You can believe whatever you like there is still no objective basis for said belief and as you continually refuse to even address: Jesus was still dead.

So lets just be clear here though: are you so stupid that you believe dead people talk to the living?I believe Christ is alive. I believe He is alive in every generation to those who are IN CHRIST. I believe His spirit, combined with God's is the Holy Spirit. And I believe that He revealed all of the mysteries to Paul who wrote them in a form few understand--even when he wrote plainly. Call it stupid. I call it faith. And to quote you (EDIT IN: To borrow a phrase from you:) : "Who the hell knows?" We will all find out one day--or be worm food and it would obviously be irrelevant at that point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe Christ is alive. I believe He is alive in every generation to those who are IN CHRIST. I believe His spirit, combined with God's is the Holy Spirit. And I believe that He revealed all of the mysteries to Paul who wrote them in a form few understand--even when he wrote plainly. Call it stupid. I call it faith. And to quote you: "Who the hell knows?" We will all find out one day--or be worm food and it would obviously be irrelevant at that point.

I said who the hell knows in regards to the formation of canon. Pauls teaching and constnat denunciation of pretty much everything external is a far cry of the suppers of Jesus but who cares. He was just an early leader of the church and if you want to say he was closer to God so you can act like what he said is the word of God then that is your thing. The only basis for that is because Paul says so.

I don't really care what you want to take literally and what you choose to take figuratively. My contempt for that approach remains the same. You are a Christian of convenience.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Two things we can somewhat agree upon, at least. Finally. Although I have more trust in the BMT than any other. (And yet, not matter how any of them are translated, one with spiritual eyes still can connect and align all the dots. One who can't see can't see. Simple as that. There are simply too many correlating passages to fool everyone. The TR is garbage. Most modern translations do not lean at all on the BMT. Yet even with that, the truth is still in there--although translational bias creates errors that aren't even in the Alexandrian/Egyptian Texts.)

Great so you admit that the manuscripts that we have are not consistent. Way to coming around to the premise of the OP.

You can call it crap all you like but it still dates the oldest, predates constantines commission and differs the most. A valid theory is that the Byzantine aristocracy took all manner of liberties.

[Skull-1]

I said who the hell knows in regards to the formation of canon. Pauls teaching and constnat denunciation of pretty much everything external is a far cry of the suppers of Jesus but who cares. He was just an early leader of the church and if you want to say he was closer to God so you can act like what he said is the word of God then that is your thing. The only basis for that is because Paul says so.

I don't really care what you want to take literally and what you choose to take figuratively. My contempt for that approach remains the same. You are a Christian of convenience.I know what you said, MORON. I just quoted it to make a totally different point. Paul is right down the line with Christ. I have no reason to disbelieve him. But there is that theory that he hijacked the faith. Oh well. If God wants me deceived then I'll be deceived.

And no, I am not a Christian of convenience. The scriptures make it quite clear to me what is literal and what is not. That you don't or can't isn't my problem, and I don't give a sh*t where it came from. It works. You are blind and that's not my concern. But the consistency is there and I see it plain as day. Also, despite my preference for the Majority Text, it is rarely, if ever, used, even to translate small passages in "modern" translations (all flawed for their own reasons and in their own ways).

I believe the Bible turned out the way it is because it was supposed to. Exodus 25 is pointed to even by blind christians as evidence of that. I don’t think Constantine was that smart.

[Skull-1]

Great so you admit that the manuscripts that we have are not consistent. Way to coming around to the premise of the OP.

You can call it crap all you like but it still dates the oldest, predates constantines commission and differs the most. A valid theory is that the Byzantine aristocracy took all manner of liberties.We have a lot more inconsistency with the bias of the "modern" translators than we do with any damned BMT/ALEXANDRIAN differences. Also, considering all the "modern" translations effectively ignore the BMT, I won't blame anything on it. THE OP POSITED A FALSE ARGUMENT. IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE SPIRITUAL ASPECTS ADDRESSED.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I know what you said, moron. I just quoted it to make a totally different point. And no, I am not a Christian of convenience. The scriptures make it quite clear to me what is literal and what is not. That you don't or can't isn't my problem, and I don't give a sh*t where it came from. It works. You are blind and that's not my concern. But the consistency is there and I see it plain as day. Also, despite my preference for the Majority Text, it is rarely, if ever, used, even to translate small passages in "modern" translations (all flawed for their own reasons and in their own ways).

You said it ws like I said. It wasn't like I said because that wasn't what I was talking about. Posture all you like.

I know Paul would have hated your picking and choosing. I imagine you would have been impaled or the like.


But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Christianity of convenience.

[Skull-1]

I edited that post so you might want to look again.

[Skull-1]

You said it ws like I said. It wasn't like I said because that wasn't what I was talking about. Posture all you like.

I know Paul would have hated your picking and choosing. I imagine you would have been impaled or the like.



Christianity of convenience. I used your words to make a different point. Are you that stupid? How about: "To borrow a phrase from you:"? Will that make you happy, D'bag?


As for that passage… What’s your point? How does that in any way point to convenience? Do you even know what those verses mean? Not the best translation, but in no way would that apply here.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I edited that post so you might want to look again.

I don't really care. You are so incredibly full of shit and wishful thinking.

Constantine commissioned the work. He didn't do it himself. Either way making shit up about him is fun I guess.

But lets not lose sight that Jesus was dead when Paul was doing his thing. The works of scripture are not consistent at all and you just have one you like more than the others. That is the point of the OP. My contempt for you is just an aside.

You were wrong and you admitted it finally.

[Skull-1]

I don't really care. You are so incredibly full of shit and wishful thinking.

Constantine commissioned the work. He didn't do it himself. Either way making shit up about him is fun I guess.

But lets not lose sight that Jesus was dead when Paul was doing his thing. The works of scripture are not consistent at all and you just have one you like more than the others. That is the point of the OP. My contempt for you is just an aside.

You were wrong and you admitted it finally.You don't care, yet here you are going around and around with me in a phone booth knifefight, getting your ass hosed left and right. Then you run back to mama and try again but you ignore all the ass kickings you've received. Your puffed up posturing just shows the empty suit you are. And, no, I am not wrong. The scriptures are veiled and the supposed "errors" are gnats that you guys strain. They're not relevant. They change NOTHING. The spiritual truth remains.

My contempt for you glows like lava. Don't think it doesn't.

The works are consistent because even the so-called "errors" were prophesied and have a purpose, which is to veil the truth and trip people like you up. That's what God does. I prefer one over the others for valid reasons, but even the versions I consider inferior--namely the Egyptian/Alexandrian Texts and their English translations (I use them any way with a critical eye because that's the majority of what I have to work with)--are remarkable in their spiritual consistency. Profound, actually. A few verses slip through the cracks here and there but I catch them. It is the modern English translators that I have a problem with, like the idiots who came out with the NIV. It just makes it that much harder for people to see the visible things...

Jesus was (physically?) dead, but His spirit most certainly wasn't, and isn't. That's the faith part. And isn't it a bitch for sh*tstirring little worms like you that people have faith? When you don't have enough faith in yourself not to waste all your free time trying to disprove them of same? LMFAO. MORON.

"The Work?" You are such a douchebag. Constantine had far less influence than you think and nobody even knows if the Bibles he "commissioned" were ever even printed, much less what was contained in them. They most certainly weren't the present canon. That took centuries to develop. You really are a clueless ass. Ass being an understatement.

[Blake]

You don't care, yet here you are going around and around with me in a phone booth knifefight, getting your ass hosed left and right. Then you run back to mama and try again but you ignore all the ass kickings you've received. Your puffed up posturing just shows the empty suit you are. And, no, I am not wrong. The scriptures are veiled and the supposed "errors" are gnats that you guys strain. They're not relevant. They change NOTHING. The spiritual truth remains.

My contempt for you glows like lava. Don't think it doesn't.

The works are consistent because even the so-called "errors" were prophesied and have a purpose, which is to veil the truth and trip people like you up. That's what God does. I prefer one over the others for valid reasons, but even the versions I consider inferior--namely the Egyptian/Alexandrian Texts and their English translations (I use them any way with a critical eye because that's the majority of what I have to work with)--are remarkable in their spiritual consistency. Profound, actually. A few verses slip through the cracks here and there but I catch them. It is the modern English translators that I have a problem with, like the idiots who came out with the NIV. It just makes it that much harder for people to see the visible things...

Jesus was (physically?) dead, but His spirit most certainly wasn't, and isn't. That's the faith part. And isn't it a bitch for sh*tstirring little worms like you that people have faith? When you don't have enough faith in yourself not to waste all your free time trying to disprove them of same? LMFAO. MORON.

"The Work?" You are such a douchebag. Constantine had far less influence than you think and nobody even knows if the Bibles he "commissioned" were ever even printed, much less what was contained in them. They most certainly weren't the present canon. That took centuries to develop. You really are a clueless ass. Ass being an understatement.

So what's the extra reward for you and others like you that know the truth

[Skull-1]

So what's the extra reward for you and others like you that know the truthA lifetime of arguing with douchebags like you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't care, yet here you are going around and around with me in a phone booth knifefight, getting your ass hosed left and right. Then you run back to mama and try again but you ignore all the ass kickings you've received. Your puffed up posturing just shows the empty suit you are. And, no, I am not wrong. The scriptures are veiled and the supposed "errors" are gnats that you guys strain. They're not relevant. They change NOTHING. The spiritual truth remains.

My contempt for you glows like lava. Don't think it doesn't.

The works are consistent because even the so-called "errors" were prophesied and have a purpose, which is to veil the truth and trip people like you up. That's what God does. I prefer one over the others for valid reasons, but even the versions I consider inferior--namely the Egyptian/Alexandrian Texts and their English translations (I use them any way with a critical eye because that's the majority of what I have to work with)--are remarkable in their spiritual consistency. Profound, actually. A few verses slip through the cracks here and there but I catch them. It is the modern English translators that I have a problem with, like the idiots who came out with the NIV. It just makes it that much harder for people to see the visible things...

Jesus was (physically?) dead, but His spirit most certainly wasn't, and isn't. That's the faith part. And isn't it a bitch for sh*tstirring little worms like you that people have faith? When you don't have enough faith in yourself not to waste all your free time trying to disprove them of same? LMFAO. MORON.

"The Work?" You are such a douchebag. Constantine had far less influence than you think and nobody even knows if the Bibles he "commissioned" were ever even printed, much less what was contained in them. They most certainly weren't the present canon. That took centuries to develop. You really are a clueless ass. Ass being an understatement.

:lol I said I don't care about your edit. I later said that I had contempt for you. Think about it and try again. you can characterize it as a knife fight all you like but which one of us has had people come in and say that they agree that you have not responded to my points or that they find your approach to drive them away from your positions?

And people can have faith in whatever they want. I am fine with it when they keep it to themselves. Have fun coming up to me at random and proselytizing though. I only really take issue when people try and proselytize or effect policy.

Constantine did commission the work. You keep referencing the Byzantines but wtf do you think the Byzantine empire was? No sense of history whatsoever. I get that you are going to believe what you believe but as long as you keep trying to push it on others especiallyin the way that you do, I am going to mock and deride you. It is what it is.

[Blake]

A lifetime of arguing with douchebags like you.

oh cool, a zinger.

Seriously, what's in it for you to know the truth compared to not knowing

[Skull-1]

:lol I said I don't care about your edit. I later said that I had contempt for you. Think about it and try again. you can characterize it as a knife fight all you like but which one of us has had people come in and say that they agree that you have not responded to my points or that they find your approach to drive them away from your positions?

And people can have faith in whatever they want. I am fine with it when they keep it to themselves. Have fun coming up to me at random and proselytizing though. I only really take issue when people try and proselytize or effect policy.

Constantine did commission the work. You keep referencing the Byzantines but wtf do you think the Byzantine empire was? No sense of history whatsoever. I get that you are going to believe what you believe but as long as you keep trying to push it on others especiallyin the way that you do, I am going to mock and deride you. It is what it is.
I know what you said, MORON. It was just as stupid and useless as everything else you have said. I simply highlighted your Freudian slip. You don't care, yet here you are. Interesting. (And don't get too big a head because the crowd is on your side, there, Barabbas<s>. The crowd was always wrong--and that which has been is that which shall be.)

I will also note that I only commented in this thread because a question was asked. I don't proselytize. I do attempt to effect policy, but that is through the lens of the Constitution and individual liberty.

Constantine started a process that he never completed. We wound up with a creed and some b.s. about the Trinity that defies scripture yet is to this day treated as fact.

You mock and deride, but you do not do so from a position of strength, fact, or intelligence, rather, from weakness, ill-informed opinion, and ignorance. Instead of having contempt for you I should consider pity. Make an ass of yourself mocking me all you wish. I have repeatedly made my points, and while you are free to disagree on man's flawed history of all this stuff, you are not free to disagree with the spiritual things I have laid down. You may disbelieve them, but they are ironclad, air tight, and beyond reproach. You can't see them, but that's expected. You are a carnal, ignorant beast who quotes verses he doesn't even understand--and out of context no less.........and you are not within my jurisdiction any way, so I am not concerned with what you do or disbelieve. NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

I don't care what any of your braindead friends think or say in regard to your posts, nor do I care that nobody wants to listen to what I say. That's prophecy. It is supposed to be that way, otherwise it wouldn't be "FEW" who find the truth. I wandered in the desert wilderness of "Christianity" for forty years to find even a glimpse of truth and be able to understand it. Expecting anyone to get it after ten days on a message board is a bridge too far.

[Skull-1]

oh cool, a zinger.

Seriously, what's in it for you to know the truth compared to not knowingDon't worry about it. I know. You don't. Better yet... Go look it up. You are such a Bible critic it should be easy to find. You and lumpyfuzzyforeskins break out your Bibles and do a circle jerk.

[Blake]

Don't worry about it. I know. You don't. Better yet... Go look it up. You are such a Bible critic it should be easy to find. You and lumpyfuzzyforeskins break out your Bibles and do a circle jerk.

Right, I know what's in the Bible, but I want your opinion:

What do you believe will happen to you after you die

[Skull-1]

Right, I know what's in the Bible, but I want your opinion:

What do you believe will happen to you after you die
Don't worry about it. You don't want to know anything. Neither does your ignorant pal. (I WILL NOT WILL NOT WILL NOT be walking through pearly gates on streets of gold, any way, I'll say that much at least.)

[Blake]

Don't worry about it. (I won't be walking through pearly gates on streets of gold, any way.)

I'm not worried, just curious.

Why are you so scared to share your opinion on the after life?