African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

It depends. Subscribing to Christianity can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The core tenet of believing Jesus as Messiah & and in Bible God & the Holy Spirit are just a few aspect of it. It's religious & philosophical, one can subscribe to either or both, and be called a Christian, depending on who you ask.

---

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

---

What exactly are you addressing?

I wish you'd reign in your tendency to eagerly demonstrate your incredible breadth of knowledge where it isn't pertinent and/or is based on presumption, in the interest of clarity. Half the time I've spent talking with you I've annoyingly had to debunk your distortions of me or something I said.

Here, I don't know if you've beef with something I said, or a misinterpretation/distortion of what I said. From what I can tell it's the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

What exactly are you addressing?

I wish you'd reign in your tendency to eagerly demonstrate your incredible breadth of knowledge where it isn't pertinent and/or is based on presumption, in the interest of clarity. Half the time I've spent talking with you I've annoyingly had to debunk your distortions of me or something I said.

Here, I don't know if you've beef with something I said, or a misinterpretation/distortion of what I said. From what I can tell it's the latter.

---

I'm addressing the historical context of your Bible. You asked why I spoke against the book and I explained. I told you what books of the Bible I didn't like and why. I explained the historical context from whence the book came. I outlined the traditions from which your covenants came.

My opinions on your religion are detailed and cannot be simply explained. Everything I am talking about is factual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

I'm addressing the historical context of your Bible. You asked why I spoke against the book and I explained. I told you what books of the Bible I didn't like and why. I explained the historical context from whence the book came. I outlined the traditions from which your covenants came.

My opinions on your religion are detailed and cannot be simply explained. Everything I am talking about is factual.

---

You know, you keep labeling me something I'm not. Even after telling to you that I'm not a Christian, you continue to label me as such. Hell, if I'm a Christian I may as well be a Muslim, Hindu & Buddhist too! Which wouldn't make any sense. It's hysterical actually.

And of course, none of this can be simply explained. I don't need you to tell me that. My entire point from the beginning was that none of this is easily explained. Thanks for making my point.

And no, not all of what you have said is factual. Not all Christians are stupid, in fact. And I'm not a Christian. So you're wrong in saying you've been factual in everything you've said. The facts you've stated otherwise don't mean anything in and of themselves. You've come to conclusions/beliefs based on them that I, and many others, think are wrong. Beliefs are not facts. So no, again, not everything you've said is factual.

Anyway, I don't expect anyone who hold the irrational view that all Christians are stupid (and, unless you went back and edited it, that's exactly what you said) to demonstrate that they have a firm grip on the reality of this, or any dicussion for that matter. That's been the case with you, so I'm better off moving on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

You know, you keep labeling me something I'm not. Even after telling to you that I'm not a Christian, you continue to label me as such. Hell, if I'm a Christian I may as well be a Muslim, Hindu & Buddhist too! Which wouldn't make any sense. It's hysterical actually.

And of course, none of this can be simply explained. I don't need you to tell me that. My entire point from the beginning was that none of this is easily explained. Thanks for making my point.

And no, not all of what you have said is factual. Not all Christians are stupid, in fact. And I'm not a Christian. So you're wrong in saying you've been factual in everything you've said. The facts you've stated otherwise don't mean anything in and of themselves. You've come to conclusions/beliefs based on them that I, and many others, think are wrong. Beliefs are not facts. So no, again, not everything you've said is factual.

Anyway, I don't expect anyone who hold the irrational view that all Christians are stupid (and, unless you went back and edited it, that's exactly what you said) to demonstrate that they have a firm grip on the reality of this, or any dicussion for that matter. That's been the case with you, so I'm better off moving on...

---

I'm just going to link what I said before. If you choose to ignore me again then so be it. I addressed your 'christians are stupid' complaint directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

No, I said most christians seem stupid because they refuse to address facts and issues about their beliefs head on. They pick and choose when to use reason and logic. Like I said I like Thoreau's ethic that the two don't have to be in conflict. You start defining God from those books and I have what I consider reasonable issues with that. You're trying to justify the story of Abraham and the various Biblical prophets now and accusing people of not understanding context.

When I give you context you won't disagree with it on any point of fact. It is what it is.

---

If you want to claim youre unitarian as if that means you haven't been spouting ecumenial dogma like covenants and the nature of god and jesus then so be it. If you want to act like I wasn't giving context when you complained about our lack of context then so be it. Going in circles is boring.

You've given great context. If I ever implied that you didn't know your shit in that regard, then I apologize for that. Clearly, you've researched and know a lot about the subject, and in addition you've brought up some things that were new to me that I will definitely read up on in the future when time allows.

Where I've disagreed with you is on conclusions you've made regarding Abraham-Isaac story in terms of its meaning and its historical influences. I've also disagreed with the level of certainty you talk about them with. But there's always more to learn. Particularly, I'm interested in reading more about the as you alleged Egypt influence in this regard. Admittedly, I'm not as well-versed on much about Egyption human sacrifice shit--when it started, how long it lasted, whether & how much it resonated with the Israelites, etc.

You're arguments are compelling, but the problem is that they like virtually every other argument in favor of a particular interpretation of the Abraham--Isaac story, including mine, rests on the fact that there's relatively limited (compared to say, Egypt) historical documentation of the Canaanites/Israelites at that particular time in existence, and the open-ended nature of the story in terms of meaning (i.e. there's a lot of subtextual stuff that you've got to try and figure out since there's no internal dialogue type shit). Coming to a certitudes about its meaning and where it exactly had risen up from historically is basically impossible. But, that was my point from the get-go.

That said, there's probably a dozen compelling arguments that have been made regarding this topic. It's been a pretty fruitful discussion in the sense that I can read up on some of the shit you brought to light in support of your reading of it.

Additionally, there's quite a lot of unequivocally bad shit that God does in the OT that, for those wanting to paint the Biblical God in a negative light, would probably be better source material. Nonetheless, it's been interesting, and I apologize for the undeserved insults I threw out at you. Been a long day.

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...9f&oe=57458906

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...12&oe=5713F780

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

---

Yet physical editions of the Torah (written in Hebrew) and the relevant portions found in the Septuagint (written in Koine Greek) which predate any and all "influences" of ecumenical Roman councils (starting with the first council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, through the council of Trent, etc...), or pre-ecumenical councils of the Ancient church (starting with the council of Jerusalem [~A.D. 50], etc...) ALREADY reference GOD in plural form. In fact, GOD speaks of Himself in plural starting from the Book of Genesis. The passages are still written this way in the Hebrew texts TODAY. Over millennia, Judaism hasn't changed the texts, even while they know that Christians interpret them as an affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine - BUT that's how important the preservation of written fidelity is to them (much to the benefit of Christian doctrine).

Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image” (ποιήσωμεν)
Genesis 3:22, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us”
Genesis 11:7, “Go to, and let us go down, and there confound their language”
Isaiah 6:8, “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

And yes, I understand there are other views and interpretations for these texts (this particular issue), but those alternative explanations don't completely undermine the Christian interpretation of said texts (Christian interpretation is just as plausible).

I find it rather poignant to point out you seem to place more emphasis on modern interpretations of historical texts rather than the content of the texts themselves. You have done this ad nauseam, repeatedly and with such broad sweeping speculation that I find it ridiculous that you then turn around and claim that the speculative arguments themselves ARE TRUTH. Convenience is what this amounts to.

For example, you threw the entire NT under the bus based strictly on your personal exclusion of Pauline doctrine, but to do so you ignored the texts of the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John], Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the 2 epistles by Peter, the 3 epistles by John, Jude and the Book of Revelations (in other words, more than half of the New Testament).

You are entitled to believe as you wish, but the fact that that you could posit such lazy arguments and then use that as a basis to reject an entire volume of works is laughable. And then you beat your chest in intellectual superiority when the bulk of your arguments rely on accusational overtones to discredit the works themselves (i.e. wishy-washy accusations that "the Roman councils undeniably changed/altered" scriptural texts - without any proof or evidence to substantiate the claims themselves). That said, the Dead Sea Scrolls alone kill the merit of any such accusation because it reveals that the fidelity of those texts remained unchanged for centuries - and prior to the interjection of any Roman 'authority' - those you claim altered the texts to change the meaning of the Gospel message.

In other words, IF Roman councils wanted to spread a message that would be consistent with their allegedly distorted view of scripture, but somehow different than what the authors of the original NT works intended THEN they would have unequivocally changed bits and pieces of the texts to suit their ideologies. To do so they would have ALSO needed to alter texts from the Torah itself. Instead we find PROOF that the Torah has remained identical to itself over time and identical to the version of the Torah that is grafted in the Biblical canon. So where is the evidence of tampering? IT JUST ISN'T THERE. Hence, IF there is physical proof to substantiate the lack of tampering in the aforementioned context (none of the Biblical OT was tampered with), THEN why would you claim that the councils invariably tampered with 1st NT century writings? Out of a convenience to discredit the CONTENT itself, which is a message you clearly reject. The Book of Hebrews alone, long attributed to the Apostle Paul (but no longer the case using forensics-of-writing-style techniques), contains such an eloquent summary of the Gospel message that if the Gospels or just one of the Gospels and this book were the sole revelation of the New Testament, it would be sufficient as a foundation to Christian theology. Thus, your anti-Paul stance/bias (a twisted alternative meaning to the Pauli exclusion principle) isn't sufficient a premise to discredit the Gospel message as a whole when other NT works paint the same exact picture (despite your reluctance to accept that truth).

Anyways... I don't want to get drawn into more discussion with someone who would make a sweeping statement that all Christians are stupid. But mingus already gave you more credit than you deserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

It depends. Subscribing to Christianity can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The core tenet of believing Jesus as Messiah & and in Bible God & the Holy Spirit are just a few aspect of it. It's religious & philosophical, one can subscribe to either or both, and be called a Christian, depending on who you ask.

---

If you subscribe to the belief that the bible is the unerring word of God and Jesus, you're pretty ignorant and/or stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Yet physical editions of the Torah (written in Hebrew) and the relevant portions found in the Septuagint (written in Koine Greek) which predate any and all "influences" of ecumenical Roman councils (starting with the first council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, through the council of Trent, etc...), or pre-ecumenical councils of the Ancient church (starting with the council of Jerusalem [~A.D. 50], etc...) ALREADY reference GOD in plural form. In fact, GOD speaks of Himself in plural starting from the Book of Genesis. The passages are still written this way in the Hebrew texts TODAY. Over millennia, Judaism hasn't changed the texts, even while they know that Christians interpret them as an affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine - BUT that's how important the preservation of written fidelity is to them (much to the benefit of Christian doctrine).

Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image” (ποιήσωμεν)
Genesis 3:22, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us”
Genesis 11:7, “Go to, and let us go down, and there confound their language”
Isaiah 6:8, “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

And yes, I understand there are other views and interpretations for these texts (this particular issue), but those alternative explanations don't completely undermine the Christian interpretation of said texts (Christian interpretation is just as plausible).

I find it rather poignant to point out you seem to place more emphasis on modern interpretations of historical texts rather than the content of the texts themselves. You have done this ad nauseam, repeatedly and with such broad sweeping speculation that I find it ridiculous that you then turn around and claim that the speculative arguments themselves ARE TRUTH. Convenience is what this amounts to.

For example, you threw the entire NT under the bus based strictly on your personal exclusion of Pauline doctrine, but to do so you ignored the texts of the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John], Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the 2 epistles by Peter, the 3 epistles by John, Jude and the Book of Revelations (in other words, more than half of the New Testament).

You are entitled to believe as you wish, but the fact that that you could posit such lazy arguments and then use that as a basis to reject an entire volume of works is laughable. And then you beat your chest in intellectual superiority when the bulk of your arguments rely on accusational overtones to discredit the works themselves (i.e. wishy-washy accusations that "the Roman councils undeniably changed/altered" scriptural texts - without any proof or evidence to substantiate the claims themselves). That said, the Dead Sea Scrolls alone kill the merit of any such accusation because it reveals that the fidelity of those texts remained unchanged for centuries - and prior to the interjection of any Roman 'authority' - those you claim altered the texts to change the meaning of the Gospel message.

In other words, IF Roman councils wanted to spread a message that would be consistent with their allegedly distorted view of scripture, but somehow different than what the authors of the original NT works intended THEN they would have unequivocally changed bits and pieces of the texts to suit their ideologies. To do so they would have ALSO needed to alter texts from the Torah itself. Instead we find PROOF that the Torah has remained identical to itself over time and identical to the version of the Torah that is grafted in the Biblical canon. So where is the evidence of tampering? IT JUST ISN'T THERE. Hence, IF there is physical proof to substantiate the lack of tampering in the aforementioned context (none of the Biblical OT was tampered with), THEN why would you claim that the councils invariably tampered with 1st NT century writings? Out of a convenience to discredit the CONTENT itself, which is a message you clearly reject. The Book of Hebrews alone, long attributed to the Apostle Paul (but no longer the case using forensics-of-writing-style techniques), contains such an eloquent summary of the Gospel message that if the Gospels or just one of the Gospels and this book were the sole revelation of the New Testament, it would be sufficient as a foundation to Christian theology. Thus, your anti-Paul stance/bias (a twisted alternative meaning to the Pauli exclusion principle) isn't sufficient a premise to discredit the Gospel message as a whole when other NT works paint the same exact picture (despite your reluctance to accept that truth).

Anyways... I don't want to get drawn into more discussion with someone who would make a sweeping statement that all Christians are stupid. But mingus already gave you more credit than you deserve.

---

It doesn't say copies of the Gospel or Pauls work which was my entire point. The Torah/septuagint(fancy word for first 7 books) was kept by the Levites separately. You'll note all the copies of the NT start coming out of Constantinople after the second council.

What lazy is getting canned answer that doesn't address my points at all. Further this is teh exact same argument that that account that claimed to be a pilot used. I didn't believe he was a pilot and I don't think you are a oil rig worker.

MY furute arguments will quote former argumetns of mine outlining the above and how you are full of shit. Anyone wonder can look up my posts about the works of Paul and the geneology and other nonsense found in the NT.

Go ahead and wave you hands at the OT fables as truth if you want. That is even more stupid but have at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

It doesn't say copies of the Gospel or Pauls work which was my entire point. The Torah/septuagint(fancy word for first 7 books) was kept by the Levites separately. You'll note all the copies of the NT start coming out of Constantinople after the second council.

What lazy is getting canned answer that doesn't address my points at all. Further this is teh exact same argument that that account that claimed to be a pilot used. I didn't believe he was a pilot and I don't think you are a oil rig worker.

MY furute arguments will quote former argumetns of mine outlining the above and how you are full of shit. Anyone wonder can look up my posts about the works of Paul and the geneology and other nonsense found in the NT.

Go ahead and wave you hands at the OT fables as truth if you want. That is even more stupid but have at it.

---

When did I claim to be an oil rig worker? :lmao :lmao

I work in a Petroleum Refinery which is a related field but not exactly the same...

As I said, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion with you. You, like many others here just throw a barrage of arguments (the above quote being an example), so many in number that I couldn't possibly refute them all even if I tried... The time requirement is not something I can expend either.

Even if I did manage to do so, you would then gloss over my rebuttals to focus on the 'weakest' rebuttal and claim that it somehow validated all of your posited arguments. Just looking back on this thread, I don't manage to find a single instance where you 'stand corrected' even as mingus tried to answer the very vaguely framed questions or subjective questions you threw at him. He would give you an answer, but when it was not the one you wanted or it wasn't to your liking, you would throw it back at him as if somehow his answer was wrong. I have neither the patience or the need to deal with that type of shenanigans.

It's tiring.

Besides the very last statement in your quote exemplifies the derisive nature of your position. The statement is laced with disdain. I'm not in a position to discuss every single doctrinal point or even the context of all scripture --> as that would take ages.

MY POINT earlier focused on the fidelity of scripture - that it has largely remained unchanged over MILLENNIA. For you THEN to claim that the ecumenical councils re-interpreted scriptures to fancy their own agendas (and so change the Gospel message) you would have to ignore the fact that ALL of the references to the Torah are consistent with the Torah itself (all versions of it). YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS ARGUMENT to twist it into an argument over the content itself. You've yet to provide discrete evidence that the councils tampered with the message of scripture. That the current editions of the NT come out after the second council of Constantinople takes a back seat to the fact that there are versions of some of the individual texts included in the canon that far predate A.D. 381.

IT's all moot anyway. There is nothing wrong with you saying you don't believe any of it - that's your prerogative. To chastise believers from the following position, however, is asinine (paraphrasing) "I have studied the historicity of biblical texts, and anyone who disagrees with my conclusions is stupid and deluded..."

That is ultimately why I will refuse to engage you in discourse. Condescending intransigence such as yours would just waste both of our time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

When did I claim to be an oil rig worker? :lmao :lmao

I work in a Petroleum Refinery which is a related field but not exactly the same...

As I said, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion with you. You, like many others here just throw a barrage of arguments (the above quote being an example), so many in number that I couldn't possibly refute them all even if I tried... The time requirement is not something I can expend either.

Even if I did manage to do so, you would then gloss over my rebuttals to focus on the 'weakest' rebuttal and claim that it somehow validated all of your posited arguments. Just looking back on this thread, I don't manage to find a single instance where you 'stand corrected' even as mingus tried to answer the very vaguely framed questions or subjective questions you threw at him. He would give you an answer, but when it was not the one you wanted or it wasn't to your liking, you would throw it back at him as if somehow his answer was wrong. I have neither the patience or the need to deal with that type of shenanigans.

It's tiring.

Besides the very last statement in your quote exemplifies the derisive nature of your position. The statement is laced with disdain. I'm not in a position to discuss every single doctrinal point or even the context of all scripture --> as that would take ages.

MY POINT earlier focused on the fidelity of scripture - that it has largely remained unchanged over MILLENNIA. For you THEN to claim that the ecumenical councils re-interpreted scriptures to fancy their own agendas (and so change the Gospel message) you would have to ignore the fact that ALL of the references to the Torah are consistent with the Torah itself (all versions of it). YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS ARGUMENT to twist it into an argument over the content itself. You've yet to provide discrete evidence that the councils tampered with the message of scripture. That the current editions of the NT come out after the second council of Constantinople takes a back seat to the fact that there are versions of some of the individual texts included in the canon that far predate A.D. 381.

IT's all moot anyway. There is nothing wrong with you saying you don't believe any of it - that's your prerogative. To chastise believers from the following position, however, is asinine (paraphrasing) "I have studied the historicity of biblical texts, and anyone who disagrees with my conclusions is stupid and deluded..."

That is ultimately why I will refuse to engage you in discourse. Condescending intransigence such as yours would just waste both of our time.

---

Again, the NT starts coming out late 4th century AD after the second council and not before. You can wave your hands at the OT/Jewish texts all you like.

You won't engage me because you have nothing to argue this point.

My argument is quite simple and all you can do is talk of about is the OT. To that digression as an aside, the septuagint was put together in 4th century Alexandria. Same time period. Congratulations on being ignorant of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

You've given great context. If I ever implied that you didn't know your shit in that regard, then I apologize for that. Clearly, you've researched and know a lot about the subject, and in addition you've brought up some things that were new to me that I will definitely read up on in the future when time allows.

Where I've disagreed with you is on conclusions you've made regarding Abraham-Isaac story in terms of its meaning and its historical influences. I've also disagreed with the level of certainty you talk about them with. But there's always more to learn. Particularly, I'm interested in reading more about the as you alleged Egypt influence in this regard. Admittedly, I'm not as well-versed on much about Egyption human sacrifice shit--when it started, how long it lasted, whether & how much it resonated with the Israelites, etc.

You're arguments are compelling, but the problem is that they like virtually every other argument in favor of a particular interpretation of the Abraham--Isaac story, including mine, rests on the fact that there's relatively limited (compared to say, Egypt) historical documentation of the Canaanites/Israelites at that particular time in existence, and the open-ended nature of the story in terms of meaning (i.e. there's a lot of subtextual stuff that you've got to try and figure out since there's no internal dialogue type shit). Coming to a certitudes about its meaning and where it exactly had risen up from historically is basically impossible. But, that was my point from the get-go.

That said, there's probably a dozen compelling arguments that have been made regarding this topic. It's been a pretty fruitful discussion in the sense that I can read up on some of the shit you brought to light in support of your reading of it.

Additionally, there's quite a lot of unequivocally bad shit that God does in the OT that, for those wanting to paint the Biblical God in a negative light, would probably be better source material. Nonetheless, it's been interesting, and I apologize for the undeserved insults I threw out at you. Been a long day.

---

:bobo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Again, the NT starts coming out late 4th century AD after the second council and not before. You can wave your hands at the OT/Jewish texts all you like.

You won't engage me because you have nothing to argue this point.

My argument is quite simple and all you can do is talk of about is the OT. To that digression as an aside, the septuagint was put together in 4th century Alexandria. Same time period. Congratulations on being ignorant of context.

---

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

CONTEXT: The books from the NT weren't re-written in the 4th century. I guess you don't understand the dynamics of copying written works, and why I keep harping on the high fidelity renditions passed on by the scribes - a point you keep ignoring over and over again. In other words, the origins of the Gospels and other 1st century works were not fabricated in the 3rd and 4th centuries. You DISINGENOUSLY keep trying to imply as much. According to your logic the copy of Hamlet I downloaded for my Kindle last week must obviously be a different version than what Shakespeare penned down given that it was physically created 4 centuries later. :shootme Even if we didn't have Shakespeare's original copies, claims that somehow any copy published after the original was 'different than the original' could not be fully proven as truth... unless you had physical proof of what passages had been altered, by whom and for what purpose.

CONTEXT: It doesn't matter that the Septuagint was termed as such in the 4th century, it has its origins in the 3rd century BC when the first translations of the Torah to Koine Greek were sponsored. Some of these texts still exist today, yet those fragments remain uber precise with the content of the Hebrew texts. Because AGAIN, content fidelity was of utmost importance. The same fidelity that was adopted by the early church with the emergence and the transference of the gospels and the epistles. Fidelity was my point, not the name of the Septuagint itself. Fragments of the Koine Greek translation of Hebrew texts (pre-Septuagint) were discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls AND YES, THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING AS THEIR BIBLICAL VERSIONS.

CONTEXT: The Hebrew texts (OT) speak of JESUS. What he would have to fulfill to satisfy the role of Messiah. YOU all dismissively cast aside the 350+ prophecies He would have to fulfill to stake His claim for that role. But the fact that the Gospel rendition of JESUS satisfies every single reference to said role is statistically significant. Other SECULAR works even confirm the unnatural phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion - events which were foretold in the OT. NO ONE WENT BACK to modify the OT in order to 'better' affirm/validate JESUS as Messiah. The secular works themselves were not written by ecumenical authorities either - they were independent historical affirmations (written by ideologically opposed authors even) that validate scriptural (gospel) accounts of JESUS' life.

CONTEXT: Earlier in the thread you and others hinted - even lazily accused - that both the OT and NT texts were modified to 'manufacture' the theological basis for claiming that JESUS was Messiah (i.e. The tenets of Christianity were entirely contrived based on manipulated texts). I kept insisting that the OT texts - even those that speak of the Messiah - have remained unchanged for millennia - so now you have changed your tune and would rather say that the Hebrew texts don't matter. In other words, you keep hiding behind unsubstantiated lies and accusations. In the case of the NT writings - you want to claim that 'someone' dramatically altered who JESUS was in order to forge a new power structure around His adoration. The fact remains that the secular historical works also point to the fact that believers were already dying for Him DURING the 1st century (as martyrs of the early church). So a claim that somehow JESUS was re-written as the Son of GOD 3 or 4 centuries later makes no sense in light of the fact that believers were already being persecuted by the Roman empire for worshipping Him as such shortly after the crucifixion. AGAIN I know you will brush off those inconsistencies because they don't jive with your theory.

And so you see...

That's what I mean when I say you are not after true discourse... you go off on tangents beating your chest that your rather subjective position is irrefutable but even your 'over-confident' rebuttals are filled with deflections and an over-reliance on the assumption that other people undeniably changed the content, specifically the message of the 1st century writings.

AGAIN. BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU SO DESIRE.

Just don't claim that somehow your view of history is absolute truth, no matter how much you may want it to be so. If it were that simple - men much smarter than you or I would have unequivocally shown the road path to the alleged forgeries and pulled the wool from over everybody else's eyes.

I believe on grounds of faith. Based on events in my life and GOD's presence in my life. For you or anyone else to suggest that somehow believers such as myself are all stupid for believing differently than you is asinine and arrogant.

What's truly laughable is that you all constantly mock believers for alleged intolerance against others as dictated by the tenets of our faith (and yes, there are real instances of true intolerance by misguided adherents - but they are acting outside of what JESUS taught us to do). Yet the only intolerant folks in here are those that are repeatedly saying that believers are inferior.

Again, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

CONTEXT: The books from the NT weren't re-written in the 4th century. I guess you don't understand the dynamics of copying written works, and why I keep harping on the high fidelity renditions passed on by the scribes - a point you keep ignoring over and over again. In other words, the origins of the Gospels and other 1st century works were not fabricated in the 3rd and 4th centuries. You DISINGENOUSLY keep trying to imply as much. According to your logic the copy of Hamlet I downloaded for my Kindle last week must obviously be a different version than what Shakespeare penned down given that it was physically created 4 centuries later. :shootme Even if we didn't have Shakespeare's original copies, claims that somehow any copy published after the original was 'different than the original' could not be fully proven as truth... unless you had physical proof of what passages had been altered, by whom and for what purpose.

CONTEXT: It doesn't matter that the Septuagint was termed as such in the 4th century, it has its origins in the 3rd century BC when the first translations of the Torah to Koine Greek were sponsored. Some of these texts still exist today, yet those fragments remain uber precise with the content of the Hebrew texts. Because AGAIN, content fidelity was of utmost importance. The same fidelity that was adopted by the early church with the emergence and the transference of the gospels and the epistles. Fidelity was my point, not the name of the Septuagint itself. Fragments of the Koine Greek translation of Hebrew texts (pre-Septuagint) were discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls AND YES, THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING AS THEIR BIBLICAL VERSIONS.

CONTEXT: The Hebrew texts (OT) speak of JESUS. What he would have to fulfill to satisfy the role of Messiah. YOU all dismissively cast aside the 350+ prophecies He would have to fulfill to stake His claim for that role. But the fact that the Gospel rendition of JESUS satisfies every single reference to said role is statistically significant. Other SECULAR works even confirm the unnatural phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion - events which were foretold in the OT. NO ONE WENT BACK to modify the OT in order to 'better' affirm/validate JESUS as Messiah. The secular works themselves were not written by ecumenical authorities either - they were independent historical affirmations (written by ideologically opposed authors even) that validate scriptural (gospel) accounts of JESUS' life.

CONTEXT: Earlier in the thread you and others hinted - even lazily accused - that both the OT and NT texts were modified to 'manufacture' the theological basis for claiming that JESUS was Messiah (i.e. The tenets of Christianity were entirely contrived based on manipulated texts). I kept insisting that the OT texts - even those that speak of the Messiah - have remained unchanged for millennia - so now you have changed your tune and would rather say that the Hebrew texts don't matter. In other words, you keep hiding behind unsubstantiated lies and accusations. In the case of the NT writings - you want to claim that 'someone' dramatically altered who JESUS was in order to forge a new power structure around His adoration. The fact remains that the secular historical works also point to the fact that believers were already dying for Him DURING the 1st century (as martyrs of the early church). So a claim that somehow JESUS was re-written as the Son of GOD 3 or 4 centuries later makes no sense in light of the fact that believers were already being persecuted by the Roman empire for worshipping Him as such shortly after the crucifixion. AGAIN I know you will brush off those inconsistencies because they don't jive with your theory.

And so you see...

That's what I mean when I say you are not after true discourse... you go off on tangents beating your chest that your rather subjective position is irrefutable but even your 'over-confident' rebuttals are filled with deflections and an over-reliance on the assumption that other people undeniably changed the content, specifically the message of the 1st century writings.

AGAIN. BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU SO DESIRE.

Just don't claim that somehow your view of history is absolute truth, no matter how much you may want it to be so. If it were that simple - men much smarter than you or I would have unequivocally shown the road path to the alleged forgeries and pulled the wool from over everybody else's eyes.

I believe on grounds of faith. Based on events in my life and GOD's presence in my life. For you or anyone else to suggest that somehow believers such as myself are all stupid for believing differently than you is asinine and arrogant.

What's truly laughable is that you all constantly mock believers for alleged intolerance against others as dictated by the tenets of our faith (and yes, there are real instances of true intolerance by misguided adherents - but they are acting outside of what JESUS taught us to do). Yet the only intolerant folks in here are those that are repeatedly saying that believers are inferior.

Again, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

---

Please show copies of the NT from before the 4th AD that prove your statement. Your word is no good here. I'll keep this argument real simple for everyone else. It makes it obvious where your glaring error is when I can just repeat the same argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

Again, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

---

Sick burn

again, sick burn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Please show copies of the NT from before the 4th AD that prove your statement. Your word is no good here. I'll keep this argument real simple for everyone else. It makes it obvious where your glaring error is when I can just repeat the same argument.

---

The NT is a volume of works (27 Books)....

There are several fragments of the individual books that comprise the canon that date as early as the 2nd century (fragments from the Gospel of John from ~125 AD).

That the fragments match, content-wise, what is written in subsequent copies of those works IS my argument.

NOT the quantity of copies available (at least 48 different manuscripts before the 4th century)

NOT the fact that more copies exist after there was a formal establishment to preserve the written works (an obvious task for ecumenical councils starting in AD 381). Contextually, one would expect to find more copies from a period where Christian beliefs were no longer being persecuted but I guess you don't want to apply logic to that historical context.

Content fidelity HAS BEEN my argument since early in the thread but you keep trying to make it something that it is not. I'm not debating the merits of the content itself - for there I know you plainly reject the gospel message (every day and twice on Sunday). And you are entitled to reject said message.

What I am arguing, however, is the merit of your accusation that the content itself was altered to characterize JESUS as something different than what HE himself claimed to be (fortuitously, the oldest known NT manuscript corresponds to the Gospel of John, the very book where JESUS explicitly claimed to be GOD)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Sick burn

again, sick burn

---

I'm trying to debunk the merit of his argument. Not trying to burn him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mingus

Your words don't mean shit to me, you pompous shithead. Maybe you'll get your answers via my other conservations. But I've no interest in answering directly to a pompous shithead.

---

It seems you have no interest in answering questions at all. You asked me to be level, I was, and you couldn't answer simple questions then. The obvious conclusion is that you aren't worth bothering with, and are just here to act butthurt when someone says something you don't like.

Let me know when you decide to grow up a little. You seem intelligent enough to be worth talking to, if you would stop pouting and acting like a moody teenager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I'm trying to debunk the merit of his argument. Not trying to burn him.

---

Lol using rubber/glue as a counter argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

your own belief structure (i.e. "GOD does not exist") .

---

Not sure how many times I need to explain this to you, but that is not my position.

I see no good reasons to accept your position. That's it.

The default position for any reasonable person in regards to accepting the truth of anything, be it God of the Bible, God of the Quran, unicorns, purple pixies, or cereal-hawking leprachauns, is when there are good reasons to believe it is true.

Your religion is not the only one with a holy book that claims it is better than the other holy books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Not sure how many times I need to explain this to you, but that is not my position.

I see no good reasons to accept your position. That's it.

The default position for any reasonable person in regards to accepting the truth of anything, be it God of the Bible, God of the Quran, unicorns, purple pixies, or cereal-hawking leprachauns, is when there are good reasons to believe it is true.

Your religion is not the only one with a holy book that claims it is better than the other holy books.

---

Which you are entitled to believe, but when you then make sweeping statements that suggest that believers are intellectually handicapped / or intellectually dishonest with themselves, because your position is somehow full-proof and ours is faith-based - THAT is an arrogant argument. Your position requires elements of faith as well due to wholly unprovable 'origins' premises on which your core beliefs are founded.

origin theories are called theories for a reason. hint: faith isn't involved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Lol using rubber/glue as a counter argument

---

LOL "judging a book by it's cover..." you literally grabbed my opening phrase and closing phrase from that post and ignored everything else (the actual counter argument).

Just... STOP.