Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

by Guest Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:18 pm

First topic message reminder :

do they help Christianity..

by Guest Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:18 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:Dear me, is he still giving lame excuses for not researching his faith?

i research my faith all the time and I have yet to see a daughter of Jesus all though the mormons think Jesus married several times and had kids...

Again you do not as you admitted you have never read the other gospels.

So have you read them and researched them?

Have you researched the historicity of the bible?

by Guest Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:47 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

i research my faith all the time and I have yet to see a daughter of Jesus all though the mormons think Jesus married several times and had kids...

Again you do not as you admitted you have never read the other gospels.

So have you read them and researched them?

Have you researched the historicity of the bible?

I read and study my bible, thats all i need thanks... Smile

by Guest Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:01 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again you do not as you admitted you have never read the other gospels.

So have you read them and researched them?

Have you researched the historicity of the bible?

I read and study my bible, thats all i need thanks...

Actually that is all we need to know

by Original Quill Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:17 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, I don't mind if you find your pastime enjoyable. But as a heuristic effort, it demands too many assumptions--most of which are contrary of all other phenomena we experience. I mean, walking on clouds???

But I can understand your enjoying reading the bible. I do too. It's a wonderful source of history and entertaining puzzles. I particularly like what we are learning about Sara, daughter of Jesus, and how her existence figures into the history of the Merovingian dynasty of France. So much of the beliefs of Europeans about their royalty is rooted in this story. It is too important to ignore.

lol daughter of Jesus, loving it...

I think you have reversed roles in this discussion, GIG. You see by the above that you are the intolerant one. You are the one who shuts out all other beliefs, whereas we are perfectly willing to accept your ideological dalliances. Hasn't that always been the christian way? And isn't that why the christian belief is rejected by intelligent people today?

Yes, daughter of Jesus. It beggars belief that in Jerusalem a 30-year old man of the Jewish faith would not be married. People would be talking. It is highly unlikely, as the recently discovered texts show, that Jesus was single. Indeed, all the modern evidence is that Jesus and the Magdalen were married, and she bore him a daughter, Sara.

The censors of Nicaea removed that part because it was unRoman...a male dominated society. Indeed, from what I read, before there was such a thing as a mass, there were suppers, at which women played a very important role at preaching. Thus, the real significance of the last supper...it was a religious ceremony.

The censors of Nicaea were at pains to remove all femininity from the religion, because women were uncommon in Roman life and would test beliefs. Thus, the Magdalen became a prostitute...better that than uncover her real significance. A lot of shameful things like this took place in early Christianity.

by veya_victaous Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:25 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again you do not as you admitted you have never read the other gospels.

So have you read them and researched them?

Have you researched the historicity of the bible?

I read and study my bible, thats all i need thanks...

You study a book written in the 1600's nothing like a REAL bible.

by Ben Reilly Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:21 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

i research my faith all the time and I have yet to see a daughter of Jesus all though the mormons think Jesus married several times and had kids...

Again you do not as you admitted you have never read the other gospels.

So have you read them and researched them?

Have you researched the historicity of the bible?

I read and study my bible, thats all i need thanks...

Wait, aren't you the one who has multiple editions and a concordance? Not that I blame you, I'd want all the help I could get if I was trying to make sense of that thing.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:26 pm

Isn't it true that all religions split at some point. Even Islam has deep divisions between Sunnis and Shiites. It is the inherent weakness of religion that they are unable to revere a God without imposing a ridiculous list of nonsensical rules around that devotion. Christians better wise up to the fact though that divided they fall. Their message is massively under minded by theological splits.

That said even Atheist have different degrees of non belief.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:41 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lol daughter of Jesus, loving it...

I think you have reversed roles in this discussion, GIG. You see by the above that you are the intolerant one. You are the one who shuts out all other beliefs, whereas we are perfectly willing to accept your ideological dalliances. Hasn't that always been the Christian way? And isn't that why the Christian belief is rejected by intelligent people today?

Yes, daughter of Jesus. It beggars belief that in Jerusalem a 30-year old man of the Jewish faith would not be married. People would be talking. It is highly unlikely, as the recently discovered texts show, that Jesus was single. Indeed, all the modern evidence is that Jesus and the Magdalen were married, and she bore him a daughter, Sara.

The censors of Nicaea removed that part because it was unRoman...a male dominated society. Indeed, from what I read, before there was such a thing as a mass, there were suppers, at which women played a very important role at preaching. Thus, the real significance of the last supper...it was a religious ceremony.

The censors of Nicaea were at pains to remove all femininity from the religion, because women were uncommon in Roman life and would test beliefs. Thus, the Magdalen became a prostitute...better that than uncover her real significance. A lot of shameful things like this took place in early Christianity.

if you mean i do not simply accept everything written on or around that time or about things happening at that time you are quite correct i do not... Smile

Jesus did not marry and did not have children... Smile

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

I read and study my bible, thats all i need thanks...

Wait, aren't you the one who has multiple editions and a concordance? Not that I blame you, I'd want all the help I could get if I was trying to make sense of that thing.

Yes i did Ben and i study the bible in its various forms, but I do not study documents outside of that.. Smile

by Ben Reilly Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:32 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

I read and study my bible, thats all i need thanks...

Wait, aren't you the one who has multiple editions and a concordance? Not that I blame you, I'd want all the help I could get if I was trying to make sense of that thing.

Yes i did Ben and i study the bible in its various forms, but I do not study documents outside of that..

A concordance might be about the Bible but it's not the Bible -- correct?

by Original Quill Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:47 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I think you have reversed roles in this discussion, GIG. You see by the above that you are the intolerant one. You are the one who shuts out all other beliefs, whereas we are perfectly willing to accept your ideological dalliances. Hasn't that always been the Christian way? And isn't that why the Christian belief is rejected by intelligent people today?

Yes, daughter of Jesus. It beggars belief that in Jerusalem a 30-year old man of the Jewish faith would not be married. People would be talking. It is highly unlikely, as the recently discovered texts show, that Jesus was single. Indeed, all the modern evidence is that Jesus and the Magdalen were married, and she bore him a daughter, Sara.

The censors of Nicaea removed that part because it was unRoman...a male dominated society. Indeed, from what I read, before there was such a thing as a mass, there were suppers, at which women played a very important role at preaching. Thus, the real significance of the last supper...it was a religious ceremony.

The censors of Nicaea were at pains to remove all femininity from the religion, because women were uncommon in Roman life and would test beliefs. Thus, the Magdalen became a prostitute...better that than uncover her real significance. A lot of shameful things like this took place in early Christianity.

if you mean i do not simply accept everything written on or around that time or about things happening at that time you are quite correct i do not...

Jesus did not marry and did not have children...

Note that you are not speaking with a tone of reason. You don't question the point. You speak with words of the absolute. You speak dogma. You see yourself (or anyone), not as an agent of inquiry, but as part of a rigid structure that can bear no inquiry. That is the intolerance of which I spoke.

No one else speaks that way, GIG. No one today needs that intolerance. Everyone else holds that we don't know about the marriage of Jesus...we weren't there. Like all of history (or science), facts are corrigible. We keep an open mind.

Keeping an open mind is sometimes the hardest thing one can do. It takes strength. Look around you, so often rational thought turns to angry insistence; that is the frustration of keeping an open mind. Yet, the open mind and the knowledge it brings is true bliss.

Imagine, therefore, how painful it was to be a Roman Christian. The point of the Council of Nicaea was to impose a rigid structure...to close minds. They had to have Inquisitions, Crusades, countless purges and murders..,not always because someone opposed them with an act of will, but sometimes because someone stumbled over an unfortunate fact or two. Thus Galileo. Thus da Vinci.

Until Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg revolutionized western civilization with printing, thus popularizing the written texts of the religion. Down came hierarchy. Up came Luther, Calvin and John Knox. Down came dogma. Up came reason and the renaissance. Along came science and the standards of free and open inquiry.

And here you are, still living among the ruins of crumbling ideas like a babbling hermit. You are not only are a relic, but you cling steadfastly to your locked mind. Why do you lock your mind, GIG? What do you fear? The bliss of a locked mind can sometimes feel like rapture; but consider this...it may just be the comfort of ignorance. You will never know until you make of yourself a true agent of inquiry.

I don't foreclose you like you foreclose all others. I hold open all possibilities, including the possibility that there may be and old man who walks on clouds, or or a young man who could transubstantiate. I only say the probabilities are high that it ain't so based on my experience.

Was Jesus an unmarried man? Based on the probabilities, that is doubtful. Did he pair-bond with Mary the Magedlen? It looks kinda like that. And based upon the recently discovered texts, formerly deliberately suppressed by the RC church, we are being told just that by people who were there. Imagine that, GIG, real witnesses. Add to that the suspicious nature of the suppression of these witness accounts, and the probabilities are stacking up against you.

New discovery takes place everyday. In chemistry, physics, astronomy, medicine...everywhere. The only people who resist it are those who have a vested interest in the old. Conservatism is not a bad thing, but when the evidence overwhelms us...well, at some point it's just blind, stupid obstinacy. The probabilities are that Jesus was married and the boys at Nicaea lied.

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:57 pm

The bible to Christians is the written word of God , the bible does not say Jesus was married with children this is how we can be sure he never .

by Original Quill Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:21 pm

VOD(original) wrote:The bible to Christians is the written word of God , the bible does not say Jesus was married with children this is how we can be sure he never .

Based upon what you know about human beings, would you say that men can lie? Of course, you would.

The bible is written, but nowhere is it proven, nor even factually established that it is the word of god. That is the lie told by the men at Nicaea. Men lie...that is what they do, particularly in political situations. It 's disappointing, but better to be forewarned and maintain a healthy suspicion, than be gullible and duped.

The written texts of the time and place--far more credible than the bible written by men 300-years after the fact--suggest that Jesus and the Magdalen were husband and wife. I will believe them over a fabrication written in 325 AD by men who weren't there, and who had ulterior motives. What do you think the probabilities are I win?

by Guest Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:The bible to Christians is the written word of God , the bible does not say Jesus was married with children this is how we can be sure he never .

Based upon what you know about human beings, would you say that men can lie? Of course, you would.

The bible is written, but nowhere is it proven, nor even factually established that it is the word of god. That is the lie told by the men at Nicaea. Men lie...that is what they do, particularly in political situations. It 's disappointing, but better to be forewarned and maintain a healthy suspicion, than be gullible and duped.

The written texts of the time and place--far more credible than the bible written by men 300-years after the fact--suggest that Jesus and the Magdalen were husband and wife. I will believe them over a fabrication written in 325 AD by men who weren't there, and who had ulterior motives. What do you think the probabilities are I win?

they do nothing of the sort, Jesus came to the earth for one reason only, that certainly was not to start a family...lol Smile

by Original Quill Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:01 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Based upon what you know about human beings, would you say that men can lie? Of course, you would.

The bible is written, but nowhere is it proven, nor even factually established that it is the word of god. That is the lie told by the men at Nicaea. Men lie...that is what they do, particularly in political situations. It 's disappointing, but better to be forewarned and maintain a healthy suspicion, than be gullible and duped.

The written texts of the time and place--far more credible than the bible written by men 300-years after the fact--suggest that Jesus and the Magdalen were husband and wife. I will believe them over a fabrication written in 325 AD by men who weren't there, and who had ulterior motives. What do you think the probabilities are I win?

they do nothing of the sort, Jesus came to the earth for one reason only, that certainly was not to start a family...lol

Haha...get real. Jesus liked fuckin' as much as anyone. Probably cracked yo momma jokes when out of earshot of the women.

Anyone who believes otherwise...I gotta a bridge for you in Brooklyn.

by veya_victaous Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:30 am

VOD(original) wrote:The bible to Christians is the written word of God , the bible does not say Jesus was married with children this is how we can be sure he never .

Which Version?
The Early ones say he was it was only taken out centuries later Wink

the King James version is not written until 1611 AD

So on OP, no it has not been good

the King James and other corrupted modern versions should be abandoned for the more accurate Codex Sinaiticus

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

by Ben Reilly Sun Apr 06, 2014 3:40 am

veya_victaous wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:The bible to Christians is the written word of God , the bible does not say Jesus was married with children this is how we can be sure he never .

Which Version?
The Early ones say he was it was only taken out centuries later
the King James version is not written until 1611 AD

So on OP, no it has not been good the King James and other corrupted modern versions should be abandoned for the more accurate Codex Sinaiticus

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

The earlier ones also say Jesus killed a boy and brought him back to life just to prove he could as a little boy, and that he slew dragons as an infant. Why would they take that stuff out? Smile

by Guest Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:The bible to Christians is the written word of God , the bible does not say Jesus was married with children this is how we can be sure he never .

Which Version?
The Early ones say he was it was only taken out centuries later
the King James version is not written until 1611 AD

So on OP, no it has not been good the King James and other corrupted modern versions should be abandoned for the more accurate Codex Sinaiticus

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

First, the Bible never mentions Jesus as having a wife. We have four Gospels providing us with a wealth of biographical information about Jesus, along with several letters from those who knew Him best, and not a single one mentions anything about Him having a wife. On the Cross, Jesus commended His mother to the care of John (John 19:25–27). If Mary Magdalene was His wife (as proposed by many who claim Jesus was married), why didn’t He provide for her care at this time since she was standing with Mary and John? If He was married to someone other than Mary Magdalene, then where was this woman during His ministry? Where was she during His Crucifixion? What about after He rose from the dead? Would she not have been among the 120 disciples in Jerusalem waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15–26)? Surely someone would tell us about Jesus appearing to His wife. Why doesn’t she ever make an appearance in the Gospels or the remainder of the New Testament?
In justifying the apostles’ right to have a wife, Paul wrote, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [Peter]?” (1 Corinthians 9:5). If Jesus was married, this certainly would have been a perfect time to mention it to provide infallible support for his argument.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:43 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

Which Version?
The Early ones say he was it was only taken out centuries later
the King James version is not written until 1611 AD

So on OP, no it has not been good the King James and other corrupted modern versions should be abandoned for the more accurate Codex Sinaiticus

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
First, the Bible never mentions Jesus as having a wife. We have four Gospels providing us with a wealth of biographical information about Jesus, along with several letters from those who knew Him best, and not a single one mentions anything about Him having a wife.

Four versions written about three centuries after the fact. The probabilities for error are high, not to mention the motives to suggest they were fabricating. The self-admitted purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to 'get our stories straight.' They said that, in so many words, right at the onset. That's what crooks do before the cops question them. Why not the crooks who wrote the RC bible?

VOD(original) wrote: On the Cross, Jesus commended His mother to the care of John (John 19:25–27). If Mary Magdalene was His wife (as proposed by many who claim Jesus was married), why didn’t He provide for her care at this time since she was standing with Mary and John?

Maybe he did. The disciples were wanted men and a woman. I wouldn't be public about her, especially if I knew she was carrying child. You and your husband proudly proclaim that you are not true researchers, but slavishly pour over one highly suspect text. If I were truly interested, I would want to know what other texts say.

Answering Christianity wrote:It is important to know that the reason many of the early Christians' authentic and widely accepted canons and manuscripts were not included in Constantine's "canon" (which by the way this canon got lost permanently and only portions of it were discovered almost 1/2 century later) was mostly due to political bias. The early Christians' manuscripts that were banned by Constantine were widely accepted for centuries before him by many Christians. Certainly, the Gospel of Philip which talks about Jesus and Mary Magdalene was one of the widely accepted and followed ones.

I would have certainly wanted to read the Gospel of Philip on this important question. But it was one of the many censored texts by the Council of Nicaea. The Gospel of Philip explicitly said Jesus kissed Mary Magdalene in the mouth, making the disciples jealous of her. Other gospels in the Nag Hammadi texts (1945) also spoke of the intimate relationship between her and Jesus, even referring to her as his "beloved." Her importance was shown by her presence in major events of Jesus' life. She anointed his feet with a costly perfume, an act the disciples tried to stop but which Jesus allowed, making him live up to the title the Messiah, the "Annointed One."

Why you are speaking about the marriage of Jesus without ever having read Philip, is...well, it's testimony to your dogma and lack of real interest in research on Jesus.

VOD(original) wrote:If He was married to someone other than Mary Magdalene, then where was this woman during His ministry? Where was she during His Crucifixion? What about after He rose from the dead? Would she not have been among the 120 disciples in Jerusalem waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15–26)? Surely someone would tell us about Jesus appearing to His wife. Why doesn’t she ever make an appearance in the Gospels or the remainder of the New Testament?
In justifying the apostles’ right to have a wife, Paul wrote, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [Peter]?” (1 Corinthians 9:5). If Jesus was married, this certainly would have been a perfect time to mention it to provide infallible support for his argument.

Why don't you ask Paul, the father of the Roman church. It would be ideal if we could question him on why so much was left out of the RC dogma. Why did Paul, who never knew Jesus, wish to skew so much of the story? What was his agenda, anyway? Better yet, ask Constantine...or any of the priests who actually crafted the NT canon, what was to be included, and what was to be excluded. Don't you wonder?

None of the texts of Nag Hammadi were included in the Bible--the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Acts of Peter--because the content didn't conform to Christian doctrine, and they're referred to as apocryphal. They tend to concentrate on things that one doesn't read about in the Bible. For example, New Testament gospels says after the resurrection Jesus spent some time talking with the disciples, but you don't learn much about what he said. In the gospels of Nag Hammadi you can read what he said.

I have a feeling those questions are forthcoming one day, even if you are self-satisfied with the darkness with which you cloak yourselves. I am of a different stripe; I would want to know.

by Guest Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:06 pm

what a load of rubbish quill the evidence Jesus did not marry is overwhelming... Smile

by Original Quill Sun Apr 06, 2014 10:39 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:what a load of rubbish quill the evidence Jesus did not marry is overwhelming...

To the contrary. The evidence is that he was married, and that the efforts at the Council of Nicaea were to remake Jesus as celibate and change most of the story about him. They had to change him in order to make him a deity, a part of the trinity. Note that the NT is abstractly about a contract: subscribe to this program, and live forever. That was the same thesis of Constantine, and a failing Roman Empire. His purpose was to rally people around a central religion, and merge it with the legacy of Rome.

Many of the lies were to make Jesus conform to otherwise unrelated norms and myths. For example, Jesus was born in October, not December; Christmas was actually the Winter Festival. Easter was chosen to conform to the story of Ostara, one of the goddesses of Spring. http://www.goddessgift.com/goddess-myths/Ostara.htm

Most of the bible that you revere, is false.

by veya_victaous Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:46 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

Which Version?
The Early ones say he was it was only taken out centuries later
the King James version is not written until 1611 AD

So on OP, no it has not been good the King James and other corrupted modern versions should be abandoned for the more accurate Codex Sinaiticus

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
First, the Bible never mentions Jesus as having a wife. We have four Gospels providing us with a wealth of biographical information about Jesus, along with several letters from those who knew Him best, and not a single one mentions anything about Him having a wife. On the Cross, Jesus commended His mother to the care of John (John 19:25–27). If Mary Magdalene was His wife (as proposed by many who claim Jesus was married), why didn’t He provide for her care at this time since she was standing with Mary and John? If He was married to someone other than Mary Magdalene, then where was this woman during His ministry? Where was she during His Crucifixion? What about after He rose from the dead? Would she not have been among the 120 disciples in Jerusalem waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15–26)? Surely someone would tell us about Jesus appearing to His wife. Why doesn’t she ever make an appearance in the Gospels or the remainder of the New Testament?
In justifying the apostles’ right to have a wife, Paul wrote, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [Peter]?” (1 Corinthians 9:5). If Jesus was married, this certainly would have been a perfect time to mention it to provide infallible support for his argument.

Yes your version written 1600 years after Jesus says that he wasn't married which is why the OP is true, look how far from reality the king James version is... as one would expect with a book written 1 and half Millennium years after the events.

but this Papyrus from a bible written about 400 years after Jesus death suggest he does

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty-research/research-projects/the-gospel-of-jesuss-wife

Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/ - Page 3 Papyrus_front_lg

Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/ - Page 3 Papyrus_front_lg

Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/ - Page 3 Papyrus_front_text_500

by Guest Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:58 am

......Interesting!

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:39 am

@GIG

did you make this post thinking yours was anywhere near the 'original'? confused

seems odd that you would make a thread that so strongly suggests that your sect and most others around to today should not exist as they are a hindrance to Christianity and it's adherence to the 'word of god' .

by Guest Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:47 am

veya_victaous wrote:@GIG

did you make this post thinking yours was anywhere near the 'original'?
seems odd that you would make a thread that so strongly suggests that your sect and most others around to today should not exist as they are a hindrance to Christianity and it's adherence to the 'word of god' .

sect...lol you are funny... Smile

by Original Quill Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:41 pm

You get it, GIG. You just don't like it.

Are you actually RC? Romans today are not usually so evangelical. That's because the Roman religion was destined for Hierarchy, not populism.

Look at Corinthians Chapter 1, where Paul speaks of ministers and stewards. What are ministers and stewards, but ones specially chosen to be the buffer between people and their god...heirarchy. Evangelicals are protestants, who are themselves the link to god, resisted (protested) being left out, and thus created their own sect.

Though you speak the bible, you seem to be confused in what way you are a Christian. What denomination do you speak for...or, if you wish, from?

by Guest Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:You get it, GIG. You just don't like it.

Are you actually RC? Romans today are not usually so evangelical. That's because the Roman religion was destined for Hierarchy, not populism.

Look at Corinthians Chapter 1, where Paul speaks of ministers and stewards. What are ministers and stewards, but ones specially chosen to be the buffer between people and their god...heirarchy. Evangelicals are protestants, who are themselves the link to god.

Though you speak the bible, you seem to be confused in what way you are a Christian. What denomination do you speak for?

Hi Quill

He claims to be a Born again Christian.

by Guest Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:You get it, GIG. You just don't like it.

Are you actually RC? Romans today are not usually so evangelical. That's because the Roman religion was destined for Hierarchy, not populism.

Look at Corinthians Chapter 1, where Paul speaks of ministers and stewards. What are ministers and stewards, but ones specially chosen to be the buffer between people and their god...heirarchy. Evangelicals are protestants, who are themselves the link to god, resisted (protested) being left out, and thus created their own sect.

Though you speak the bible, you seem to be confused in what way you are a Christian. What denomination do you speak for...or, if you wish, from?

lol... i don't have a denomination, i believe the entire bible, I don't pick and chose as to the importance of certain things such as speaking in tongues...

you can try the pidgeon hole the sect all you like but it won't wash with me lol...

did you ever find out what a strict Christian was, that one amused me no end.. Smile

by Original Quill Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:13 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:You get it, GIG. You just don't like it.

Are you actually RC? Romans today are not usually so evangelical. That's because the Roman religion was destined for Hierarchy, not populism.

Look at Corinthians Chapter 1, where Paul speaks of ministers and stewards. What are ministers and stewards, but ones specially chosen to be the buffer between people and their god...heirarchy. Evangelicals are protestants, who are themselves the link to god.

Though you speak the bible, you seem to be confused in what way you are a Christian. What denomination do you speak for?

Hi Quill

He claims to be a Born again Christian.

Hi Didge,

Oh. I take that to mean he hasn't really studied theology.

Too bad...he's not very forthcoming with his views and seems reluctant to discuss biblical doctrines. That's why I asked after why he is so slavishly devoted to the Roman NT canon. Usually protestants are more forthcoming.

by Guest Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Hi Quill

He claims to be a Born again Christian.

Hi Didge,

Oh. I take that to mean he hasn't really studied theology.

Too bad...he's not very forthcoming with his views and seems reluctant to discuss biblical doctrines. That's why I asked after why he is so slavishly devoted to the Roman NT canon. Usually protestants are more forthcoming.

ha ha ha still not saying what a strict Christian is... Smile

by Original Quill Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:59 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Hi Didge,

Oh. I take that to mean he hasn't really studied theology.

Too bad...he's not very forthcoming with his views and seems reluctant to discuss biblical doctrines. That's why I asked after why he is so slavishly devoted to the Roman NT canon. Usually protestants are more forthcoming.

ha ha ha still not saying what a strict Christian is...

No, I told you an higher order of truth: it doesn't matter. It's a cop-out to try to transform the discussion into a semantic debate. Don't waste our time.

You seem to have memorized a portion of the King James version of the NT canon. But I find you totally lacking in discussing the themes. Some of them are quite familiar, like the trinity. Some--like hierarchy--require a little knowledge of history. But all of them are above your comfort level.

Would you agree that is a fair assessment, GIG? Or, do you have anything you wish to discuss?

by Guest Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

ha ha ha still not saying what a strict Christian is...

No, I told you an higher order of truth: it doesn't matter. It's a cop-out to try to transform the discussion into a semantic debate. Don't waste our time.

You seem to have memorized a portion of the King James version of the NT canon. But I find you totally lacking in discussing the themes. Some of them are quite familiar, like the trinity. Some--like hierarchy--require a little knowledge of history. But all of them are above your comfort level.

Would you agree that is a fair assessment? Or, do you have anything you wish to discuss?

lol you have told me nothing that you can substantiate, you seem to chose books not included in the bible and hold them in greater esteem than those in the bible but have no reason why they should be held as such or why they should even have been included in the bible..

Jesus married, with children..lol love it...

any idea about those strict Christians...

by Original Quill Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:34 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

No, I told you an higher order of truth: it doesn't matter. It's a cop-out to try to transform the discussion into a semantic debate. Don't waste our time.

You seem to have memorized a portion of the King James version of the NT canon. But I find you totally lacking in discussing the themes. Some of them are quite familiar, like the trinity. Some--like hierarchy--require a little knowledge of history. But all of them are above your comfort level.

Would you agree that is a fair assessment? Or, do you have anything you wish to discuss?

lol you have told me nothing that you can substantiate, you seem to chose books not included in the bible and hold them in greater esteem than those in the bible but have no reason why they should be held as such or why they should even have been included in the bible..

Well, the main reason the canons of the NT are more suspect is because they were written for political reasons. The NT censors created an highly suspect book.

That is why the newly found scrolls are causing such a stir. It is refreshing to read an unpoliticized, fresh view.

by Sponsored content

Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/

Re: Do you think the different Christian denominations are a good idea?/