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

First topic message reminder :

do they help Christianity..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:




Oh my, your own works, that is funny seen as many Christians are at odds with your views


DOH

that's because they are hearing religion, Grace is all through the bible....  

Are they all again?


Yours is a religion also


I think this sums up your belief best:




born-again christian
born again christians are the sect of christianty for people who fucked it up the first time around. They believe that redemption will come from following the bible more literally than god would ever wish, to the point which their ideology becomes culty and near immoral. born-agains are extremely hypocritical and their misuse of god's texts and discriminitory views give Christianity a bad name. Ironically, it is these people who preach their superiority that are the biggest jack-asses. And then they have the nerve to look you in the face, after they have just finished bad mouthing gays and other religions, and preach the superiority of their ideology.

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

that's because they are hearing religion, Grace is all through the bible....  

Are they all again?


Yours is a religion also


I think this sums up your belief best:




born-again christian
born again christians are the sect of christianty for people who fucked it up the first time around. They believe that redemption will come from following the bible more literally than god would ever wish, to the point which their ideology becomes culty and near immoral. born-agains are extremely hypocritical and their misuse of god's texts and discriminitory views give Christianity a bad name. Ironically, it is these people who preach their superiority that are the biggest jack-asses. And then they have the nerve to look you in the face, after they have just finished bad mouthing gays and other religions, and preach the superiority of their ideology.

no you miss the whole point, law and religion go together, try reading the bible, law and religion are actually what the enemy of the true believers uses against them...

relationship is far more important, Grace is the greatest thing you will ever understand from the bible, it sets the believer free from condemnation just as the bible says we should be...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Are they all again?


Yours is a religion also


I think this sums up your belief best:




born-again christian
born again christians are the sect of christianty for people who fucked it up the first time around. They believe that redemption will come from following the bible more literally than god would ever wish, to the point which their ideology becomes culty and near immoral. born-agains are extremely hypocritical and their misuse of god's texts and discriminitory views give Christianity a bad name. Ironically, it is these people who preach their superiority that are the biggest jack-asses. And then they have the nerve to look you in the face, after they have just finished bad mouthing gays and other religions, and preach the superiority of their ideology.

no you miss the whole point, law and religion go together, try reading the bible, law and religion are actually what the enemy of the true believers uses against them...

relationship is far more important, Grace is the greatest thing you will ever understand from the bible, it sets the believer free from condemnation just as the bible says we should be...  

Law and religion go together and in the next breath say are the enemy, so why are you against homosexuals, if you claim the laws of the bible are the enemy of true believers?

Busted

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

no you miss the whole point, law and religion go together, try reading the bible, law and religion are actually what the enemy of the true believers uses against them...

relationship is far more important, Grace is the greatest thing you will ever understand from the bible, it sets the believer free from condemnation just as the bible says we should be...  

Law and religion go together and in the next breath say are the enemy, so why are you against homosexuals, if you claim the laws of the bible are the enemy of true believers?    

homosexuality is a sin, the bible is against all sin...  

Didge wrote:Busted

yeah just in time, i win again, its only a tenner but hey money is money...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Law and religion go together and in the next breath say are the enemy, so why are you against homosexuals, if you claim the laws of the bible are the enemy of true believers?    

homosexuality is a sin, the bible is against all sin...  

But this is a law in the bible, which you said is the enemy of true believers, your words not mine and that grace matters more, yet you place the laws of the bible over grace as seen


Busted again

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

homosexuality is a sin, the bible is against all sin...  

But this is a law in the bible, which you said is the enemy of true believers, your words not mine and that grace matters more, yet you place the laws of the bible over grace as seen


Busted again

that was a bit quick, we didn't get to write the times down for the second claiming of victory..lol

homosexuality is not in the law of moses...  

but it is a sin....  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


But this is a law in the bible, which you said is the enemy of true believers, your words not mine and that grace matters more, yet you place the laws of the bible over grace as seen


Busted again

that was a bit quick, we didn't get to write the times down for the second claiming of victory..lol

homosexuality is not in the law of moses...  

but it is a sin....  

I am afraid it is in the law of Moses, because as seen the first 5 books of the bible are seen as th word of god as laid down by Moses:


The first five books of the Bible are sometimes called the Pentateuch which means “five books.” They are also known as the books of the law because they contain the laws and instruction given by the Lord through Moses to the people of Israel. These books were written by Moses, except for the last portion of Deuteronomy because it tells about the death of Moses. These five books lay the foundation for the coming of Christ in that here God chooses and brings into being the nation of Israel. As God’s chosen people, Israel became the custodians of the Old Testament, the recipients of the covenants of promise, and the channel of Messiah (Rom. 3:2; 9:1-5).


Busted again


Man you are thick


So again you go by the law over grace, so by your own stupidity, you are the enemy of the true believers


Ha Ha ha ha


What a dumbass, how to fuck up his own argument in one by Godisgoodallthetime


Priceless

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

that was a bit quick, we didn't get to write the times down for the second claiming of victory..lol

homosexuality is not in the law of moses...  

but it is a sin....  

I am afraid it is in the law of Moses, because as seen the first 5 books of the bible are seen as th word of god as laid down by Moses:


The first five books of the Bible are sometimes called the Pentateuch which means “five books.” They are also known as the books of the law because they contain the laws and instruction given by the Lord through Moses to the people of Israel. These books were written by Moses, except for the last portion of Deuteronomy because it tells about the death of Moses. These five books lay the foundation for the coming of Christ in that here God chooses and brings into being the nation of Israel. As God’s chosen people, Israel became the custodians of the Old Testament, the recipients of the covenants of promise, and the channel of Messiah (Rom. 3:2; 9:1-5).


Busted again


Man you are thick


So again you go by the law over grace, so by your own stupidity, you are the enemy of the true believers


Ha Ha ha ha


What a dumbass, how to fuck up his own argument in one by Godisgoodallthetime


Priceless  

lol...the law is taken as the ten commandments, you don't read do you, never mind ..

the law engraved on stones that leads to sin and death, what law was written on stones..

never mind you will catch up one day...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am afraid it is in the law of Moses, because as seen the first 5 books of the bible are seen as th word of god as laid down by Moses:


The first five books of the Bible are sometimes called the Pentateuch which means “five books.” They are also known as the books of the law because they contain the laws and instruction given by the Lord through Moses to the people of Israel. These books were written by Moses, except for the last portion of Deuteronomy because it tells about the death of Moses. These five books lay the foundation for the coming of Christ in that here God chooses and brings into being the nation of Israel. As God’s chosen people, Israel became the custodians of the Old Testament, the recipients of the covenants of promise, and the channel of Messiah (Rom. 3:2; 9:1-5).


Busted again


Man you are thick


So again you go by the law over grace, so by your own stupidity, you are the enemy of the true believers


Ha Ha ha ha


What a dumbass, how to fuck up his own argument in one by Godisgoodallthetime


Priceless  

lol...the law is taken as the ten commandments, you don't read do you, never mind ..

the law engraved on stones that leads to sin and death, what law was written on stones..

never mind you will catch up one day...  

PMSL, now you are making it up as you go along, I rally think you just do not know when you dig yourself a hole you cannot get out of


Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”


Busted again, how fucking ignorant are you dummy


Thus again, you back the view your views makes you the enemy of true believers ha ha ha ha ha ha


Pricless

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:


lol...the law is taken as the ten commandments, you don't read do you, never mind ..

the law engraved on stones that leads to sin and death, what law was written on stones..

never mind you will catch up one day...  

PMSL, now you are making it up as you go along, I rally think you just do not know when you dig yourself a hole you cannot get out of


Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”


Busted again, how fucking ignorant are you dummy


Thus again, you back the view your views makes you the enemy of true believers ha ha ha ha ha ha


Pricless

2 Corinthians 3:7

7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.

its all there you just have to look oh and understand helps...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


PMSL, now you are making it up as you go along, I rally think you just do not know when you dig yourself a hole you cannot get out of


Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”


Busted again, how fucking ignorant are you dummy


Thus again, you back the view your views makes you the enemy of true believers ha ha ha ha ha ha


Pricless

2 Corinthians 3:7

7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.

its all there you just have to look oh and understand helps...  

PMSL that is not what Jesus said dummy


Fucking hilarious and you needed to email your pastor on that and even he fucked up, it still does not discount Jesus telling you he did not discount the laws


DOH

So again you are the enemy of true believers, by your own daft logic

Thanks, I love how I do not even need to try to show how utterly simple minded you are, as you do it all by yourself

 ::D:: 

You see some of us were actually taught Christianity, you have been exposed for not even knowing your bible


Ha Ha Ha ha


Love it

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
2 Corinthians 3:7

7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.

its all there you just have to look oh and understand helps...  

PMSL that is not what Jesus said dummy


Fucking hilarious and you needed to email your pastor on that and even he fucked up, it still does not discount Jesus telling you he did not discount the laws


DOH

So again you are the enemy of true believers, by your own daft logic

Thanks, I love how I do not even need to try to show how utterly simple minded you are, as you do it all by yourself

 ::D:: 

what...you are really crazy...who said the jews were discounted..lol

i can see why you gave up church you clearly learned nothing...

the original law shall not pass away ...that's because everyone who does not accept Jesus by faith will be judged by the law, the old covenant...

the believer in Jesus will be judged by the new covenant...Grace..

see it's not that hard is it..  

Eating shrimp is a sin, piercing/tattooing is a sin, clothes are a sin

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


PMSL that is not what Jesus said dummy


Fucking hilarious and you needed to email your pastor on that and even he fucked up, it still does not discount Jesus telling you he did not discount the laws


DOH

So again you are the enemy of true believers, by your own daft logic

Thanks, I love how I do not even need to try to show how utterly simple minded you are, as you do it all by yourself

 ::D:: 

what...you are really crazy...who said the jews were discounted..lol

i can see why you gave up church you clearly learned nothing...

the original law shall not pass away ...that's because everyone who does not accept Jesus by faith will be judged by the law, the old covenant...

the believer in Jesus will be judged by the new covenant...Grace..

see it's not that hard is it..  

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


PMSL again that again does not discount Jesus said to abide by the laws and how he would fulfill them dummy, those of the old prophets, talk about making it up as you go along to throw in what Paul said, showing you are actually following Pauluanity and not Christianity.
So again you have no reason to abide by the laws on homosexuality as passed down because as you said the laws go against grace, making them the enemies of grace, so you thus either have no issue with homosexuality, or you are the enemy of the true believers.


Seriously I love fucking with born again idiots, they are in many cases so utterly dumb, they know little of the bible and only chose to decide what to follow, even going against what Jesus said.


You cannot make it up how hilarious that is


So any more daft replies?

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

what...you are really crazy...who said the jews were discounted..lol

i can see why you gave up church you clearly learned nothing...

the original law shall not pass away ...that's because everyone who does not accept Jesus by faith will be judged by the law, the old covenant...

the believer in Jesus will be judged by the new covenant...Grace..

see it's not that hard is it..  

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


PMSL again that again does not discount Jesus said to abide by the laws and how he would fulfill them dummy, those of the old prophets, talk about making it up as you go along to throw in what Paul said, showing you are actually following Pauluanity and not Christianity.
So again you have no reason to abide by the laws on homosexuality as passed down because as you said the laws go against grace, making them the enemies of grace, so you thus either have no issue with homosexuality, or you are the enemy of the true believers.


Seriously I love fucking with born again idiots, they are in many cases so utterly dumb, they know little of the bible and only chose to decide what to follow, even going against what Jesus said.


You cannot make it up how hilarious that is


So any more daft replies?

to be honest i am surprised you debate Christianity as you clearly know nothing about it...

he fulfilled the law, dummy, so Grace can enter, the law had to be fulfilled or it would still have stood to judge everyone both believers or not...

God could not just scrap the law then he would not be a just God...

so for the law to be of no effect to the believers it had to be fulfilled and it was by Jesus...

but the old law still stands to judge those who have not entered in to the Grace covenant...

come on this is basic stuff, are you telling me you don't know this, who have you been debating with a two year old..

I love this because as seen you got utterly annihilated on knowledge Christianity, being as you are a Pauline follower, not a Christian, you use words Paul said and not Jesus backing everything Quill and I were talking about ha ha


So you now backtrack and admit the old law stand thus negating your first claim, oh my I cannot stop laughing, so you now admit anyone who follows the old laws is n enemy of the true believers, as you claim those who follow the laws are the enemies of the true believers.

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 


Man this has been so much fun and it was me telling you the basic stuff which had you in a complete dilemma, of which you created yourself.


So do you still stand by your claim on the laws and not grace are the enemies of true believers, making you a complete idiot, whilst agreeing the old laws still stand?



Ha Ha

I would point out that TRUE Christians do not follow King James Bible, there a dozens that are older and less altered. So GIG does you 1600's version of the Bible Damage Christianity?

Just for hell of it, couldn't be bothered starting new thread

  

It's relevant!

Open question: What does the phrase "Heaven and earth shall pass away" actually mean?

Is it an affirmation of reincarnation?

groomsy wrote:Jews dont claim to be christians, Jesus was Jewish and he wasnt a christian  

If you are referring to my statement, groomesy, I meant it facetiously. Only Jesus Christ was a christian...as in: only he knew who he was. The rest are all interpretations of Jesus. Of course Jesus was a Jew, but you cannot fail to notice that he created and led (to whatever small degree) an important sect of judaism. The question is: what was that sect as Jesus intended it?

The rest of the writers of the NT borrowed Jesus as a character in their script, including Paul and most particularly the Council of Nicaea. To speak of the bible as authority is absurd. It is a polemic, intended to unite what was left of the Roman Empire.

GIG in particular keeps going back to that bible to gain some authority. My point is that the NT is itself a derivative authority, having no more importance than a 4th-century recounting of something that happened three centuries prior.

Perhaps I'll restate my point: The only person who knew Jesus was Jesus.

And no wonder some Jews don't like Christians, Christians played their part in trying to destroy the Jews along with many other religions.

I tell ya, this is in big part as to why this world is in the mess it is.
Religion sadly causes too much violence and death.

veya_victaous wrote:I would point out that TRUE Christians do not follow King James Bible, there a dozens that are older and less altered.  So GIG does you  1600's version of the Bible Damage Christianity?

not at all, i use many different version and an exhaustive concordance for study, you have to be careful on some words and what you think they mean and what they mean today but if you keep an original source handy I don't think you would go far wrong with most versions..

once to avoid are of course the book of mormon and the new world transaltions...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I would point out that TRUE Christians do not follow King James Bible, there a dozens that are older and less altered.  So GIG does you  1600's version of the Bible Damage Christianity?

not at all, i use many different version and an exhaustive concordance for study, you have to be careful on some words and what you think they mean and what they mean today but if you keep an original source handy I don't think you would go far wrong with most versions..

once to avoid are of course the book of mormon and the new world transaltions...  

So not only do you accept a decrepit book for your moral, ethically and spiritual guidance- BUT you have a concordance for the bits you don't understand- and some religious 'academics' interpretation of 'complicated' parts of scripture    pathetic   

Joy Division wrote:And no wonder some Jews don't like Christians, Christians played their part in trying to destroy the Jews along with many other religions.

I tell ya, this is in big part as to why this world is in the mess it is.
Religion sadly causes too much  violence and death.

I'm not sure that it is religion, per se, but belief systems that aggrandize violence among men. The Roman Empire spawned that belief system. So did the Ottoman Empire. But many religions divorce themselves entirely from discord. Jesus himself started out that way: Give back to Caesar... was a way of saying his message was apolitical.

But I do believe that religion is so powerful, that it is tempting for political forces to co-opt its influence, and thus politicize it. Isn't that what Constantine was doing at the Council of Nicaea?

Of course, it is imperative to define religion. I think it is something to do with origins and is about power, but that doesn't mean it is power. Close...and tempting...but not itself, power.

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

not at all, i use many different version and an exhaustive concordance for study, you have to be careful on some words and what you think they mean and what they mean today but if you keep an original source handy I don't think you would go far wrong with most versions..

once to avoid are of course the book of mormon and the new world transaltions...  

So not only do you accept a decrepit book for your moral, ethically and spiritual guidance- BUT you have a concordance for the bits you don't understand- and some religious 'academics' interpretation of 'complicated' parts of scripture    pathetic   

the concordance explains words, lol its a a huge dictionary...

it is quite important to understand what words mean...  

hebrews used pictures in combination with letters to, they can be very enlightening....

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I would point out that TRUE Christians do not follow King James Bible, there a dozens that are older and less altered.  So GIG does you  1600's version of the Bible Damage Christianity?

not at all, i use many different version and an exhaustive concordance for study, you have to be careful on some words and what you think they mean and what they mean today but if you keep an original source handy I don't think you would go far wrong with most versions..

once to avoid are of course the book of mormon and the new world transaltions...  

So, when you have made reference to the Gospel of Thomas, which parts are most meaningful to you?  I am curious about any references you have made to the Gospel of Mary the Magdalen.  The Gospel of Judas?

Or are you simply going back to that same old tired text that was the product of a council of censorship...the Council of Nicaea?  If so, veya's point is made, GIG.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

not at all, i use many different version and an exhaustive concordance for study, you have to be careful on some words and what you think they mean and what they mean today but if you keep an original source handy I don't think you would go far wrong with most versions..

once to avoid are of course the book of mormon and the new world transaltions...  

So, when you have made reference to the Gospel of Thomas, which parts are most meaningful to you.  I am curious about any references you have made to the Gospel of Mary the Magdalen.  The Gospel of Judas.

Or are you simply going back to that same old tired text that was the product of a council of censorship...the Council of Nicaea?  If so, veya's point is made, GIG.

never read thomas or any of the other so call gospels, i trust what i find in my bible and trust that God will make sure his word is what he wants it to be and of course we have the Holy Spirit to guide us...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, when you have made reference to the Gospel of Thomas, which parts are most meaningful to you.  I am curious about any references you have made to the Gospel of Mary the Magdalen.  The Gospel of Judas.

Or are you simply going back to that same old tired text that was the product of a council of censorship...the Council of Nicaea?  If so, veya's point is made, GIG.

never read thomas or any of the other so call gospels, i trust what i find in my bible and trust that God will make sure his word is what he wants it to be and of course we have the Holy Spirit to guide us...  

What you'll find in what you are reading is utter nonsense, that bears no relevance to today.  That is because it was a text extending a contract--join together and ye shall be rewarded--offered at a time when an empire was falling apart (whosoever believes in him, but he be dead, so shall he live...John 3:15-16).

Like so many texts that are two millenia removed from their purpose, it is too tempting to call the words into service of some cause about today.  It is of course absurd, but nonetheless it makes a lot of hay, I guess.  You are calling upon this text (New Testament) to support your political antagonism toward gays.  The Nazis called upon the text to rail against Jews, and call into being the New Order.  Southerners call upon the text to rail against Africans and establish a hierarchy of social status between and among the races.  That's what you get when your source has no end game.

But in the end it's a waste of time.  The peculiar thing about history is that it is current.  If that sounds ironic, it is.  History is a recounting, not a living of events.  When you call upon the NT to support your contemporary thesis, you are doing no more than you, yourself, and the line you can draw around your own ass, living your present being.  It is current history, and you can put the book back on the shelf.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

never read thomas or any of the other so call gospels, i trust what i find in my bible and trust that God will make sure his word is what he wants it to be and of course we have the Holy Spirit to guide us...  

What you'll find in what you are reading is utter nonsense, that bears no relevance to today.  That is because ti was a text extending a contract--join together and ye shall be rewarded--offered at a time when an empire was falling apart (whosoever believes in him, but he be dead so shall he live).

Like so many texts that are two millenia removed from their purpose, it is too tempting to call the words into service of some cause about today.  It is of course absurd, but nonetheless it makes a lot of hay, I guess.  You are calling upon this text (New Testament) to support your political antagonism toward gays.  The Nazis called upon the text to rail against Jews, and call into being the New Order.  Southerners call upon the text to rail against Africans and establish a hierarchy of social status between and among the races.  That's what you get when your source has no end game.

But in the end it's a waste of time.  The peculiar thing about history is that it is current.  If that sounds ironic, it is.  History is a recounting, not a living of events.  When you call upon the NT to support your thesis, you are doing no more than you, yourself, and the line you can draw around your own ass, living your present being.  It is current history, and you can put the book back on the shelf.

if you keep it in context this done not happen, basics really, the parts of the bible found have shown they have been kept incredibly true to the original and the amount of copies and relatively short period, for a historical document, from the original to the translations help keep it true and correct...

I am astounded by GAT's reply he takes what was decided by men hundreds of years later as the bible, whilst ignoring countless other gospels and writings, that makes no sense.
It means you place the validity of the works not down to Jesus himself but by those who decided at the Council of Nicaea?
Are you saying these men who never knew Jesus knew which Gospel was more accurate than another?
Please explain this and show the historicity behind each gospel to back your claim?  


Here is a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, please read and tell me what you think?


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Didge wrote:I am astounded by GAT's reply he takes what was decided by men hundreds of years later as the bible, whilst ignoring countless other gospels and writings, that makes no sense.
It means you place the validity of the works not down to Jesus himself but by those who decided at the Council of Nicaea?
Are you saying these men who never knew Jesus knew which Gospel was more accurate than another?
Please explain this and show the historicity behind each gospel to back your claim?  


Here is a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, please read and tell me what you think?


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

I guess centuries of dogma promoting the Bible as we know it has had the effect of dulling the minds of adherents to the point where anything which might cast doubt on their faiths completeness is simply ignored- he needs a concordance, and ignores 'other' gospels- a true sheep in his Lord's flock   

Didge wrote:I am astounded by GAT's reply he takes what was decided by men hundreds of years later as the bible, whilst ignoring countless other gospels and writings, that makes no sense.
It means you place the validity of the works not down to Jesus himself but by those who decided at the Council of Nicaea?
Are you saying these men who never knew Jesus knew which Gospel was more accurate than another?
Please explain this and show the historicity behind each gospel to back your claim?  


Here is a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, please read and tell me what you think?


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

just because something was written at or around or even previous to the bible does not mean it belongs in it..lol

have faith in my God that he is powerful enough to ensure what he intended to be put in his word actually was...

if men decide it, they did a very good job editing it, especially allowing for its time...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What you'll find in what you are reading is utter nonsense, that bears no relevance to today.  That is because ti was a text extending a contract--join together and ye shall be rewarded--offered at a time when an empire was falling apart (whosoever believes in him, but he be dead so shall he live).

Like so many texts that are two millenia removed from their purpose, it is too tempting to call the words into service of some cause about today.  It is of course absurd, but nonetheless it makes a lot of hay, I guess.  You are calling upon this text (New Testament) to support your political antagonism toward gays.  The Nazis called upon the text to rail against Jews, and call into being the New Order.  Southerners call upon the text to rail against Africans and establish a hierarchy of social status between and among the races.  That's what you get when your source has no end game.

But in the end it's a waste of time.  The peculiar thing about history is that it is current.  If that sounds ironic, it is.  History is a recounting, not a living of events.  When you call upon the NT to support your thesis, you are doing no more than you, yourself, and the line you can draw around your own ass, living your present being.  It is current history, and you can put the book back on the shelf.

if you keep it in context this done not happen, basics really, the parts of the bible found have shown  they have been kept incredibly true to the original and the amount of copies and relatively short period, for a historical document, from the original to the translations help keep it true and correct...

The Bible is not Nostradamus.  If it predicts anything, let's face it, it didn't happen.  Now, it's like a dangling participle...a modifier associated with a word other than the one intended, or with no particular word at all.  An open invitation for abuse.

There is no necessary connection--as Kant would say--to events of the present day.  The interpretation you give it is--let's fact it--you and your imaginings.  You have to believe in the occult in order for you to believe the Bible has any relevance today.

I would say the closest thing to the Bible today is Hollywood--lot's of money, applied to lot's of imaginings, to make for more money in the creative world.  But Hollywood is honest about it.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:I am astounded by GAT's reply he takes what was decided by men hundreds of years later as the bible, whilst ignoring countless other gospels and writings, that makes no sense.
It means you place the validity of the works not down to Jesus himself but by those who decided at the Council of Nicaea?
Are you saying these men who never knew Jesus knew which Gospel was more accurate than another?
Please explain this and show the historicity behind each gospel to back your claim?  


Here is a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, please read and tell me what you think?


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

I guess centuries of dogma promoting the Bible as we know it has had the effect of dulling the minds of adherents to the point where anything which might cast doubt on their faiths completeness is simply ignored- he needs a concordance, and ignores 'other' gospels- a true sheep in his Lord's flock   

Hi Eilzel

Agreed, I just find it incredible, they take the view of people centuries later as if their view is valid to what is more reliable and this is what they base their faith on. What Quill said was also bang on the money, but I guess faith blinds reasoning

Utterly absurd, mind you I find the same with Islam with their hadiths and the Quran, the former has no originals fro the time, many come centuries later and no complete Quran for hundreds of years after also. It astounds me how people by into that and never question the historicity of any of the works

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:I am astounded by GAT's reply he takes what was decided by men hundreds of years later as the bible, whilst ignoring countless other gospels and writings, that makes no sense.
It means you place the validity of the works not down to Jesus himself but by those who decided at the Council of Nicaea?
Are you saying these men who never knew Jesus knew which Gospel was more accurate than another?
Please explain this and show the historicity behind each gospel to back your claim?  


Here is a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, please read and tell me what you think?


http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

just because something was written at or around or even previous to the bible does not mean it belongs in it..lol

have faith in my God that he is powerful enough to ensure what he intended to be put in his word actually was...

if men decide it, they did a very good job editing  it, especially allowing for its time...  

Indeed it may not just like the works you already back that you think do, which again you failed to answer my point backing why any do, with evidence.
The fact is you are going off the views of men 300 years after Jesus lived and not your own researched views on this, you take as Gospel what again men who never knew him thought was valid, that is not only daft but absurd.
You also gavea complete bullshit answer to my points, which is nothing new

Didge wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:


just because something was written at or around or even previous to the bible does not mean it belongs in it..lol

have faith in my God that he is powerful enough to ensure what he intended to be put in his word actually was...

if men decide it, they did a very good job editing  it, especially allowing for its time...  

Indeed it may not just like the works you already back that you think do, which again you failed to answer my point backing why any do, with evidence.
The fact is you are going off the views of men 300 years after Jesus lived and not your own researched views on this, you take as Gospel what again men who never knew him thought was valid, that is not only daft but absurd.
You also gavea complete bullshit answer to my points, which is nothing new    

i think the editing alone shows that it was not men that decided to put it together but i guess that is my personal view, have no reason to doubt that my God did not have put in his word, precisely what he wanted, have i read everything written from that time, nope, do i ever intend to...nope...

i think you may find many historical texts that we take as "gospel", were written well after the events and almost always by the victor, so who knows what we are reading sometimes, not many are as well supported as the bible..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Didge wrote:


Indeed it may not just like the works you already back that you think do, which again you failed to answer my point backing why any do, with evidence.
The fact is you are going off the views of men 300 years after Jesus lived and not your own researched views on this, you take as Gospel what again men who never knew him thought was valid, that is not only daft but absurd.
You also gavea complete bullshit answer to my points, which is nothing new    

i think the editing alone shows that it was not men that decided to put it together but i guess that is my personal view,  have no reason to doubt that my God did not have put in his word, precisely what he wanted, have i read everything written from that time, nope, do i ever intend to...nope...

i think you may find many historical texts that we take as "gospel", were written well after the events and almost always by the victor, so who knows what we are reading sometimes, not many are as well supported as the bible..

The difference between other historical texts is they lay claim to no universal truths. When compiling accounts of history any individual text is cross referenced, subject to serious academic scrutiny and looked at with a critical eye and always aware that any account is bound to contain a level of subjectivity

There is no similar scrutiny with the Bible. And considering it was put together in a Roman context it is amazing you can simply take everything in that book at face value.

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

i think the editing alone shows that it was not men that decided to put it together but i guess that is my personal view,  have no reason to doubt that my God did not have put in his word, precisely what he wanted, have i read everything written from that time, nope, do i ever intend to...nope...

i think you may find many historical texts that we take as "gospel", were written well after the events and almost always by the victor, so who knows what we are reading sometimes, not many are as well supported as the bible..

The difference between other historical texts is they lay claim to no universal truths. When compiling accounts of history any individual text is cross referenced, subject to serious academic scrutiny and looked at with a critical eye and always aware that any account is bound to contain a level of subjectivity

There is no similar scrutiny with the Bible. And considering it was put together in a Roman context it is amazing you can simply take everything in that book at face value.

really yet we teach on some of these historic accounts do we not, as if they are true...  

there has been more scrutiny toward the bible than most books ever written, i would have thought..  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The difference between other historical texts is they lay claim to no universal truths. When compiling accounts of history any individual text is cross referenced, subject to serious academic scrutiny and looked at with a critical eye and always aware that any account is bound to contain a level of subjectivity

There is no similar scrutiny with the Bible. And considering it was put together in a Roman context it is amazing you can simply take everything in that book at face value.

really yet we teach on some of these historic accounts do we not, as if they are true...  

there has been more scrutiny toward the bible than most books ever written, i would have thought..  

Not by blind followers...

We teach history based on what we know from multiple accounts, part of studying history (including learning about history), is looking for certain things in certain sources that may be subject to further inquiry. If you read a general history book it will offer many reference points to back up points made- your average history book has a bibliography of many pages to the point it is as big as a chapter itself. You obviously know nothing about this sort of thing tbf.

Eilzel wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

really yet we teach on some of these historic accounts do we not, as if they are true...  

there has been more scrutiny toward the bible than most books ever written, i would have thought..  

Not by blind followers...

We teach history based on what we know from multiple accounts, part of studying history (including learning about history), is looking for certain things in certain sources that may be subject to further inquiry. If you read a general history book it will offer many reference points to back up points made- your average history book has a bibliography of many pages to the point it is as big as a chapter itself. You obviously know nothing about this sort of thing tbf.

i don't think that is always case many historical pieces may only have one account of a certain event, so we are left deciding whether to believe the writer or not.. or equally if there are several accounts wee ar left guessing which account if any or all are correct..

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Not by blind followers...

We teach history based on what we know from multiple accounts, part of studying history (including learning about history), is looking for certain things in certain sources that may be subject to further inquiry. If you read a general history book it will offer many reference points to back up points made- your average history book has a bibliography of many pages to the point it is as big as a chapter itself. You obviously know nothing about this sort of thing tbf.

i don't think that is always case many historical pieces may only have one account of a certain event, so we are left deciding whether to believe the writer or not.. or equally if there are several accounts wee ar left guessing which account if any or all are correct..

All knowledge is corrigible, GIG. That's why science is call inquiry, and not final. History too is corrigible, in that our conclusions as to what happened may be corrected or improved upon. The process is never final.

What is objectionable about religious zealots is that they claim their findings to be final. That's a different pursuit entirely. Moreover, when it is about alleged old men who walk on clouds and perform 'wonders and signs,' that poses some big doubts to rational people.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
i don't think that is always case many historical pieces may only have one account of a certain event, so we are left deciding whether to believe the writer or not.. or equally if there are several accounts wee ar left guessing which account if any or all are correct..

All knowledge is corrigible, GIG.  That's why science is call inquiry, and not final.  History too is corrigible, in that our conclusions as to what happened may be corrected or improved upon.  The process is never final.

What is objectionable about religious zealots is that they claim their findings to be final.  That's a different pursuit entirely.  Moreover, when it is about alleged old men who walk on clouds and perform 'wonders and signs,' that poses some big doubts to rational people.

don't think that is true at all find new wonders in the bible every time I study...  

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All knowledge is corrigible, GIG.  That's why science is call inquiry, and not final.  History too is corrigible, in that our conclusions as to what happened may be corrected or improved upon.  The process is never final.

What is objectionable about religious zealots is that they claim their findings to be final.  That's a different pursuit entirely.  Moreover, when it is about alleged old men who walk on clouds and perform 'wonders and signs,' that poses some big doubts to rational people.

don't think that is true at all  find new wonders in the bible every time I study...  

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.

Original Quill wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
don't think that is true at all  find new wonders in the bible every time I study...  

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...  

Dear me, is he still giving lame excuses for not researching his faith?

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...