Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to this claim, I will only learn the "truth about God" once I no longer exist. I didn't exist before I was conceived, and I was a damned poor learner when I didn't yet exist. I came into this world a totally blank slate. I had to totally boot up from scratch. When I go out it will be exactly like disconnecting computer memory from the power supply. "Pooof!"
If anything has been established during this very brief discussion, it's that you consistently make assertions upon which no actual physical evidence is or can be given. Over and over, each insupportable assertion is based on yet another insupportable assertion. Notice if you will, that, try as you might, no actual physical evidence for your claims can be produced. And that, I am afraid, is exactly what makes empty claims empty.
Now explain your answer using the Bible, because it actually supports your statement about death and not existing. But it also supports the other posters comment as well that you will know. How is that possible? If you knew the Bible really well not only would you be knowledgeable but you'd also have the weight of the Bible behind you. The Bible will continue to be the 900 lb gorilla in the room that you must get past before anyone that believes the Bible to sees your points.
Then after that then you will get my side of the line where there are those that say they believe the Bible but actually don't because they don't follow it. So where there is no end to the debate until God does make the entire truth undeniable and everyone will know the truth. Really you'll just be changing who you debate with.
But with the specific issue of the authenticity of Paul's letters, while much of modern scholarship regards only seven of the letters which bear Paul's name to be authentic (not all scholars hold to that view by the way), the early church accepted all thirteen letters as genuine. And in point of fact, the early church did not accept letters which it knew to be Pseudepigraphical into the canon. The early church was very much concerned about the authenticity of the letters which claimed to be from the person whose name was stated as the author. Known forgeries were rejected. One of the criteria the early church used for acceptance of a letter into the New Testament canon was apostolicity. That is, it had to have been written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle.
What "early church" are you speaking of? The Christian church in Jerusalem disappeared with everything else in 70 AD. Anyone surviving scattered. At this point Christianity came under increasingly heavy persecution from the Romans, and Christians were forced to practice their beliefs in secret. Christianity would splinter into multiple different claims and beliefs over the course of the second and third centuries, with no unified doctrine, no established hierarchy, and certainly no physical edifices that could be called "churches." There was no single "the church" until Constantine brought together what would become the Catholic church in 325. Prior to that there were various competing Christianities, many of which would come to be referred to as "heresies" in later centuries by the emerging concept of Christianity that ultimately prevailed and bears a passing resemblance to what you believe today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
While many scholars today believe that Pseudepigraphy (writing in someone else's name) was an acceptable practice in the early church, the reality is quite different. For instance, the Muratorian Canon, dated to c. A.D. 175, rejects the letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians, and several others because they were forged in Paul's name.
''There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68)''
Pseudepigraphy was considered genuine, since it was declared that the Holy Spirit was responsible for the authorship, regardless of who wrote them. But of course the doctrine that an individual document was espousing had to coincide with the doctrine that the Catholic church collectively decided was the "true" doctrine. This is how Christianity constructed itself.
"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of `authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica; "Biblical Literature" p813).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Around A.D. 200, Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch learned that the Gospel of Peter was a forgery, and declared,
“For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
It has been generally acknowledged that the Gospel of Peter was a forgery for centuries. And yet it is from the Gospel of Peter that is derived the common tradition that Peter was crucified upside down at his own request. Because that's how pick and choose works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
It was because of the early churches concern about authenticity that several of the New Testament letters, i.e. Jude, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were disputed for a time, only to be recognized as canonical later.
Yes 2John and 3John were declared to be canonical. And yet the tradition continues to this day, also declared canon by the Catholic church, that the the epistles of John as well as the Gospel according to John, were written by the Apostle John. Which clearly is not true.
Do I believe in him?
I believe he existed and had a pretty darn huge experience of Reality, yes!
I don't know who he is in the scheme of creation...accept to say ...yet another
blessed soul that became Self-realized or God-realized or Self-actualized, I don't care for
the word Enlightened, but it would fit here...so many
words for ..''seeing Truth, Reality; seeing beyond this Illusion, this Dream".
I know that Seth, (The Nature of Personal Reality book) said Buddha had the most
accurate perception of Reality...that he really 'got it'.
Do I consider him a Lord? No.
Just another very high soul, a great brother that ascended to a higher place...and
that is where I'm going, too!!
Now explain your answer using the Bible, because it actually supports your statement about death and not existing. But it also supports the other posters comment as well that you will know. How is that possible? If you knew the Bible really well not only would you be knowledgeable but you'd also have the weight of the Bible behind you. The Bible will continue to be the 900 lb gorilla in the room that you must get past before anyone that believes the Bible to sees your points.
The Bible is a 900 pound gorilla in the way that a life-like balloon of a gorilla is is a 900 pound gorilla to anyone who believes that it's a real gorilla. It has power over those who suppose that it is the real deal. It has no such power over those who recognize that it is full of hot air.
Am I saying that the Bible is simply so much hot air? I have been saying just that all along. It is derived from the imagination of humans, and has no particular power over those who recognize that fact. You believe that a man and his family gathered two of every species of animal from every part of the earth, gathered them together on a very VERY large boat made of wood, and kept them alive for some months, while every other living thing on the planet (excluding those that swim) perished. You believe that Joshua commanded the earth to stop turning, causing the sun to stand still in the sky for a full day, and then restarted it again on command. You believe that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wondered the streets of Jerusalem. And most important, you believe that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. That is simply just so much hot air by any definition or the usage of the term, I am afraid. To those who are not inclined to believe in such tall tales, the Bible is simply a hot air balloon of a gorilla which makes no real impact on them at all. The Bible is interesting though, mainly because of it's impact on world history due to it's impact on those who believe that the gorilla balloon is an actual gorilla.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Timothy316
Then after that then you will get my side of the line where there are those that say they believe the Bible but actually don't because they don't follow it. So where there is no end to the debate until God does make the entire truth undeniable and everyone will know the truth. Really you'll just be changing who you debate with.
Or I will just be dead, in which case I will have no discussions whatsoever. Not being able to have discussions is one of the physical features that is OBSERVED TO BE TRUE, concerning dead people. As opposed to the stuff that has simply been made up and declared to be true.
My mistake. It was actually the Acts of Peter that described Peter's death upside down on a cross at his own request. Another pseudonymously authored work of pure fiction.
Since you don't believe in God, it's pointless discussing the issue of whether the Bible is the word of God with you.
But with the specific issue of the authenticity of Paul's letters, while much of modern scholarship regards only seven of the letters which bear Paul's name to be authentic (not all scholars hold to that view by the way), the early church accepted all thirteen letters as genuine. And in point of fact, the early church did not accept letters which it knew to be Pseudepigraphical into the canon. The early church was very much concerned about the authenticity of the letters which claimed to be from the person whose name was stated as the author. Known forgeries were rejected. One of the criteria the early church used for acceptance of a letter into the New Testament canon was apostolicity. That is, it had to have been written by an apostle or by someone closely associated with an apostle.
While many scholars today believe that Pseudepigraphy (writing in someone else's name) was an acceptable practice in the early church, the reality is quite different. For instance, the Muratorian Canon, dated to c. A.D. 175, rejects the letters to the Laodiceans and the Alexandrians, and several others because they were forged in Paul's name.
''There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68)''
Around A.D. 200, Serapion, the Bishop of Antioch learned that the Gospel of Peter was a forgery, and declared,
“For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
It was because of the early churches concern about authenticity that several of the New Testament letters, i.e. Jude, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were disputed for a time, only to be recognized as canonical later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
What "early church" are you speaking of? The Christian church in Jerusalem disappeared with everything else in 70 AD. Anyone surviving scattered. At this point Christianity came under increasingly heavy persecution from the Romans, and Christians were forced to practice their beliefs in secret. Christianity would splinter into multiple different claims and beliefs over the course of the second and third centuries, with no unified doctrine, no established hierarchy, and certainly no physical edifices that could be called "churches." There was no single "the church" until Constantine brought together what would become the Catholic church in 325. Prior to that there were various competing Christianities, many of which would come to be referred to as "heresies" in later centuries by the emerging concept of Christianity that ultimately prevailed and bears a passing resemblance to what you believe today.
Pseudepigraphy was considered genuine, since it was declared that the Holy Spirit was responsible for the authorship, regardless of who wrote them. But of course the doctrine that an individual document was espousing had to coincide with the doctrine that the Catholic church collectively decided was the "true" doctrine. This is how Christianity constructed itself.
"Having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously--i.e.. using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not considered to be either a trick or a fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested--as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul--the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered to be irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid second century however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was also a gradual cessation of `authentically pseudonymous' writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition." (The Encyclopedia Britannica; "Biblical Literature" p813).
It has been generally acknowledged that the Gospel of Peter was a forgery for centuries. And yet it is from the Gospel of Peter that is derived the common tradition that Peter was crucified upside down at his own request. Because that's how pick and choose works.
Yes 2John and 3John were declared to be canonical. And yet the tradition continues to this day, also declared canon by the Catholic church, that the the epistles of John as well as the Gospel according to John, were written by the Apostle John. Which clearly is not true.
As I not only told you, but provided examples, forgeries (Pseudepigrapha) were not accepted into the canon. Letters determined to be forgeries were rejected.
According to this claim, I will only learn the "truth about God" once I no longer exist. I didn't exist before I was conceived, and I was a damned poor learner when I didn't yet exist. I came into this world a totally blank slate. I had to totally boot up from scratch. When I go out it will be exactly like disconnecting computer memory from the power supply. "Pooof!"
If anything has been established during this very brief discussion, it's that you consistently make assertions upon which no actual physical evidence is or can be given. Over and over, each insupportable assertion is based on yet another insupportable assertion. Notice if you will, that, try as you might, no actual physical evidence for your claims can be produced. And that, I am afraid, is exactly what makes empty claims empty.
When you go out as you say you will simply go from being a spirit and soul living within a physical body to no longer having a physical body......... but it will still be you spirit and soul with all of your memories intact
This is not me hearing from someone else but as the expression goes "already been there and already done that"
You will have the same experience I did with the disposition of your future up to God. Personally I would have preferred to have been allowed to stay but got sent back.......... you can click on my blog if you want to read of it, or you can tell yourself I am lying about the whole thing. The one thing you cannot say is I heard it first from someone else because I did not find out what I had witnessed while on the other side of this life is recorded in the Bible until another 5 years went by
Then it was another 5 years before I connected the dots and why the man leaning over had put oil on my chest that was "anointing me with oil and lifting me up before God in prayer" rather than having something to do with electric shock therapy that I mistakenly assumed at the time
Or I will just be dead, in which case I will have no discussions whatsoever. Not being able to have discussions is one of the physical features that is OBSERVED TO BE TRUE, concerning dead people. As opposed to the stuff that has simply been made up and declared to be true.
Studying what the Bible has to say about death tends to not get one anywhere, and is frankly depressing. People can say what they want about what the Bible says about death but it is very much a "glass darkly" picture of what finally happens when our bodies kaput. Fortunately, there is more clarity available in the form of documented personal testimonies of people who have experienced the other side and come back, which are more tangible, and something one can engage with and find hope in.
Putting the clues / evidence together of real people's experiences of death confirms my position as a Christian universalist - one cannot hold to an eternal torment view after reading NDE testimonies. And the stupid thing is that God has made all the evidence and testimony plainly available through sites such as the following, that confirm or deny or indeed for me put a much clearer lense on what the bible 'might' imply about what happens in death.
Then it was another 5 years before I connected the dots and why the man leaning over had put oil on my chest that was "anointing me with oil and lifting me up before God in prayer" rather than having something to do with electric shock therapy that I mistakenly assumed at the time
When I read about Lively's oil rubber for the first time (not here), I thought, "Angel.". I'm still thinking that now. You get more of them in 'murica, ...like they have more demons, no, ALL the demons, in Africa.
The Bible is a 900 pound gorilla in the way that a life-like balloon of a gorilla is is a 900 pound gorilla to anyone who believes that it's a real gorilla. It has power over those who suppose that it is the real deal. It has no such power over those who recognize that it is full of hot air.
Am I saying that the Bible is simply so much hot air? I have been saying just that all along. It is derived from the imagination of humans, and has no particular power over those who recognize that fact. You believe that a man and his family gathered two of every species of animal from every part of the earth, gathered them together on a very VERY large boat made of wood, and kept them alive for some months, while every other living thing on the planet (excluding those that swim) perished. You believe that Joshua commanded the earth to stop turning, causing the sun to stand still in the sky for a full day, and then restarted it again on command. You believe that hordes of dead people came up out of their graves and wondered the streets of Jerusalem. And most important, you believe that a corpse came back to life and then subsequently flew away. That is simply just so much hot air by any definition or the usage of the term, I am afraid. To those who are not inclined to believe in such tall tales, the Bible is simply a hot air balloon of a gorilla which makes no real impact on them at all. The Bible is interesting though, mainly because of it's impact on world history due to it's impact on those who believe that the gorilla balloon is an actual gorilla.
Or I will just be dead, in which case I will have no discussions whatsoever. Not being able to have discussions is one of the physical features that is OBSERVED TO BE TRUE, concerning dead people. As opposed to the stuff that has simply been made up and declared to be true.
There is truth and there is belief. From the Bible's point of view even if you died today you would eventually know the truth when you were raised back to life. “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” — Acts 24:15
And that gorilla is not popped for me thus you still must get past it to make any point to me. So it's still your obstacle to deal with thus it still over powers you. See, I have been where you are but you haven't been where I am. I have knowledge of both your viewpoint and pretty good knowledge of the Bible. More knowledge doesn't make a person weaker even if don't believe in what they learned. So even though you don't believe in the Bible the sad thing is that you will not study even if it was just for knowledge sake. I have seen people that don't believe in the Bible use the Bible to completely disarm priests because they had a better knowledge of the Bible than the priest. You could be like that if you wanted. But you'd rather spin your wheels accomplishing nothing unable to prove your points. You say you're enlightened but really there are more enlightened people than you that don't believe in the Bible but still have a very good knowledge of the Bible. Tragic, but as they say it is what it is. When you are ready to get that gorilla on your side let me know and we will pick this back up. Until then, from my stand point the hot air is not coming from the gorilla.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So where there is no end to the debate until God does make the entire truth undeniable and everyone will know the truth. Really you'll just be changing who you debate with. 
