U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-14-2016, 06:23 PM
Status: "More than chromosomes." (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Anderson, IN
4,059 posts, read 1,142,720 times
Reputation: 2476

Advertisements

You don't reach people by telling them about Hell. You reach people by telling them about Hope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2016, 07:26 PM
 
32,538 posts, read 29,319,241 times
Reputation: 32238
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekigurl View Post
You don't reach people by telling them about Hell. You reach people by telling them about Hope.
Amen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2016, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,574 posts, read 5,111,549 times
Reputation: 3914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I haven't, and don't deflect.


No, that is not what you said. You originally stated that the New Testament didn't exist until 300 years after Jesus.
Post #126, ''There was no NT until 300 years after Christ.''
And that simply is not true. The 27 New Testament books were all written before the end of the 1st century. They simply were not all put under one cover until a later time.



The arguments used by those scholars who doubt the Pauline authorship of some of the letters attributed to him have all been addressed by those scholars who do hold to the Pauline authorship of those letters, and found to be weak.


No, it has not been proven that forgeries were accepted into the New Testament canon. What is true however is that no book was accepted into the New Testament canon if the church had doubts about the book. That's why the disputed books were not immediately recognized as canonical but finally were recognized by the church at large.



There were several criteria that the church used in recognizing the authenticity of a NT letter. The three basic criteria were 1.) Apostolicity, 2.) Orthodoxy, and 3.) consensus among the churches.

Apostolicity: for a letter to be recognized as canonical it had to have been written during the time of the apostles, by an apostle, or by someone closely associated with an apostle. This is why, as stated in the Muratorian Canon the Shepherd of Hermas could not be accepted as canonical. It had been written too late.

Orthodoxy: In order to be accepted as canonical a letter had to conform to what was called the 'rule of faith.' That is, it had to be in keeping with the basic teachings of the church which already existed and which were considered as normative.

Consensus among the churches: This had to do with continuous usage and acceptance by the church at large.

Bruce Metzger goes into more detail about these criteria used by the early church for recognizing canoncity in his book, 'The Canon of the New Testament, It's Origin, Development, and Significance.'




Of course certain people had doubts about certain New Testament documents. That is why the disputed letters were delayed in being recognized as canonical. Finally however, they were recognized by the church at large even though certain individuals continued to disagree.


I said nothing about anyone being a 'pure and accepting soul.' Nor have I said that I prize the Muratorian canon most.
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. 1 And this the ancient elders 2 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. 3 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; 4 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 5

Eusebius on the Canon of Scripture
In Eusebius' statement above he was expressing his opinion and that of those who were in agreement with him that 2 Peter was not canonical. He then recognized that others did not share his view. It is a fact that while there were those who did not believe that 2 Peter belonged in the canon, it was finally recognized by the church at large that it did belong in the canon. There will always be some who disagree.




The Muratorian Canon simply recognizes 21 of the New Testament books that were accepted as canonical by the late 2nd century. It also mentions some of the documents which were not acceptable.



The issue of canonicity was not even a topic of discussion at The First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. in which 1800 bishops attended. At that first counsel there were twenty areas of discussion which were addressed, and none of them concerned which books belonged in the canon.

The Canons of the Council of Nicea

It was at a later counsel that a formal recognition of the books already generally recognized by the church as canonical was addressed.



Again, while some of the NT documents had been disputed, they were finally recognized as canonical. But even as early as the late 2nd century, 21 of the 27 NT books were recognized as being a part of the canon. It was only the few disputed books at were an issue for a time.




Again, the first Council of Nicea wasn't concerned about the issue of canoncity.


Only the few disputed books were the topic of discussion. Not all 27. Again, 21 of the books had been recognized as canonical by the late century. And actually, long before that.


No. Twenty-one does not make twenty-seven. It makes twenty-one. And those twenty-one, once again, were recognized as canonical in the 2nd century and were not in dispute.

The criteria which the early church used to recognized the canoncity of a NT document has already been posted above. As for the few disputed books, the fact that they were disputed but finally recognized as canonical means that the church did in fact have a methodology for determining a forgery.



As already stated, there will always be some who doubt the canonicity of certain NT books, but the church at large has recognized the 27 NT books.



From God's standpoint, the NT canon was complete with the writing of the last of the 27 NT books by the end of the first century. From man's standpoint, most of those books were never in doubt, and the few which were disputed were finally recognized as canonical even though some individuals continued to disagree.



Those additions have nothing to do with the issue of which books belong in the NT canon. It's a different issue.
Yes, the Council had a way of determining what books were "canon." They took a vote--in 381 CE. That is the officially recocognized date that what is now orthodox had beaten competitors. Until in the mid 15th century Martin Luther listed four books he felt the Council was misguided on. Those four threatened his own theology--and at least one, James, undermines your own.

I suppose God knew what He was doing by putting in a letter to undermine OSAS because James is not destroyed by other Scripture, it is only challenged by fictional, non-biblical "explanations."

Our own pastor, close to graduation from Asbury Theological Seminary, brought up the topic of "what makes the Bible authoritative," in our small group discussion tonight--not knowing that here on CD we are engaged in a similar discussion about the roots of NT Scripture.

While he agrees with both of us that most of the canonical writings, if not all, existed prior to the second century, he points out that it is unlikely ANY existing group held to all the books eventually canonized in 381. And that it would be another century or so before heretical writings were gone. You cannot have a "canon" outside official recognition by some church authority--that didn't happen completely until 381, but was begun in 312 as some books began to be purged and destroyed.

How does he view 2nd Peter? Not a chance of being written by the apostle, but by one of his followers. Paul, he mostly agrees with you except for Hebrews. But his point was mine, also. If it is viewed as inspired, what difference does it make who wrote it?

It makes a difference only to those lacking the eyes of faith to see inspiration. It makes a difference for those seeking to elevate Scripture above its intended purpose--which is to point faithful followers toward Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2016, 10:12 PM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Yes, the Council had a way of determining what books were "canon." They took a vote--in 381 CE. That is the officially recocognized date that what is now orthodox had beaten competitors. Until in the mid 15th century Martin Luther listed four books he felt the Council was misguided on. Those four threatened his own theology--and at least one, James, undermines your own.

I suppose God knew what He was doing by putting in a letter to undermine OSAS because James is not destroyed by other Scripture, it is only challenged by fictional, non-biblical "explanations."

Our own pastor, close to graduation from Asbury Theological Seminary, brought up the topic of "what makes the Bible authoritative," in our small group discussion tonight--not knowing that here on CD we are engaged in a similar discussion about the roots of NT Scripture.

While he agrees with both of us that most of the canonical writings, if not all, existed prior to the second century, he points out that it is unlikely ANY existing group held to all the books eventually canonized in 381. And that it would be another century or so before heretical writings were gone. You cannot have a "canon" outside official recognition by some church authority--that didn't happen completely until 381, but was begun in 312 as some books began to be purged and destroyed.

How does he view 2nd Peter? Not a chance of being written by the apostle, but by one of his followers. Paul, he mostly agrees with you except for Hebrews. But his point was mine, also. If it is viewed as inspired, what difference does it make who wrote it?

It makes a difference only to those lacking the eyes of faith to see inspiration. It makes a difference for those seeking to elevate Scripture above its intended purpose--which is to point faithful followers toward Christ.
As I have already shown, and as Bruce Metzger, and other scholars have recognized, the early church used at least 3 different criteria to recognize which books were canonical. And this process was going on long before A.D. 387. As clearly stated in the Muratorian canon which is dated to c. A.D 175, books written after the time of the apostles could not be included in the canon. If you choose to ignore that fact, that's on you. But it is irresponsible to claim that the canon was determined by a vote. I'll put that another way. The church did not make a NT document canonical, it could only recognize what was already canonical because it had divine authority. For all the good it will do, I will say one last time that the counsels simply formalized the recognition of the books which had already been accepted as canonical. Yes, some of the books weren't accepted for a long time, but most of the books had long since been recognized as canonical as can be seen from the list of 21 NT books in the Muratorian Canon.

A canon is simply a listing or catalog of recognized books. There was the Muratorion Canon of c. A.D. 175. There was the Canon of Origen (c. A.D. 185-254). There was the Canon of Eusebius (A.D. 265-340). There was a Canon of uncertain date and provenance inserted in Codex Claromontanus. There was the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D 360). There was the Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D 360). The Canon approved by the Synod of Laodicea (c. A.D 363). And several other canon lists had been drawn up as well.

It was in fact, in the year A.D. 367 in the Thirty-ninth Festal of Athanasius that the New Testament was first declared to be the 27 books accepted today as canonical.
From Letter XXXIX.(For 367.) Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church.


5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
And not everyone agreed with that list of Athanasius.

While it took time for the early church to finally recognize the canonicity of all of the 27 NT documents that make up the New Testament, from God's standpoint, it was a done deal when the last of those 27 NT documents had been written, which was before the end of the first century.

As for the question of what difference does it make who wrote the NT documents, since the Bible is the word of God, and the word of truth, any book which is stated in the text to have been written by a particular person, i.e. Paul or Peter for instance, then the document was written by the named author.

This is the next to the last post I am going to post on this matter. The next post was actually written but not yet submitted before I saw this one, and it will be the last.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2016, 10:13 PM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
I'm not going to keep refuting the same points without you providing any new data.
You haven't refuted anything at all. However, your claim that the New Testament didn't exist until 300 years after Christ has been refuted.

Quote:
1). There are still discrepancies between Christian faiths about what should be in the Bible.
And there probably always will be, which I believe I already pointed out. Regardless, the church at large had accepted by A.D. 367 the 27 NT books that make up the Bible as we have it today even though not everyone agreed. And to repeat myself yet again, 21 of those 27 NT books had already been recognized in the Muratorian Canon in the late 2nd century.

Quote:
2). The Bible as currently printed does not reflect the oldest documents that have been discovered in the last 100 years.
That's not what the New Testament textual critics say. I will post the quotes of a number of textual critics which I have posted before on other threads. And which you must have known that I would.

Most New Testament textual critics (scholars who study and compare the New Testament documents) maintain that the New Testament text is extremely reliable. Though there are an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 textual variants, the vast majority are absolutely meaningless and affect nothing. Many of them are not even translatable from Greek into English. A textual variant is simply a lack of uniformity of wording among the manuscripts regarding a particular word, sentence, or paragraph. These variants fall into the following categories.

1.) Spelling differences and nonsense errors. This category is by far the majority of the variants.
For example, in Greek, the name John may be spelled Ἰωάννῃ (Ianns) or Ἰωάνῃ (Ians). But in English, it is translated as John.

One of the most common textual variants involves the 'movable nu.' This is a nu - 'ν'. In English, it is the letter 'n.' In Greek the nu - 'ν' can occur at the end of certain words which precede a word that begins with a vowel. Whether a scribe used the nu or not is similar to saying 'a' or 'an'. 'An apple', or 'a apple.' Not using it when he should have just means the scribe was careless or couldn't spell. But it doesn't affect the meaning.

A nonsense error is a mistake on the part of a scribe which in context obviously makes no sense and when compared with other manuscripts can be easily seen to not be the original wording.
2.) Minor variations that have no affect on translations or that involve the use of synonyms. This category of variant does not involve spelling or nonsense readings, but which also don't affect translation. For example, The Greek may or may not use the definite article with a proper name, whereas the English does not. Luke 2:16 in Greek says 'the Mary' - τήν τε Μαριὰμ (both the Mary) καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ (and the Joseph). So 'Mary' or 'the Mary' would be variants which affect nothing. And in English we simply translate it as 'Mary.'

Then there are variants among the Greek manuscripts resulting from the fact that Greek is an inflectional language which means that when writing something the same thing can be said using different word order since the subject is always in the nominative case and the direct object is always in the accusative case. In Greek, the subject and object are not determined by word order as in English, but by the case ending.

Variants are also the result of using synonyms. A scribe of a particular manuscript might use the noun 'Jesus' instead of the pronoun 'He.' For instance, in Matthew 4:18, 12:25; Mark 2:15, 10:52; and Luke 24:36 the Byzantine manuscript text type tends to use the name 'Jesus' while the Alexandrian manuscripts say 'He.' While this affects translation, whether 'Jesus' or 'He' is used, the referent is still Jesus.

Another variant might involve an addition such as a passage saying 'Christ Jesus' instead of 'Jesus'. In Acts 19:4, the Alexandrian manuscripts have 'Jesus' while the Byzantine manuscripts have 'Christ Jesus.' Obviously Jesus is the Christ, and so whether or not a particular passage says 'Christ Jesus' or simply 'Jesus' doesn't affect the meaning.

3.) Differences that affect the meaning, but are not viable (that is, there is no chance of them going back to the original autographs.) As an example, I quote Dan Wallace in an interview.
For example, in Luke 6:22, the ESV reads, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” But one manuscript from the 10th/11th century (codex 2882) lacks the words “on account of the Son of Man.” That’s a very meaningful variant since it seems to say that a person is blessed when he is persecuted, regardless of his allegiance to Christ. Yet it is only in one manuscript, and a relatively late one at that. It has no chance of reflecting the wording of the original text, since all the other manuscripts are against it, including quite a few that are much, much earlier.

An Interview with Daniel B. Wallace on the New Testament Manuscripts | TGC
4.) Differences that affect the meaning, and are viable. This last category involves only about 1 percent or less of the varients. These variants affect the meaning of the text to some degree, but not in any major way.

For instance, in Romans 5:1, did Paul write, ''We have peace'' (ἔχομεν - echomen), or did he write, ''let us have peace'' (ἔχωμεν - echōmen)? The difference in the two words is one letter. Regardless of which of the two reading is correct, they don't contradict what the Bible teaches. If Paul was saying that we have peace with God he was referring to the believer's positional status with God in Christ Jesus. If he was saying ''let us have peace with God'' then he was simply urging believers to realize that peace.

The largest textual variant in the New Testament involves Mark 16:9-20. Did Mark intend to end his gospel account at verse 8 or did the last part of that chapter get lost somehow? Scholars debate that question. But verses 9-20 are generally believed not to have been the original reading. Even so, that reading doesn't really affect any cardinal doctrine. The apostles did cast out demons, and did speak in tongues [v. 17]. As well, they did lay hands on the sick and heal them [v.18].

As for picking up snakes and drinking poison, while nowhere in the New Testament are these practices reported as happening, Eusebius tells of a tradition in which a man drank poison but was unharmed.
Church History Book 3.39.9

8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.
CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)
As well, this could be referring to being compelled to pick up snakes and drink poison rather than to the voluntary practice of them. And it could be restricted to the apostolic period of the Church-age. Regardless, no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by this variant.


So what do the textual critics say about the reliability of the New Testament?

F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the most highly regarded scholars of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He commented...
But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament , whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. [The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 230]

Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]

Even Bart D. Ehrman who puts a skeptical spin on things when writing for the general public made the following statement in a college textbook as quoted by Dan Wallace in 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' on pg. 24...
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.


In an article by Dan Wallace, he wrote...
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

The following quotes are from the book 'Reinventing Jesus', 2006, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace.
''Since the earliest texts that we have agree substantially with the later ones, if we were to project backward to the original, the changes from the original text to the earliest copies would be miniscule.'' [p. 55]

''The reality is that, although most of the text of the New Testament is not in dispute, some passages are.'' [p. 61]

''As we look at the materials and methods of textual criticism in the succeeding chapters, we will see that there are solid reasons for regarding the manuscripts of the New Testament as substantially correct in representing the original text.'' [p.70]

''As we saw in the last chapter, only a very small percentage of the New Testament is in doubt.'' [p. 73]

''For the vast majority of the textual variants, there is simply no difficulty determining the original wording.'' [p. 83]
And so, yes, the New Testament is textually reliable.




Quote:
3). Constantine pressed the bishops for a settlement and for unity--which there was not:
ConstantineThe Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible
4). It was well into the fourth century before the 27 books of the NT were listed and nearly a decade later before they were finally affirmed



Various lists or catalogs of the NT Books had been drawn up in the early centuries of the church, and not all in agreement. Again however, this is simply from the human side of things the process of coming to recognize which Books were canonical. From God's standpoint, once the last of the 27 NT Books had been written by the end of the first century A.D. the canon was closed. God was involved in guiding the church in recognizing which Books He intended to make up the New Testament Scriptures.

Quote:
5). Canonization took many years as there was not easy method to spread all writings to many differing christian communites:
The Canonization of the Bible: Part of 'The Origins of the Bible' series
Already addressed just above.
Quote:
All sorts of writings were floating around for over three centuries and some were not formally dismissed until the fifth century.
And yet finally they were.

Quote:
Most Pauline scholars doubt the authenticity of all the letters ascribed to him. You are in a minority of fundamentalist believers defending the undefendable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles

The number of biblical scholars defending Paul as the author of all 11 letters traditionally ascribed to him are equal to the number of biblical scholars ascribing to YEC.
This too has already been addressed. It's not a numbers game. Truth is not determined by majority consensus. Scholarship at times comes to conclusions using arguments that really don't hold up.

No scholar who believes that the Bible is the word of God, the word of truth would ever deny the Pauline authorship of all the epistles bearing his name. And the early church was unanimous in it's view that Paul wrote all of those letters.


Quote:
True to form, you believe only your interpretation to have any standing and everyone else, no matter how numerous, how well educated, nor how well studied--are in error. The only question is--do you send them all to hell.
Diverting.

Quote:
If you wish to revive my thread on "God hates SINNERS," please do so. Since you are apparently claiming He does not, it will make for an interesting adjustment on who supports who. You will have Mystic, TroutDude, DewDropInn, Jerwade, and host of other good people siding with you. As a true manipulator, you ignore the title of the thread and picked up on a subline I wrote within it. But that is your history---as in when you take a line from a guy like Bruce Metzger, F.F. Bruce or agnostic Bart Ehrman and use those to support your fundamentalist position when clearly an overview of ALL their beliefs disproves your position.
The Bible states right out that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. And so no, God does not hate sinners.


All right, I think this has gone on long enough. I have made my point that the New Testament was complete when the last of the 27 NT Books had been written by the end of the first century. Putting all 27 Books under one cover at a later time is a completely different issue.

As well, the church did not knowingly accept forgeries into the canon. Examples of forgeries that were rejected have already been given.

Since you reject the fact that the Bible is the word of God, it naturally follows that you don't believe that God had any thing to do with guiding the early church in recognizing which books were canonical. But the Bible is the word of God, and He did provide guidance even though it took a good long time before the church at large came to the recognition of the canonicity all twenty-seven Books.

And with that, I will end this discussion. For anyone who is interested, my other posts on this thread regarding this subject are #129, 136, 140, 142, 145, 146, 150, 156, 164, and 184.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-14-2016 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2016, 10:22 PM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
If he did he simply misspoke. There is NO hate in love and God IS agape love.
No, he didn't misspeak. In fact he states again in post #180 of this very thread that God hates sinners, that God hates us.

From post #180.

"If you wish to revive my thread on "God hates SINNERS," please do so. Since you are apparently claiming He does not, it will make for an interesting adjustment on who supports who. You will have Mystic, TroutDude, DewDropInn, Jerwade, and host of other good people siding with you.

He states right out in the first post of his thread - God Hates Sinners , that ''God hates us.''

And you posted on that thread, so you know what he said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,574 posts, read 5,111,549 times
Reputation: 3914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No, he didn't misspeak. In fact he states again in post #180 of this very thread that God hates sinners, that God hates us.

From post #180.

"If you wish to revive my thread on "God hates SINNERS," please do so. Since you are apparently claiming He does not, it will make for an interesting adjustment on who supports who. You will have Mystic, TroutDude, DewDropInn, Jerwade, and host of other good people siding with you.

He states right out in the first post of his thread - God Hates Sinners , that ''God hates us.''

And you posted on that thread, so you know what he said.
Stop ducking and revive the thread. I'm very interested in seeing your scriptural evaluations.

If you don't revive it, then you will have brought it up under a different topic for the purpose of being misleading--which is absolutely your MO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
10,005 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
It's just that few people actually know what the kingdom of heaven is. You take a preacher who never sins, he never commits any kind of immoral sex, he never fornicates, he goes to church every week, and he lives up to everyone's expectation of what a believer should be, and he is just amongst the majority is all. He thinks he has obtained the resurrection when he has not. Very few people will obtain the first resurrection as we believe in resurrection. Salvation is very broad, and salvation is salvation.
Speechless
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 02:10 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,574 posts, read 5,111,549 times
Reputation: 3914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You haven't refuted anything at all. However, your claim that the New Testament didn't exist until 300 years after Christ has been refuted.
No, I have refuted the implication that an orthodox acceptance of specific books of Scripture DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 300 CE. You are simply unable to respond to that because not a single source you have lists ONLY the 27 books of the NT and none other prior to the fourth century. Period. Otherwise give us a single link to one source prior to the fourth century listing ONLY the 27 books in our current NT. 21 books do not equal 27. That should be easy enough math for a second grader. Plus the fact that many other books are mentioned means -- NO CONSENSUS OF OPINION.

You cannot do it--and thereby expose the magnificent manipulation which runs through many of your posts.

<snip>



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
So what do the textual critics say about the reliability of the New Testament?And so, yes, the New Testament is textually reliable.
I prefer to let folks read some of the actual errors for themselves before they decide to step onto your swampy ground:
Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original writings.

Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery*; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery

John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts.

Mark 9:29: Jesus comments that a certain type of indwelling demon can only be exorcised through "prayer and fasting" (KJV) This is also found in the Rheims New Testament. But the word "fasting" did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. Many new English translations have dropped the word.

Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9 to 20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger*. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.

Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.

John 5:3-4: These verses describe how "a great multitude" of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all just, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.

John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe that the latter occurred.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious to some theologians that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.*
Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition.
Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations opposition to female ordination is based on these verses.


Revelation 1:11: The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha/Omega phrase
"... is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive 'A Textual Commentary' on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994...
(source:Translation errors and forgeries in the Bible )

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No scholar who believes that the Bible is the word of God, the word of truth would ever deny the Pauline authorship of all the epistles bearing his name. And the early church was unanimous in it's view that Paul wrote all of those letters.
Purely a garbage assumption. More bible scholars hold that Paul didn't write all the letters attributed to him than those that do. It is your JUDGMENT on this scholars that they don't believe the Bible is the word of God--just as it is your JUDGMENT of me that makes you state, with no foundation whatsoever, that I don't believe the bible is the word of God. I do--I just don't believe the "word" in the same way you do.

How about a little scientific evidence--the kind detectives use in solving written material in criminal cases:
Quote:
A.Q. Morton completed an analysis of these Epistles. He assumed that Galatians was written by Paul, and did a computer study of the style of the remaining letters using that epistle as a reference. His computer found that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philemon matched the precise writing style of the author of Galatians. He assumed that the remaining 8 were written in the name of Paul by persons unknown.
BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: "PAULINE EPISTLES"

Or how about Wikipedia:
Quote:
There is wide consensus in modern New Testament scholarship on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four–2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the Pastoral epistles–have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...uline_epistles
Wikipedia source material: The Blackwell Companion to The New Testament by David E. Aune ISBN 1405108258 page 9 "While seven of the letters attributed to Paul are almost universally accepted as authentic (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), four are just as widely judged to be pseudepigraphical, i.e. written by unknown authors under Paul's name: Ephesians and the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The Bible states right out that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. And so no, God does not hate sinners.
I stated that the dichotomy of God is shown in that He hated us and loved us at the same time.
Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Proverbs 6:18-19, Lev. 20:23, Hosea 9:15. If the bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God, then you cannot say that God doesn't state He hates sinners--unless you wish to reject inerrancy and infallibility. My liberal opponents on this do NOT believe the Bible is inerrant or infallible, so they aren't under the same burden. You do believe it, and I use YOUR beliefs to paint you into a corner.

God hated me as a sinner. He chased me through the years until I confessed, repented, and accepted Him. It makes it all the more remarkable that He would send His Son to die for me. It is the contrast between what might have been and what is. It is the dichotomy between suffering and salvation.

What's more, I think universalists are closer to the truth than you and I are about "heaven and hell." That is the real dichotomy of God hating us as sinners, but rescuing us regardless.

So now go back and try to twist some more, because you reject the several parts of the Bible stating God hates sinners. What makes your acceptance of some Scripture and rejection of others any different from anyone else--including me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Since you reject the fact that the Bible is the word of God, it naturally follows that you don't believe that God had any thing to do with guiding the early church in recognizing which books were canonical. But the Bible is the word of God, and He did provide guidance even though it took a good long time before the church at large came to the recognition of the canonicity all twenty-seven Books.
Please peruse my posts and show all of us where I stated the bible is not the word of God. That should keep you busy for some time and get you out of everyone's hair.

Until you illustrate this with my own post on CD, that definitively, unobtrusively, and clearly shows I stated "I DON"T BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, I say you are a prevaricating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 08:42 AM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
Stop ducking and revive the thread. I'm very interested in seeing your scriptural evaluations.

If you don't revive it, then you will have brought it up under a different topic for the purpose of being misleading--which is absolutely your MO.
I have no intention of reviving the thread you hypocrite. I merely brought up the fact that you believe that God hates everyone because you falsely accused me of hating homosexuals when our discussion wasn't even about that subject but was about when the New Testament was completed. In your intense hatred of fundamentalism and fundamentalists you just couldn't resist making another of your many false charges.

I posted it to show the hypocrisy of accusing someone (and falsely doing so) of hating homosexuals when you yourself think that God hates everyone.

You are a petty and tiny little man Dresden, and dishonest. And you are not a 'Christ follower' as you like to refer to yourself as anyone who has read enough of your posts can see. You are in fact a miserable excuse for a Christian. And I leave you with that.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-15-2016 at 08:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top