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.
Liberal theology is a cafeteria theology. You get to pick what you like and reject what you don't like. You are making yourself omniscient. Liberal theology rejects miracles and fulfilled prophecy. On what basis do you reject them?
I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut hole that Episcopal seminary course was not based on the inerrancy of the Bible, and reinforced liberal theology. If you believe something not reinforced from Scripture it is worthless. You have no assurance it is true.
And there you have it. It is not "pick what you like," but using a different standard. In this case it is the standard based on the standard promised by Jesus as recorded in your "infallible Bible but ignored by you: the promise of a "guide" to be with us forever, supported and govrned by the descriptions of the nature of that guide by Jesus and the apostles.
How silly. The time span in no way eliminates the writer from being an eyewitness. Not only that, it is impossible to accurately date when the gospels were written.
Dead people do not write books 80 years after they allegedly died.
Matthew copies part of Mark, so is not independent; and according to Tertullian, an early church father you say did not exist,
It is amusing how you secularist misread much of what I say. I did not say those me did not exist. I said they were not church fathers. God is the Father of his church, not sinful, errant men. Now I know the Catholic church calls the "church fathers" and if you want to believe that, that's fine with me.
Quote:
John was still being written over 80 years after it's alleged author allegedly died
But they didn't offer any verifiable evidence did they. If you want o believe hearsay, be my guest.
Quote:
knowing the Bible better than me means you knew that, right?
Knowing when and who wrote the Bible has nothing to do with knowing the Bible. I thought everyone knew that.
Quote:
And also point to him being fictional.
And again they offered no evidence, right?
Quote:
One just needs to decide which is more believable.
You finally got something right. I will stick with the men God inspired to write the Bible. If you wna't to accept the opinions of sinful men with an agenda, , be my guest
Quote:
Not the manuscripts, the texts we have. And if texts do not report the fall of Jerusalem, and talk about sacrifices that were taking place in the temple, that is very good evidence Hebrews was written before 70 AD (and therefore before the gospels).
If the text is not taken from the mss, they are of no value. What is in the book of Hebrews is not about the fall of Jerusalem or sacrifices in the temple. When Hebrews was written has no influence on what it teaches.
Quote:
According to the Bible. Circular.
It seems that what when the person does not understand what they are reading. Explain how it is circular. The truth is you can't.
Quote:
And fictional characters.
It is amusing but very sad that you are willing to accept something as true without a shred of evidence.
Quote:
The NT is very good evidence against itself.
Be specific. O you can't your source didn't tell you why. I have some land in Florida and a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Quote:
I do not need to prove it. Not seeing three day dead zombies is enough evidence to doubt your and every other religious claim.
That's right. If you want to believe something with no evidence, feel free. It just seems very foolish to me.
Quote:
But cosmologists have more evidence than you do for Jesus.
Cosmologist should be the poster child for wild speculations. All of their theories should start with "once upon a time" and end with "they all lived happily ever after."
Quote:
People do not walk on water. Easy
The omnipotent Ones can.
Quote:
And as the gospels clearly do plagiarize, you have just refuted the gospels.
You clearly do not understand what constitutes plagiarism.
Quote:
Yes, and those men said the gospels were not eyewitness accounts. Do keep up.
Luke 1:2 and 2 Pet 2:16 might set you free. That is what the truth does. I am sure you can prove those 2 verses are wrong. I can hardly wait for your evidence they are wrong.
It is amusing how you secularist misread much of what I say. I did not say those me did not exist. I said they were not church fathers. God is the Father of his church, not sinful, errant men. Now I know the Catholic church calls the "church fathers" and if you want to believe that, that's fine with me.
Post 285 'There is no such things as Christian fathers'
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
But they didn't offer any verifiable evidence did they. If you want o believe hearsay, be my guest.
Yes he did, around 200 AD. He quoted John up to chapter 20 and said it ended there.
Do not put your head above the wall to claim victory, I will just shoot you in the head again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
And again they offered no evidence, right?
It is the same evidence FOR a mythical gospel Jesus. If you want to admit to having no evidence ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
You finally got something right. I will stick with the men God inspired to write the Bible. If you wna't to accept the opinions of sinful men with an agenda, , be my guest
Home goal for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
If the text is not taken from the mss, they are of no value. What is in the book of Hebrews is not about the fall of Jerusalem or sacrifices in the temple. When Hebrews was written has no influence on what it teaches.
So the Bible is of no value, and you have not read Hebrews but feel free to make things up about it. You really are not very good at arguing your points, are you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
It seems that what when the person does not understand what they are reading. Explain how it is circular. The truth is you can't.
Using the bible to prove the bible is by definition circular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
It is amusing but very sad that you are willing to accept something as true without a shred of evidence.
No, I have read novels were fictional characters have prophecies about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Be specific. O you can't your source didn't tell you why. I have some land in Florida and a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Claiming victory after having already being defeated on this point is stupid. Jesus being born twice while not at all, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
That's right. If you want to believe something with no evidence, feel free. It just seems very foolish to me.
So evidence given is not evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Cosmologist should be the poster child for wild speculations. All of their theories should start with "once upon a time" and end with "they all lived happily ever after."
From a Bible believer, how amusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
The omnipotent Ones can.
And fictional ones, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
You clearly do not understand what constitutes plagiarism.
Strange how the plagiarism tool I wrote works, then, is it not?
Ninth commandment, have you forgotten it already? Also Proverbs 6:16-19 damns you twice over.
And if you have to invent excuses for your religion, then your religion is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Luke 1:2 and 2 Pet 2:16 might set you free. That is what the truth does. I am sure you can prove those 2 verses are wrong. I can hardly wait for your evidence they are wrong.
2 Peter, second century AD forgery, rejected by Christians for the first 300 years of Christianity, Luke uses Josephus, so is written after 95 AD. Ask and you shall receive.
I tout Christianity, not Christians. Christians are not perfect, we remain sinners. Maybe you need to consider how Jesus responded to His accusers. You can find it in Matt 23:13-23. One common word you will find in that passage is "hypocrite." Think about that before you criticize others.
If you want to criticize what I say, fine. I have ask if you criticize what trout says. I am still waiting for an answer and i bet you a dollar to a doughnut you have not. Guess what that makes you.
I'll talk about what I wish to talk about. You don't dictate that. You just worry about your own posts.
And there you have it. It is not "pick what you like," but using a different standard. In this case it is the standard based on the standard promised by Jesus as recorded in your "infallible Bible but ignored by you: the promise of a "guide" to be with us forever, supported and govrned by the descriptions of the nature of that guide by Jesus and the apostles.
You have it backwards. The only standard for fundamentalist is the Bible. Liberals are the one with no standard but their own. They pick and choose based on if it taste good to them. They have made themselves omniscient instead of God.
What do conservative ignore in the Bible? I bet you ignore more than we do.
"Allegedly" means you don't know. Come back when you have some verifiable evidence.
Take your own advice.
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.
