Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-25-2018, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,702 posts, read 13,559,539 times
Reputation: 17680

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
you would be singing a different tune if it was am atheist going to convert that tribe and they killed him.
I dunno. I'd think he was a bigger idiot than I do now. There is no "great commission" for atheists. An atheist that feels compelled to put his life in danger to "convert" somebody is doing it wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2018, 03:12 PM
 
18,228 posts, read 16,841,591 times
Reputation: 7533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I haven't glossed over it. That many Christians believe that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic and have done some stupid things, such as snake handling is irrelevant to the issue of whether Mark 16:9-20 is authentic. And the simple fact of the matter is that the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain the text of Mark 16:9-20.

Your claim that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, and your attempt to use Mark 16:18 to claim that Jesus promised that his disciples would not come to harm puts you in opposition to the majority of scholarly thought.

And again, far from promising that his disciples would not come to harm, Jesus said the opposite as per Matthew 24:9 and John 16:2.

Further, as I've already said, New Testament textual criticism is not about whether the text is inerrant or infallible. It is only concerned with getting back to the original text as closely as is possible. And most scholars are confident that the New Testament as we have it is some 99 percent faithful to the original text, though not all would agree with that conclusion.
Where did you ever read me saying Mark 16:9-20 is authentic? I don't believe it is authentic either. I claimed that for 1500+ years it was assumed to be authentic. Big difference. 5 centuries from now they may uncover incontrovertible evidence the entire gospel is inauthentic. Who knows? But had you argued with missionaries in 1500 CE that Mark 16:9-20 was not authentic they would have burned you at the stake because this was a big part of the Great Commission and you would have been labeled a heretic for dare stating it was a later addition by a monk.

But my greater point is that missionaries still use that passage in Mark to justify their missionary work. A good percentage of them might believe the passage to be authentic and a good percentage might not. I can only say that the ones that do not and then drag their little children off to the mission field in countries where hatred of Christians is rampant are exercising criminal child abuse and endangerment and should have their children taken away or laws passed in American to prohibit parents with threats of fines and imprisonment to prevent them from taking their children into dangerous areas. That would be a start. Mandatory psychological evaluation would be another big step for these Christian missionary nutjobs. If they're planning to do God's work in foreign it should be mandatory that they be sterilized And please don't comment on that because you know I'm just blowing off steam (but I personally believe it to be true).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 03:40 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
33,068 posts, read 26,267,471 times
Reputation: 16206
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Where did you ever read me saying Mark 16:9-20 is authentic? I don't believe it is authentic either. I claimed that for 1500+ years it was assumed to be authentic. Big difference. 5 centuries from now they may uncover incontrovertible evidence the entire gospel is inauthentic. Who knows? But had you argued with missionaries in 1500 CE that Mark 16:9-20 was not authentic they would have burned you at the stake because this was a big part of the Great Commission and you would have been labeled a heretic for dare stating it was a later addition by a monk.

But my greater point is that missionaries still use that passage in Mark to justify their missionary work. A good percentage of them might believe the passage to be authentic and a good percentage might not. I can only say that the ones that do not and then drag their little children off to the mission field in countries where hatred of Christians is rampant are exercising criminal child abuse and endangerment and should have their children taken away or laws passed in American to prohibit parents with threats of fines and imprisonment to prevent them from taking their children into dangerous areas. That would be a start. Mandatory psychological evaluation would be another big step for these Christian missionary nutjobs. If they're planning to do God's work in foreign it should be mandatory that they be sterilized And please don't comment on that because you know I'm just blowing off steam (but I personally believe it to be true).
If you don't believe that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, that is, if you don't believe that it is original to the text, then you can't honestly use it to say that Jesus promised that his disciples would come to no harm as you are attempting to do.

Your greater point according to the title of the thread, and your subsequent posts was to claim, based on Mark 16:18, to which you alluded in the OP, that Jesus promised that his disciples would be protected from harm, and that the ''dead missionary proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is imaginary.''

Jesus made no such promise.

Last edited by Michael Way; 11-25-2018 at 03:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 04:28 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,521,721 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
If you don't believe that Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, that is, if you don't believe that it is original to the text, then you can't honestly use it to say that Jesus promised that his disciples would come to no harm as you are attempting to do.

Your greater point according to the title of the thread, and your subsequent posts was to claim, based on Mark 16:18, to which you alluded in the OP, that Jesus promised that his disciples would be protected from harm, and that the ''dead missionary proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is imaginary.''

Jesus made no such promise.
more noise ...

really mike, the question is why do some christians have to force a belief on others?

teaching, acting out of love, compassion, and understanding in one thing. forcing "follow jesus or you are damned"? well, that kink of arrogance might get a person killed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 04:31 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,521,721 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein View Post
I dunno. I'd think he was a bigger idiot than I do now. There is no "great commission" for atheists. An atheist that feels compelled to put his life in danger to "convert" somebody is doing it wrong.
thats what I think. cross a border uninvited ... you are wrong. Not the country stopping you.

nobody should be crossing borders uninvited. If they do they may end up hurt or worse.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 05:10 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
33,068 posts, read 26,267,471 times
Reputation: 16206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
more noise ...

really mike, the question is why do some christians have to force a belief on others?

teaching, acting out of love, compassion, and understanding in one thing. forcing "follow jesus or you are damned"? well, that kink of arrogance might get a person killed.
I am addressing the specific statement made by Thrillobyte that the ''Dead Missionary Proves Beyond Shadow of Doubt Jesus is Imaginary.'' Nothing more and nothing less. And his statement is not valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 05:35 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,521,721 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I am addressing the specific statement made by Thrillobyte that the ''Dead Missionary Proves Beyond Shadow of Doubt Jesus is Imaginary.'' Nothing more and nothing less. And his statement is not valid.
yeah I know, its noise. His statement was noise too, utterly meaningless to all except very literal thinkers.

why do some christians feel its ok to go and force a belief on somebody. love compassion and understanding is one thing, they cross all boundaries.

"go out and tell people follow jesus or be damned." whats up with that these days?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 05:41 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
33,068 posts, read 26,267,471 times
Reputation: 16206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
yeah I know, its noise. His statement was noise too, utterly meaningless to all except very literal thinkers.

why do some christians feel its ok to go and force a belief on somebody. love compassion and understanding is one thing, they cross all boundaries.

"go out and tell people follow jesus or be damned." whats up with that these days?
I quite frankly don't care if you find it to be noise or not. I will address what I will address. You don't have to like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 06:04 PM
 
18,228 posts, read 16,841,591 times
Reputation: 7533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I am addressing the specific statement made by Thrillobyte that the ''Dead Missionary Proves Beyond Shadow of Doubt Jesus is Imaginary.'' Nothing more and nothing less. And his statement is not valid.
I really feel like I should pull one of Mike's infamous "We're done here" but I will pursue this a little further in an attempt to get Mike off this track he finds himself on pumping a hand trolley in circles and try to get him onto my train of thought.

Mike, what I believe is irrelevant to the issue. Mark 16:9-20 is but one small piece of a much larger puzzle made up of a thousand facts that when assembled form an empty picture--that is, that a Jesus if he lived was a mere mortal who fancied himself the son of God and the messiah. I could not deal with the entire topic in one thread but I have dealt with in numerous threads in the past which you have read and commented on. You are aware of my position. There are innumerable things that should tip Christians off that Jesus is imaginary or just a mortal man if he actually lived--no historical references, gospels written by anonymous individuals 50-100 years after this Jesus character supposedly lived, God's complete inability to preserve the autographs unless there WERE no originals, the shady way in which the Christian faith was piece-mealed together over several centuries, etc.

John Chau knew none of this. He was filled with zeal for someone who couldn't protect him like he believed Jesus would. You can take the approach he knew Jesus wouldn't protect him but he wanted to convert the tribe anyway--in which case the guy was suicidal. He chose arrows on a beach of martyrdom glory the way other suicidal guys choose death by cop. The larger point is that NOBODY ever got pulled out of harms way by Jesus. You'd do well to reread Psalm 91:5-7 because it makes an identical claim to the one Jesus supposedly made in Mark 16:

Quote:
"You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday. A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.
Translated: "arrows may fly right at you but they will not touch you because you have trusted in God for refuge."

John Chau knew his Bible inside and out. He knew of this promise made to him and relied on it for protection and that's likely why he was brave enough to go to that island. And as reality proved once again Chau was a fool to rely on a promise made by the Bible. So I ask once again

Where was Jesus when John Chau needed this promise to be true?

Last edited by thrillobyte; 11-25-2018 at 07:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2018, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Southwestern, USA, now.
21,020 posts, read 19,291,518 times
Reputation: 23659
Stupid is as stupid does.
Kinda ironic....he did more in 5 min to turn people away from Jesus than any one person in a lifetime.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top