It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions on the bible!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
This appears to be merely a reiteration of the claim to superior education and intelligence. It's a somewhat unfortunate thing to say, since you don't seem to have understood my comment -- at any rate, you don't address it.


i'm not saying i'm more intelligent that you or anyone else. i'm saying if you go to a site like www.god-is-awesome.com (obviously very much a christian site with christian views) it is very likely to say that the four gospels were written by jesus' disciples. it's like a 'dr.dino' site, biased and therefore not credible.



I have addressed all these assertions elsewhere in the thread, and refer you to that. You should note that some of what you repeated here is mutually contradictory.


then i'm really not sure what sort of 'proof' you want me to show you. i can't tell you who wrote the gospels, they are annonymous authors.



I'm afraid the sources from which you obtained this hearsay are not worth much consideration.


i didn't just go and read one site. i read many. putting together the little bits here and there, you can see it's more likely the four gospels were not written by jesus' disciples.



Indeed. Nothing of the above, for instance, since I prefer my statements to be based on fact.


well i'm really unsure as to what constitutes to 'proof' in your mind. because surely anything i write, no matter how factual it might seem, could still be deemed unfactual.



Because they were not voted in by those in attendance at the council of Nicea.



Originally posted by roger_pearse
This story is a myth. No such events ever occurred.


you go on about me stating things without prior evidence etc, and proclaim 'you' always make statements and prefer them to be based on fact when you write such utter nonsense as 'this story is a myth, no such event ever occured'. what in the world do you base that on? the council of nicea is fact. it is also fact that they chose which books would go in.



I'm afraid you've got your facts wrong again. The atheist literature you read is full of the most crass historical errors. The interesting thing is that atheists hardly ever check it!


it's not just atheist literature that will speak of the council of nicea, or the putting together of the many books to make the bible.

i'm actually very curious as to how you think the bible was put together, as you seem intent on putting down every forum member, who says something that opposes your beliefs or opinions.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by shaunybaby]




posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I wrote a detailed response, and then the server declined to post it! So this in brief.



i can't tell you who wrote the gospels, they are annonymous authors.


The evidence is otherwise.





Because they were not voted in by those in attendance at the council of Nicea.



Originally posted by roger_pearse
This story is a myth. No such events ever occurred.


you go on about me stating things without prior evidence etc, and proclaim 'you' always make statements and prefer them to be based on fact when you write such utter nonsense as 'this story is a myth, no such event ever occured'. what in the world do you base that on? the council of nicea is fact. it is also fact that they chose which books would go in.


Assertion is not a convincing form of argument. Go and find out. The idea that the canon was decided at Nicaea is a mistake.





The atheist literature you read is full of the most crass historical errors. The interesting thing is that atheists hardly ever check it!


it's not just atheist literature that will speak of the council of nicea, or the putting together of the many books to make the bible.


Mostly it is, actually! But I do see the occasional Christian taken in by the certainty with which atheists assert and reiterate (see above for examples) statements of 'fact' which in fact they only know by hearsay and assert because convenient!



i'm actually very curious as to how you think the bible was put together


It just growed.



as you seem intent on putting down every forum member, who says something that opposes your beliefs or opinions.


More your position than mine.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   


i can't tell you who wrote the gospels, they are annonymous authors.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The evidence is otherwise.


i'd love to see some of that 'evidence'.



It just growed.


1) it's grew not growed.

2) please show some evidence of this.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by spamandham
Because they were not voted in by those in attendance at the council of Nicea.


This story is a myth. No such events ever occurred.


Why don't you share then (your sources, not simply your assertions)? You seem to think you are knowledgable on the subject.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid you've got your facts wrong again. The atheist literature you read is full of the most crass historical errors. The interesting thing is that atheists hardly ever check it!


You could present an alternative rather than simply assuming we all accept your authority on the matter. You could also present the 'atheist' liturature I draw my information from (since you know so much about it, no need for me to tell you where it came from) and point out the flaws.


[edit on 10-9-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
john (jesus' disciple) had 'no education', how then with no education could he write? let alone write as he was travelling with jesus, such as a journal. (acts 4:13).



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby


i can't tell you who wrote the gospels, they are annonymous authors.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
The evidence is otherwise.


i'd love to see some of that 'evidence'.


Why not go and look, then? Unless you're working with the idea that you are allowed to believe (and assert) any old thing, and everyone else is obliged to prove you wrong?





It just growed.


1) it's grew not growed.


Did you really consider that I didn't know the rules of conjugating English verbs? It is, of course, a quotation.



2) please show some evidence of this.


Well, the question I ask is, At what point precisely can we say 'the canon was defined here'? To the best of my knowledge, none whatever. But if anyone can point me to something different -- and Metzger on the canon rather supports this view -- I'd be interested to hear of it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
john (jesus' disciple) had 'no education', how then with no education could he write? let alone write as he was travelling with jesus, such as a journal. (acts 4:13).


Guess.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse

Originally posted by spamandham
Because they were not voted in by those in attendance at the council of Nicea.


This story is a myth. No such events ever occurred.


Why don't you share then (your sources, not simply your assertions)? You seem to think you are knowledgable on the subject.


All the ancient evidence on Nicaea

If I were cruel, I would now ask to see the evidence on which you based your confident assertions to the contrary. But I don't think we need ask, need we? No doubt you merely repeated something you read in some atheist post or other, without questioning whether it was true. Most of us do this sometime.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
I'm afraid you've got your facts wrong again. The atheist literature you read is full of the most crass historical errors. The interesting thing is that atheists hardly ever check it!


You could present an alternative rather than simply assuming we all accept your authority on the matter.


Actually I was offering information, not claiming authority. I'm not sure why you suppose the world owes you an education. I certainly don't! The onus to check our facts before stating them as fact -- particularly if derogatory to someone else -- is always with ourselves, I'd have thought.



You could also present the 'atheist' liturature I draw my information from (since you know so much about it, no need for me to tell you where it came from) and point out the flaws.


Why?

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Why not go and look, then? Unless you're working with the idea that you are allowed to believe (and assert) any old thing, and everyone else is obliged to prove you wrong?


maybe it's because i've looked and found no evidence to suggest that any of the disciples wrote the four gospels. i have looked and i've showed you some evidence to suggest why they did not write them. hence, john not being educated, thus not being able to write. you on the other hand are making statements with absolutly no evidence whatsoever.



Did you really consider that I didn't know the rules of conjugating English verbs? It is, of course, a quotation.


quotation or not, growed is not a word.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
john (jesus' disciple) had 'no education', how then with no education could he write? let alone write as he was travelling with jesus, such as a journal. (acts 4:13).




Guess.


guess? what's to guess. i'm telling you it was impossible for john to write the gospel titled 'john'. he was illiterate, had no education.

you have the most flawed-nonsense-filled posts i've ever read on this forum.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Why don't you share then (your sources, not simply your assertions)? You seem to think you are knowledgable on the subject.


All the ancient evidence on Nicaea

It's generally considered bad practice to reference your own article as a source, but regardless, from your own words:

"From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. "

It is the books now considered heretical that are at question! To simply dismiss the function of the council of culling these books as if that is not the same thing as selecting the remaining books is sophistry.


Originally posted by roger_pearse
If I were cruel, I would now ask to see the evidence on which you based your confident assertions to the contrary.


My source is now your own words. Had you asked, I would have responded with newadvent articles.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse


Why don't you share then (your sources, not simply your assertions)? You seem to think you are knowledgable on the subject.


All the ancient evidence on Nicaea


It's generally considered bad practice to reference your own article as a source


If you demand a list of sources from me, it seems odd for you to complain when I provide one.



, but regardless, from your own words:

"From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation. "

It is the books now considered heretical that are at question! To simply dismiss the function of the council of culling these books as if that is not the same thing as selecting the remaining books is sophistry.


You have misunderstood what I wrote, I'm afraid.

Anyhow, the facts about Nicaea, from the ancient sources, are available. Look if you want; don't if you don't.

All the best,

Roger Pearse


[edit on 12/9/2005 by roger_pearse]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
If you demand a list of sources from me, it seems odd for you to complain when I provide one.


exactly, a 'list' of sources. hence, not some articles 'you' wrote on your website.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby

Originally posted by roger_pearse
If you demand a list of sources from me, it seems odd for you to complain when I provide one.


exactly, a 'list' of sources. hence, not some articles 'you' wrote on your website.


I'm not sure which part of my list of sources on that page you had difficulty with. You offer nothing whatever for your own position.

Sorry mate, but I don't owe you an education. Be ignorant if you wish.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by speight89
I am confident that he went crazy loads of times!


I dont really see how whither he jacked a car as a teenager really matters to the message.


It matters because if He took a car He would have stolen something, a sin. He was sinless and since He was He had no sin of His own to pay for, He could take our sin upon Himself and make atonement for ours.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by roger_pearse
You have misunderstood what I wrote, I'm afraid.

Anyhow, the facts about Nicaea, from the ancient sources, are available. Look if you want; don't if you don't.


Why do you bother posting simply to negate without substance? All the best indeed.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by roger_pearse
You have misunderstood what I wrote, I'm afraid.

Anyhow, the facts about Nicaea, from the ancient sources, are available. Look if you want; don't if you don't.


Why do you bother posting simply to negate without substance? All the best indeed.


This seems to require no reply from me!


All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
It's generally considered bad practice to reference your own article as a source,

Certainly not when its a well written and thoroughly researched article.

Why do you bother posting simply to negate without substance

If no substance is presented, but rather a mere assertion, then why should a detailed response be required?

shaunybaby
a 'list' of sources. hence, not some articles 'you' wrote on your website.

The article is more than a list of sources (which are infact presented as a list), its a discussion of whats in the sources and how they are related to the topic at hand.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
If no substance is presented, but rather a mere assertion, then why should a detailed response be required?


I quoted his own words from his article and explained why it proves him wrong, to which he effectively responded, "nuh uh". If you wish to join in, at least familiarize yourself with the history of the discussion. :shk:



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
then by all means carry on believing that...

Since I don't beleive this, I won't carryon as such.


i'm not about to lay all the information here on a plate, really you need to go out and look this information up for yourself

What evidence have you seen that has lead you to this conclusion? Like I said, I haven't looked into this sort of thing on a real research level, but from what I have seen, there is no consensus amoung biblical scholars on the issue.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I quoted his own words from his article and explained why it proves him wrong,

You did nothing of the sort. At issue is 'did the council of nicea determine which gospels are cannonical'. It didn't. The passage you quoted states this.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join