Originally posted by Oceanborn
You know them in any way? Didn't think so.
And using your same ridiculous arguement did you know Mark, Peter, Paul, John and for that matter, Jesus? Did not think so, so they must not be
Being petualant does not negate the fact that there were early Chrisitians who accepted the Epistle of Barnabas
You mean pseydepigrafa like the gospel of Thomas etc. That's were you'd go eventually anyway.
Why? It it irrelevant to the point. Now answer the question.
Wow, so disengenious. That discussion was regarding ha-satan, who is not the silly Christian boogeyman Satan that you believe in and I do not. Do I
really need to explain that to you again?
Either way, God gives his permission to ha-satan because as a subordinate ha-satan could not do these things to Job without God allowing him.
God is omnipotent, ha-satan is far from that.
Exactly. Ha-satan is not Satan of the Christian pantheon.
When they're leading the subject elsewhere and while it's about christianity they avoid talking about the New Testament,then yes.
You brought up an epistle that was in a bible. It's obvious you want to talk about christianity but not for the NT.
I've seen that before.
The New Testament was irrelevant to the point. The only reference in early Christian literature to the shape of the object that Christ was crucified
on was in the Epistle of Barnabas
and that is the reason it was cited. It was written not long after the Crucifixion and the original writing
and verbage is intact.
And news flash Captain Reading Comprehension, the Original Post does not even mention Christianity, it was about gangs. That is unless you consider
Christians to be gangsters.