The Gospels are not Historical

Status
Not open for further replies.
Banjo said:
You won't know what he will say till you tell him some verses.
Click to expand...
If he ask for it, I will.
 
Crazymanw00t said:
I am asking and I request for the verse please.
Click to expand...
When I answered to another person, not you, did he ask for it? If you want verses, you tell him any verses. :)
 
Askjo said:
When I answered to another person, not you, did he ask for it? If you want verses, you tell him any verses. :)
Click to expand...

WOW YOU ARE A SMARTEST PERSON ON THE EARTH.

Really, you are a sly person. You should be able to answer someone's else question related with your points. If you cannot answer to someone else because you are afriad that you will be overwhelming by someone. It is alright for you to do like this and we all surely understand with that. *Claps*
 
Crazymanw00t said:
WOW YOU ARE A SMARTEST PERSON ON THE EARTH.

Really, you are a sly person. You should be able to answer someone's else question related with your points. If you cannot answer to someone else because you are afriad that you will be overwhelming by someone. It is alright for you to do like this and we all surely understand with that. *Claps*
Click to expand...
When YOU and I discuss on the subject, you ask for a verse, I will.

When another person and I discuss on it, let him ask me for it then I will.

Am I afraid? No.
 
Askjo said:
When YOU and I discuss on the subject, you ask for a verse, I will. When another person and I discuss on it, let him ask me for it then I will.
Am I afraid? No.
Click to expand...

FYI, everyone is involved with your points and you are using public therfore you should answer to everyone's question if they ask to you.
 
que sera sera....

Crazymanw00t, it's painfully obvious Askjo doesn't have the answers. Otherwise he would have given you the verses without any trouble. All these tactics clearly demonstrate Askjo's inability to answer questions without feeling the need to control the conversation. :roll:

Everybody, thanks for going so far off topic. I know i'm asking the impossible.. but does anyone else have anything to say about the historical truth of the Gospels?
 
The Heretic said:
Crazymanw00t, it's painfully obvious Askjo doesn't have the answers. Otherwise he would have given you the verses without any trouble. All these tactics clearly demonstrate Askjo's inability to answer questions without feeling the need to control the conversation. :roll:

Everybody, thanks for going so far off topic. I know i'm asking the impossible.. but does anyone else have anything to say about the historical truth of the Gospels?
Click to expand...
I checked your prolife and found what you called yourself, "apostate" and "Heretic." Why are you an apostate and a "Heretic"?
 
Askjo said:
I checked your prolife and found what you called yourself, "apostate" and "Heretic." Why are you an apostate and a "Heretic"?
Click to expand...

Heretic don't have to answer your question because you refuses to answer my question.
 
The Heretic said:
Everybody, thanks for going so far off topic. I know i'm asking the impossible.. but does anyone else have anything to say about the historical truth of the Gospels?
Click to expand...


I believe the gospel is an absolute truth historical.
 
Crazymanw00t said:
Heretic don't have to answer your question because you refuses to answer my question.
Click to expand...

That's right. Askjo has no respect towards other people and their own beliefs. That's why I have Askjo on my ignore list, and if it bothers you guys so much, maybe you'd click 'ignore Askjo', too!
 
The Heretic said:
I know i'm asking the impossible.. but does anyone else have anything to say about the historical truth of the Gospels?
Click to expand...

I don't know if this would cover the topic, so let me know if it doesn't fit here. I'm just gonna introduce another line of thought here regarding the "historical" truth of the Gospels, which, I assume can also cover the Church and its doings all these centuries ago up to today.

I'm currently reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, et al. It is about the influence of secret societies on religion, politics, etc throughout history. This book has a group of these authors doing heavy-duty research in the 1970s, and the book got published by 1980. It is very similar to the plot of modern bestseller Da Vinci Code (being filmed with Tom Hanks, btw!).

I am halfway through the book, but already it speaks of an ancient secret society (Ordre de Sion) that had a treasure that was sought after.. by kings and the Church (probably under the direct of popes over the time). On a side note that will help me with my point in this thread, Christianity wasn't even popular until Constianaple decided to sponsor it. Then... a king of the "holy" bloodline of the Merovingian Dynasty decided to enter an agreement with the Church to fight in its name, and this king did it.. under the condition that the king's bloodline would continue to be supported by the Church. But the Church reneged on its deal... and allowed the king's descendants be assasinated or nearly wiped out due to someone's greed in the Merovingian court who sought the crown for himself. I do not understand why the Pope at the time allowed this to happen, but I do see that folks did try to hide the Merovingian bloodline from public knowledge over time.. altered records and all the like. I can provide more specific details (names, locations, etc) if you all are interested!

But I must speed up to my point; it is apparent to the authors of this book that certain people with power in the Church had tried to cover up truth, and even sancified bloodthirsty attempts to commit genocide (ie. Cathars, because they were more tolerant of religions and they had a strong community.. also happened to have wealth and held a secret and this possibly made the Church feel threatened). This book also details the "first" holocaust in human history; Sancified by the Church. Because of this, I feel it is a possibility that the holy documents (ie. these versions of Bibles) could have been altered, therefore the Bibles are unreliable as an unanswerable source of guidelines to live one's life: But it still doesn't have to stop us from living our lives with good human ethics, and to grow from our own experience. :)

I'm not saying that people are wrong for using their own chosen version of the Bible to give them personal guidance; not at all. Faith is nice to have, in my opinion. It is the intention of how people would use these gospels "against" others that I question - because egg can end up on their faces especially with the possibility of these documents being altered by human hands and mouth to change the message of what Jesus was trying to share with the world. Finally, it does not hurt either to take sources with a grain of salt. I don't think that should make people who have chosen a faith feel threatened. Faith and source that talks about faith (ie. books, preachers, ministers, priests, TV, teachers, etc etc) are two completely different things, methinks.
 
First things first.

Askjo said:
I checked your prolife and found what you called yourself, "apostate" and "Heretic." Why are you an apostate and a "Heretic"?
Click to expand...

I'd be more than happy to answer your questions, if and only if you actually answer mine first. If your memory isn't working, go to my first post to you earlier in this thread.
 
The Heretic said:
. Being a textual critic doesn't mean the textual critic also carries a hatred or has a blind eye.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you. According to W-H they are hostile to the TR.
 
The great Liza has spoken!

Liza said:
...[snip]....I'm currently reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, et al. It is about the influence of secret societies on religion, politics, etc throughout history. This book has a group of these authors doing heavy-duty research in the 1970s, and the book got published by 1980. It is very similar to the plot of modern bestseller Da Vinci Code (being filmed with Tom Hanks, btw!).
Click to expand...
Excellent book! But I must warn you that Dan Brown stole almost everything from the Holy Blood book without really crediting the source. Shoddy scholarship. And I myself am even more skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I think you should open a new thread and we can hash it out until the cows come home! :)

liza said:
...[snip].....I'm not saying that people are wrong for using their own chosen version of the Bible to give them personal guidance; not at all. Faith is nice to have, in my opinion. It is the intention of how people would use these gospels "against" others that I question - because egg can end up on their faces especially with the possibility of these documents being altered by human hands and mouth to change the message of what Jesus was trying to share with the world. Finally, it does not hurt either to take sources with a grain of salt. I don't think that should make people who have chosen a faith feel threatened. Faith and source that talks about faith (ie. books, preachers, ministers, priests, TV, teachers, etc etc) are two completely different things, methinks.
Click to expand...

Agreed! The map is not the territory and all that. That leads me to the heretical conclusion that a person can be a "christian" without having to convert to "christianity" first or by declaring the all-too-simple psychological ploy that Jesus is God and savior. The person must act like jesus did in the gospels, be able to practice the difficult art of turning the other cheek, being kind to enemies, and associate with disreputable people of the day. The rest (stuff like saying Jesus is my lord) is merely politics and grandstanding. Actions, not words.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote: my aunt, a devout catholic, desired to prove the truth of Christianity to me. But when she asked me if she could prove it to me, I told her then my belief would be no longer faith because faith doesn't rely on evidence or demonstration. She conceded my point and did not belabor her point.

By the way, you are espousing something dangerously close to Kierkegaardian fideism, or radical theology, circa 1840's.
 
Askjo said:
I disagree with you. According to W-H they are hostile to the TR.
Click to expand...

What is WH? And what is the TR?

More importantly, why are you using abbreviations?

At any case, this is still a sweeping generalization that doesn't seem true. Not all textual critics are unbelievers or necessarily hostile to Christianity. Plus you will need to back up that claim by quoting Bruce Metzger himself, so your characterization is more specific. Since you still haven't come up with a quote by Bruce Meztger to prove his unbelief, I don't think you can make the distinction between unbelief and hostility.
 
The Heretic said:
What is WH? And what is the TR?
Click to expand...
W-H = Westcott/Hort

TR = Textus Receptus
At any case, this is still a sweeping generalization that doesn't seem true. Not all textual critics are unbelievers or necessarily hostile to Christianity
Click to expand...
Correct, but they are blind.
Plus you will need to back up that claim by quoting Bruce Metzger himself, so your characterization is more specific. Since you still haven't come up with a quote by Bruce Meztger to prove his unbelief, I don't think you can make the distinction between unbelief and hostility
Click to expand...
Westcott and Hort were unbelievers who are hostile to the TR. I read their answers toward God's Word.

The quotation by Bruce Metzger, an unbelieving editor of the UBS is here:

NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13 ... the meaning of the third line (they have pierced my hands anf feet) is obscure."

Does he believe the prophecy of Christ's cruifixion according to his notes on this verse? No, he does not.

He is absolutely wrong. It is NOT obscure, but it is the prophecy of Christ's cruifixion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top