At What Point?

Cypress said:
I don't know what their doctrine is in Pentecostal and Southern Baptist churches, but walking on water is allegorical in other major Christian traditions.

We have to ask Jewish people about the Noah story, because that comes from the Torah.

The Resurrection seems medically impossible.
Click to expand...
Noah sailed from Atlantis!
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
shut up with your dumb shit.

Here's mark 14

The Plot to Kill Jesus​

14 It was now two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth and kill him, 2 for they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar from the people.”
Click to expand...
Mark's account is simple and unadorned.

John's account is elaborate, festooned and adorned with detail the author of John couldn't possibly have known, and incorporates sophisticated elements of Christian theology which weren't present at the time of Jesus' ministry and trial.
 
Cypress said:
Mark's account is simple and unadorned.

John's account is elaborate, festooned and adorned with detail the author of John couldn't possibly have known, and incorporates sophisticated elements of Christian theology which weren't present at the time of Jesus' ministry and trial.
Click to expand...
Right because it wasn't written at the time of Jesus' ministry and trial. John was the only one of the apostles that didn't die a martyrs death. He was saved from that because he was to only one that stayed with Jesus through his ministry, trial AND death.
 
Into the Night said:
Why are you so anxious to place limits on God, the creator of the Earth and everything on it? Are you seriously trying to argue that you know more than God does??
Click to expand...
^^ Loaded question fallacy, which presupposes the God of Abraham does exist, in a rhetorical attempt to limit the answers to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
 
Yakuda said:
Right because it wasn't written at the time of Jesus' ministry and trial. John was the only one of the apostles that didn't die a martyrs death. He was saved from that because he was to only one that stayed with Jesus through his ministry, trial AND death.
Click to expand...
John seems to have been written right around the turn of the century, 90 to 100 AD. The author of John was writing at least six decades after Jesus' execution, and well after the disciples had died off. Mark was compiled or written when some of Jesus' disciples were still alive, and there's some evidence Mark was a companion of Peter and he compiled the stories and teachings he heard from Peter.
 
Cypress said:
John seems to have been written right around the turn of the century, 90 to 100 AD. The author of John was writing at least six decades after Jesus' execution, and well after the disciples had died off. Mark was compiled or written when some of Jesus' disciples were still alive, and there's some evidence Mark was a companion of Peter and he compiled the stories and teachings he heard from Peter.
Click to expand...
It was completed by then and that's about the same time john died. John had no reason to write a 4th time what was already said 3 times previously. His gospel fills out our knowledge of jesus' teachings.
 
Ic
Yakuda said:
It was completed by then and that's about the same time john died. John had no reason to write a 4th time what was already said 3 times previously. His gospel fills out our knowledge of jesus' teachings.
Click to expand...
I suppose if you wanted to make the chronology work out, one could assume the disciple John lived to an exceptionally old age for a first century Galilean Jew, that he spent many years compiling his Gospel, and that somehow a son of a Galilean fisherman was exceptionally fluent and literate in Koine Greek.

To me, that's a little too much fancy dancing to get the chronology and apostolic authorship to work out.

The most likely explanation to me is that Gospel of John was authored by an unknown Greek-speaking Jew of considerable education, and it was later attributed to the disciple John by late second and third century Christians.
 
Cypress said:
Ic

I suppose if you wanted to make the chronology work out, one could assume the disciple John lived to an exceptionally old age for a first century Galilean Jew, that he spent many years compiling his Gospel, and that somehow a son on a Galilean fisherman was exceptionally fluent in Koine Greek.

To me, that's a little too much fancy dancing to get the chronology and apostolic authorship to work out.

The most likely explanation to me is that Gospel of John was authored by an unknown Greek speaking Jew of considerable education, and it was later attributed to the disciple John by late second and third century christians.
Click to expand...
No it all works quite well just how it is.
 
Cypress said:
Mark's account is simple and unadorned.

John's account is elaborate, festooned and adorned with detail the author of John couldn't possibly have known, and incorporates sophisticated elements of Christian theology which weren't present at the time of Jesus' ministry and trial.
Click to expand...
oh so that part of the Bible is unrealistic?

is that your final answer?

should christians be forced to renounce that part of the Bible to remain humans in good standing?
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
oh so that part of the Bible is unrealistic?

is that your final answer?

should christians be forced to renounce that part of the Bible to remain humans in good standing?
Click to expand...
You don't have to renounce the Bible to understand some of it is embellished, or written to serve allegorical or theological purposes.

Only Protestants hold the doctrine that biblical scripture is literal and inerrant.

Protestants are a minority in world Christianity, so if your view is that everything in the bible is literally true, then your view is a distinct minority in world Christianity.

God did not write the New Testament. God did not hand any books, epistles, or scripture to humans.

The New Testament was mediated through humans. It's not a direct revelation. It is an indirect revelation at best. Humans are fallible, and humans weren't writing history and biography in first century Judea, in the way we are accustomed to history and biography.
 
Cypress said:
^^ Loaded question fallacy, which presupposes the God of Abraham does exist, in a rhetorical attempt to limit the answers to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Click to expand...
nobody's attempting to limit your answers, satan-worshipper.

we'll give you all the rope you need.
 
Cypress said:
You don't have to renounce the Bible to understand some of it is embellished, or written to serve allegorical or theological purposes.

Only Protestants hold the doctrine that biblical scripture is literal and inerrant.

Protestants are a minority in world Christianity, so if your view is that everything in the bible is literally true, then your view is a distinct minority in world Christianity.

God did not write the New Testament. God did not hand any books, epistles, or scripture to humans.

The New is mediated through humans. It's not a direct revelation. It is an indirect revelation at best. Humans are fallible, and humans weren't writing history and biography in first century Judea, in the way we are accustomed to history and biography.
Click to expand...
the whole Bible new and old has theological purposes.

you sound like a fucking idiot right now.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
you're the only one here who consistently references violent acts.

why don't you fuck off with your dumb shit, eh, bub?

:truestory:
Click to expand...
^^^
White supremacist antisemitic who supports the violent overthrow of the United States is getting huffy.
8GJ91G0.gif
 
Cypress said:
You don't have to renounce the Bible to understand some of it is embellished, or written to serve allegorical or theological purposes.

Only Protestants hold the doctrine that biblical scripture is literal and inerrant.

Protestants are a minority in world Christianity, so if your view is that everything in the bible is literally true, then your view is a distinct minority in world Christianity.

God did not write the New Testament. God did not hand any books, epistles, or scripture to humans.

The New Testament was mediated through humans. It's not a direct revelation. It is an indirect revelation at best. Humans are fallible, and humans weren't writing history and biography in first century Judea, in the way we are accustomed to history and biography.
Click to expand...
christianity teaches the entire gospel new and old were written by God.

you're talking about judaism's teaching.
 
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
I just know what Christianity teaches about the Bible.

word of God.

I would like a link to where Catholics allegedly teach the Bible is not the word of God.
Click to expand...
Blackwater Lunchbreak said:
I didn't put you on ignore.

You're not important enough to ingnore, dopey.

now dance, rummy!

Dance!

hqdefault.jpg
Click to expand...
^^^
Claims to be a Christian yet hates Jews, African-Americans and anyone who disagrees with him.

Fredo has never acted like a Christian on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top