Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
Prove me wrong
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The bible
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
Prove me wrong
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
dude....do you really imagine that the churches circulated copies of the gospels for two hundred years saying "here, we have no idea who wrote this but its really cool stuff....and that suddenly two hundred years later they all sat down and said, "hey, lets pretend Matthew wrote it!"?.......
I see no reason why not. For a long time there were SEVERAL MORE GOSPELS in use by various Christian sects. Like the Gospel of Peter or the Infancy Gospel. The fact that some of these apocryphal gospels were in circulation for quite some time before being jettisoned indicates that the development of the Canon was NOT as simplistic as you make it out to be. The Christian canon wasn't finalized until the FOURTH CENTURY. That's almost 300 years.
you're a fucking idiot......
Do you pray to Jesus with that mouth? Oh, I keep forgetting, that's not your game. You're on here to make Christians look bad. I don't know why you want to do that but that seems to be your "Witness".
Go away, Ravening Wolf. False Prophet.
Last edited:
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Trying to be a dick? It's working...
Apparently so.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Many of those "religious scholars " are atheists
Data please. Thanks.
Prove me wrong
1) you made the assertion, it's up to you to back it with proof.
2) You don't necessarily need to be a practicing xtian to get a PhD in religious studies, anymore than you need to be Russian to get a PhD in Russian history.
3) A genuine scholar would most likely be ecstatic to be able to prove the Gospel of Mark is conclusively based on the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. That would instantly be regarded one of the great historical finds of the century and ensure the scholar a lifetime of accolades and recognitions
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
1) you made the assertion, it's up to you to back it with proof.
2) You don't necessarily need to be a practicing xtian to get a PhD in religious studies, anymore than you need to be Russian to get a PhD in Russian history.
3) A genuine scholar would most likely be ecstatic to be able to prove the Gospel of Mark is conclusively based on the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. That would instantly be regarded one of the great historical finds of the century and ensure the scholar a lifetime of accolades and recognitions
You just said it in your number 2
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
You just said it in your number 2
Actual Serious Question: is it possible to come to belief in Christianity without first starting off by believing it?
Many Christians claim that you cannot understand what the Bible says unless you FIRST BELIEVE it is true. That's kind of weak for the work of the Universe's Creator.
You just said it in your number 2
I didn't say many or most xtian scholars are atheists.
That's what you claimed.
I said there is no requirement to be a practicing Christian to get a PhD in religious studies.
I know a Jewish woman who is a New Testament scholar, and I know a Protestant guy who is a scholar of Confucianism.
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
Actual Serious Question: is it possible to come to belief in Christianity without first starting off by believing it?
Many Christians claim that you cannot understand what the Bible says unless you FIRST BELIEVE it is true. That's kind of weak for the work of the Universe's Creator.
Yes,I had a Epiphany long before I bought a Bible.
You can be a Christian without a Bible,you can't be a Christian without the Holy Spirit
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
I didn't say many or most xtian scholars are atheists.
That's what you claimed.
I said there is no requirement to be a practicing Christian to get a PhD in religious studies.
I know a Jewish woman who is a New Testament scholar, and I know a Protestant guy who is a scholar of Confucianism.
Neither one is a Christian.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Yes,I had a Epiphany long before I bought a Bible.
You can be a Christian without a Bible,you can't be a Christian without the Holy Spirit
I'm not questioning if one can come to Christ without the Bible. I am questioning if one can come to Christ WITH the Bible?
See the difference?
If one HAS TO BELIEVE in the BIble before reading it then what is the VALUE of the Bible? It becomes a secret codebook hidden from those for whom that would be a legitimate route.
No, in reality the Bible is understandable even without the "belief" portion. It says what it says. And it has good and bad parts. It is the work of human hands. That's it.
As an atheist I can read the Bible just fine. And since I don't NEED there to be literal talking snakes with legs I am not beholden to explaining that away. Because I don't actually believe there is a God who would, through his prophet, command a genocide. I think that story was made up. But as a Bible Believing Christian it is incumbent upon you to explain it away.
And you have never once addressed the point about 1 Sam 15:3. Despite me raising it to you MANY TIMES now you avoid the discussion.
For one who is SO STRONG in his faith, perhaps you can take a stab at that. Show us how it is done.
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
I'm not questioning if one can come to Christ without the Bible. I am questioning if one can come to Christ WITH the Bible?
See the difference?
If one HAS TO BELIEVE in the BIble before reading it then what is the VALUE of the Bible? It becomes a secret codebook hidden from those for whom that would be a legitimate route.
No, in reality the Bible is understandable even without the "belief" portion. It says what it says. And it has good and bad parts. It is the work of human hands. That's it.
As an atheist I can read the Bible just fine. And since I don't NEED there to be literal talking snakes with legs I am not beholden to explaining that away. Because I don't actually believe there is a God who would, through his prophet, command a genocide. I think that story was made up. But as a Bible Believing Christian it is incumbent upon you to explain it away.
And you have never once addressed the point about 1 Sam 15:3. Despite me raising it to you MANY TIMES now you avoid the discussion.
For one who is SO STRONG in his faith, perhaps you can take a stab at that. Show us how it is done.
I don't think anyone can truly understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.
So I don't think you can come to Jesus by merely reading the Bible.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I don't think anyone can truly understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit.
I personally feel that makes the Bible a weak thing. That makes the Bible little more than a joke. If I believed in a God I would believe in a God so powerful that He could make a book which explained him and what he wants from us.
I have never been overly fond of a God who either "hides" stuff from people behind a mystical "You have to believe it before you believe it" approach or one who appears to dislike readers that much.
A theologically robust God would make himself so obvious that to deny him would be like denying that gravity is real.
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
I'm not questioning if one can come to Christ without the Bible. I am questioning if one can come to Christ WITH the Bible?
See the difference?
If one HAS TO BELIEVE in the BIble before reading it then what is the VALUE of the Bible? It becomes a secret codebook hidden from those for whom that would be a legitimate route.
No, in reality the Bible is understandable even without the "belief" portion. It says what it says. And it has good and bad parts. It is the work of human hands. That's it.
As an atheist I can read the Bible just fine. And since I don't NEED there to be literal talking snakes with legs I am not beholden to explaining that away. Because I don't actually believe there is a God who would, through his prophet, command a genocide. I think that story was made up. But as a Bible Believing Christian it is incumbent upon you to explain it away.
And you have never once addressed the point about 1 Sam 15:3. Despite me raising it to you MANY TIMES now you avoid the discussion.
For one who is SO STRONG in his faith, perhaps you can take a stab at that. Show us how it is done.
I don't see your point about 1 Sam 15:3.
Enlighten me what you think this is related to Christian belief. It's Old Testament times
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
I personally feel that makes the Bible a weak thing. That makes the Bible little more than a joke. If I believed in a God I would believe in a God so powerful that He could make a book which explained him and what he wants from us.
I have never been overly fond of a God who either "hides" stuff from people behind a mystical "You have to believe it before you believe it" approach or one who appears to dislike readers that much.
A theologically robust God would make himself so obvious that to deny him would be like denying that gravity is real.
That's something you should ask God! But you're an atheist or claim to be.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I don't see your point about 1 Sam 15:3.
Enlighten me what you think this is related to Christian belief. It's Old Testament times
Unless you are a Marcionite (a heresy) you will have to accept that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament and by extension Jesus himself. I trust you adhere to the Nicene Creed.
That means that YOUR GOD, the one who died for your sins upon his incarnation as his only begotten son, also DEMANDED a genocide. He, through his prophet, Samuel, demanded the SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT CHILDREN AND NON-COMBATANT AMALEKITES. But that wasn't his only murder spree. He constantly handed town after town over to Joshua and his band to slaughter and murder and kill so that they might have their land.
THAT is your God. It is 100% your God. And as such YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN IT.
Go ahead, make a special pleading for "old testament times"...then tell us why genocide was OK then but not OK now. Why your God who so loved the world would command children be murdered by Saul.
And when Saul failed to murder EVERY LIVING THING of Amalek God turned away from Saul to punish him.
Now you know a Bible story. I would highly recommend you read the BIble some time.
Neither one is a Christian.
Right.
But not atheist either.
You claimed many religious scholars atheists.
To me, five or ten percent isn't many. That means a few.
'Many' to me means 25, 35, 40 percent of religious scholars are atheists. I would like to know where you get those numbers.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
That's something you should ask God! But you're an atheist or claim to be.
Don't believers know the answer?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
But you're an atheist or claim to be.
You claim to be a Christian.
Melchizedek = Michael
Verified User
I personally feel that makes the Bible a weak thing. That makes the Bible little more than a joke. If I believed in a God I would believe in a God so powerful that He could make a book which explained him and what he wants from us.
I have never been overly fond of a God who either "hides" stuff from people behind a mystical "You have to believe it before you believe it" approach or one who appears to dislike readers that much.
A theologically robust God would make himself so obvious that to deny him would be like denying that gravity is real.
So you're telling God he has to do things the way You think he should! Good luck with that