How BIG Is God? - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14801565
Hindsite wrote:Revelation 21:1-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Eusebius thought Presbyter John's Revelation a heretical forgery.

Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea wrote:Cerinthus [the Heresiarch], by means of revelations which he pretended were written by a great apostle, also falsely pretended to wonderful things, as if they were showed him by angels, asserting, that after the resurrection there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that the flesh, i.e. men, again inhabiting Jerusalem would be subject to desires and pleasures." Being also an enemy to the divine Scriptures, with a view to deceive men, he said "that there would be a space of a thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals."

As did

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria wrote:[I]t is highly probable that Cerinthus, the same that established the heresy that bears his name, designedly affixed the name [of John] to his own forgery. For one of the doctrines that he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom. And as he was a voluptuary, and altogether sensual, he conjectured that it would consist in those things that he craved in the gratification of appetite and lust.
Last edited by ingliz on 01 May 2017 09:27, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14801570
Besoeker wrote:So, if the 7th day is symbolic the creation perion, it might not actually have been a literal seven days.
Thanks for confirming what most of us think.

I just said that the days were literal 24 hour days, including the 7th day. We certainly don't rest from our work for billions of years.
Besoeker wrote:Then it shouldn't take half an hour to explain it.

The Creation Today show is produced to cover a 30 minute TV slot, with commercial, so they have to drag it out. But since you still didn't get it, maybe it takes 6 or 7 days to explain it to you. May God help your poor soul.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By Godstud
#14801574
@Hindsite Whatever. You don't know whether you're coming or going.

The bible's symbolic AND literal? :knife: :knife: :knife:
It's sunny, without a cloud in the sky AND it's raining! Yeah.. that makes sense to a fucking retard!


Fuck your god. He makes really really stupid followers.
By Besoeker
#14801579
Hindsite wrote:I just said that the days were literal 24 hour days, including the 7th day. We certainly don't rest from our work for billions of years.
The Creation Today show is produced to cover a 30 minute TV slot, with commercial, so they have to drag it out. But since you still didn't get it, maybe it takes 6 or 7 days to explain it to you. May God help your poor soul.


May your god give you common sense.
From your book, Second Peter:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14801614
Hindsite wrote:If Jesus said so, then I believe it.

One third of the New Testament is written anonymously and the rest is pseudepigraphic, where an author writes in someone else's name, excepting some of the letters of St Paul, which are genuine.

The Catholic Encylcopedia wrote:The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history.

The Catholic Encylcopedia wrote:... the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a grand scale.


excepting some of the letters of St Paul, which are genuine.

Textual analysis has shown that most likely only seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul were written by him.

B. Ehrman, professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill wrote:Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the Pauline letters are authentic: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon.

Individuals claiming to be Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians.

The Roman philosopher Celsus, witness to the falsification of Christian writings in the second century, said of the revisionists,

"[Some of them], as it were in a drunken state producing self-induced visions, remodel their gospel* from its first written form in a threefold, fourfold and manifold fashion, and reform it so that they may be able to refute the objections brought against it."

Origen, Contra Celsus ii. 27


* All four canonized Gospels have been doctored and revised.

David Jenkins, Bishop-designate of Durham and university professor, Credo 29 April 1984  wrote:[Interviewer : isn't their inclusion in the New Testament ... evidence of certainty.]

Certainly not! There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance.



:)
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14801765
Besoeker wrote:May your god give you common sense.
From your book, Second Peter:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Peter simply meant that time meant nothing to God , because God created time for man. We see from the above statement by Peter that time is cancelled out in the view of God for god is outside time and its control. We are the ones that are controlled by time, not God.

However, this statement by Peter has nothing to do with the Creation days of Genesis, which God specifically identified each day as a normal 24 hour day by numbering each day and qualifying each day as having an evening and a morning. It did not say a day with many evenings and mornings. No, day 2 had only one evening and morning, day 3 had only one evening and morning, day 4 had only one evening and morning, and so forth. All those days were obviously of equal duration determined by one rotation of the Earth in which there is only one evening and one morning, just the same as it is today.
ingliz wrote:One third of the New Testament is written anonymously and the rest is pseudepigraphic, where an author writes in someone else's name, excepting some of the letters of St Paul, which are genuine.

The Protestant New Testament is all genuine. We Protestant Christians know who wrote everything, with the possible exception of Hebrews. However, everything in the letter to the Hebrews is in agreement with every part of the rest of the Protestant Holy Bible. So do not pay attention to the Roman Catholic Church, which has become a form of apostate and false Christianity. This was foretold by Jesus. But don't get me wrong, because the Protestant Christian Churches are not exempt from the false teachers either. I was just pointing out the the Roman Church was the first to become an apostate Church and teach doctrines of men over the doctrines of God.

See the following article:

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/commen ... Church.HTM
By Besoeker
#14801770
Hindsite wrote:Peter simply meant that time meant nothing to God , because God created time for man.

Now you're claiming to know what Peter meant??
OK. God created time for man you say. But according to Gen 1, man didn't exist until day six so man wouldn't have required the first five to have been literal days. Wouldn't even known what a day meant far less what a literal day meant.

Might I kindly suggest that you put down that shovel............
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14801777
Besoeker wrote:Now you're claiming to know what Peter meant??
OK. God created time for man you say. But according to Gen 1, man didn't exist until day six so man wouldn't have required the first five to have been literal days. Wouldn't even known what a day meant far less what a literal day meant.

Might I kindly suggest that you put down that shovel............

Man existed in the mind of God before he was created. The whole universe was created and fine-tuned so man would have a suitable place to live. The days were also planned by God so man could tell time and create a calendar for himself. Can't you see that man was the whole purpose for the physical creation?

(Jeremiah 1:4-6)
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

(Psalm 139:13-14)
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

(Genesis 1:26-27)
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By ingliz
#14801784
The Protestant New Testament is all genuine.

The Protestant New Testament is as genuine as the 'Bible' in Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary. The Nicaean Testament that never was. The book whose books the Bishops asked the Lord to choose when an angry and confused Constantine, badgered by the priests in council, unsure of what was Scripture and what was not, threw a batch of 'holy books' onto a table (Those that stayed on the table were in, those that fell off were out).

Synodicon Vetus (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae) xxxiv wrote:The canonical and apocryphal books it distinguished in the following manner: in the house of God the books were placed down by the holy altar; then the council asked the Lord in prayer that the inspired works be found on top and--as in fact happened--the spurious on the bottom.


:lol:


Edited because I can
Last edited by ingliz on 02 May 2017 18:35, edited 11 times in total.
By Besoeker
#14801802
Hindsite wrote:Man existed in the mind of God before he was created.


So now you are claiming to KNOW the mind of a supernatural entity that you don't know exists ??
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14801897
Besoeker wrote:So now you are claiming to KNOW the mind of a supernatural entity that you don't know exists ??

I know what is revealed in the Holy Bible and I have common sense to put the parts together to gain right understanding. Apparently, you don't.

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
By Besoeker
#14801905
Hindsite wrote:I know what is revealed in the Holy Bible and I have common sense to put the parts together to gain right understanding. Apparently, you don't.

I know what is wrtten in the bible and have the common sense to see the contradictions and inconsistencies.
What's your excuse?
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14801916
Besoeker wrote:I know what is wrtten in the bible and have the common sense to see the contradictions and inconsistencies.
What's your excuse?

There are no contradictions and inconsistencies with right understanding of the truth of God.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
(Psalm 19:1)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
(Romans 1:20)

Praise the Lord.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By ingliz
#14802005
There are no contradictions and inconsistencies

Salvation by works: the contradiction between Paul and James.

Is justification by faith or by works?

Paul

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Romans, 5:1-2 KJV

James

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

James 2:24 KJV


@Hindsite

No arguing the text here.

Hindsite wrote:I was raised as a child and baptized in a Baptist Church, a denomination of Protestantism.

Baptists believe the King James Bible is God's infallible word for the English speaking people.

The Bible Believer's Handbook of Heresies wrote:[T]he King James Bible is God's infallible word for the English speaking people.

The Bible Believer's Handbook of Heresies wrote:There is no such thing as "the Greek text." ... Usually when a man makes reference to "the Greek," he is having trouble believing what God has already told him in THE ENGLISH


:lol:


Hindsite wrote:The Protestant New Testament is all genuine.

The Protestant New Testament includes the list of sacred books officially accepted as genuine by the Churches you despise. If you define genuine as 'written by the Apostles', scholars will tell you it is no more genuine than the Apocrypha.

genuine

wiki wrote:Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed "practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered." In addition to books that did not make it into the final 27-book NT but which had local acceptance (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel. He did, however, prefer the four church gospels to all others, although he supplemented them freely with apocryphal gospels. He was the first to treat non-Pauline letters of the apostles (other than II Peter) as scripture-he accepted I Peter, I and II John, and Jude as scripture.

As regards the Early Church canon (Council of Laodicea?), choosing it seems to have been a fairly random process. Voltaire's 'How the Bible was made' pseudo-historical fiction may be closer to the truth than is comfortable.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14802037
How dare you use his religion against him! How dare you!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#14802061
... the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a grand scale.

It seems I was right to put a question mark next to the Council of Laodicea.

The Council of Laodicea

The Catalogue of the Books is of questionable genuineness and an interpolation most likely included to reflect the Eastern canon rather than the Western canon:

"Of this Canon the first paragraph is recognised as genuine with unimportant variations by every authority; the second, the Catalogue of the Books itself, is omitted in various Manuscripts and versions; and in order to arrive at a fair estimate of its claims to authenticity, it will be necessary to notice briefly the different forms in which the Canons of the ancient Church have been preserved.

The Greek Manuscripts of the Canons may be divided into two classes, those which contain the simple text, and those which contain in addition the scholia of the great commentators. Manuscripts of the second class in no case date from an earlier period than the end of the twelfth century, the era of Balsamon and Zonaras, the most famous Greek canonists. Yet it is on this class of Manuscripts, which contain the Catalogue in question, that the printed editions are based. The earliest Manuscript of the first class with which I am acquainted is of the eleventh century, and one is as late as the fifteenth. The evidence on the disputed paragraph which these Manuscripts afford is extremely interesting. Two omit the Catalogue entirely. In another it is inserted after a vacant space. A fourth contains it on a new page with red dots above and below. In a fifth it appears wholly written in red letters. Three others give it as a part of the last Canon, though headed with a new rubric. In one it appears as a part of the 59th Canon without interruption or break; and in two (of the latest date) numbered as a new Canon. It is impossible not to feel that these several Manuscripts mark the steps by which the Catalogue gained its place in the present Greek text; but it may still be questioned whether it may not have thus regained a place which it had lost before. And thus we are led to notice some versions of the Canons which date from a period anterior to the oldest Greek Manuscripts.

The Latin version exists in a threefold form. The earliest (Versio Prised) is fragmentary, and does not contain the Laodicene Canons. But two other versions by Dionysius and Isidore are complete. In the first of these, which dates from the middle of the sixth century, though it exists in two distinct recensions, there is no trace of the Catalogue. In the second, on the contrary, with only two exceptions, as far as I am aware, the Catalogue constantly appears. And though the Isidorian version in its general form only dates from the ninth century, two Manuscripts remain which are probably as old as the ninth century, and both of these contain it. So far then it appears that the evidence of the Latin versions for and against the authenticity of the Catalogue is nearly balanced, the testimony of Italy confronting that of Spain.

The Syriac Manuscripts of the British Museum are however more than sufficient to turn the scale. Three Manuscripts of the Laodicene Canons are found in that collection, which are as old as the sixth or seventh century. All of these contain the fifty-ninth Canon, but without any Catalogue. And this testimony is of twofold value from the fact that one of them gives a different translation from that of the other two.

Nor is this all: in addition to the direct versions of the Canons, systematic collections and synopses of them were made at various times, which have an important bearing upon the question. One of the earliest of these was drawn up by Martin bishop of Braga in Portugal at the middle of the sixth century. This collection contains the first paragraph of the Laodicene Canon, without any trace of the second; and the testimony which it offers is of more importance, because it was based on an examination of Greek authorities, and those of a very early date, since they did not notice the Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, which were included in the collection of the fifth century*.


* Johannes Scholasticus, a presbyter of Antioch, formed a digest of Canons under different heads about the same time, and this contains no reference to the Laodicene Catalogue, but on the contrary the list of Holy Scriptures is taken from the last of the Apostolic Canons. The Nontocanon is a later revision of the work of Johannes, and contains only the undisputed paragraph ; but in a third and later recension the Laodicene and Apostolic Catalogues are both inserted.

On the whole then it cannot be doubted that external evidence is decidedly against the authenticity of the Catalogue as an integral part of the text of the Canons of Laodicea, nor can any internal evidence be brought forward sufficient to explain its omission in Syria, Italy, and Portugal, in the sixth century, if it had been so. Yet even thus it is necessary to account for its insertion in the version of Isidore. So much is evident at once, that the Catalogue is of Eastern and not of Western origin; and, except in details of order, it agrees exactly with that given by Cyril of Jerusalem. Is it then an unreasonable supposition that some early copyist endeavoured to supply, either from the writings of Cyril, or more probably from the usage of the Church which Cyril represented, the list of books which seemed to be required by the language of the last genuine Canon? In this way it is easy to understand how some Manuscripts should have incorporated the addition, while others preserved the original text; and the known tendency of copyists to make their works full rather than pure, will account for its general reception at last."

Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament


:lol:
By Besoeker
#14802110
Hindsite wrote:There are no contradictions and inconsistencies with right understanding of the truth of God.

You don't even know if your god exists.
User avatar
By ingliz
#14802121
You don't even know if your god exists.

That is not much of an argument as you don't know he does not. Disproving the existence of God is impossible; the supernatural is not testable.

Whether He exists or not, it matters not a jot, it is an easy enough task to prove the Bible is the work of man.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 03 May 2017 22:20, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]