THE BIBLE: WHEN and HOW were the books of the bible written?
I
Dates are approximate
OLD TESTAMENT
3000 BC
- Egyptian songs written that were the source of many of the Psalms
2000 BC
- Eclessiastes written
1900 BC
- Abraham comes to Palestine
- Beginning of oral tradition later recorded in the bible
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)inspiration
of much of Moses' writing.
1250 BC
- Moses leads Isrealites out of Egypt
1030 - 1010 BC
- Reign of Saul
1010 - 970 BC
- Reign of David
1000 BC
- Bible begins to be written with Job (fiction)
970 - 931 BC
- Reign of Solomon
960 BC
- The YAHWIST editor began in Jerusalem. He calls God YHWH and describes God
in humanlike terms. The Yahwist editor wrote Genesis 2 ( Genesis 1 had not
yet been written.). Bible heroes are not whitewashed - Abraham is called a
liar (Gen 20), Noah's drunken state is described (Gen 9) and Lot's incest is
told (Gen 19). The monarchy and priesthood in Jeruslem are important. This
editor wrote the first version of the 10 Commandments in Exodus 34 which
contains no reference to resting on the Sabbath.
850 BC
- The ELOHIST editor began in Samaria. He calls God Elohim. The
Elohist editor has a democratic value system and so asserts that no priest,
leader or king can claim permanent status over God's people. There is no
dynasty established. He starts his story with Abraham and wrote about Isaac
and Jacob. He places importance on the Northern kingdoms power and shrines.
He uses dreams, miracle and magic as a way to demonstrate God's power. He
asserts that God raises up prophets whn required.
621 BC
- The DEUTERONOMIST editor began in 621 BCE in the reign of King Josiah in
Jerusalem. The "discovered" book was called the second (deuters) giving of
the Law (nomas) and became known as Deuteronomy. It was responsive to the
prophetic tradition of Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah and Jeremiah (who was
alive at the time of writing). The deuteronomist editor centralised worship
under the supervision of the Jerusalem priesthood. Its interests were in a
high spiritual monotheism and therefore wrote than no image could be made of
God.
596 BC
- The PRIESTLY editors began after the city of Jerusalem fell to
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. Many of the Psalms were
written in this time (including Psalm 137). The priests edited and rewrote
massive parts of the sacred story. They emphasised circumcision, dietary
laws and Sabbath day observance and were responsible for writing Genesis 1
to provide a reason for observing the Sabbath and it was one of the last
parts of the Old Testament to be written. At the same time synagogues were
built to indoctrinate the people. As a result the details of worship, the
rules of worship, the observance of worship became important and resulted in
much of Exodus, almost all of Leviticus and major portions of Numbers. All
the chronologies were written by the priestly editors. The incompleted
harmonisation of the Yahwist and Elohist editors produce most of the
contradictions in the Old Testament.
400 BC
- Emphasis on individualism and life after death
275 - 100 BC
- The Septuagint (commonly designated LXX)
- oldest Greek version of the Old Testament
- translated from the Hebrew Bible by Hellenistic Jews at Alexandria.
200 BC
- Daniel written (fiction)
60 BCE - 200 CE
- Onkelos Targum
- oldest existing copies from about 500 CE
30 BC
- Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel
- oldest existing copies from about 500 AD.
Refer to http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/
NEW TESTAMENT
6 BCE
- Jesus birth
27 CE
- John the Baptist: the precursor and mentor of Jesus dies.
27 - 34 CE
- Jesus' death
50 - 60 CE
- Sayings Gospel Q (first edition)
- Gospel of Thomas (first edition)
- 1 Thessalonians (Paul)
- Philippians (Paul)
- Galatians (Paul)
- 1 Corinthians (Paul)
- 2 Corinthians (Paul)
- Romans (Paul)
- Philemon (Paul)
Paul doesn't write much about Jesus' life and doesn't mention any miracles.
50 - 80 CE
- Colossians (May not be Paul)
50 - 95 CE
- Hebrews (Not Paul)
50 - 100 CE
- Gospel of Peter (first edition)
- Ergeton Gospel
60 - 70 CE
- Gospel of Signs
60 - 80 CE
Didache, the first believer's handbook (first edition)
65 - 80 CE
- Mark's gospel
- First edition, about 70 CE
- Source may be Peter
- Messianic secret
- Based on Deuteronomy / liturgy
- All actions could be done in one week
Mark's Gospel is THE MAJOR SOURCE of all the other gospels and very Jewish.
There are not four gospels telling differing eyewitness accounts but three
gospels retelling Mark's gospel with their own editing and additions. Jesus
is depicted as a Jewish rabbi who went about healing people and telling
them to turn to the One God Yahweh. To repent is to return from exile.
There are no spectacular miracles and no resurrection appearance. Jesus is
not portrayed as being the One God Yahweh.
Mark's gospel is a LITURGY that has used Deuteronomy as the way to organise
the narrative.
Study Mark's gospel with Deuteronomy side by side.
Mark 1 onwards is about the Day of Atonement.
Mark 3 onwards is about the Festival of Tabernacles.
Mark 9 onwards is about Hanukkah.
Mark 13 is a mini-apocalypse
Mark 14 & 15 were written first and are about the late March /early April
Passover vigil:
14:1-16 ... 6.00pm Thursday
14:17-26 ... 9.00am
14:26-42 ... Midnight
14:43-52 ... 3.00am
14:53-72 ... 6.00am
15:1-25 ... 9.00am
15:26-32 ... midday
15:33-41 ... 3.00 pm
15:42-47 ... 6.00pm Friday
################################
DESTRUCTION OF THE JEWISH TEMPLE IN 70 CE
###############################
This changes everything and is vitally important! There is no longer a
Jewish heart of Christianity at Jerusalem. The apostles are not up the road
and able to be talked with easily as one goes to the Temple. The church is
scattered throughout the Roman Empire thanks to Paul. Greek thinking from
the Roman Empire starts to infiltrate. Jesus must be portrayed as greater
than Caesar. Caesar has as his titles "lord and god". Romans worship lots
of "lesser gods". The writers take great care to show that Jesus is greater
than Caesar who has destroyed Jerusalem. As Jews have lost their Temple
they form more reliance on the synagogue. Christian Jews are eating with
Gentiles and not observing a separation. Increasingly Jews do not want
Christian Jews who associate and eat with Gentiles in their synagogues.
Christian Gentiles increasingly don't want the Roman Empire to blame them
for the problems the Jews caused which resulted in the sacking of Jerusalem.
Christian Gentiles want to be friends with the Roman Empire in which they
live. A divide is caused between Christians and Jews which wasn't there
before the destruction of the Temple but us retrospectively written by the
next gospel writers.
70 - 100 CE
- James
80 -100 CE
- 2 Thessalonians (May not be Paul)
- Ephesians (May not be Paul)
85 CE
- Matthew's gospel
- incorporating Mark & Q
- Addressed to Diaspora
- Written in Antioch
- Conservative
- 90% of the references to Hell
- Based on Moses' life / Exodus
- Portrays division between Jews and Christians
Matthew's gospel uses the Torah as the way to organise the narrative.
Read Matthew's gospel with the Torah side by side.
Matthew 1 ... Geneology referring to Abraham in lots of 14
Matthew 2 .... Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:1-2 .... "wise men & star" ONLY in Matthew.
Matthew 2:13-15 ... Genesis 46
Matthew 2:16 ... Exodus 21
Matthew 2:17-18 ... Genesis 35:18-20
Matthew 2:17 .... Isaiah 42:1
Matthew 4 ... Exodus 16:4
Matthew 5 ... 1. GENESIS ... mountain top "Greater than Moses" .. "you have
heard that it was said ...but I say ..."
Matthew 5:17 ... "law & prophets" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 8:25 ... "lord / boss" (Mark had "teacher / rabbi")
Matthew 10:5 ... 2. EXODUS
Matthew 12:40 ... 1 day and 2 nights: 3.00pm Friday to dawn Sunday.
Matthew 13 ... 3. LEVITICUS
Matthew 13:43 ... Daniel 2:3
Matthew 13:52 ... AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL (what Matthew is doing in his gospel)
Matthew 13 55 .... carpenter added as Jesus' father
Matthew 14:21 ... A. FEEDING JEWS
Matthew 15:38 ... B. FEEDING GENTILES
Matthew 17: 4 ... "lord / boss" (Mark had "master")
Matthew 17:1-8 ... Exodus 34:29-35
Matthew 7:27 ... "fish with coin" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 18:1 ......4. NUMBERS
Matthew 24:1 ..... 5. DEUTERONOMY
Matthew 26:32 ... meet in Gallilee
Matthew 27 ... Psalm 22
Matthew 28:2 ... "earthquake & angel" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 28:7, 9-10 ... "angel and Jesus" SAME message - meet in Gallilee ...
Matthew 28:11-15 ... "stolen rumour" ONLY in Matthew
Matthew 28:18 ... Daniel 7:14
80 -110 CE
- 1 Peter
90 CE
- Luke's gospel, Acts (both written in Caesarea)
- incorporating Mark & Q
- Roman recognition sought
- Gentile interested in universalism
- Focuses on spirit
- Based on II Isaiah
- Jesus portrayed as greater than Elijah
Luke's gospel uses II Isaiah and Torah as the way to organise the
narrative. The term "spirit" is used more often than any other gospel.
Luke 1:1 .... 1. GENESIS
Luke 3:38 .... "son of Adam" Gentiles included
Luke 4:1 ..... 2. EXODUS
Luke 6:20 ... 3. LEVITICUS
Luke 8:19-20 .... mother and brothers but no father
Luke 8:26 .... 4. NUMBERS
Luke 9:20 .... "Christ of God"
Luke 9:51 .... 5. DEUTERONOMY
Luke 10:30-37 ... "good Samaritan" ONLY in Luke
Luke 15:3-7 ... "lost sheep" ONLY in Luke
Luke 15:11-32 ... "prodigal son" ONLY in Luke
Luke 16:19-31 ... LAZARUS ONLY in Luke *(This is the basis for the raising
of Lazarus from the dead in John's gospel)
Luke 18:2-8 ... "persistant widow" ONLY in Luke
Luke 18:10-14 ... "Pharisee at prayer" ONLY in Luke
Luke 19:12-27 .... Retelling Matthew 15:14-30
Luke 24:27, 44 ......... AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL (What Luke is doing in his gospel)
Luke 24:50-51 ...."Greater than Elijah" 2 Kings 2:1
90 - 95 CE
- Revelation of John (Not the apostle John)
- Apocalyptic genre
90 -120 CE.
- I John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude
- John's Gospel
- incorporating the Gospel of Signs
- Not the apostle
- Written in Ephesus
- Centred in Judea / Jerusalem not synoptic Gallilee
- Actions over 3-4 years instead of synoptics 1 year
- Symbolic narrative
- Focus on Wisdom and Word
- Focus on self rather than kingdom of God
- No Ascension or Pentecost
John's Gospel has very little of what the historic time / space Jesus of
Nazareth ever said. It can only be understood in the light of the
philosophy of Philo.
John 1:41 .... "means Christ" GREEK *("Christ" is used extensively.)
ohn 5:18 .... "Father" equality with God
John 8:44 .... anti-Jew
John 10:33 ... "man as God" Jesus as God
John 11 ........retelling of Matthew's Lazarus story
John 17:3 ... Jesus speaks of himself in the third person
John 20:22 ... John's "Pentecost" moment
John 21:23-24 .... Not the apostle John
100 CE
- Gospel of Mark, canonical edition
100 -150 CE
-1 Timothy (Not Paul)
- 2 Timothy (Not Paul)
- Titus (Not Paul)
- Gospel of John, third edition (insertions and additions)
- Gospel of Mary (Greek and Coptic fragments)
- Didache, second edition (insertions and additions)
- Gospel of Thomas, second edition (surving edition)
- Surviving fragment of Gospel of John (P52)
- Surviving fragments of Ergeton Gospel (PErgeton and PKoln)
100 -160 CE
- 2 Peter (Not Peter)
100-325 CE
- Emergence of four "recognized" gospels.
- Emergence of an official collection of Christian writings ("New
Testament")
130 CE
- Aquila of Pontus translated the Old Testament into Greek.
- Jews of his time preferred it to the Septuagint version, as did the
Judaistic sect of Christians called Ebionites.
150 CE
- Old Latin version
150-250 CE
- Syriac Peshitta version
300-350 CE
- First surviving copies of "Bibles"
313 CE
- Christianity becomes a state religion
325 CE
- Council of Nicea
- First official creeds
Refer to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ and Funk, Hoover& The Jesus
Seminar "The Five Gospels" (Polebridge: 1993) Figure 9 p. 128
BIBLE VERSIONS
300s CE
- Old Syriac Version (Contains the Four Gospels)
- Ethiopic
- Memphitic
- Sahidic
- Bohairic
- Gothic
- Armenian
360 CE
- Codex Vercellensis
400s CE
- Codex Alexandrinus
- Codex Vaticanus
- Codex Ephraemi.
- African Old Latin or Codex Babbiensis
- Codex Corbiensis
- Codex Palatinus
- Thebaic
- Middle Egyptian
- Georgian
400-450 CE
- Palestinian Syriac
500s CE
- Codex Bezae. - Codex Sinaiticus
- Nubian
508 AD
Philoxenian
- translated by Polycarp
616 CE
- Harkleian Syriac (translated by Thomas of Harkel)
800s
- Slavonic
1384
- Wyckliffe
1455 CE
- Vulgate (Latin vulgata editio, "popular edition") Latin Bible
- pronounced "authentic" by the Council of Trent.(1546)
1517
- Luther posts 95 Theses
#############################
PROTESTANTISM BEGINS
#############################
1525-1531
- Tyndale
1535-1553
- Miles Coverdale
1537
Thomas Matthew (really John Rogers)
- Henry VIII ordered a copy for every church
1539
- Great Bible / Cranmer's Bible
1557-1560
- Geneva version
- first version to recognize the division of the text into verses
1568
- Bishops' Bible
1582
- Rheims
1609
- Douai
1611
- King James Authorized Version
1881
- Revised NT Gk by Westcot&Hort (using the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).
1895
- Five Fundamentals formed
#######################################
FUNDAMENTALISM BEGINS
######################################
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
According to Jung , 'God stands, omnipotent and free, above his Bible." p.
131
... the Fundamentalist will never ask what lies beyond the Bible, or what
sort of religious experience was possible before there was a Bible. He
speaks and behaves as it is was impossible to be a Christian before there
was a New Testament. He may be too self-conscious to state that he believes
the Bible to have been divinely dictated, but that is really what he does
believe. pp 131-132
It is therefore much more honest (though it may well make life more
difficult) to see the Bible as result rather than beginning. ... as a matter
of historical reality the Bible is the end or a process. First, viewed as
a whole, the list of books which form the Bible was finally agreed upon only
in the fourth century AD, more than two hundred years after the latest book
in the New testament was written. And, second, viewed in its component
parts, each book of the Bible - or in many cases each part of a book - is
the result of a human creartive process akin to, or even identical with, the
production of a work of art. ... Each has his own language, and it is his
language, though the thoughts may be divine. pp. 132-133
In fact, then, the Bible is a collection, a human collection, of very human
response to the divine ... If it were literally the word of God it would be
unintelligible to us, just as divine music would be meaningless to human
ears. To speak or behave, therefore, as the Fundamentalist does, as if
Christianity is a question of responding to the Bible, is to fail to do
justice to what the Bible is - it is itself response. What the Christin is
invited to do is to make his own response to what the biblical writers were
responding to ... we only do justice to it, rather than simply obeyiong it
or imitating the responses which it contains, we allow it to form in us the
capacity to make our own unique responses. p. 134
... the Bible may be the initial impetus in the religious life of a
believer, and it may be the source to which the believer constantly returns.
But equally it may not: it is not necessarily so. There is no reason -
other than convention or Fundamentalist propaganda - why the Bible should
have a monopoly in the area of religious experience, so that 'if it's in the
Bible it must be so, and if it's not in the Bible it can't be so'. There
are other sources of revelation. p. 134
... the process of establishing which books actually belonged in the bible
was a human process: over a period of centuries the church gradually brought
itself to regard some books as having authoritative or canonical status and
to exclude others. .... There is therefore no reason in principle why flesh
and blood cannot continue the process and add new sources of revelation or
take away old ones (as Luther came very near doing when he dismissed the
letter of James as 'an epistle of straw'). p. 135
... if the Bible is the necessary and exclusive precondition for a
Christian's religious experience, it must logically follow that none of the
New Testament writers were themselves Christians, since by definition the
canonical Bible was not available to them. p. 135
We are entirely free, therefore, to explore the possibility that there are
indeed ways of approaching or understanding or questioning God which are
alternative to those contained in the Bible and which may have nothing at
all to do with the Bible and may eeven contradict it. p. 136
... a religion which considers itself bound exclusively and finally by an
arbitrary collection of documents, abruptly and artificially sealed up in
the fourth century AD, is misunderstanding its own essence and indeed
closing itself off from the God whom it professes to reveal. p. 137
... an approach which seeks to legislate on what can and cannot be called
religious experience or revelation, according to whether or not it takes its
point of departure from the Bible, is simply closing its eyes to what
actually happens. pp. 139-140
The Bible in fact, if it is approached in accordance with the spirit which
permeates it, cries out to us to use our imagination, free from all
constraints, in our search for, or response to, God. p. 140
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ does not read the Bible, the New Testament, or the Gospel. He is the
norm of the Bible, the criterion of the New Testament, the incarnation of
the Gospel. ... The person, not the book, and the life, not the text, are
decisive and constitutive for us.
John Dominic Crossan "God & Emprire: Jesus against Rome, then and now,"
(HarperOne:2007) p. 95
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
FUNDY FUNHOUSE -
http://fundamentalistfunhouse.blogspot.com/
- a resource on the current Fundamentalist Dark Age and Christian
fundamentalism.
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000507> wrote in message
news:4af4dac4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> BIBLE TIMELINE
Corrected.
Dates are approximate
OLD TESTAMENT
1900 BC
- Abraham comes to Palestine
- Beginning of oral tradition later recorded in the bible
1375 - 1358 BC
- Reign of Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep IV ( later called Ikhnaton)inspiration
of much of Moses' writing and a condemnation of the Egyptian religion
(derived from the ancient pre-flood Sumerian religion).
1250 BC
-Moses leads Israelites out of Egypt
-God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of Jesus; Moses
and his scribes begin assembling the teachings on the law and some basic
history of the Israelites.
1030 - 1010 BC
- Reign of Saul
1010 - 970 BC
- Reign of David
David commissions first books to be written to set down the oral traditions
on paper.
970 - 931 BC
- Reign of Solomon; Solomon also commissions and writes books.
c. 950 BC
- Ecclesiastes written by Solomon.
c. 587 to 160 BC. Babylonian captivity.
- The books of the Old Testament are compiled and canononized from various
sources.
275 - 100 BC
- The Septuagint (commonly designated LXX)
- oldest Greek version of the Old Testament
- translated from the Hebrew Bible by Hellenistic Jews at Alexandria.
200 BC
- A Scribe organizes the prophecies of Daniel, given during the reigns of
Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus the Great, into a book, along with personal (but
frequently erroneous) analysis.
c. 160- BC
Books of Maccabees written.
NEW TESTAMENT
c. 6 BC
- Jesus birth
c. 25 CE
- John the Baptist: the precursor and mentor of Jesus dies.
c. 25-28 AD
- Jesus' death
50 - 60 CE
-Matthew the tax collector, the replacement disciple of Judas Iscariot,
referred to as "Matthias" in Acts, writes a "logias" (log) of Jesus'
teachings, which became the basis for both Luke and Matthew's Gospels.
c. 30 - 67 AD
- Paul's writings--ALL of them.
c. 50 - 66 AD
- Epistle of Peter
c. 50-69 AD
- Epistle of James
c. 50-69 AD
-Paul and John Mark formulate the first synoptic gospel, Mark getting his
information from Peter, and Paul contributing information on the activities
of the Pharisees and Romans. Not completed because the matter was assumed by
Luke BEFORE the destruction of the temple.
-Luke writes his Gospel based on Matthew's logia and Mark's early start at a
Gospel (unfinished), as well as Acts BEFORE the temple was destroyed, as
Luke does NOT document 1) the martyrdom of Mark, Peter, or Paul, 2) the
destruction of the temple, and 3) the move of the center of Christianity to
the west, et al.
70 AD
- Temple destroyed.
c. 95 AD
- John writes Revelation, then his Gospel and epistles.
Post 100 AD
- Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Jude also written by Ebionites to attack John's
Revelation, Christian theology and eschatology.
- Gospel of Thomas written by an Ebionite fraud after the destruction of the
temple, when the Ebionites adopted the theology of the Essenes and
Gnosticism.
-Matthew's gospel, derived from a combination of Matthew's Log, and Mark and
Luke's Gospels, with errant additions by a scribe trying to insert the
church into the wrong historical period, i.e. during Jesus' ministry, to
substantiate a singular office (later the Papacy).
> 150 CE
> - Old Latin version
>
> 150-250 CE
> - Syriac Peshitta version
>
>
> 300-350 CE
> - First surviving copies of "Bibles"
>
>
> 313 CE
> - Christianity becomes a state religion
>
>
> 325 CE
> - Council of Nicea
> - First official creeds
[snip the reference to the book of apostasy]
Ike
I
>> BIBLE TIMELINE
>
> Corrected.
Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings and
chamnge them to your ahistorical nonsense????
Oh, I forgot ... you don't use ANY biblical scholars!!!
My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
YOR comments are ignorant assumption which is not based on contemporary
biblical scholarship.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
> -God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of Jesus;
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
The bible NEVER mentions Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
> Moses and his scribes begin assembling the teachings on the law and some
> basic history of the Israelites.
You forgot the many EDITORS!!!!
> David commissions first books to be written to set down the oral
> traditions on paper.
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!!
There is NO evidence to suggest that ever happened.
> 970 - 931 BC
> - Reign of Solomon; Solomon also commissions and writes books.
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!!
There is NO evidence to suggest that ever happened.
> c. 587 to 160 BC. Babylonian captivity.
> - The books of the Old Testament are compiled and canononized from various
> sources.
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!!
There is NO evidence to suggest that ever happened.
> 200 BC
> - A Scribe organizes the prophecies of Daniel, given during the reigns of
> > Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus the Great, into a book, along with personal (but
> frequently erroneous) analysis.
Danile was WRITTEN in this time and is a FICTIONAL APOCALYPSE with NO basis
in history. Daniel never existed in time / space history.
> c. 25-28 AD
> - Jesus' death
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
The EARLIEST Jesus was crucified (because of Pilate and Herod's reigns) was
27 CE.
Biblical scholars date it more towards 34 CE.
> 50 - 60 CE
> -Matthew the tax collector, the replacement disciple of Judas Iscariot,
> referred to as "Matthias" in Acts, writes a "logias" (log) of Jesus'
> teachings, which became the basis for both Luke and Matthew's Gospels.
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
Matthew was written 80m - 100 CE . NO decent scholar dates it before 80
CE!!! It WASN'T written by an eyewitness of Jesus' life abnd is DEPENDENT
upon Mark's gospel so mark's gospel had to be wriotten BEFORE matthew's
gospel!
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
> c. 30 - 67 AD
> - Paul's writings--ALL of them.
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
Paul did not BEGIN to write untill 50 CE and was DEAD by 60 CE. Some of the
letters attributed to paul are NOT written by paul at all. ALL the letters
have been EDITED. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
> c. 50 - 66 AD
> - Epistle of Peter
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
1 Peter is a FORGERY written 80 - 110 CE when Peter was DEAD! See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
> c. 50-69 AD
> - Epistle of James
AHISDTORICAL NONSENSE!
Biblical scholars thinks that James is a FORGERY written 70-100 CE.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
> c. 50-69 AD
> -Paul and John Mark formulate the first synoptic gospel
Mark MAY have been a disciple of Peter but definitely NOT John Mark. His
source MAY have been Peter (though that is in doubt.) It is the EARLIEST
gospel as both Matthew and Luke RELY on Mark for their story but change some
details. Mark's gospel was written 65 - 80 CE. It CANNOT have been written
before 65 CE!!! See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
> -Luke writes his Gospel based on Matthew's logia and Mark's early start at
> a Gospel (unfinished), as well as Acts BEFORE the temple was destroyed,
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
Luke / Acts was probably written circa 90 CE and certainly CANNOT be written
before the fall of Jerusalem. It MAY be written as late as 130 Ce which
means it CANNOT be an eyewitness account. Luke's gospel / Acts is RELIANT
upon BOTH Mark's gospel and Matthew's gospel so it CANNOT be written before
them. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html and
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html
> c. 95 AD
> - John writes Revelation, then his Gospel and epistles.
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
Revelation WASN'T written by the same aurthor as John's gospel as the GREEK
is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!! Nor was the apostle John the author of EITHER
work as he was an UNEDUCATED FISHERMAN and both use good Greek - John's
gospel uses a knowledge of the philosophy of Philo and Greek Plaotonist
philosophy ion general - NOTHING an UNEDUCATED FISHERMAN would study!!!
John's gospel may have been written as late as 120 CE. It is NOT an
eyewitness account and DIFFERS from the synoptic gospels of matthew, Mark
and Luke in key areas. it conatins next to nothing that thehistoric time /
space jesus of Nazareth ever stated.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
> Post 100 AD
> - Hebrews, 2 Peter
AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
Hebrews may have been written as early as 50 CE but was certainly COMPLETED
by 100 CE. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html
2 Peter is a well known FORGERY and the LAST book to be written in the
bible. Bibklical schiolars date it 100-160 CE when Peter was DEAD!! See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html
> - Gospel of Thomas written by an Ebionite fraud
The earliest parts of the gospel of Thomas MAY date back to 50 CE. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html
One can easily see how your unscholarly ahistorical datings and erroneous
assumptions have completely messed up your theology.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
- James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
Jude Alexander
"I" <me@home000000000000507> wrote in message
: Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: >> BIBLE TIMELINE
: >
: > Corrected.
:
: Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
and
: chamnge them to your ahistorical nonsense????
:
: Oh, I forgot ... you don't use ANY biblical scholars!!!
:
: My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
:
: YOR comments are ignorant assumption which is not based on contemporary
: biblical scholarship.
:
: --
: The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the
following:
: (a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
: it of any sort of error;
: (b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
: implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
: (c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
: not really 'true Christians' at all.
: - James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
:
:
: > -God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of Jesus;
:
: AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
:
: The bible NEVER mentions Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
From the "finger of Jesus?" BWAHAHAHA I knew Ike was a nuisance. NOW I
know he's a nutcase as well...
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000507> wrote in message
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> BIBLE TIMELINE
>>
>> Corrected.
>
> Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
> and chamnge them to your ahistorical nonsense????
LOL
You're so pissed off at being trounced you're st-st-stuttering with your
fingers.
Nevertheless...
Matthew the replacement Disciple [quote Didymus the Blind] wrote a log that
was about 300 lines shorter than the canonical "Matthew," [quote the
Stychometry of Nicephorus] which Jerome said he had and translated to Greek
and Latin (but all three versions are subsequently missing). This explains
why the church fathers said Matthew came first when the Matthew we have was
obviously assembled from parts of Mark and Luke.
Mark wrote his Gospel (unfinished) from his recollections of the teachings
of Peter with additional information learned from Paul (the Pharisee and
Roman dialogues) long before the destruction of the temple, as a fragment
was found in the caves of Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls being buried BEFORE
the destruction of the temple because of the imminent invasion of the
Romans.
"Two papyrologists, Fr. Josep O'Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede, have
proposed that lettering on a postage-stamp-sized papyrus fragment found in a
cave at Qumran, 7Q5, represents a fragment of Mark (Mark 6:52�53); thus they
assert that the present gospel was written and distributed prior to 68.
Computer analysis has shown that, assuming their disputed reading of the
letters to be correct, and allowing for the replacement of one letter and
the omission of a three word phrase "to the land", only Mark matches these
twenty letters and five lines among all known Greek manuscripts."
Luke assembled his Gospel from the Matthew's log, Mark's Gospel, additional
information from Paul, and additional witnesses. He then went on to write
Acts, which concludes BEFORE the martyrdom of Peter, Paul, and Mark, BEFORE
the destruction of the Temple, and BEFORE the center of Christianity moved
west.
The canonical Matthew was written after these (as it borrows from both), but
before John's "Revelation" in 96 AD, as John made extensive use of the
canonical Matthew, especially the Olivet Discourse, which he used as the
framework for the "scroll" of Revelation. John also quoted Matthew
[modified] in the introduction, and uses Matthew's infancy narrative to
construct chapter 12.
John wrote His Gospel last based on theological insight gained from
receiving "Revelation," but as a compliment to Matthew's Gospel.
The church historians and REAL scholars pretty much had it right all along.
Mark, Luke, Peter, and Paul were responsible for the Gospels of Mark and
Luke. The canonical Matthew was written after these, but before John's
"Revelation" in 96 AD. John followed up with his Gospel (based on insights
from Revelation).
The earliest Gospel was written about 40 AD and the latest around 100 AD.
********
The objectives of the Jesus Seminar:
-Rewrite history to exonerate the Jews because holding the Jews guilty for
their actions is politically incorrect and gets in the way of their
non-committal universalistic agenda (even though it wasn't actually Jews who
instigated the matter, but "those who say they are Jews, and are not, but do
lie," and the Gentiles were swinging the hammers).
-Eliminate Jesus' eschatology because it gets in the way of their globalism.
-Reduce Jesus' status to that of "just a nice man" to politically correct
Christianity, making it less exclusive and more palatable to the nations
because what He actually taught gets in the way of their globalism, i.e.
their false peace agenda (which is ironic, because that's PRECISELY how the
prophets said that Satan would come after the believers, i.e. through false
peace).
-In furtherance of the previous goals, undermine the validity of the books
of the New Testament (and, when possible, the Old Testament) through unfair
criticisms and impossible late-dating so as to eliminate as much of Jesus'
teachings as possible, in particular those related to sin (for the
furtherance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors), law and order
(for the furtherance of feminism), exclusivity (for the furtherance of
universalism), and eschatology (for the furtherance of globalism). Remove
any reference (especially by Paul and the Gospel writers) to the virgin
birth, Jesus� miracles, Jesus� eternal nature, Jesus� function as the �Lamb
of God,� Jesus� Divinity, and Jesus� resurrection.
Like all fraudulent "scholars," the Jesus Seminar started with a goal, and
then set out to rewrite the whole story to meet those goals using entirely
flawed empirical means, as they base their decisions on the OPINIONS OF MEN
who have A PRECONCEIVED OPINION of WHAT OPINION they WANT TO HEAR.
(Unfortunately, the same thing has happened in the churches going the other
way, too.)
This is what makes you "Laodiceans," i.e. not hot or cold, thinking you're
full of wisdom when you're full of foolishness: Your agenda is to create a
"faithless and unfaithful" Jesus you can hold in stasis so He can't
interfere with your desires to recreate the world, and even God Himself, in
your own image.
Nevertheless, Jesus WILL interfere with your agenda...big time...but not
before the damage has been done to your souls.
Ike
Ike E 11/05/09
"Jude Alexander" <Onec...@swampland.net> wrote in message
news:hd3ukp$edm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ex 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with
him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with
the finger of God.
De 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the
finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the
LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of
the assembly.
Lu 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the
kingdom of God is come upon you.
Jn 8:3-9
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in
adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master,
this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law
commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as
though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto
them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went
out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was
left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
What was Jesus writing on the ground?
Two tablets on Mount Sinai c. 1600 years earlier.
Why did Jesus stand up, then stoop down and do it again?
Moses smashed the first set.
Why didn't John record what Jesus wrote on the ground?
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THERE TO SEE.
<chuckle>
Ike
I
> : > -God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of Jesus;
> : AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
> : The bible NEVER mentions Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
>
> From the "finger of Jesus?" BWAHAHAHA I knew Ike was a nuisance. NOW I
> know he's a nutcase as well...
I want to know whether the "Jesus" who wrote the 10 Commandments was:
- newborn Jesus
- baby Jesus
- child Jesus
- teenager Jesus
- adult Jesus
OR
- Paul's favourite: DEAD JESUS ("Christ crucified")
I also want to know why the reply to Moses when Moses asked God for his name
wasn't "My name is Jesus."
I also want to know why Jesus didn't say that the greatest commandment was
"Love me, Jesus, because I'm God!"
Ignorant Ike's ignorance knows no bounds.
I
>> Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
>> and change them to your ahistorical nonsense????
I see that you cannot give ONE SCHOLARLY REFERENCE.
You quote from SOMEWHERE without ANY reference as to WHO wrote the passage,
the TITLE of the work, WHO the publisher was and WHEN it was
published!!!!!!!!
Didn't they teach you how to reference material in your Diploma Mill??????
I
>> : Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
>> and
>> : change them to your ahistorical nonsense????
>> :
>> : Oh, I forgot ... you don't use ANY biblical scholars!!!
>> :
>> : My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>> :
>> : YOR comments are ignorant assumption which is not based on contemporary
>> : biblical scholarship.
>> :
>> : --
>> : The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the
>> following:
>> : (a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence
>> from
>> : it of any sort of error;
>> : (b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results
>> and
>> : implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
>> : (c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint
>> are
>> : not really 'true Christians' at all.
>> : - James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977) p.1
>> :
>> :
>> : > -God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of
>> Jesus;
>> :
>> : AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
>> :
>> : The bible NEVER mentions Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
>>
>> From the "finger of Jesus?" BWAHAHAHA I knew Ike was a nuisance. NOW I
>> know he's a nutcase as well...
...
> <chuckle>
Ignorant Ike laughs like a lunatic.
It is OBVIOUS that his "LOL" means "Laugh Of Lunatic"
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000509> wrote in message
news:4af5f66f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> IGNORANT "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
>>> and change them to your ahistorical nonsense????
>
>
> I see that you cannot give ONE SCHOLARLY REFERENCE.
>
> You quote from SOMEWHERE without ANY reference as to WHO wrote the
> passage, the TITLE of the work, WHO the publisher was and WHEN it was
> published!!!!!!!!
LOL
That's the Pharisee's argument against Jesus: "Who maketh this man to learn
letters."
I've both "learned letters" AND learned from experience that "scholars" are
like ASSHOLES--everyone has their own. Whenever someone wants to advance
their agenda, all they have to do is go shopping for "a scholar" to support
their agenda, and will even PAY to do it.
The FUNNY part is the Jesus Seminarians are a MINUSCULE MINORITY among
"Biblical Scholars," but you cling to them like they were God Himself.
<chuckle>
Ike
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000509> wrote in message
The ignorance is all yours...
Ex 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with
him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with
the finger of God.
De 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the
finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the
LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of
the assembly.
Lu 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the
kingdom of God is come upon you.
WHO wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets at Sinai?
JESUS.
Problem is you're too stupid and obstinate to understand and accept Jesus'
references to three-dimensional time, because if Jesus is precisely what He
and other said He is, it would TOTALLY screw up your attacks on
CHRISTIANITY, and lay bare your HERESIES.
It's rather funny, actually: You moved from Christian cultism right into
secular cultism, and can't see that YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED A BIT--you blindly
followed one cult, and now you're blindly following ANOTHER.
<chuckle>
Ike
I
>>>> Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
>>>> and change them to your ahistorical nonsense????
>> I see that you cannot give ONE SCHOLARLY REFERENCE.
>> You quote from SOMEWHERE without ANY reference as to WHO wrote the
>> passage, the TITLE of the work, WHO the publisher was and WHEN it was
>> published!!!!!!!!
>
> LOL
Ignorant Ike Translation: "Laugh Of Lunatic"
Ignorant Ike doesn't like biblical scholars because they prove him WRONG.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
...
I
> WHO wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets at Sinai?
> JESUS.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
I want to know whether the "Jesus" who wrote the 10 Commandments was:
- newborn Jesus
- baby Jesus
- child Jesus
- teenager Jesus
- adult Jesus
OR
- Paul's favourite: DEAD JESUS ("Christ crucified")
I also want to know why the reply to Moses when Moses asked God for his name
wasn't "My name is Jesus."
I also want to know why Jesus didn't say that the greatest commandment was
"Love me, Jesus, because I'm God!"
Ignorant Ike's ignorance knows no bounds.
--
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
...
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
...
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000517> wrote in message
news:4af68708$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> IGNORANT "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted
>>>>> datings and change them to your ahistorical nonsense????
>>> I see that you cannot give ONE SCHOLARLY REFERENCE.
>>> You quote from SOMEWHERE without ANY reference as to WHO wrote the
>>> passage, the TITLE of the work, WHO the publisher was and WHEN it was
>>> published!!!!!!!!
>>
>> LOL
>
> Ignorant Ike Translation: "Laugh Of Lunatic"
>
> Ignorant Ike doesn't like biblical scholars because they prove him WRONG.
LOL
The Jesus Seminarians are HARDLY "biblical scholars," and they're only a
heretical, miniscule minority, but you make THEM your "god."
Ike
Barry OGrady
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Its the blind arguing with the blind.
><chuckle>
>
>Ike
>
=-=-=
Barry
See the website Gladys hates
Find out why she fears it so
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000517> wrote in message
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> WHO wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets at Sinai?
>> JESUS.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Hey, laugh all you want: Someday you'll find out it's true, and then there
will be a LOT of laughing at you.
> I want to know whether the "Jesus" who wrote the 10 Commandments was:
> - newborn Jesus
> - baby Jesus
> - child Jesus
> - teenager Jesus
> - adult Jesus
> OR
> - Paul's favourite: DEAD JESUS ("Christ crucified")
Notice how the heretic uses his OWN standards against which to compare
biblical passages.
And it would be "adult Jesus," since He did it during the days of His
ministry, when the Pharisees brought the woman taken in adultery before
Him.-
> I also want to know why the reply to Moses when Moses asked God for his
> name wasn't "My name is Jesus."
Note the arrogance: "Why didn't God do it THE WAY I WANTED?"
> I also want to know why Jesus didn't say that the greatest commandment was
> "Love me, Jesus, because I'm God!"
Because He said something greater: What's the difference between "Love the
Lord thy God" and "Love they neighbor as thyself?"
Answer: NOTHING--they're THE SAME THING.
<chuckle and snip>
Ike
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000517> wrote:
> Ignorant Ike doesn't like biblical scholars because they prove him WRONG.
Let's see. You're arguing the Bible can't be trusted as the
truth from God, because it is man-made and therefore fallible.
Then you're citing men to back up your claims about the God you
believe in?
<chuckle>
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000517> wrote:
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09"<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > WHO wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets at Sinai?
>> > JESUS.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> I want to know whether the "Jesus" who wrote the 10 Commandments was:
> - newborn Jesus
> - baby Jesus
> - child Jesus
> - teenager Jesus
> - adult Jesus
> OR
> - Paul's favourite: DEAD JESUS ("Christ crucified")
>
> I also want to know why the reply to Moses when Moses asked God for his name
> wasn't "My name is Jesus."
>
> I also want to know why Jesus didn't say that the greatest commandment was
> "Love me, Jesus, because I'm God!"
>
> Ignorant Ike's ignorance knows no bounds.
I want to know which "God" and "Jesus" you're claiming to believe
in, and how he revealed himself to you, that you should hear him
and trust what he said:
_________________________
_________________________
And how is it your God just happened to refer to himself as
"Yahweh" who had a son named "Jesus" since that (just
coincidentally of course), happens to be the same name of the God
we know about from a source you insist is man-made, fallible,
makes God out to be evil, and that not "any" verse of it can be
known to be the actual word of God?
__________________________
__________________________
Jude Alexander
"Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd4qr6$fdu$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
:
: "Jude Alexander" <Onec...@swampland.net> wrote in message
You're religiously insane.
:
:
Ike E 11/05/09
You wish.
Ike
Ike E 11/05/09
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c3df5p7l673l0k8c...@4ax.com...
If you mean Mrs. T's internal self conflicts, you're quite right--she went
from blindness to blindness.
Meanwhile, Jesus was ALL OVER creation, and said so in every Gospel.
Funny how that works.
Ike
I
> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
--
Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God [YAHWEH NOT YAHWEH'S HUMAN CHRIST /
MESSIAH Jesus of Nazareth] with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew
22:37-40
There is ONLY ONE historic time / space Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ
OF God. "God was IN Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19-21) NOT "God WAS Christ"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pre-Easter Jesus / Post-Easter Jesus
4 B.C.E. to 30 C.E. / 30 C.E. to present
Corporeal, human being of flesh and blood Spiritual / non-material
reality
Finite and mortal / Infinite, eternal
Human / Divine
A Jewish peasant / King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Figure of the past / Figure of the present
Jesus of Nazareth / Jesus Christ
Monotheistic Jew / Becomes the second person of the trinity, "God with a
human face"
Galilean Jew of the first century / "The Face of God" (metaphor based on
2 Cor. 4:6 Beholding the glory of God in the face of Christ)
The ONLY AUTHENTIC human time / space historic Jesus of Nazareth is the
Pre-Easter Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One DOESN'T require a bible in order to know God.
God is NOT bound by a bible.
####################################################
from James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977)
There is no 'the Bible' that 'claims' to be divinely inspired, there is no
'it' that has a 'view of itself'. ... There is no such thing as 'the Bible's
view of itself' from which a fully authoritative answer to these questions
can be obtained. ... The most obvious difficulty is the absence from the
New Testamnent of clear unambiguous 'claims' about the infallibility and
inerrancy of the total New Testament as we have it today. p.78
##############################################
According to Jung , 'God stands, omnipotent and free, above his Bible."
p.131
... the Fundamentalsit will never ask what lies beyond the Bible, or what
sort of religious experience was possible before there was a Bible. He
speaks and behaves as it is was impossible to be a Christian before there
was a New Testament. He may be too self-conscious to state that he believes
the Bible to have been divinely dictated, but that is really what he does
believe. pp 131-132
... the Fundamentalist will forbid you to ask certain questions about the
Bible ... p. 132
It is therefore much mopre honest (though it may well make life more
difficult) to see the Bible as result rather than beginning. ... as a matter
of historical reality the Bible is the end orf a process. First, viewed as
a whole, the list of books which form the Bible was finally agreed upon only
in the fourth century AD, more than two hundred years after the latest book
in the New testament was written. And, second, viewed in its component
parts, each book of the Bible - or in many cases each part of a book - is
the result of a human creartive process akin to, or even identical with, the
production of a work of art. ... Each has his own language, and it is his
language, though the thoughts may be divine. pp. 132-133
In fact, then, the Bible is a collection, a human collection, of very human
response to the divine ... If it were literally the word of God it would be
unintelligible to us, just as divine music would be meaningless to human
ears. To speak or behave, therefore, as the Fundamentalist does, as if
Christianity is a question of responding to the Bible, is to faiol to do
justice to what the Bible is - it is itself response. What the Christin is
invited to do is to make his own response to what the bibklical writers were
responding to ... we only do justice to it, rather than simply obeyiong it
or imitating the responses which it contains, we allow it to form in us the
capacity to make our own unique responses. p. 134
... the Bible may be the initial impetus in the religious life of a
believer, and it may be the source to which the believer constantly returns.
But equally it may not: it is not necessarily so. There is no reason -
other than convention or Fundamentalist propaganda - why the Bible should
have a monopoly in the area of religious experience, so that 'if it's in the
Bible it must be so, and if it's not in the Bible it can't be so'. There
are other sources of revelation. p. 134
... the process of establishing which books actually belonged in the bible
was a human process: over a period of centuries the church gradually brought
itself to regard some books as having authoritative or canonical status and
to exclude others. .... There is therefore no reason in principle why flesh
and blood cannot continue the process and add new sources of revelation or
take away old ones (as Luther came very near doing when he dismissed the
letter of James as 'an epistle of straw'). p. 135
... the Fundamentalist is more or less obliged by his own presuppositions to
take a closed view of the Bibhle. If the Bible were not the final word then
he would have to review the whole basis of his religion. ... to insist that
God was behind the formation of the canon is both to assume what you are
trying to prove and to legislate on God's subsequent freedom to act and
reveal himself in any way he choses. p. 135
... if the Bible is the necessary and exclusive precondition for a
Christian's religious experience, it must logically follow that none of the
New Testament writers were themselves Christians, since by definition the
canonical Bible was not available to them. p. 135
We are entirely free, therefore, to explore the possibility that there are
indeed ways of approaching or understanding or questioning God which are
alternative to those contained in the Bible and which may have nothing at
all to do with the Bible and may eeven contradict it. p. 136
The Bible was something like 1500 years in the making .... the Bible
throughout its development was constantly changing its character, widening
its repertoire, breaking its own bounds. p. 136
... a religion which considers itself bound exclusively and finally by an
arbitrary collection of documents, abruptly and artificially sealed up in
the fourth century AD, is misunderstanding its own essence and indeed
closing itself off from the God whom it professes to reveal. p. 137
... an approach which seeks to legislate on what can and cannot be called
religious experience or revelation, according to whether or not it takes its
point of departure from the Bible, is simply closing its eyes to what
actually happens. pp. 139-140
The Bible in fact, if it is approached in accordance with the spirit which
permeates it, cries out to us to use our imagination, free from all
constraints, in our search for, or response to, God. p. 140
From Peter Cameron's "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The most pronounced characteristics [of fundamentalists] are the following:
(a) a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, the absence from
it of any sort of error;
(b) a strong hostility to modern theology and to the methods, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible;
(c) an assurance that those who do not share their religious viewpoint are
not really 'true Christians' at all.
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000520> wrote in message
news:4af7...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Randy � Young" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
>
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
Cite where Jesus worshipped God from scripture.
[snip]
Ike
I
>> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
>> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>
> Cite where Jesus worshipped God
Jesus was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT and like ALL Jews of his day worshipped
the One God of Israel.
Do you think Jesus worshipped HIMSELF at the Synagogue and Temple????
WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts 3:1???
Did the Temple allow prayers to Jesus?????
Did Synagogues allow prayers to Jesus?????
Jesus taught us to pray to the One God whom he addressed as "Father". "Our
Father" does NOT mean "Our Jesus".
You need to learn history.
For a much fuller treatment read John Dominic Crossan "The Historical Jesus:
The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992)
--
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000520> wrote in message
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
>>> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
>>
>> Cite where Jesus worshipped God
>
>
> Jesus was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT and like ALL Jews of his day worshipped
> the One God of Israel.
>
> Do you think Jesus worshipped HIMSELF at the Synagogue and Temple????
>
> WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts 3:1???
>
> Did the Temple allow prayers to Jesus?????
>
> Did Synagogues allow prayers to Jesus?????
>
> Jesus taught us to pray to the One God whom he addressed as "Father".
> "Our Father" does NOT mean "Our Jesus".
>
> You need to learn history.
>
> For a much fuller treatment read John Dominic Crossan "The Historical
> Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992)
Anybody else notice that Mrs. T couldn't do what I said?
Nevertheless...
1) Jesus was NOT "a normal Jewish peasant," which the satanists would have
us believe.
2) Jesus didn't worship the Father (directly) OR Himself: He worshipped HIS
FOLLOWERS, i.e. "whoever would be great among you, he must be your servant,
and whoever would be first among you, he must be slave of all."
3) As for the temple and synagogues, they DIDN'T KNOW who Jesus was, and
STILL DON'T.
4) As far as "our Father" is concerned, Jesus' Tri-unity was based on a
complex series of simultaneously interlocking triangles, but that's so far
over your head I won't even TRY to go there.
5) YOU need to learn history, not me--I get it.
6) To become a prophecy-fulfilling apostate, read anything by John Dominic
Crossan, chief of the modern Gnostic and Universalistic
Jesus-isn't-the-One-and-Only-literal-Christ "Babylonians," which is a
one-way ticket to hell.
Ike
The objectives of the Jesus Seminar:
-Rewrite history to exonerate the Jews because holding the Jews guilty for
their actions is politically incorrect and such notions get in the way of
their non-committal universalistic agenda (even though it wasn't actually
Jews who instigated the matter, but "those who say they are Jews, and are
not, but do lie").
-Eliminate Jesus' eschatology because it gets in the way of their globalism.
-Reduce Jesus' status to that of "just a nice man" to politically correct
Christianity, making it less exclusive and more palatable to the nations
because what He actually taught gets in the way of their globalism, i.e.
their false peace agenda (which is ironic, because that's PRECISELY how the
prophets said that Satan would come after the believers, i.e. through false
peace).
-In furtherance of the previous goals, undermine the validity of the books
of the New Testament (and, when possible, the Old Testament) through unfair
criticisms and impossible late-dating so as to eliminate as much of Jesus'
teachings as possible, in particular those related to sin (for the
furtherance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors), law and order
(for the furtherance of feminism and socialism), exclusivity (for the
furtherance of universalism), and eschatology (for the furtherance of
globalism). They remove any reference (especially by Paul and the Gospel
I
>> Jesus was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT and like ALL Jews of his day worshipped
>> the One God of Israel.
>>
>> Do you think Jesus worshipped HIMSELF at the Synagogue and Temple????
>>
>> WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts 3:1???
>>
>> Did the Temple allow prayers to Jesus?????
>>
>> Did Synagogues allow prayers to Jesus?????
>>
>> Jesus taught us to pray to the One God whom he addressed as "Father".
>> "Our Father" does NOT mean "Our Jesus".
>>
>> You need to learn history.
>>
>> For a much fuller treatment read John Dominic Crossan "The Historical
>> Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992)
...
> 1) Jesus was NOT "a normal Jewish peasant,"
Really? Do you think he was subnormal?
Jesus of Nazareth was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT as documented in John Dominic
Crossan "The Historical Jesus:
The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992) ... which you
HAVEN'T read because you don't read ANY biblical scholars. John Dominic
Crossan is Professor Emeritus of De Paul University and widely regarded as
the foremost historical Jesus scholar of our time.
I note that you CANNOT answer the questions:
- Do you think Jesus worshipped HIMSELF at the Synagogue and Temple????
- WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts 3:1???
- Did the Temple allow prayers to Jesus?????
- Did Synagogues allow prayers to Jesus?????
> The objectives of the Jesus Seminar:
Check the Jesus Seminar out for yourself rather than rely on Ignorant Ike's
ignorance. http://www.westarinstitute.org/
The REAL objectives of the Jesus Seminar are ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Westar Institute is a member-supported, non-profit research and educational
institute founded in 1986 and dedicated to the advancement of religious
literacy. Westar's twofold mission is to foster collaborative research in
religious studies and to communicate the results of the scholarship of
religion to a broad, non-specialist public.
Why is Westar important?
Until a few years ago, essential knowledge about biblical and religious
traditions was hidden in the windowless studies of universities and
seminaries-away from the general public. Such research was considered too
controversial or too complicated for lay persons to understand. Many
scholars, fearing open conflict or even reprisal, talked only to one
another. The churches often decided what information their constituents were
"ready" to hear.
Through publications, educational programs, and research projects like the
Jesus Seminar, Westar has opened up a new kind of conversation about
religion. This is an honest, no-hold-barred exchange involving thousands of
scholars, clergy and other individuals who have critical questions about the
past, present and future of religion.
Some of the principles guiding the work of Westar are:
a.. All serious questions about religion-including biblical and dogmatic
traditions-deserve research, discussion and resolution; no inquiry should be
out of bounds.
b.. The scholarship of religion should be collaborative in order to expand
the base of decisionmaking, cumulative in forming and building on a
consensus, and genuinely ecumenical
c.. Religion and bible scholars should conduct their deliberations in
public and report the results to a broad, literate audience in simple,
non-technical language
Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution nor does it advocate
a particular theological point of view.
from http://www.westarinstitute.org/Mission/mission.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No wonder Ignorant Ike is SO afraid of them!!!
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000521> wrote in message
news:4af7ad29$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Jesus was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT and like ALL Jews of his day
>>> worshipped the One God of Israel.
>>>
>>> Do you think Jesus worshipped HIMSELF at the Synagogue and Temple????
>>>
>>> WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts 3:1???
>>>
>>> Did the Temple allow prayers to Jesus?????
>>>
>>> Did Synagogues allow prayers to Jesus?????
>>>
>>> Jesus taught us to pray to the One God whom he addressed as "Father".
>>> "Our Father" does NOT mean "Our Jesus".
>>>
>>> You need to learn history.
>>>
>>> For a much fuller treatment read John Dominic Crossan "The Historical
>>> Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992)
> ...
>> 1) Jesus was NOT "a normal Jewish peasant,"
>
> Really? Do you think he was subnormal?
No, super-normal.
Duh.
> Jesus of Nazareth was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT as documented in John
> Dominic Crossan "The Historical Jesus:
> The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992) ...
Oh, you mean the man that undermines all the law and the prophets?
> which you HAVEN'T read because you don't read ANY biblical scholars.
LOL
No one in the Jesus Seminar is a "biblical scholar."
> John Dominic Crossan is Professor Emeritus of De Paul University and
> widely regarded as the foremost historical Jesus scholar of our time.
LOL
Try "greatest heretic of our time."
> I note that you CANNOT answer the questions:
> - Do you think Jesus worshipped HIMSELF at the Synagogue and Temple????
Jesus never WORSHIPPED in the temple AT ALL.
In fact, the FIRST TIME He spoke in a SYNAGOGUE, HE SAID that THE WORD WAS
ABOUT HIM, moron...
Lk 4:15-22a
And [Jesus] TAUGHT in their synagogues, being GLORIFIED OF ALL.
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his
custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for
to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias.
And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the
gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at
liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat
down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on
him.
And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in
your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words
which proceeded out of his mouth.
> - WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts 3:1???
The Father, which, ironically, is Jesus...
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace.
One man. Four hats. All based on simultaneously-existing interlocking
triangles of relationships.
Wonderful Counselor = Jesus as Holy Spirit.
Mighty God = Jesus as all in all.
Everlasting Father = Jesus as "Father" of brother Israel and mother
Christianity.
Prince of Peace = Jesus as "Son" of father Israel and mother Christianity.
> - Did the Temple allow prayers to Jesus?????
The Jews didn't recognize God when they met Him.
Lu 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation.
> - Did Synagogues allow prayers to Jesus?????
The Jews didn't recognize God when they met Him.
Lu 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within
thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou
knewest not the time of thy visitation.
>> The objectives of the Jesus Seminar:
>
> Check the Jesus Seminar out for yourself rather than rely on Ignorant
> Ike's ignorance. http://www.westarinstitute.org/
>
> The REAL objectives of the Jesus Seminar are ...
...to establish BABYLON.
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000507> wrote in message
news:4af54e0f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>> BIBLE TIMELINE
>>
>> Corrected.
>
> Which biblical scholars did you use to reconstruct the accepted datings
> and chamnge them to your ahistorical nonsense????
>
> Oh, I forgot ... you don't use ANY biblical scholars!!!
>
> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
No, secular cultists.
And "scholars" are like assholes--everyone has their own.
> YOR comments are ignorant assumption which is not based on contemporary
> biblical scholarship.
Read: "contemporary antichristian heretics advancing their own private
agenda."
>> -God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of Jesus;
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
>
> The bible NEVER mentions Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
Ex 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with
him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with
the finger of God.
De 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the
finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the
LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of
the assembly.
Lu 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the
kingdom of God is come upon you.
Jn 8:3-11
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in
adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master,
this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law
commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
(This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.)
But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as
though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto
them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went
out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was
left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said
unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord.
And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
[Now watch T cut the passages, attack John, and deny what the Word
says because his cult teachers didn't prepare him for this one]
>> Moses and his scribes begin assembling the teachings on the law and some
>> basic history of the Israelites.
>
> You forgot the many EDITORS!!!!
I'm aware of the development of the perspectives on the law which validate
the law according to 1) courageous leadership, 2) the innocence of
integrity, 3) diligent witness, and 4) the grace of life.
>> David commissions first books to be written to set down the oral
>> traditions on paper.
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!!
>
> There is NO evidence to suggest that ever happened.
2Ch 35:4 And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your
courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to
the writing of Solomon his son.
>> 970 - 931 BC
>> - Reign of Solomon; Solomon also commissions and writes books.
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!!
> There is NO evidence to suggest that ever happened.
2Ch 35:4 And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your
courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to
the writing of Solomon his son.
>> c. 587 to 160 BC. Babylonian captivity.
>> - The books of the Old Testament are compiled and canononized from
>> various sources.
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!!
>
> There is NO evidence to suggest that ever happened.
LOL
It's basic fact, you moron: The various books and oral traditions of the
Bible were collected or compiled, and set to paper DURING THE BABYLONIAN
CAPTIVITY.
Ezra ALONE referred to half a dozen books WE DON'T HAVE.
>> 200 BC
>> - A Scribe organizes the prophecies of Daniel, given during the reigns of
>> > Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus the Great, into a book, along with personal
>> (but frequently erroneous) analysis.
>
> Danile was WRITTEN in this time and is a FICTIONAL APOCALYPSE with NO
> basis in history.
"You say."
Jesus said "as SPOKEN by Daniel the prophet," but not "as written" as He
usually did.
> Daniel never existed in time / space history.
Jesus and the boys said different. I'll believe them over you any day.
>> c. 25-28 AD
>> - Jesus' death
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
>
> The EARLIEST Jesus was crucified (because of Pilate and Herod's reigns)
> was 27 CE.
It all depends on which side one comes down on the no "0 AD" controversy.
Pilate ruled Judea c. 26-36 AD.
Antipas rule to 36 AD.
Subtracting a year would be 25 AD, and Luke says Jesus was about 30 years
old when He began His ministry.
If Jesus was born in 6-7 BC, he would have started His ministry in c. 24-25
BC.
> Biblical scholars date it more towards 34 CE.
Ah, the infamous unnamed "Bible Scholars."
Nevertheless, the statements I made stand.
>> 50 - 60 CE
>> -Matthew the tax collector, the replacement disciple of Judas Iscariot,
>> referred to as "Matthias" in Acts, writes a "logias" (log) of Jesus'
>> teachings, which became the basis for both Luke and Matthew's Gospels.
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
Nope.
Didymus the Blind said that Matthew was Matthias the replacement disciple
who was chosen because he was with the rest of the Disciples from the very
beginning.
Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, et al, referred to the "Logia" (Log) of
Matthew as the first Gospel.
> Matthew was written 80m - 100 CE .
THE CANONICAL Matthew was COMPILED BEFORE JOHN'S REVELATION.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CANONICAL MATTHEW, moron: I'M TALKING ABOUT HIS
"LOG."
> NO decent scholar dates it before 80 CE!!! It WASN'T written by an
> eyewitness of Jesus' life abnd is DEPENDENT upon Mark's gospel so mark's
> gospel had to be wriotten BEFORE matthew's gospel!
> See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
I already KNOW this, moron.
>> c. 30 - 67 AD
>> - Paul's writings--ALL of them.
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
>
> Paul did not BEGIN to write untill 50 CE and was DEAD by 60 CE. Some of
> the letters attributed to paul are NOT written by paul at all. ALL the
> letters have been EDITED. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
You say, based on the same fraudulent arguments that the Jesus Seminar makes
ABOUT THE GOSPELS and EVERYTHING ELSE.
If Paul said "divine," or "resurrection," or "godhead," or anything along
those lines that you OBJECT TO simply because YOU OBJECT TO THEM, you
LATE-DATE THE BOOKS and CALL THEM SPURIOUS.
That's what happens when PEOPLE SET THEIR AGENDA FIRST, then FABRICATE THEIR
SCHOLARSHIP LATER.
>> c. 50 - 66 AD
>> - Epistle of Peter
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
>
> 1 Peter is a FORGERY written 80 - 110 CE when Peter was DEAD! See
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1peter.html
"You say."
Why?
FOR THE SAME CULT REASONS YOU SAY EVERYTHING ELSE.
PETER PREACHES THE BLOOD OF CHRIST AS ATONEMENT AND THE RESURRECTION,
THEREFORE HE "MUST" BE A "FRAUD."
YOU'RE THE FRAUDS, moron.
>> c. 50-69 AD
>> - Epistle of James
>
> AHISDTORICAL NONSENSE!
>
> Biblical scholars thinks that James is a FORGERY written 70-100 CE.
> See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html
No, "Bible scholars" don't. You're CULT LEADERS do.
>> c. 50-69 AD
>> -Paul and John Mark formulate the first synoptic gospel
>
> Mark MAY have been a disciple of Peter but definitely NOT John Mark.
"You say."
The REAL historians, the early church fathers, say different.
> His source MAY have been Peter (though that is in doubt.) It is the
> EARLIEST gospel as both Matthew and Luke RELY on Mark for their story but
> change some details. Mark's gospel was written 65 - 80 CE. It CANNOT
> have been written before 65 CE!!! See
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html
All that matthers is that it was written BEFORE the destruction of the
Temple, as a fragment was found in the caves of Qumran.
Hence, JESUS PROPHESIED, which is another thing you apostates deny.
>> -Luke writes his Gospel based on Matthew's logia and Mark's early start
>> at a Gospel (unfinished), as well as Acts BEFORE the temple was
>> destroyed,
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
>
> Luke / Acts was probably written circa 90 CE and certainly CANNOT be
> written before the fall of Jerusalem.
Based on your lying assumption that Jesus couldn't prophecy.
NEVERTHELESS, Luke 1) doesn't document the martyrdom of any of the
Patriarchs, 2) doesn't document the destruction of the temple in Acts (which
would have been the perfect way to PROVE Jesus' prophecies true), and 3) he
doesn't document the movement of the center of Christianity to the west.
Hence, Luke DID write both his Gospel and Acts BEFORE the destruction of the
Temple.
> It MAY be written as late as 130 Ce which means it CANNOT be an
> eyewitness account.
Bullshit.
John made full use of the canonical Matthew in Revelation, and the canonical
Matthew is based in part on Mark and Luke's Gospels, so it had to be written
BETWEEN the years just before the destruction of the temple and Revelation.
> Luke's gospel / Acts is RELIANT upon BOTH Mark's gospel and Matthew's
> gospel...
Bullshit.
It's the other way around.
Matthew wrote his log first.
Mark wrote the first Gospel with additional information from Paul.
Luke wrote his Gospel based on Matthew's log and Mark, plus additional
witnesses.
MATTHEW was written LATER, but before Revelation, because SOMEONE tried to
insert the "Church" where it WASN'T BEFORE.
> so it CANNOT be written before them. See
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html and
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html
Nope.
It was written third or fourth.
>> c. 95 AD
>> - John writes Revelation, then his Gospel and epistles.
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
>
> Revelation WASN'T written by the same aurthor as John's gospel as the
> GREEK is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!
HEY, MORON: "scribe."
Nevertheless, John's GOSPEL is based on REVELATION THEOLOGY, twit.
> Nor was the apostle John the author of EITHER work as he was an
> UNEDUCATED FISHERMAN and both use good Greek
"You say."
> - John's gospel uses a knowledge of the philosophy of Philo and Greek
> Plaotonist philosophy ion general
Nope.
John's Gospel uses MATTHEW and REVELATION.
> - NOTHING an UNEDUCATED FISHERMAN would study!!! John's gospel may have
> been written as late as 120 CE. It is NOT an eyewitness account and
> DIFFERS from the synoptic gospels of matthew, Mark and Luke in key areas.
"You say."
The content proves different.
> it conatins next to nothing that thehistoric time / space jesus of
> Nazareth ever stated.
Again, "you say," but you have a private agenda, which disqualifies
everything "you say."
>> Post 100 AD
>> - Hebrews, 2 Peter
>
> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!
Nope.
HEBREWS, 2 PETER, AND JUDE were written by ESSENE-based EBIONITES.
In fact, TWO of them were written as DIRECT ASSAULTS on JOHN'S REVELATION.
> Hebrews may have been written as early as 50 CE but was certainly
> COMPLETED by 100 CE.
Probably not, as Hebrews is a FORGERY based on JOHN'S REVELATION.
> 2 Peter is a well known FORGERY and the LAST book to be written in the
> bible.
Probably not, as Hebrews was written as an attack on Revelation, and
probably by the same author.
>> - Gospel of Thomas written by an Ebionite fraud
>
> The earliest parts of the gospel of Thomas MAY date back to 50 CE.
Nope.
The Ebionites, who arose after the fall of the temple, were a group of
legalistic "jewish-christians" (so called) who completely rejected Paul's
writings, and used James as their "front man," whom they interpreted to be a
teacher of Christianity melded with Phariseeism.
Thus, any text with a reference to "James the Just" would automatically be
of Ebionite origin.
Now, a LIKELY source of the Ebionite "Gospel of Thomas" would be Matthew's
Logia, with all references to Jesus' Gospel of Grace removed, and
Essene/Gnostic teachings inserted, as well as textual support for "James the
Just" over Paul.
> One can easily see how your unscholarly ahistorical datings and erroneous
> assumptions have completely messed up your theology.
Nope. Quite the opposite. I make no assumptions. I research textual history,
look at the internal evidence, and DON'T buy into the NONSENSE of the higher
critics that Jesus was MANUFACTURED to be "the Son of God," as the OLD
TESTAMENT prophesied of these VERY SAME THINGS ALL ALONG.
Hence, it is YOU PEOPLE who are the fools advancing your OWN PRIVATE AGENDA,
like a great CULT of apostates, just as prophesied.
Ike
********
The objectives of the Jesus Seminar:
-Rewrite history to exonerate the Jews because holding the Jews guilty for
their actions is politically incorrect and gets in the way of their
non-committal universalistic agenda (even though it wasn't actually Jews who
instigated the matter, but "those who say they are Jews, and are not, but do
lie").
-Eliminate Jesus' eschatology because it gets in the way of their globalism.
-Reduce Jesus' status to that of "just a nice man" to politically correct
Christianity, making it less exclusive and more palatable to the nations
because what He actually taught gets in the way of their globalism, i.e.
their false peace agenda (which is ironic, because that's PRECISELY how the
prophets said that Satan would come after the believers, i.e. through false
peace).
-In furtherance of the previous goals, undermine the validity of the books
of the New Testament (and, when possible, the Old Testament) through unfair
criticisms and impossible late-dating so as to eliminate as much of Jesus'
teachings as possible, in particular those related to sin (for the
furtherance of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors), law and order
(for the furtherance of feminism), exclusivity (for the furtherance of
universalism), and eschatology (for the furtherance of globalism). Remove
I
>>> 1) Jesus was NOT "a normal Jewish peasant,"
>> Really? Do you think he was subnormal?
>
> No, super-normal.
Oh, like Superman.
Faster than a speeding bullet. More powerful than a locomotive. Able to leap
tall buildings in a single bound. Look! Up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a
plane. It's Christ, Son of God! Yes, it's Christ, Son of God - strange
visitor from heaven who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond
those of mortal men. Christ, Son of God - who can change the course of
mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who disguised as the
human Jesus of Nazareth, mild-mannered carpenter in Nazareth town, fights a
neverending battle for Trooth, "Just us", and the Trew Kristyun
Fundamentalist way.
>> Jesus of Nazareth was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT as documented in John
>> Dominic Crossan "The Historical Jesus:
>> The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" (HarperOne:1992) ...
>
> Oh, you mean the man that undermines all the law and the prophets?
It undermines your naive literalist fundamentalist view of the historic
Jesus of Nazareth of which you don't seem to have a clue.
> No one in the Jesus Seminar is a "biblical scholar."
John Dominic Crossan is Professor Emeritus of De Paul University and
widely regarded as the foremost historical Jesus scholar of our time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fellows of the Westar Institute include scholars with advanced degrees
in biblical studies, religion or related fields and, by special invitation
only, published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of
religion. Since the beginning, more than two hundred Fellows have
participated in the Jesus Seminar and other Westar projects, including the
Paul Seminar, Canon Seminar and the recently begun Acts Seminar. At various
stages of the projects, different Fellows have been involved in the research
and deliberations.
...
The following is a partial list of scholars who were or are currently
involved in the work of the Westar Institute. To learn more about their
scholarly credentials, click on their names in the alphabetical list that
follows.
a.. Andries G. van Aarde
b.. Valerie A. Abrahamsen
c.. Martin L. Appelt
d.. Karen Armstrong
e.. William E. Arnal
f.. Richard L. Arthur
g.. Harold W. Attridge
h.. Robert Bater
i.. Joseph Bessler
j.. ? Edward F. Beutner
k.. Anthony Blasi
l.. Marcus Borg
m.. Willi Braun
n.. James R. Butts
o.. ? Marvin F. Cain
p.. Ron Cameron
q.. Bruce D. Chilton
r.. Kathleen E. Corley
s.. Wendy J. Cotter
t.. John Dominic Crossan
u.. Don Cupitt
v.. Jon Daniels
w.. Jean Jacques D'Aoust
x.. Jon F. Dechow
y.. Arthur J. Dewey
z.. Joanna Dewey
aa.. ? John Dillenberger
ab.. William Doty
ac.. Darrell J. Doughty
ad.. Dennis C. Duling
ae.. Rub�n Ren� Dupertuis
af.. Susan M. Elliott
ag.. Robert T. Fortna
ah.. Robert M. Fowler
ai.. ? Robert W. Funk
aj.. David Galston
ak.. Lloyd Geering
al.. Jennifer Glancy
am.. James Goss
an.. Heinz Guenther
ao.. Sakari Hakkinen
ap.. Maurice Hamington
aq.. Walter Harrelson
ar.. Stephen L. Harris
as.. Charles W. Hedrick
at.. James D. Hester
au.. C. M. Kempton Hewitt
av.. Jack A. Hill
aw.. Julian V. Hills
ax.. Richard Holloway
ay.. Roy W. Hoover
az.. Benjamin J. Hubbard
ba.. Michael L. Humphries
bb.. Margaret D. Hutaff
bc.. Glenna S. Jackson
bd.. Arland Jacobson
be.. Clayton N. Jefford
bf.. Gregory C. Jenks
bg.. Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre
bh.. Bob Jones
bi.. F. Stanley Jones
bj.. Larry Kalajainen
bk.. Perry V. Kea
bl.. John C. Kelly
bm.. William Doane Kelly
bn.. Chan-Hie Kim
bo.. Karen L. King
bp.. John S. Kloppenborg
bq.. Ron Large
br.. Paul Alan Laughlin
bs.. Nigel Leaves
bt.. Margaret E. Lee
bu.. Nina E. Livesey
bv.. Davidson Loehr
bw.. ? Sanford Lowe
bx.. John Lown
by.. Gerd Luedemann
bz.. Shelly Matthews
ca.. Dennis R. MacDonald
cb.. Brian Rice McCarthy
cc.. Lane C. McGaughy
cd.. Edward J. McMahon II
ce.. Francis Macnab
cf.. Loren Mack-Fisher
cg.. Daniel Marguerat
ch.. Marvin W. Meyer
ci.. Darren J. N. Middleton
cj.. J. Ramsey Michaels
ck.. William R. Millar
cl.. L. Bruce Miller
cm.. Robert J. Miller
cn.. ? Robert L'H. Miller
co.. Milton C. Moreland
cp.. ? Winsome Munro
cq.. Culver H. Nelson
cr.. Rod Parrott
cs.. Stephen J. Patterson
ct.. Todd Penner
cu.. Richard I. Pervo
cv.. Thomas E. Phillips
cw.. Robert M. Price
cx.. Anne Primavesi
cy.. Jonathan L. Reed
cz.. Howard Rice
da.. Vernon K. Robbins
db.. James M. Robinson
dc.. Stan Rummel
dd.. Marianne Sawicki
de.. ? Daryl D. Schmidt
df.. Oswald Schrag
dg.. Bernard Brandon Scott
dh.. Andrew D. Scrimgeour
di.. Philip Sellew
dj.. Chris Shea
dk.. Thomas Sheehan
dl.. Lou H. Silberman
dm.. Daniel A. Smith
dn.. Dennis E. Smith
do.. Mahlon H. Smith
dp.. Graydon Snyder
dq.. John Shelby Spong
dr.. John Staten
ds.. Michael G. Steinhauser
dt.. Roy SteinhoffSmith
du.. Robert F. Stoops, Jr.
dv.. Johann Strijdom
dw.. Jon Sveinbjornsson
dx.. Jarmo Tarkki
dy.. W. Barnes Tatum
dz.. Hal Taussig
ea.. Barbara Thiering
eb.. Joseph B. Tyson
ec.. Leif E. Vaage
ed.. James Veitch
ee.. Paul Verhoeven
ef.. Wesley Hiram Wachob
eg.. William O. Walker
eh.. Donna Wallace
ei.. Robert L. Webb
ej.. Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
ek.. James E. West
el.. John L. White
em.. L. Michael White
en.. Patricia Williams
eo.. Walter Wink
from http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/list.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But how would YOU know since you don't read ANY scholars???
>> - WHO were Peter and John about to pray to at the Temple in Acts >>
>> 3:1???
>
> The Father, which, ironically, is Jesus...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
Now that's REALLY funny!!!!
> Isa 9:6
Someone NAMED "God is with is / Immanuel" does not mean that the person with
the name IS God.
Check the Jesus Seminar out for yourself rather than rely on Ignorant Ike's
ignorance. http://www.westarinstitute.org/
The REAL objectives of the Jesus Seminar are ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>
> No, secular cultists.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
>>> -God gives the first written Word on tablets from the finger of Jesus;
>> AHISTORICAL NONSENSE!!!
>> The bible NEVER mentions Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
>
> Ex 31:18
DOESN'T mention Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
> De 9:10
DOESN'T mention Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
> Lu 11:20
DOESN'T mention Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
> Jn 8:3-11
DOESN'T mention Jesus writing the 10 Commandments!
<snip rest of Ignorant Ike's insane ahistorical fabrications>
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000521> wrote in message
[snip]
> John Dominic Crossan is Professor Emeritus of De Paul University and
> widely regarded as the foremost historical Jesus scholar of our time.
"Squaaak, Crossan said..."
"Squaaak, Barr said..."
"Squaaak, give us a kiss."
"Squaaak, polly wants a craker."
The most pathetic creature in the world is the man who spends his entire
life letting OTHER people put their words in his mouth.
First you let Christian cultists do it; then you let secular cultists do it.
Truly sad.
Ike
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000521> wrote in message
news:4af7...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>>
>> No, secular cultists.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
Only an ignorant fool like Mrs. T here would call what THEY do
"scholarship."
Ike
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000520> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Which "Jesus", and "God" are you talking about?
> I worship the SAME Exclusive One God Yahweh whom
> Jesus worshipped and whom Jesus told us to worship.
From a source you insist you can't know if any of it is not an
error?
Or is there some other source you are claiming is the "word of
God", that also happens to proclaim a God called "Yahweh", who
has a Son named "Jesus"?
If so, please post the "real" word of God here:
________________________
________________________
(Don't post anything from Bible there, because you already
insisted we can't know if any of it is not an error)
> WHY don't you follow JESUS' Greatest Commandments?????
Obedience requires faith, faith comes by hearing, and hearing
comes by the word of God. You deny the Bible is God's word.
Well, what is:
_______________________
_______________________
How can you claim you're believing in and obeying God, without
having His word to know what He said to do?
Post your word of God here, or admit you're an agnostic hypocrite:
________________________
________________________
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000520> wrote:
> Jesus was a NORMAL JEWISH PEASANT and like ALL Jews of his day worshipped
> the One God of Israel.
How would you know? You're not going to quote the Bible as proof
of your claims, after you insist you can't know if any of it is
not an error are you?
1) Where's the word of God you believed to become saved Mark?
____________________________________
____________________________________
The word of God came to Abraham, and he believed that word, and
that was how God saved him (Gen. 15:5-6; Romans 4:3). Faith
comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17).
"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). "How, then, can
they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they
believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they
hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14 NIV).
Thus, God's program of salvation requires that man has access to
His word. Well, show us the "real" word of God Mark. Put it
right here between these lines for us, so we can believe and be
saved:
___________________________________
___________________________________
2) Why do you cite the Bible whenever you think it proves your
point, as if it is a valid support for your point, then claim the
Bible is self-contradictory and can't be trusted when it says
what you don't like, such how unrepentant homosexuality will
result in eternal damnation?
______________________________________
______________________________________
3) Which God is Mark T actually trusting in any way, since it
couldn't possibly be the same God we know about from the source
he insists can't be trusted to be the word of God?
______________________________________
______________________________________
4) Why does Mark's God just coincidentally call himself "Yahweh",
and have a Son named "Jesus", unless Mark is claiming faith in
some other secular or historical source that names these people,
which he considers to be the truth from God? If the Bible can't
be trusted as being God's word, then why would Mark worship any
God that he found named in a source he devotes himself to
attacking and undermining from day to day?
______________________________________
______________________________________
5) Why does Mark claim the Bible can't be trusted because it is
written by fallible men, then cite 120 Jesus' seminar "scholars"
as proof, or even his own man-made thoughts as proof of that?
______________________________________
______________________________________
If the Bible cannot be trusted because it supposedly came only
from fallibe men, then neither can anything Mark or his 120
secular scholars says.
etc., etc., ad-infinitum.
I
> "Squaaak ...
> "Squaaak ...
> "Squaaak, give us a kiss."
> "Squaaak, polly wants a craker."
Truly sad.
Take your medication.
I
>>>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>>> No, secular cultists.
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>> Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
>
> Only an ignorant fool ... would call what THEY do "scholarship."
Thanks for giving me another chance to promote the Jesus Seminar ....
Check the Jesus Seminar out for yourself rather than rely on Ignorant Ike's
ignorance. http://www.westarinstitute.org/
The REAL objectives of the Jesus Seminar are ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fellows of the Westar Institute include scholars with advanced degrees
in biblical studies, religion or related fields and, by special invitation
only, published authors who are recognized authorities in the field of
religion. Since the beginning, more than two hundred Fellows have
participated in the Jesus Seminar and other Westar projects, including the
Paul Seminar, Canon Seminar and the recently begun Acts Seminar. At various
stages of the projects, different Fellows have been involved in the research
and deliberations.
from http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows
...
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09"<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> >>>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>>>> >>> No, secular cultists.
>>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>> >> Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
>> >
>> > Only an ignorant fool ... would call what THEY do "scholarship."
> Thanks for giving me another chance to promote the Jesus Seminar ....
Why do you argue on one hand that you can't know whether anything
in the Bible is not in error, because you claim it's only the
product of fallible men, then simultaneously argue that your own
thoughts or some consensus of 120 Jesus Seminar "scholars"
carries any authority at all?
I
> What is the word of God
All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
fallible bible.
The Bible contains the phrase "thus says the LORD" 1,180 times.
Ignorant Randy Young says that means that the bible is "God's Word".
There are at least two problems with such a view:
1. The parts of the bible that DON'T have "thus says the LORD" prefacing it.
Everything NOT prefaced by ""thus says the LORD" must, by Randy Young's
logic, NOT be the "Word of God" even if it is said by Jesus. Likewise
statements like John 3:16 AREN'T a part of Jesus' speech. Greek has no
speech marks and it it is obvious that the text is a commentary by the
writer. That means that John 3:16 is NOT "God's Word". It also means that
the vast majority of text in the bible is not "God's Word".
2. "thus says the LORD" is found elsewhere.
The Book of Mormon states "thus says the LORD" at 1 Ne. 21: 7-8, 22, 25, 2
Ne. 6: 6, 17, Jacob 2: 23, 25, 28, Mosiah 11: 20, 25, 2 Ne. 7: 1, 2 Ne. 26:
17-18, Alma 8: 17, 29, Hel. 10: 11, 14, Hel. 13: 8, 11, 1 Ne. 20: 17, 2 Ne.
3: 7, 2 Ne. 5: 22, 2 Ne. 10: 7, 2 Ne. 17: 7, 2 Ne. 20: 24, 2 Ne. 27: 33, 2
Ne. 28: 30, Ne. 29: 4, Jacob 5: 3, Mosiah 3: 24, Mosiah 12: 2, Mosiah 23: 7,
Alma 45: 16, Hel. 7: 23, 3 Ne. 20: 38 Using Randy Young's logic one must
also consider the book of Mormon to be "God's Word".
The Koran likewise has the phrase "God says" so, by Randy Young's own
standard, the Koran must be "God's Word".
--
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
> "Randy � Young"<pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > What is the word of God
> All truth is God's truth. Truth is God's word. God's word is
> truth. Truth can be found anywhere and is NOT confined to a man-made
> fallible bible.
I didn't ask Mark who owns the truth, I asked him:
Where's your authoritative word of God that gave you knowledge of
and faith in the "truth" about Jesus and Yahweh, since you claim
you can't know if anything in the Bible is not an error?
_______________________
_______________________
Why does Mark refuse to answer the question?
I
<whatever>
1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
SEVERAL!!!!
2. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
Randy ®
I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
Ike E 11/05/09
"I" <me@home000000000000524> wrote in message
news:4af8...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>>>> No, secular cultists.
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>> Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
>>
>> Only an ignorant fool ... would call what THEY do "scholarship."
>
> Thanks for giving me another chance to promote the Jesus Seminar ....
(Such is the nature of the cult mindset.)
As long as you know you're not promoting the Word or Christianity.
Ike
Glen Waverly
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pvoug5l9pqpuj0bhv...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:06:45 +1100, "I" <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
>
>>"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>><whatever>
>>
>>1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
>>SEVERAL!!!!
>>
>>2. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
>>
>>WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
>>GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
>
> can be found anywhere and are NOT confined to a man-made fallible bible.
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Dear Barry
whether you like it or not God is the sort of being you rebel against.
whethewr one likes it or not we are subject to his rule and he has given us
a way to escape his wrath.
his way is based on his love to take the penalty for sin for us.
It is the rule of the universe whether we like it or not and it is up to us
whether we wish to dwell inh righteousness (abiding with God) or not.
Certainly eternal life is desirable compared with hell and damnation?
His ways are not ours and we cannot dictate to the creator.
God is not made in our image but we in his
Glen Waverly
Superman
> On Mon, 11/09/09, at 2:28:15PM,
> I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
>
>> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09"<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> >>>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>>>>> >>> No, secular cultists.
>>>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>>> >> Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
>>> >
>>> > Only an ignorant fool ... would call what THEY do "scholarship."
>> Thanks for giving me another chance to promote the Jesus Seminar ....
>
>
> Why do you argue on one hand that you can't know whether anything in
> the Bible is not in error, because you claim it's only the product of
> fallible men, then simultaneously argue that your own thoughts or some
> consensus of 120 Jesus Seminar "scholars" carries any authority at all?
>
Because he's a nut case?
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com
"We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. People knew where we stood. We didn't try to be all things to all men. Look, our policy worked. There was no need to alter it" - John Howard
"[ETS] We attack the foundation of our prosperity for no reason except to allow the prime minister to prance on the global stage" -McCrann
"Our our journalists are finally noticing the elephant in the room. Rudd has given us grocery watch, fuel watch, a national dept our children will still be paying, an ETS scheme that will further bankrupt the nation without making an iota of difference to global warming. Rudd is all spin and no substance. Even worse, he expects to fool all people all the time." - media comment
"I don't care what you f__kers think!" - The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
I
> Because he's a nut case?
Don't you have a Liberal Party celebration to attend?
Tony Abbott is now Opposition Leader thus ensuring that the Liberal Party
will be soundly defeated if a double dissolution happens. He is the LEAST
popular person with the public.
Waiting for the Liberal Party to wiped off the map!
Barry OGrady
Lois.Lane"@metropolis.com> wrote:
>Randy � wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11/09/09, at 2:28:15PM,
>> I <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
>>
>>> Ignorant "Ike E 11/05/09"<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> >>>> My comments below are linked to BIBLICAL SCHOLARS.
>>>>>> >>> No, secular cultists.
>>>>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!
>>>>> >> Only Ignorant Ike would call biblical scholars "secular cultists".
>>>> >
>>>> > Only an ignorant fool ... would call what THEY do "scholarship."
>>> Thanks for giving me another chance to promote the Jesus Seminar ....
>>
>>
>> Why do you argue on one hand that you can't know whether anything in
>> the Bible is not in error, because you claim it's only the product of
>> fallible men, then simultaneously argue that your own thoughts or some
>> consensus of 120 Jesus Seminar "scholars" carries any authority at all?
>>
>
>Because he's a nut case?
Got it in one!
>--
>rgds,
>
>Pete
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pvoug5l9pqpuj0bhv...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:06:45 +1100, "I" <me@home000000000000524> wrote:
>>
>>>"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><whatever>
>>>
>>>1. Which is the ONE and ONLY true ending to Mark's gospel? There are
>>>SEVERAL!!!!
>>>
>>>2. The BIBLE CONDONES SLAVERY in both the Old and New Testament.
>>>
>>>WHY AREN'T YOU PETITIONING THE LAWMAKERS TO DECRIMINALISE SLAVERY BECAUSE
>>>GOD CONDONES SLAVERY - IT SAYS SO IN "GOD'S WORD"?????
>>
>> All lies are God's lies. Lies are God's word. God's word is lies. Lies
>> can be found anywhere and are NOT confined to a man-made fallible bible.
>>
>> Barry
>
>Dear Barry
>whether you like it or not God is the sort of being you rebel against.
Must it be that way?
>whethewr one likes it or not we are subject to his rule and he has given us
>a way to escape his wrath.
Is God unhappy with the way he made us? We get angry sometimes when
we can't have what we want, but an almighty God can always have what
he wants.
>his way is based on his love to take the penalty for sin for us.
I'm thinking that a loving God would never have made us sinners and
would not allow any form of suffering.
>It is the rule of the universe whether we like it or not and it is up to us
>whether we wish to dwell inh righteousness (abiding with God) or not.
Some people kill themselves to get away from God's abuse.
In heaven that would not be an option.
Being trapped with God for eternity would be hell.
>Certainly eternal life is desirable compared with hell and damnation?
Do you have any reason to believe that God treats people in heaven
better than the way he treats those on earth?
>His ways are not ours
Tell me about it! Our ways are to care for all to the best of our ability.
God's ways are to play cruel games with us then punish us for being
the way he made us.
>and we cannot dictate to the creator.
I realise that, but we should be able to complain about an evil dictator.
>God is not made in our image but we in his
A loving God would not have done that, but it does explain why we have
so many problems.
The bible tells us God is good.
Reality tells us there is no good God.
The bible tells us God is just.
The injustice in the world refutes that.
Do you believe a book or what you see and experience?