-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong?
- Thread starter michel
- Start date
- Status
Your contempt for scholarship is far more diagnostic than surprising. Nevertheless, Kirby does no more than identify the type of consensus expressed here in the Introducton of the Catholic New American Bible ...AV1611 said:
Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.
Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.
That you applaud your own ignorance does little to redeem your argument.Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.
sprinkled wings
Member
Ummmmmm....No?!
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Did not know Paul wrote in EnglishAV1611 said:
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
Show and prove to us that it applied in the Greek version as well:bounceAV1611 said:
this is a response to AV1611 post 83. sorry it took about 12 hours to reply, i just got back to work and read it.
so, only moses actually "heard" god say anything, not that it is beyond god to choose who hears him. but exodus 20 says absolutely nothing about god writing anything, please read the passage before using it to try and discredit something i write.
not seeing it say god actually wrote anything there.
Daniel 5:4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
says nothing about the hand of god writing the words, although it could be assumed, but they were drunk and who knows what else, could have been hallucinating.
once again, where did god actually write anything?
What was that you were saying?
maybe moses couldn't see his face, but apparently god was standing face to face with moses, perhaps god was wearing a mask, or something to cover his entire figure, or maybe god could put an image in the mind and make you think you are seeing him when you actually aren't, i think that would count too. i know i'd be happy with that kinda thing, it would cover the part of god standing right in front of me, or "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." wouldn't you?
please read the things you would like to use to discredit my arguements, so that you dont discedit your side of the arguement.
nice try though. keep trying, maybe then you'll actually read the book like i have. and just so you know, i did nothing more than read the chapters you gave with the verse, and came up with the answers for the bible parts.
thanks for the fun AV1611, i do enjoy this.
Drekmed
according to this, Verse 1, " And God spake all these words" nowhere does it say in Exodus 20 that god wrote anything. and apparently only moses heard the words of god, the isrealites were scared and said "18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die."AV1611 said:
so, only moses actually "heard" god say anything, not that it is beyond god to choose who hears him. but exodus 20 says absolutely nothing about god writing anything, please read the passage before using it to try and discredit something i write.
Daniel 5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.AV1611 said:
not seeing it say god actually wrote anything there.
Daniel 5:4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.
says nothing about the hand of god writing the words, although it could be assumed, but they were drunk and who knows what else, could have been hallucinating.
once again, where did god actually write anything?
this is "To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David" it may be no more inspired than oh say........ a green day song. but i'll give ya this one, since these things have all been covered already, i believe in the sola scriptura thread for christians only.
being in security, i question anything that appears to be falsified or out of the ordinary. if my boss tells me to do something and is standing in front of me, i'll dont need to question the authenticity, he told me himself. if someone i have never met comes up and says hey your boss says to do (insert command here) of course i'll question it and ask my boss, who would then be glad i was so vigilant in my duties.
Luke 16 is believe to be a parable, a story told by jesus to his disciples, to explain something to them. the author of luke might not have actually been there to begin with to hear jesus say this, and could have been making the entire thing up. the actual meaning of this story is left open for interpretation. create a different thread if you feel this passages meaning needs to be debated.
like i just said, they approve of them. its part of my job description to question something i dont believe is authentic.
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
What was that you were saying?
maybe moses couldn't see his face, but apparently god was standing face to face with moses, perhaps god was wearing a mask, or something to cover his entire figure, or maybe god could put an image in the mind and make you think you are seeing him when you actually aren't, i think that would count too. i know i'd be happy with that kinda thing, it would cover the part of god standing right in front of me, or "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." wouldn't you?
please read the things you would like to use to discredit my arguements, so that you dont discedit your side of the arguement.
nice try though. keep trying, maybe then you'll actually read the book like i have. and just so you know, i did nothing more than read the chapters you gave with the verse, and came up with the answers for the bible parts.
thanks for the fun AV1611, i do enjoy this.
Drekmed
First of all, Kirby is not the sum total of scholarship. Thus my 'contempt' for Kirby is not synonymous with 'contempt' for scholarship.Deut. 32.8 said:
Second of all, acceptance of 2nd Peter into the New Testament canon meeting with great resistance in the early church is fine with me; as long as it wasn't met with great resistance in the early Church.
Third, where the Catholic New American Bible differs with the King James Bible, the Catholic New American Bible is wrong.
Fourth, where modern scholars differ with the King James Bible, modern scholars are wrong.
Fifth, Peter S. Ruckman calls Origen a 'walking, barefoot, ***tard' for reasons I don't want to get into.
No, you believe them to be wrong, while openly making clear that it is a baseless and ossified belief.AV1611 said:
drekmed, you're an excellent example of someone who doesn't know Scripture, but knows it "well enough" to know that those who do know it, don't know it.drekmed said:
You're right ... Exodus 20 says absolutely nothing about god writing anything ... I assumed you already knew that.
Exodus 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.
Deuteronomy 9:10 = AND THE LORD DELIVERED UNTO ME TWO TABLES OF STONE WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD; ...
Daniel 5:23-24 = BUT HAST LIFTED UP THYSELF AGAINST THE LORD OF HEAVEN; ... THEN WAS PART OF THE HAND SENT FROM HIM.
Believe me, drekmed, it's to you and me, too.
1 Corinthians 10:11 = NOW ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENED UNTO THEM FOR ENSAMPLES: AND THEY ARE WRITTEN FOR OUR ADMONITION, UPON WHOM THE ENDS OF THE WORLD ARE COME.
Once again, since I didn't say anything about a false memo:
Try that at work when the boss sends a [legitimate] memo around and see how long you remain employed.
Let's can the foolishness, please, okay?
So? I disagree, but still, didn't you get it's point? Or is it you can't see the forest for the trees?
Um...
That was obvious.
Fluffy
A fool
Can you back that up with evidence please? My reverend was unable to support such a claim.
Look the crunch point in your argument, for me at least AV1611, is that you are not providing any good reason to treat the Bible differently from any other book. Why should I treat it any differently from a book that I could write claiming another to be the son of a different God? I know I would be lying but how do I know that Paul wasn't lying either?
In other words, it is a matter of faith, nothing more or less. Trying to back it up with arguments of likelihood is pointless when the underlying factor is faith. I have no reason, other than faith, to believe in the Wiccan Rede as important scripture or parts of the Bible for that matter and neither do you. Or were you converted to Christianity the moment you found out that 500+ people saw the resurrection?
I have never been able to understand why, if one does not like the way another conducts themselves, one goes on to lower themselves by acting in a similar manner.
Darkdale
World Leader Pretend
AV1611 said:
Who knows? Who even know if "they" even exist. There is just not enough evidence to draw any objective conclusions about what was actually happening there. You have your faith and that is good, but what's the point in pretending like you have any more objective evidence for your faith than others have for theirs. It just makes you look pretentious (and I do not mean that as a dig, but you should be aware of it, because I am quite certain that that is not how you mean to come off).
AV1611 said:
The gods are represented in the myths and traditions of the people. Mythologies are not the gods, but they are about the gods.
- Status