• 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!

Missing Gospels?

Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
ChristineM said:
Yes your responses are childish

Eg:- "LOL... your open mind is quite closed when you say there is no God.
Wikipedia isn't God, :D I can change what it says."
So there see.

Thanks for being so honest, i would not have expected it from an abrahamic religious type

As for what you wrote and i replied to: -
"And since you were not here when the world came into existence, logic will fall on my side that God did exist before you and I did and therefore we are in His universe and the same time."

Apart from the fact you are mixing subjects, personally not on the world when it accreted

Then shooting off on another track of universe what do you want to debate with, a mind reader?

You are also making claims of logic from ignorance and incredulity

To claim a logical conclusion you must use valid principals. No god has ever been validated as existing therefore your logic is logical fallacy
Click to expand...
circular
 
H

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
SalixIncendium said:
It has been alleged by Bible conspiracy theorists that there are gospels that were submitted to be included in the Bible, but were decided not to be included because they did not portray Jesus as divine, but as a man. These include Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Judas, of which fragments have allegedly been found. Others supposed to have gone completely missing include the Gospel of Matthias, the Gospel of Perfection, the Gospel of the Seventy, the Dialogue of the Savior, the Gospel of the Twelve, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of Bartholomew, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Eve.

What are your thoughts on a group of men deciding rather than to include all gospels in the holy writ, to simply discard these gospels. Do you think this may have had a significant impact on Christianity as it is today?


Edited to remove the "First Council of Nicaea" reference because @Augustus is correct.
Click to expand...

If God exists, God is in control. That's why today's Canon is so. If God doesn't exist, whatever the Canon is is meaningless.

The books are about valid accounts of human witnessing through which God has a call for His Elect to be saved. God doesn't need a supernatural account of witnessing to do so. In contrary, God needs a legitimate true human account of witnessing for His message of salvation to flow. What is a true account of human witnessing then? You don't need a double standard. Just try to compare the books with any human history written 2000 years ago.

The difference between the Bible and a history is that a history book is for the recording of human deeds we can speculate and comprehend, while the Bible is about the recording of God's deed which may go beyond human understanding. However the way of recording remains the same. That is, they witnessed by humans and written by humans.
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
KenS said:
Probably because it is a twisting of meanings--almost a two step dance.
Click to expand...
I agree.
YOU are twisting the meaning to make your "arguments" sound better.

KenS said:
Technically speaking, it is still a belief system to wit: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (merriam/webster)
Click to expand...
Just like my not collecting stamps is a hobby.

KenS said:
Interestingly enough it defines it as a "religious position" in as much as it is still a faith statement that has no empirical or verifiable support. A Cult? :D
Click to expand...
Forcing everyone into your favourite definition box only makes you look desperate.

Depends upon how you define cult.
Or is that yet another definition box you will force every one into?
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Hawkins said:
The difference between the Bible and a history is that a history book is for the recording of human deeds we can speculate and comprehend, while the Bible is about the recording of God's deed which may go beyond human understanding. However the way of recording remains the same. That is, they witnessed by humans and written by humans.
Click to expand...
Which makes the Bible no more reliable than history..
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Hawkins said:
Again. How, besides the assertion?
Click to expand...
It is right there in the post I quoted:

"However the way of recording remains the same. That is, they witnessed by humans and written by humans."​

If the recording is the same, the reliability is the same.
 
McBell

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
DavidFirth said:
Which makes everything you believe about history (like the big bang) no more reliable than the Bible. See how that works?
Click to expand...
Except, I am not the one making the claim.
I merely pointed out a flaw in the claim.

Please try to pay better attention.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
Now you are just being boring.
Anyone reading it can see that you lied.
If you are not going to at least be interesting....
Click to expand...

Trolls like you find me annoying because I call trolls out. Yes, Trolls do find that rather boring, you're not the first troll to tell me that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top