(June 9, 2016 at 5:16 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 3:06 am)madog Wrote: If you can show me where in the bible it states you have an understanding far above mine I will recant 

 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person (this would be you) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 

 1 Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 2 Cor. 3:14 But their minds were hardened. To this day when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it lifted.

 2 Cor. 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel.....

 James 1:5-8  

 Mark 4: 11-12 And Jesus said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed  but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand....

 John 8:43 Jesus says, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you can not bear to hear my word.

GC

You stated ... You better get to answering, God is real.

I pointed out ... I am trying to answer, God is not real 

you stated ... Without being a Christian you can't get to the point 

and continued ... I am and as the Bible says I have an understand far above your's. 

So I asked ... If you can show me where in the bible it states you have an understanding far above mine I will recant.

So how does the examples you have posted show the bible states only a Christian can show the bible is not real?

Quote:1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person (this would be you) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

And the fucking idiot (that would be you, G-C) accepts ancient superstition as if it is real.  Grow up, G-C.  You're running out of time.

(June 9, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 7:35 am)Jehanne Wrote: They exist in Mark and Paul's authentic letters and not the forgeries that came later on.

Uh-huh.... and where are those "authentic" letters?

The earlier ones, typically:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

The later ones, such as the Pastoral Letters, are all forgeries.

(June 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 7:31 am)Jehanne Wrote: GC, there are 27 books of the New Testament; how did the early Church reach that conclusion?  As far as the thief on the Cross, you're writing your "own Gospel"; Mark says that both men mocked Jesus, whereas, Luke says that only one did.  Luke does not say that one thief mocked Jesus, had a change of heart, and then decided to embrace Jesus' message.  Read the text (for "Christ's sake") -- it says that one thief mocked Jesus and was rebuked by the other thief.  That's how things happened in Luke's imagination.  As for the question of infant Baptism, what did the early Church believe prior to the Gospels and letters of Paul being written?  Where did they get their beliefs from?

  I think you need to give some dates for what you consider the early church.
 The church of the first century did not decide what letters would make up the NT, they didn't even know there would be a NT joined to the OT. The disciples preached mostly from the OT showing the people that the Christ prophecies of the OT were about the man Jesus that came and witnessed to them. 

 Why do you think that each writer of the Gospels had to put every little detail in their writings. This is where so many make the mistake of believing there are contradictions in the scriptures. You can take the four Gospels put them together and have a book with more detail a fuller Gospel. Luke did not use his imagination to write his Gospel, Luke states his Gospel was the testimonies of many witnesses of Jesus life.
 By the way I have read the text many times, I've read the Bible from cover to cover and studied it for years.
Like I said above you need to date the years of the church you are speaking of, as far as I know the first century church didn't baptize infants. The first century church were taught by the disciples that traveled to different areas to help the early Christians and from the letters sent to them from the disciples, some which became the NT.

GC

The only "disciple" of Jesus whom scholars have information about is Paul, who never even met Jesus, even though they were practically contemporaries.  A whole host of contradictions exist within the Gospels:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

(June 9, 2016 at 7:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Uh-huh.... and where are those "authentic" letters?

The earlier ones, typically:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

The later ones, such as the Pastoral Letters, are all forgeries.

But we don't have original copies of these so-called "authentic ones."  We have a prolific xtian writer in mid 2d century Rome who never heard of anyone named "paul" in spite of the fact that the story they put out was that "paul" was the guy who brought jesusism to the gentiles...including Rome itself a century earlier.  This writer's name is Justin.  Justin did hear of Marcion, though.  And the really funny thing is that it was Marcion who popularized the so-called epistles of this paul guy in the 140s AD.

The whole story reeks of bullshit.

(June 9, 2016 at 9:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 7:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The earlier ones, typically:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

The later ones, such as the Pastoral Letters, are all forgeries.

But we don't have original copies of these so-called "authentic ones."  We have a prolific xtian writer in mid 2d century Rome who never heard of anyone named "paul" in spite of the fact that the story they put out was that "paul" was the guy who brought jesusism to the gentiles...including Rome itself a century earlier.  This writer's name is Justin.  Justin did hear of Marcion, though.  And the really funny thing is that it was Marcion who popularized the so-called epistles of this paul guy in the 140s AD.

The whole story reeks of bullshit.

That's true; no originals of the New Testament exist, just "copies of the copies" to quote Professor Bart Ehrman.  Still, Paul was mentioned by the author of Luke (who was anonymous, not a disciple of Jesus), and he was also mentioned by the author of Jude (a forgery), who seems to have known of some of Paul's earlier letters.  Paul is a historical figure and no scholar doubts this, not even Timothy Price.

But "Luke" is not mentioned by anyone prior to Irenaeus in the late 2d century who seems to be the guy who attached the names to these otherwise anonymous stories....Ehrman says that, too.  Instead, the first gospel is the Gospel of the Lord...which turns out to be about 2/3 of "Luke" and guess who mentioned it?  Marcion.  In the same canon (which was also the first of its kind) in which he introduced paul and his so-called epistles.

By Irenaeus' time (c 185) the proto-orthodox ( to use Ehrman's word) had begun to coalesce all this stuff into what they considered a coherent doctrine.  Curiously, right around this time the Greco-Roman philosopher Celsus became the first to mention anyone named "jesus" in his work On The True Doctrine.  This is not a coincidence or a miracle.  This crap got rolling in the mid to late 2d century.

(June 9, 2016 at 6:27 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 5:16 pm)Godschild Wrote:  1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person (this would be you) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 

 1 Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 2 Cor. 3:14 But their minds were hardened. To this day when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it lifted.

 2 Cor. 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel.....

 James 1:5-8  

 Mark 4: 11-12 And Jesus said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that they may indeed  but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand....

 John 8:43 Jesus says, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you can not bear to hear my word.

GC

You stated ... You better get to answering, God is real.

I pointed out ... I am trying to answer, God is not real 

you stated ... Without being a Christian you can't get to the point 

and continued ... I am and as the Bible says I have an understand far above your's. 

So I asked ... If you can show me where in the bible it states you have an understanding far above mine I will recant.

So how does the examples you have posted show the bible states only a Christian can show the bible is not real?

 I answered your previous question, you asked to see where the Bible says a Christian has a higher discernment of the Bible than you, I provided the verses. Seems you can't even understand the plain and simple of scripture, thus proving my discernment of scripture is higher than yours. I would explain why but you wouldn't understand, it's more involved than the verses I posted for you. Your tactic of deflection will not work here.

GC

(June 10, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 6:27 pm)madog Wrote: You stated ... You better get to answering, God is real.

I pointed out ... I am trying to answer, God is not real 

you stated ... Without being a Christian you can't get to the point 

and continued ... I am and as the Bible says I have an understand far above your's. 

So I asked ... If you can show me where in the bible it states you have an understanding far above mine I will recant.

So how does the examples you have posted show the bible states only a Christian can show the bible is not real?

 I answered your previous question, you asked to see where the Bible says a Christian has a higher discernment of the Bible than you, I provided the verses. Seems you can't even understand the plain and simple of scripture, thus proving my discernment of scripture is higher than yours. I would explain why but you wouldn't understand, it's more involved than the verses I posted for you. Your tactic of deflection will not work here.

GC

You really don't get how preposterous the statement you made was? that started this off and until you address that there is no going forward   I don't believe in God, so why should I prove there is a God 

(June 9, 2016 at 7:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(June 9, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Godschild Wrote:   I think you need to give some dates for what you consider the early church.
 The church of the first century did not decide what letters would make up the NT, they didn't even know there would be a NT joined to the OT. The disciples preached mostly from the OT showing the people that the Christ prophecies of the OT were about the man Jesus that came and witnessed to them. 

 Why do you think that each writer of the Gospels had to put every little detail in their writings. This is where so many make the mistake of believing there are contradictions in the scriptures. You can take the four Gospels put them together and have a book with more detail a fuller Gospel. Luke did not use his imagination to write his Gospel, Luke states his Gospel was the testimonies of many witnesses of Jesus life.
 By the way I have read the text many times, I've read the Bible from cover to cover and studied it for years.
Like I said above you need to date the years of the church you are speaking of, as far as I know the first century church didn't baptize infants. The first century church were taught by the disciples that traveled to different areas to help the early Christians and from the letters sent to them from the disciples, some which became the NT.

GC

The only "disciple" of Jesus whom scholars have information about is Paul, who never even met Jesus, even though they were practically contemporaries.  A whole host of contradictions exist within the Gospels:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

 
 You keep harping on this same thing and all you do is post from biased sites on the net. You do no research of your own and you never go to Christian sites to learn. When I went to the site you posted the first thing to come up was the genealogy of Jesus, showing how it's contradictory.
 
Let's look at he genealogy of scripture, here is the genealogy my Matthew and the one in 1 Chronicles 3:10-12, these are the very same genealogies.

 1 Chronicles 3;10-12                                                           Matthew 1:8-9
     Asa                                                                                      Asa
     Jehoshaphat                                                                        Jehoshaphat
     Joram                                                                                  Joram
     Ahaziah (Uzziah)                                                                    Uzziah
     Joash
     Amaziah
     Azariah
     Jotham                                                                                 Jotham
     Ahaz                                                                                     Ahaz
     Hezekiah                                                                               Hezekiah
     ect.                                                                                       ect.  
 As you see Matthew didn't write down all the genealogy, Matthew when saying Uzziah was the father of Jotham it can mean he was the father who lead to Jotham. Just as the Bible says that Abraham was the father of a nation or the angel said to Joseph, "Joseph son of David." This was the tradition of the ancient times to refer to a man as the father of a great great great grandson or even more distant. Matthew had a reason to eliminate the names, but what he didn't do was to write them out of order. So there is nothing wrong with Matthew's written genealogy, he for reasons unknown to us didn't include all the names. You need to remember that he had access to the genealogies at the temple and could have written them down as recorded in earlier manuscripts. So in the end there's no contradiction with the two, as I stated previously the writers didn't necessarily put down all the facts because they didn't feel it necessary for the times.

GC