(January 8, 2019 at 1:38 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 8, 2019 at 1:18 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I ask for evidence and you ramble about spiritual bullshit.

Again the evidence is the maturing of the writing and how it reflects the ever growing nature of how we are to live and work in this religion. It is intuitive and logically progression one by the very nature of his letter could almost come to the same conclusions he did given a strong enough bond with the Holy Spirit. the fact that you do not see this again disqualifies you from judging what you clearly do not understand in even the most basic of ways.
If you still want evidence and still do not understand you are not smart enough to recognize it I will again point out Paul the subject of your objection did not have anything to do with the subject being discussed.

So a completely different writing style and vocabulary is NOT evidence of a different author but IS evidence of a deity changing the writing style of the original author. Hmmm. Yeah. Right. This is what we call ad hoc. You're making the evidence conform to your conclusion, which is the opposite of the correct method of argumentation. Unless you're a lawyer and lying is your job.

(January 8, 2019 at 1:53 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(January 8, 2019 at 1:38 pm)Drich Wrote: Again the evidence is the maturing of the writing and how it reflects the ever growing nature of how we are to live and work in this religion. It is intuitive and logically progression one by the very nature of his letter could almost come to the same conclusions he did given a strong enough bond with the Holy Spirit. the fact that you do not see this again disqualifies you from judging what you clearly do not understand in even the most basic of ways.
If you still want evidence and still do not understand you are not smart enough to recognize it I will again point out Paul the subject of your objection did not have anything to do with the subject being discussed.

So a completely different writing style and vocabulary is NOT evidence of a different author but IS evidence of a deity changing the writing style of the original author. Hmmm.  Yeah.  Right.  This is what we call ad hoc.  You're making the evidence conform to your conclusion, which is the opposite of the correct method of argumentation. Unless you're a lawyer and lying is your job.

YES!
dumb ass  

Complete different writing completely different vocab style to complete different church or people or expression of Christianity or even denomination if you will. Each letter can be seen as a letter to a different denomination! He was not writing to a unified standardized church. That is why I said if you can not reconcile the potential 30K different denominations under one Christ you are not in a position to judge Paul.

You have no idea because you do not understand or have to juggle break down remove, add enforce or doubble down rules dependent on to whom you are speaking. Me talking to you is 100% polar opposite than me talking to a legalistic believer, (different side of the bible different vocab different approach/lot more book chapter and verse alot more quoting scripture rather than pop culture alot more focus on thing they say they believe in from which they can not back out of! None of which is ever mentioned here because to you "the Galatians or better yet the Romans are babies in the word and at best need to have the bible given in very small doses and water down with pop culture and modern morality. Something I would NEVER think of using with a legalistic brother in christ.

 which again is completely different than me speaking to a believer free in Christ. The rules change based on what people understand and believe then so too does my reactions and writing.

Not only that but Paul himself say he uses a series of scribes including DR. Luke who wrote the book of Luke and Acts. His eye site was very bad and could not see to read or write. so of course the spelling penmanship and little things would obviously be off. but the core message changes because the people change and anyone who has ever taken the time to go out into the mission field to speak to the 'atheists' knows why Paul would be polar opposite in writing style to the church at Rome verse to the people at Corinth.

That what dumb a$$es such as the men you quote can not fathom or able to reconcile because they are looking for the mechanics of literary writing styles verses any reason Paul would have to change his thoughts on a given subject.

But again Paul is not the subject of the OP John is.

---

So again aware of your argument but dismissed on the fact the argument does not consider any of the things Paul himself said he had to juggle.

LOL. A Christian calling me a dumbass. The Dunning-Kruger effect has a strong grip on you, good sir.

(January 8, 2019 at 2:03 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(January 7, 2019 at 3:29 pm)alw0992 Wrote: They are different in they they teach two different things; "messiah," soul, after-life, etc. Also in the fact that you have other authoritative texts such as the Talmud and Zohar. Where they are spin-offs is that Christianity cherry picks and misrepresents Judaic theology to attempt to justify its theology. However, most of what is taught in Christianity today is the result of councils, written creeds, adaptions of other religions to gain converts (such as paganism), break away from other larger groups, and so on. Religion is great to read about and research and learn some philosophical insight but there's a point where the rubber meets the road; meaning are you going to follow reason and logic, or be completely true to the faith and suspend all reason; because in the end you can't have both.

 First off you did not answer my first question, this may not seem important to you but it holds truth in Christianity.
Secondly the Bible is strictly Christian because it shows how the OT and NT are intertwined, you can't separate them, each would lose much of it's value.  The bible contains no adoption from any pagan religions, the reason some people see pagan things in the Bible is simple, they do not read the Bible with the intent to learn. faith has nothing to do with suspending reason and yes you can have both, I know this because I have both in my everyday Christian life.

GC

Um no, the bible is simply the result of new mythology spinning off of old mythology. The earliest Hebrews too, manufactured their religion from prior Canaanite mythology. 

And what is to "learn" from that old book of mythology? Humans do not magically pop out of dirt. The planet and life on it was not made in 6 days. Babies are not born without a second set of DNA with super powers, humans also do not survive death as the bible would imply. And outside the fantastic claims, I do not find stories like killing off the Egyptian first born males moral for some beef God has with an adult. Nor do I find the mythology of genocide of the flood moral either.

You have faith yes, but do not tell me anything about an old book of mythology has anything to do with our modern understanding of life, our planet or the universe for that matter.

(January 9, 2019 at 10:12 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 8, 2019 at 2:03 am)Godscreated Wrote:  First off you did not answer my first question, this may not seem important to you but it holds truth in Christianity.
Secondly the Bible is strictly Christian because it shows how the OT and NT are intertwined, you can't separate them, each would lose much of it's value.  The bible contains no adoption from any pagan religions, the reason some people see pagan things in the Bible is simple, they do not read the Bible with the intent to learn. faith has nothing to do with suspending reason and yes you can have both, I know this because I have both in my everyday Christian life.

GC

Um no, the bible is simply the result of new mythology spinning off of old mythology. The earliest Hebrews too, manufactured their religion from prior Canaanite mythology. 

And what is to "learn" from that old book of mythology? Humans do not magically pop out of dirt. The planet and life on it was not made in 6 days. Babies are not born without a second set of DNA with super powers, humans also do not survive death as the bible would imply. And outside the fantastic claims, I do not find stories like killing off the Egyptian first born males moral for some beef God has with an adult. Nor do I find the mythology of genocide of the flood moral either.

You have faith yes, but do not tell me anything about an old book of mythology has anything to do with our modern understanding of life, our planet or the universe for that matter.

You have no proof of what you say. We see Canaanite religion mentioned in the Bible and it case of it is denounced by the words of the Bible. man was created from the dust of the earth other than that statement we have no idea how or what God did. You have no proof that there wasn't an actual 6 day creation, there is no proof of the big bang nor evolution. Since God created the universe I would suspect it would be no problem for Him to create that second set of DNA in Mary's womb. Only Jesus so far has survived death, there will be a day when all Christians will have new bodies and their same soul and mind. You pick out a few things you dislike about the OT and then say the whole of the Bible is bad, this only shows you have never studied the Bible and possibly never read it either or you would understand there are many morel attributes in the Bible that are in our own laws today. The Bible tells us about all those things you mentioned in your last sentence and fits perfectly well with them all, you just do not want to see this because you know then you would have to answer to God, by the way you will have to someday.

GC

-just like evangelicals denounce catholicism.

(January 10, 2019 at 2:55 am)Godscreated Wrote: there are many morel attributes in the Bible that are in our own laws today.

Laws existed long before the Bible, like Egyptian laws/ moral codes, take a look at them



Not so bad, ha? And yet Egyptians have never heard of the Bible or Moses, so when people make laws they use other means than the Bible.

Even the Obama is spoofing the notion that Bible can have anything to do with the laws

(January 10, 2019 at 4:07 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(January 10, 2019 at 2:55 am)Godscreated Wrote: there are many morel attributes in the Bible that are in our own laws today.

Laws existed long before the Bible, like Egyptian laws/ moral codes, take a look at them



Not so bad, ha? And yet Egyptians have never heard of the Bible or Moses, so when people make laws they use other means than the Bible.

Even the Obama is spoofing the notion that Bible can have anything to do with the laws

Interesting.  Where are the laws?

"I spread joy" is a law?  What would've been the penalty if I decided not to spread joy one day?

(January 10, 2019 at 4:13 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Interesting.  Where are the laws?

"I spread joy" is a law?  What would've been the penalty if I decided not to spread joy one day?

The dead were escorted to the Gates of The Field of Reeds (heaven) by Anubis (psychopomp) and other assorted whosits and whatsits....depending on the circumstances of their death and their social station in the moment of.  At which point, Maat (order) was the feather against which ones heart was weighed (thus the ritual embalming) as they recited their affirmations (which are those 42 statements - invoked retrospectively as a claim that one had lived ones life to the criteria set - in this case the divine mandate).  If they were found wanting or lying*, they would be consumed by Ammit (chaos)....represented as a chimera...and not at all unlike the crocs in the waters of the nile.

*More broadly, and more deeply, if they were found to be un-confident in their claims. What seemed to matter most, in the literary reading...was a persons intent and self appraisal. If they genuinely believed themselves to be worthy...then they were, or..at least, as worthy as such a person could conceivably be. The motiff being a reward for and continuation of order (the field of reeds was a mirror image of this life that persisted unto eternity - edification of the status quo) set against the punishment of dissolution into chaos.