Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Drich]

Thanks Drich, once more you prove the circularity of any discussion on this subject.

...it's like you want to be smart... it's just you are not very good at it.. or at least smart on your own.. meaning you don't think very well past the surface of a problem or answer given. Which leaves you open to me to seriously blast stupid assumptions.. If I were you I would learn quickly to put things in question form.. make me to the work rather than assert something so stupid a 6th grader could answer in my stead.

example:

Remember that the tale of the disciples that you are basing all, ALL, of this on, came to you from the church that had been established by that Paul guy. Circularity, as you are justifying Paul's version of the church with things that his church compiled... sport.

ah, no.. Even if Paul establishes the church, it is first filtered through 1000 years of religion based on peter's teachings and the idea that the pope is a living apostle who can change cannon at will. since I lived after this 1000 year reign of the church my understanding of it was first filter through what the RC religion had to say. as with most everyone else. till they find the error and hyprocrisy in the rc leadership. Then apart from the church we must open out bibles and study apart from what any church has to say.

said the douche who dumped a 16 paragraph manifesto on everything else you could speak on without a google search. meaning if you knew more about psychology as evidenced by everything else you have said here you would most certainly word dump a lot load of spam onto what you have already said. Thankfully you don't know enough about the subject to go over it... you just know enough to cite it is the reason Paul is in charge... That's ok when ever you do google it I have several arguements already typed up (I've had this discussion a few dozen times with people much smarter than you are in the last 10 to 15 years already)

Wow... are you wanting to tell me that Paul became the origin of present-day christianity by more than politics?
LOL

No dummy.. What I am saying is you do not know enough about psychology of why Paul is seen as the father of the church, as you claim you do. other wise you would have told me. meaning you are so full of yourself that if you could lecture me on the psychology of why or how paul took the roll as father of the church without googling it you would have.. but you are not smart enough to do that. you are not even smart enough to see when I am telling you to stop pretending to a professor of psychology.

Isn't it curious how the man who was actually with the alleged son of god had a view so close to the pre-existing jewish?

because he did not understand te nature of the sacrifice as witnessed with almost all of his interactions with Christ resulting in Christ assigning him the diminuitive (nick name) petros/peter the unstable one.

John and james Sons of thunder! perter the supposed king of the church who failed in everything he did while Jesus was alive get called the first century aramaic equilivent of a douche bag.
Jesus Gave peter the humiliating name because he wanted to always be the first.
[/quote]

Or so goes the version of the story that came to you. The story that was allowed to get to you by Paul's church. Again, circularity.

The gospels are independant from the apistoles of paul, or are you not smart enought to understand that? is this another "I don't care what the greek says moment???" Here's the thing sport. Peter could not write, or read. so he had a scribe.. his name was "mark." as in the gospel writter Mark. If you still can not connect the dots "Mark's" gospel... is the words or gospel of peter.

So what does mark say?
28 They answered, “Some people say you are John the Baptizer. Others say you are Elijah. And others say you are one of the prophets.”

29 Then Jesus asked, “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”

30 Jesus told the followers, “Don’t tell anyone who I am.”

Peter knew He was not meant to be the father of the church or he would have proclaimed it. He also knew Jesus was making fun of him which probably why this part was ommitted

What a f-ing idiot.. "i don't understand what greek is or why it is important so I like a dumb moron will just ignore it."

HEY STUPID Aramaic was not an official language of the empire it was a local or regional dialect much like ebonics or creole meaning there was no official written language. it varied from region to region.

HEY IDIOT, all of the disciples are local and would only know that language

They would speak it yes and again 4% could read and write of those 4% no one wrote in aramaic. ALL but a handful of passages in the whole bible are in koine greek because that was the offical written language of the empire at that time! Arguement over!

Any story told by them would be in their native language.

spoken aloud yes not written down douch bag! EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN WAS IN KOINE GREEK!!!
What parts of the Bible were written in Aramaic?
Ancient Aramaic originated among the Arameans in northern Syria and became widely used under the Assyrians. A few passages in the Old Testament were written in Aramaic (Genesis 31:47; Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11).
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/0...the-bible/

So what NT passages in Aramaic are you referring?

The fact that you (and the whole of christianity) cling so much to texts written for far and wide circulation, tells me that the texts already had a very political purpose. As such, they are to be dismissed as untrustworthy.

by whom are they dismissed specifically/reference? in relation to what other superior text/codacees?
I've been doing this 25 years and never heard anything close to this claim unless it was some douche atheist trying to BS his way into a conversation. So I'm asking for a point of reference!

yes there are aramaic texts but they are written phonetically aramaic had no universal set alphabet or grammar rules.. (again regional alphabet regional grammar which changes from state tot state region to region.

There, that's how the original text should be considered. For I seriously doubt that Jesus said anything to Peter (or James or whatever non-English name he had) in koine greek. Which means that your "analysis" of the greek text is not representative of what would have actually been said. You're, at best, analyzing a translation and assuming it to be faithful to the original meaning (if there ever was such an original at all).
If you can't understand now why I dismiss the greek texts, then I'm sorry... You are truly an idiot.

So drich how much of this text is there? (should have been the question you should have asked rather than assumed there were complete parallel bibles written in Aramaic.. In stead of point to you absolute ignorance in this subject I would simply re pasted this list:
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2012/0...the-bible/
(Genesis 31:47; Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:11). and point out there is less that 10 verses written in Aramaic in the whole bible/ history of the bible

but no... you wanted to be the man here who is pretending he is not way in over his head, who is not trying to feel his way out through this topic, who has some idea of what he is talking about.. but again you really and truly are not smart enough to be asserting anything or demanding the bible should be studied in one way or another. why? because you are a intellectual fraud pretending to speak on a subject you know nothing about.

Do your self a favor and google what was the wriiten language of 1 century rome. Despite what people spoke the wrote if they could write in koine greek.

Think star wars.. despite what chewbaca grunts or growls or what ever r2 beeps and boops english or 'galatic base' is the language everyone has in common.

you mean the bible the church... compiled? just because it was attributed to peter does not mean it is cannon. By the words of Christ Peter was a goof not to be taken seriously all the time.

It is clearly not in the canon declared by the church established by Paul.
Circularity again.

hey stupid the church who claim peter to be the father compiled the bible not paul... this happened in late 3 early 4 ad and then again modified in 6 and a few more times by various popes which were later revised. Google the history of the bible.

So even though the church who puts peter as it father, still used 2/3s of paul's work.
Paul's work... peter's church. what about this confounds you so much?

Also, just because a text is canon, doesn't mean that the attributed author was that one for real.

you have never even read the NT have you? In the greek PAUL announces himself in all but two letters attributed to him. and then other apostles/saints like luke assign works to paul.

then you have no f-ing idea what you are talking about... We have two rule that are absolute in Christianity sport.. EVERY THING ELSE IS BASED ON PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES!!!!

Which is what makes it, christianity, a sham!

why because you can't wrap you little mind around something so simple to understand?

God above should define how reality is. People's opinions should have no say.... sport. But that's not what we see. :hint:

retard, what do you think the OT is? it is God telling people this is what one must do with out error to be 'morrally perfect.' now because we can't then grace and mercy.. Now that God paved a way with Grace and mercy through the cross... only two rules remain. love God and love each other as you wish to be loved!!! again again because we are all different our mandate to love God will look different from person to person.

Jesus was point blanked asked and he gave two rules. Love God with all your being and your neighbor as your self!

Again, according to the version of the book edited by the church created by Paul.
People, people, people.

sorry no.. peter's people compiled the book 4 to 6 hundred years after paul. pauls true vision was each church was it's own unique cell with it's own rules and limitations. Peter is the one who wanted the giant redo of the jewish religion. which is what we got. a central church a central priest one link to God through personal sacrifice despite what was done by Christ. all of those things are counter paul's teachings. but again to each their own, mening despite what paul wanted for the church peter's vision could still work for some. we just need to understand the freedoms with in the church to allow everyone else to love God to their max as well.

If it were all made up by people, then would more of you get it? why are most of you still stuck in a works based morality? even outside the church you struggle to prove yourselves to be 'good people?' Jesus Himself is recorded as saying there are no 'good people' meaning that is not the standard in which we are judged.

We get that it was made by people, so it would be exactly the same in a world where there is no god at all.

you don't get anything sport, you still think there is an aramaic bible floating around, you think it is stupid that the church is or can be influenced by it's members... again everything i have said here you argue with meaning you do not understand how the church works... Ie I say God and the church says abc you have come back and said no it should be xyz... that means if there were no god the church should be xyz by your own estimation... the problem? as I pointed out and keep doing so all your natural insincts on the church are 100% wrong. So too is this true with 90% of the atheist here and even with the majority of all other religions who thinks Christianity is about works morality or getting into heaven.

You repeated objection to how I say the church works how Christianity work Proves without doubt that there is a massive difference between what the bible says and how people would have the church work.

In fact you know so little of biblical christianity It would seem you have never ever cracked a bible outside of the shadow of the catholic church. or at the very least never look at a passage without the lens of the church telling you what to think.

That is what kills me about people like you. you think you have it all figured out and yet rarely know the basics.

I think I know the basics that you dismiss as given... and those givens are not so given as you like to think they are.

petty insults aside and truth be told.. I would give you a 4th graders understanding of how the RC church works which is not biblical christianity.meaning you know very very little about the bible God or anything else outside of the traditions of the RC church. you understand their model of religion which again is only but a shadow of what the bible teaches. Which is why there was a reformation.. One of martain luther's contempary monks was reading the orginal greek scripts for the first time and came to this revolution.. either the greek is corrupt or our latian bible is completely made up. Meaning the two bibles spoke of two different religions. which again divided the church.

Where does your arrogance come from? surly you researched nothing before you spoke. did you want to see how hard i would come dwn on you for trying to correct me with several lines of made up conjecture and bluster? did you thin you could bully my beliefs with the same bull shit you fed yourself with? as if my faith were so feeble.. I have over 10,000 posts here did you think you where the first to bring up this nonsense? or did you think this was your first time making these same broken argument to me? This line of objective thought died in the mid 90s sport.. No one question the greek any more because your peers know it is a standard beyond question for all matters concerning that period of time in those regions religious or not.

---

Your version of making something "fit" a scientific theory....lol.

all i am showing is that there is no time line that automatically excludes anything you people want to believe. that one does not have to be closed minded here. that if you wish to be closed minded it is an option and not a mandate.. why are you so intimidated by this that you feel you must say something negative?

---

Your version of making something "fit" a scientific theory....lol.

It's called "mental gymnastics"

it's call simply being observant and knowing one's topic.. I know you like to speak and pretend you are knowledgeable, but this is what it looks like when you know enough to speak or answer a question without having to try an intimidate a person into silence.

---

but if simply pointing out what 'no time line' can mean seems like mental gymnastics to you... then we all can have an idea of how small or simply your mind works. because people with a one track mind will consider any deviation from their one track gymnastics...