(September 20, 2012 at 12:48 am)Stimbo Wrote:(September 20, 2012 at 12:41 am)Godschild Wrote: It amazing to me how so many here will state that the NT is not accurate because the books of the NT were written 50 years after the resurrection. Then make such a big deal out of small pieces that was written nearly 300 years later and with no connection to any other writings. You have double standards, and you wonder why we (christians) do not trust anything you say.
You can only make such statements by ignoring things like this:
(September 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm)Justtristo Wrote: Therefore this recently discovered fragment written at least a century after Jesus supposedly lived, does not convince me beyond a shadow a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
(September 20, 2012 at 12:41 am)Godschild Wrote: Drich is right saying that the word probably should have been translated bride, referring to the church, and the bride (church) would be His disciple. This would fit very nicely with the NT writings.
Come on, you can do much better than that. If you really tried, I know you could rationalise the whole document fragment away altogether. You're letting me down.
Why, it exist and it is not connected to any writings, for all anyone knows it was just a thought jotted down and nothing more.
About the first part of your reply, I did not say all, deceiver you are.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
