The original Christianity is not what is in the Bible

[Drich]

All right, good return. Let's try another quote:

Romans 6:15-16
"What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"

So, basically be slaves to God, or suffer for it. That is the milk? Tastes sour to me.

actually no. That would be what Paul considers meat. How after a supposed twenty years do you still not understand the difference, between the first four gospels and the rest of the epistles? Even if your only exposure is what I've been writting here In this thread surly you can tell the difference, i must have made that division half a dozen times by now.

You say that I need to apply Christianity to my whole life.

nope, I said nothing to you before this. You took one aspect of a greater message took that aspect out of context, so you can rant and demonstrate how to waist 20 years In A church and not apply yourself nor even learn the difference between the gospels and the epistles.
If you went to church and listened to a one hour sermon a week and did not miss a week for a whole year that would be 52 hours that's two straight days and 4 hours per year. Times twenty years =45 days of non stop church sermons. (Rounded up to the nearest 5) if you split that in half you would have 90 12 hour classes which is what a semester in school? Heck why not give you a light schedule and let's cut that in half again, which has you spending two semesters or one full year in school aprox six hours aday for 180 days. Now that we have truly put your church experience into perspective, I have a question, does a first year collage student, have the accidemic wherewithal to not only obtain a top paying job after the first year of school, does he have the ability to keep it right out of the gate? What about a drop out? Does someone who drops out of collage because of 'anxiety, confusion, and a sense of hopelessness, ' properly equipped to make those high pay decisions? Is this person even able to move out from his moms house spiritually? Meaning will his faith ever exceed the faith and understanding passed down to him by his parents? Will he ever exceed his moms understanding of God? If no then his faith is doomed to die when his dependence on his mother ceases. (When mom stops expecting you or pressures you to goto church you stop going.)

Ya know what? I did that. For almost 20 years. And what did it get me?

you reaped what you sowed. As did I. I put in the same twenty and I too reaped what I sowed. The difference? I know what it means to reap a full harvest, and you found:

Anxiety, confusion and a sense of hopelessness.

Now I am, as they say, "de-converted" and you know what? I'm happier than I've ever been. My life has improved in ways I won't bore you with now. But it did happen. I learned that life is better as a free mind, and not as God's slave. And no punishment has come to me. If there is a God, he either approves of my choice, doesn't care about my choice, or is planning on letting me enjoy life, then damn me for eternity. The latter possibility is just evil.

That is what eternity with God will be, for those who do not love Him with all of their being... Slavery. So is it not better to rule your own corner of hell for as long as you can manage it, or is it better to be a slave to God in Heaven for eternity? For those who can love God with all of their being they will be welcomed as sons and daughters of God.

Paul's teachings were just the tip of the iceberg. They were only what Paul knew, and that wasn't much. I say even if they do serve a separate purpose, they are not without flaw and error. And therefore they are not perfect, and cannot be the word of a perfect being.

Examples?

---

Is this what the great minnie is reduced down to when his arguements fail because he can not support them when asked to provide 'proof?'

Name calling? Really? is that your big finish? You called me a tool and a fool. I bet if you thought about it you could have worked in uncool, that rhymes, what about jewl, or Zuhl (The main bad guy from the first Ghost busters.) You could have said I was being stubborn like a mule maybe..

Fuck off you damn fool. The man wrote an entire book on point but you cling to your fucking fairy tales like the mental midget you are and say "where is the proof."

Read the book, idiot. Put down your fucking bible and learn some shit.

Don't be cruel Minnie, that totally uncool. When you act like that you remind me of Raza Gul (the bad guy from batman begins) correct me if I am wrong, but i believe he was from Istanbul, or was it Liverpool? I wonder if it is something that is taught school?

So do you want to keep rhyming or are you read to back up what you claimed with actual citations, rather than that empty general appeal 'to reading something other than the bible' you march out when your on the ropes?

---

No one really knows when or what order the books were written. What I am saying is that the Gospels are the personal accounts of Matthew and John both a Deciples/Apstoles of Christ, Mark a deciple of Peter, and Luke a deciple of Paul. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Luke

Funny, given it seems rather commonplace for historians a Biblical critics (ex: Bart Ehrman) to say that it is generally agreed that Mark's Gospel was written first (of course, not by Mark himself). In fact, your claim that any of the Gospels were written by their titular namesakes is silly, and if I recall correctly, explicitly denied in the introduction to Luke's Gospel.

Further, we know that the Gospel's themselves have known interpolations added later, with perhaps the largest being the ending of Mark.

for every Bart ehrman there is a couple Daniel Wallaces.

http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/01/eh...-bart.html

Are you saying Paul met Jesus of Nazareth? Have you read your own Bible?

I clearly pointed out my meaning in acts chapter 9

The reason these works ALL came after the fact is because people back then did not prize the written word as they do today. A man's verbal word was his bond. In a soceity where there is less than a 10% literacy rate, the written word becomes a shady way to communicate to most folk. It wasn't till everyone started to die off that it became nessary to write stuff down.

This - especially the underlined - is so silly I don't think you even think is even an adequate defense. Firstly, oral testimony isn't some incorruptible thing. It's subject to the many faults of human memory, both with respect to detail and the temporal aspect.

I don't even know where to begin with the deconstruction of your logic, this is almost like Christmas. i guess i can start with an accusation: are you intentionally being obstinate? Or are you truly blind to the rest of the statement that I made? Not to mention how in your opinion is the written word not subject to everything you just pointed out about human memory? Have you studied the preservation methods of the Hebrew oral record keeping practices? Did you know Paul was a Pharisee originally and would have been subjected to this training???

Your comment also reads of someone completely ignorant of the measures taken and how soceity functions when the literacy rate is in the single digits. Again written messages were looked down on by the general population, because it was a coded message as far as they knew Still Subject To The Bond Of The Man's Word Who Read The Message.

So the problem you're avoiding is why we should have any confidence in the written recordings - which have multiple known forged additions - by people born decades later, [i]and[i] by groups whom had a vested interest and disagreed with the other Christian groups at the time?

I have not avoided anything. Your the second or third person who ask this question, and I will answer you as I have answered them.
"We" are only responsible to what we have been given. If God wants us to believe 'X' then He is responsible to provide us with 'X'. If all we have is 'Xa' available to us then it is up to God to correct for 'a', or forgive us for including 'a' in our beliefs. Again we are only responsible to what we have been given.