"The bible test" Answered.

[Drich]

Your arrogance is exactly what I don't appreciate. You claimed that 2/3rds of the Bible (NT) is written by Paul, I disproved u, and yet you didn't even apologize for the mistake nor admit that you were mistaken. And that fact has nothing to do with faith.

No you did not disprove anything you made a counter claim, that's it. To dis-PROVE is to provide evidence to the contary. Because you left no evidence, and only made the counter claim stating luke's work in his two book 'volume wise' exceeded or matched paul's work, means nothing.

Paul did write 2/3's of the total books of the NT. Or perhaps I should have said Paul is responsiable for 2/3's of the books in the NT. Their are 27 books in the NT, 13 of which he was directly credited to him. (by his own hand or scribe) The writtings of Luke can also be ascribed to Paul because Luke was Paul's desciple. Luke did not experience what He recorded in His Gospel, he got his gospel from his mentor and those Paul worked with. It is also unclear whether or not He was present at the establishment of the Chuirch (the first part of Acts.)

Eitherway without Paul 2/3's of the NT as we know it would be different or just missing.

That said, You made a hypocritical statement I will not be able to let you get away with.

If you remember this whole arguement started because you made the claim that the bible states we are to bind ourselves to the Law. Or rather it is possiable to uphold the 'NT law.'

I Dis PROVED that claim by leaving the romans 7 passage. That says we have no hope in trying to keep the law as we are slaves to sin.

Now according to the 'christian' standard of behavior you were trying to hold me to (concerning arrogance), at this point where I literally disproved you/your belief of up holding the law(Because I provided proof) You should have appologized. Yet you choose try and find a technicality to dismiss me on. That is why you spoke to the volume of Luke's works. So that you could find a 'moral reason' to outright ignore what i have said here..

The only thing... You had to first do, what you are condemning me for doing, even though you failed to disprove anything.

As for correcting "brothers" in the faith, let me say this - it's the same thing I say to JW's that knock on my door. If you can prove to me that your quirky nonsense makes sense, then by all means prove it. Prove, for instance, that I should believe the Vulgate is holy inspired scripture?

Who said anything about the vulgate? What I said about "Concerning Brothers in the faith" has absolutly nothing to do with this. I was referencing what Christ said in Mat 18 starting at 15.

Most of all prove to me that the Bible says to confess your sins to a priest 1. and 2. that oil and water achieve magical properties when blessed by a Catholic bishop - prove it.

What makes you think I am catholic, or believe any of these things myself?

---

Very true. I also noted that even as Drich was whinging about your "correcting a brother in the faith publicly," he was doing exactly the same thing himself with his contemptuous questioning if you had ever read Romans.

The following correction is another example of why you do not respond to me anymore.

Mat 18 Chirst says if a brother wrongs you goto Him privatly and tell Him of this transgression, and then He escalates if the brother will not listen.

The bit in romans I left Him was not an example of Arackus doing anything wrong. The passage in Romans was left to correct his theology concerning sin and the law.

Like wise the bit explaining to him the difference between the act of disproving and disagreeing was not an example of me being wronged.

But, for him to say he feels I did not acknoweledge my mistake when he thought he 'proved' me wrong is.