Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Drich]

oh noes!! what will we do... oh, you said catholic belief.. yeah that's kinda been falsified when they put a pope over the church and told us he alone speaks for God. that whole precept is in trouble because it is the exact opposite of what Christ himself taught. Christ said we would need no teacher that no man would come between us each individual believer and God himself. The pope is such a man the bishops are such men the priests you must confess to are such men, the whole system is very unbiblical. There is nothing new in your statement as Catholicism has never aligned itself with scripture fully.

Here I though it all came from this:

Matthew 17:19
[17]Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. [18]And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. [19]I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

then 1 why did paul build the church as we know it? and not peter?

Peter's vision of the church was to have everyone convert to judaism first meaning the men had to be circumcized first! Paul and peter in the scripture have it out several times over this issue and peter conceeds his way is wrong yet he continues to minister to the messianic jews and does little in the way of contributing to the gentile church which is what the church is or has been since the 3rd century.. That was Paul's church/the gentile church as peter's church was jewish converts only.

2 let's break down this passage in the greek it actually starts in verse 13 of mat 16 (not 17)
13 Jesus went to the area of Caesarea Philippi. He said to his followers, “Who do people say I am[b]?”
14 They answered, “Some people say you are John the Baptizer. Others say you are Elijah. And some say you are Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 Then Jesus said to his followers, “And who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah. No one taught you that. My Father in heaven showed you who I am. 18 So I tell you, you are Peter.[c] And I will build my church on this rock. The power of death[d] will not be able to defeat my church. 19 I will give you the keys to God’s kingdom. When you speak judgment here on earth, that judgment will be God’s judgment. When you promise forgiveness here on earth, that forgiveness will be God’s forgiveness.”[e]
20 Then Jesus warned his followers not to tell anyone he was the Messiah.

note verse 16 this confession of faith that Jesus Is God...

Then note what Jesus call simon "Peter." a common name now but back then in the greek a better translation would be douche bag. Jesus is saying Only God could give such knowedge to someone as unstable as you. we know this because the word "peter" is derived from the koine word petros which means loose or small rock (small stone) loose unstable ground . 

Jesus is describing the unstable temperament of simon, like when he call out to him on the sea and walk on water till his faith got the better of him and jesus had to pull  him out of the water. or maybe to the future even when Jesus said he would deny christ 3 times before the rooster crowed. Jesus was saying from such an unstable person the foundation or "petra' firm foundation of solid stone my church will be built on.. Now if the passage meant to say Peter was the rock it would say petra is the petra my church will be founded on. rather it was from this petros (from this unstable douche) come the petra or foundation stone my church will be built on.

Jesus Meaning peter the man is not the foundation as he is nothing but an unstable disciple, but his confession of faith. that Jesus Christ is lord/son of the living God!

Look back at history and we will find very little past the book of acts and the 2 books written with his name in them did peter contribute. while the church or every jesus Christ centered church (established by paul not peter/who also went on to write 2/3s of the New testament) established the church on the confession peter made.

---

Protestants have been ungrateful nutballs for the last 500yrs...they're not going to stop now.

The trouble above, Drich, is that you went through the trouble to revise magic book, but it didn't get you any closer to reality.

didn't change a word sport... just pointed out the artifical time lines put on by the church or a traditional reading do not exist outside of traditions of the church. meaning I simply am showing people how to read it without the artifical constraints put on by the church.

You still have a full 7 day creation... just no time line between the end of creation's 7th day and the fall of man.

show me book chapter and verse where I have added anything or taken anything away

---

And I have shown using the bible how there could still be a literal adam and eve and it jive with evolution without changing either account.

he is 1/2 right. that was the time of the exodus from the garden.

All of chapter 2 is a garden narrative that is sperate from chapter 1 creation of the rest of the world.

in essence in chapter 1 God the father creates the world in a rough form and it is left to evolve.

in chapter 2 Jesus is said between day 3 and 4 to have created the garden adam and eve and everything else in the garden. So because adam was created day 3 he was the first man and eve was the first woman they had souls and they were slated to live forever with God in the garden. all apart of the 7 day creation God the father made in chapter 1 where man was made on day 6, also note man outside the garden was not given a soul.

Then chapter three is the fall of man. All I poin out here is there is no time line no set time between chapter 2 and chapter 3.. This means all the time you all need for evolution to work, could have very easily have played out all the way back to 4004BC or whatever date YECs are saying now.

Do you get that man in the garden Adam was separate than man made in the world on day 6? day 6 man had to evolve while adam was created complete. and lived with God for potentially hundreds of millions of years so that the outside world caught up with the garden picture/so outside man would be compatible with man made in the garden.

So 4004bc genesis chapter 3 happens and the rest plays out like history.

We did not descend from two biological humans, though; such is a genetic fact.  I assume that you accept DNA testing?

are you stupid or are you not reading what I wrote?

I said adam and eve were seperate from 7 day creation. meaning on day 6 god could have created man in as many vareity as scince needs.. this 6th day man becomes evolved man retard. 6 day man has nothing to do with adam and eve 3rd day man created by Christ in the garden apart and seperate from 6th day created man...

Do you get it now?

Adam and eve were created in chapter 2

All of chapter 2 happenes between day 3 and day 4 of the creation recorded in chapter 1

According to chapter 1 man was made on day 6

again day 6 man was more than just 2 people. Day 6 man could be anything 'science' says needed to be.

The only difference between adam and eve and day 6 man was adam and eve were created with a soul and placed in the garden

Day 6 man was never given a soul but is 100% genetically compatible with adam and eve and their children at the time of the fall..

Do you still understand? at the end of day 7 100 bazillion years could have past between the end of the seventh day and the fall of man/exodus from the garden which happened 4004 bc.

---

please ask question before you respond if you do not understand how both can be 100% compatible. meaning how both accounts can work without infringing on 100% of what the bible says and 100% of what science says. because if you still think my theory here infringes on science or changes the bible in any way you obviously do not understand it.

[downbeatplumb]

Pope Pius XII was quite clear that Darwinian evolution and Christian (Catholic) doctrine were not compatible:



Humani Generis

Ergo, traditional Catholic belief has been falsified.

oh noes!! what will we do... oh, you said catholic belief.. yeah that's kinda been falsified when they put a pope over the church and told us he alone speaks for God. that whole precept is in trouble because it is the exact opposite of what Christ himself taught. Christ said we would need no teacher that no man would come between us each individual believer and God himself. The pope is such a man the bishops are such men the priests you must confess to are such men, the whole system is very unbiblical. There is nothing new in your statement as Catholicism has never aligned itself with scripture fully.

For most of the history of Christianity the catholic church was the word of god.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Protestants have been ungrateful nutballs for the last 500yrs...they're not going to stop now.

The trouble above, Drich, is that you went through the trouble to revise magic book, but it didn't get you any closer to reality.

didn't change a word sport... just pointed out the artifical time lines put on by the church or a traditional reading do not exist outside of traditions of the church. meaning I simply am showing people how to read it without the artifical constraints put on by the church.

You still have a full 7 day creation... just no time line between the end of creation's 7th day and the fall of man.

show me book chapter and verse where I have added anything or taken anything away

-and it doesn't matter, because it reflects reality no better than it did before your revisions.  What's the deal..have I been unclear, or something?  

You've done nothing more than go through the trouble of not fixing magic book.

[Jehanne]

The only difference between adam and eve and day 6 man was adam and eve were created with a soul and placed in the garden

There was no "garden" in Mesopotamia where two individuals were living together.  The earliest organized villages dated from 15,000 BP ("before present"), with the rise of the first city-states in Sumer around 4000 to 5500 BCE.  The Hebrew civilization began to form at least a millennium after Sumer.

[Drich]

The only difference between adam and eve and day 6 man was adam and eve were created with a soul and placed in the garden

There was no "garden" in Mesopotamia where two individuals were living together.  The earliest organized villages dated from 15,000 BP ("before present"), with the rise of the first city-states in Sumer around 4000 to 5500 BCE.  The Hebrew civilization began to form at least a millennium after Sumer.

There is no clear indication where the garden where Adam and eve lived.
 the exodus of the garden did not happen till about 4000 to 6000 bcdb (Before Christ, Douche bag) then allow time for cain and able to grow up to be men, cain to murder able and flee to the city of nod.. So the time line does line up.

who said anything about those cities being jewish? Adam and eve were not jewish... there were no jews till after the exodus of egypt some 2000 years later.

[pocaracas]

Thanks for reminding me about this thread.... I had forgotten that I had something to answer...

Here I though it all came from this:

Matthew 17:19
[17]Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. [18]And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. [19]I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

then 1 why did paul build the church as we know it? and not peter?

Why indeed...?
Why was the church built by someone who never had any contact with the source material?... but still being able to trace it's heads all the way back to Peter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes#1st_century

It is a very poorly told story and concocted from a very thin basis on reality.

I could tell you about the road to Damascus, going through Qumran, where Paul, somehow, got his vision or epiphany, or whatever...
I could tell you that history is written by the victors...

But you don't care about reality and human psychology, so why should I waste my time with you?

Peter's vision of the church was to have everyone convert to judaism first meaning the men had to be circumcized first! Paul and peter in the scripture have it out several times over this issue and peter conceeds his way is wrong yet he continues to minister to the messianic jews and does little in the way of contributing to the gentile church which is what the church is or has been since the 3rd century.. That was Paul's church/the gentile church as peter's church was jewish converts only.

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?

2 let's break down this passage in the greek it actually starts in verse 13 of mat 16 (not 17)

I don't care about the Greek. Paul was from Asia Minor (today's Turkey), where he spoke his Greek.
But Peter and Jesus were from Israel, where they spoke Aramaic.
Don't show me a biased text from the victor. Show me the actual history in the original location. It doesn't exist, does it? Why would that be?!

Look back at history and we will find very little past the book of acts and the 2 books written with his name in them did peter contribute. while the church or every jesus Christ centered church (established by paul not peter/who also went on to write 2/3s of the New testament) established the church on the confession peter made.

You are aware that there was a gospel by Peter that the Church, established by Paul, ended up not including in the bible, right? Geeee, I wonder why?!!!


Human philosophical difference of opinion should have no bearing on the divine intent... But clearly you are trying to sell a story where human opinion rules, while pretending (and convincing yourself of it in the process) that the rules come from the divine.

As I have been writing on this forum for years, it's all people. All made up by people, for people. Both to comfort and to control people. Made by well meaning people and also by ruthless people. Made by people who were convinced of the truthfulness of what they said and wrote, and by people who made it up.

[Abaddon_ire]

There was no "garden" in Mesopotamia where two individuals were living together.  The earliest organized villages dated from 15,000 BP ("before present"), with the rise of the first city-states in Sumer around 4000 to 5500 BCE.  The Hebrew civilization began to form at least a millennium after Sumer.

There is no clear indication where the garden where Adam and eve lived.
 the exodus of the garden did not happen till about 4000 to 6000 bcdb (Before Christ, Douche bag) then allow time for cain and able to grow up to be men, cain to murder able and flee to the city of nod.. So the time line does line up.

who said anything about those cities being jewish? Adam and eve were not jewish... there were no jews till after the exodus of egypt some 2000 years later.

Wait, what? Was there just Adam and Eve or were there more people?

[The Grand Nudger]

There wouldn't be any jews until 700bc-ish and exodus never happened..but, you know, facts.  Who needs facts. Facts won't help us fix magic book, so fuck em, lol.

[Drich]

Why indeed...?
Why was the church built by someone who never had any contact with the source material?...

what a misinformed question. What was Christ's ministry? miracles healing and prepping to be the atonement for all of man's sin. Now is that our responsibility as followers of Christ? did the disciples follow this path? They follow christ to the garden, but when they started handing out beatings and crosses all but john scattered... meaning source material that was available was not the foundation of the church. Meaning the church was to take a different path than christ. Jesus Identified this foundation as being confession that he was the son of God. something the disciples were forbidden to teach while he was alive.

It is a very poorly told story and concocted from a very thin basis on reality.

most of the time the truth is a poorly concocted story.

I could tell you about the road to Damascus, going through Qumran, where Paul, somehow, got his vision or epiphany, or whatever...
I could tell you that history is written by the victors...

preaching to the choir sport, something happened something changes he was known to be a murder/christian inquisitor.

But you don't care about reality and human psychology, so why should I waste my time with you?

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)

Peter's vision of the church was to have everyone convert to judaism first meaning the men had to be circumcized first! Paul and peter in the scripture have it out several times over this issue and peter conceeds his way is wrong yet he continues to minister to the messianic jews and does little in the way of contributing to the gentile church which is what the church is or has been since the 3rd century.. That was Paul's church/the gentile church as peter's church was jewish converts only.

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.

2 let's break down this passage in the greek it actually starts in verse 13 of mat 16 (not 17)

I don't care about the Greek. Paul was from Asia Minor (today's Turkey), where he spoke his Greek.
But Peter and Jesus were from Israel, where they spoke Aramaic.
Don't show me a biased text from the victor. Show me the actual history in the original location. It doesn't exist, does it? Why would that be?!

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.

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. It would be me like asking you to hard core creol and transscribe it.. the problem creole is a mixture of 3 different languages so anything you write will in part be in a native toungue like french but the english and south african bits will be in phonetic form which will differ from ear to ear. or you write in english and the other bits would be phenitically written.. So again no offical language.

Now this is in part the reason everything in written in koine greek because at that time that was the offical language outside of rome of the empire. because the empire span so many different regions. all paper work all official documents must been written and submitted in the greek. therefore Koine Greek despite your native toungue was all that was taught by the state.. Even The septuegent the oldest version of the OT (up to the dead sea scrolls discovery) was written in greek even though the OT was originally written in hebrew. Eg we had no hebrew copies of the OT older than the septuigent till 1947.

the problem with amalgamated languages like creole and aramaic made simple:




Do you get it now? to dismiss the greek is to dismiss you from this conversation as there was NOTHING WRITTEN IN ARAMAIC from that period.

Which again is why the authority here is Koine greek not 12th century "aramaic documents" So next time before you dismiss what you foolish do not understand Ask a question. I have been doing this a long long time with alot to share, and I am not so hard on people who do not come to me telling me what is important and what is not. 25+ years of this, my own console I will keep on the importance of the koine greek. there are 12th century writting the pope holds on too but again. they do their own thing apart from the bible.

Look back at history and we will find very little past the book of acts and the 2 books written with his name in them did peter contribute. while the church or every jesus Christ centered church (established by paul not peter/who also went on to write 2/3s of the New testament) established the church on the confession peter made.

You are aware that there was a gospel by Peter that the Church, established by Paul, ended up not including in the bible, right? Geeee, I wonder why?!!!

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.

Human philosophical difference of opinion should have no bearing on the divine intent...

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!!!!

We are to love god with all of our being... now because we are all different that love manifests differently. If I can sing to sit in a borning lecture is not loving God with all of my ability. I then am in direct violation of one of only two laws governing the church. thus I would have a theological difference between me a guy who sings and men who study. Like wise if a man who studies as a means of worship is disturbed by alot of singing, then these are two incompatible philosophical differences. and on and on and on it goes dividing the church thousands of times till just about everyone can worship God with all of their being unabated!

God gave us or rather the jews rules for everything much like the catholic church is run.. that system of 'morality' failed over and over and over again. so why would God repeat what he did then with us? We live under the laws of atonement not morality. which means God forgives when we willfully sin. therefore God forgives that much more when we worship with all of our being and still fall short! and we all fall short.

But clearly you are trying to sell a story where human opinion rules, while pretending (and convincing yourself of it in the process) that the rules come from the divine.

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

As I have been writing on this forum for years, it's all people. All made up by people, for people. Both to comfort and to control people. Made by well meaning people and also by ruthless people. Made by people who were convinced of the truthfulness of what they said and wrote, and by people who made it up.

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.

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.

You don't even know enough of the bible to know it wasn't written in aramaic... yet here you are like an ignorant member of congress (AOC) telling senior staff how the government works.

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.

---

There is no clear indication where the garden where Adam and eve lived.
 the exodus of the garden did not happen till about 4000 to 6000 bcdb (Before Christ, Douche bag) then allow time for cain and able to grow up to be men, cain to murder able and flee to the city of nod.. So the time line does line up.

who said anything about those cities being jewish? Adam and eve were not jewish... there were no jews till after the exodus of egypt some 2000 years later.

Wait, what? Was there just Adam and Eve or were there more people?

BOTH MORON this is why I need the cartoon

Chapter 1 God the father makes the world in 7 days, people made in his image on day 6 out side the garden with no soul. God the father is not recorded in maing the garden in chapter 1 or 2.

Chapter 2 starts on day three Jesus makes the garden everything in it and then makes adam... he is different than the man outside the garden on day 6 because jesus breaths a living soul into him on day 3.. makes eve all is complete in the garden by the end of day 4..

So the garden is a picture of completed earth 6000 years ago (which coinsides with the the fall of man/chapter 3) adam and eve were in the garden from day 4 forward till the fall of man in chapter 3 which again happened 6000 years ago.

Now between chapter 2 and chapter 3 there is no time line. meaning all of evolution ( a bazillion year) could have happened between those chapters while adam and eve lived and walked with God in the cool of the evening in the garden.. all the while outside the garden things where evolving just like science says


do you get it so far?

Then 6000 years ago chapter 3 happens adam and eve where kicked out they have two sons cain and able cain kills able and flees to the city of nod.. a city built by day 6 humans. 

Next adam and eve have seth and a bunch of other children.. they all grow up and get married... married to whom? remember adam the first man was made on day 3 in the garden his children marry the evolved mans children the man God made on day 6.

The difference? Adam has a soul as it was given to him in the garden by Christ. no such thing was given to day six man. The soul is passed from adam's children on down to noah and his family.

After the flood only those who have souls remain.

God kills in the flood all of the soul less monsters who were combining themselves with rouge demons.

---

There wouldn't be any jews until 700bc-ish and exodus never happened..but, you know, facts.  Who needs facts.  Facts won't help us fix magic book, so fuck em, lol.

hey gae... who said they had to be jews???

think before you speak sport, and I won't have to correct you so much

[pocaracas]

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

Why indeed...?
Why was the church built by someone who never had any contact with the source material?...

what a misinformed question. What was Christ's ministry? miracles healing and prepping to be the atonement for all of man's sin. Now is that our responsibility as followers of Christ? did the disciples follow this path? They follow christ to the garden, but when they started handing out beatings and crosses all but john scattered... meaning source material that was available was not the foundation of the church. Meaning the church was to take a different path than christ. Jesus Identified this foundation as being confession that he was the son of God. something the disciples were forbidden to teach while he was alive.

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.

But you don't care about reality and human psychology, so why should I waste my time with you?

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

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.

2 let's break down this passage in the greek it actually starts in verse 13 of mat 16 (not 17)

I don't care about the Greek. Paul was from Asia Minor (today's Turkey), where he spoke his Greek.
But Peter and Jesus were from Israel, where they spoke Aramaic.
Don't show me a biased text from the victor. Show me the actual history in the original location. It doesn't exist, does it? Why would that be?!

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

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.

Look back at history and we will find very little past the book of acts and the 2 books written with his name in them did peter contribute. while the church or every jesus Christ centered church (established by paul not peter/who also went on to write 2/3s of the New testament) established the church on the confession peter made.

You are aware that there was a gospel by Peter that the Church, established by Paul, ended up not including in the bible, right? Geeee, I wonder why?!!!

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.

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

Human philosophical difference of opinion should have no bearing on the divine intent...

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

But clearly you are trying to sell a story where human opinion rules, while pretending (and convincing yourself of it in the process) that the rules come from the divine.

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.

As I have been writing on this forum for years, it's all people. All made up by people, for people. Both to comfort and to control people. Made by well meaning people and also by ruthless people. Made by people who were convinced of the truthfulness of what they said and wrote, and by people who made it up.

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.

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.

You don't even know enough of the bible to know it wasn't written in aramaic...

Go back and read what I wrote. I told you immediately that there was no such Aramaic text.

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.

So many questions!
First, I have more than 18000 posts, so I got you beat!! (as if that's a measure of anything worth anything at all)

Second, I know more than you may think I know. While you are a brainwashed, ex-junkie, full of shit idiot.
Faith... what sort of god values faith?!

When you look down at the ants in your backyard, do you expect them to have faith in you?...