Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Whay only four gospels.

bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:06:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

I thought there was only one gospel, with four accounts. Which ones are you counting?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:09:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.

He's interested in making some dumb remark such as "Oh, Iranaeus or someone decided that perchance we should come up with four gospel accounts because, after all, there are four directions of the wind." In other words, it had to be four - not three, not five, not ten. He thinks Iranaeus said so. We've seen it on here a dozen times, and it's been answered a dozen times, but it's about due again.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:10:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.
Keep your powder dry for the moment Beastt.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:11:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:09:26 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.

He's interested in making some dumb remark such as "Oh, Iranaeus or someone decided that perchance we should come up with four gospel accounts because, after all, there are four directions of the wind." In other words, it had to be four - not three, not five, not ten. He thinks Iranaeus said so. We've seen it on here a dozen times, and it's been answered a dozen times, but it's about due again.

Just say you can't answer Annie, no-one will think any less of you?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:13:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:09:26 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.

He's interested in making some dumb remark such as "Oh, Iranaeus or someone decided that perchance we should come up with four gospel accounts because, after all, there are four directions of the wind." In other words, it had to be four - not three, not five, not ten. He thinks Iranaeus said so. We've seen it on here a dozen times, and it's been answered a dozen times, but it's about due again.

When you're that interested in trying to head someone off at the pass, Anna; it kinda looks like fear.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:13:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:10:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.
Keep your powder dry for the moment Beastt.

No problem.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 8:16:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Annie come back..........................all is forgiven..............just like god.
Just send me your last weeks earnings. Thanks.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 9:18:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Yes I'm well aware of that. Thanks envy. My court jester act serves me well. It's the bait that's important.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 1:44:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

There's only one gospel ( voice of God ) but it's impossible to convince Christians this fact. However, God did make some believers believe they were Christians until they listen to the gospel that I've preach.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 1:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:10:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.
Keep your powder dry for the moment Beastt.

xDDDD i began to like you :D:D:D
Never fart near dog
Toviyah
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:06:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.
I don't think that's quite right. The early Chruch though that John was written by John the Lord's disciple (Tertullian, C. Marcion) and would never have excluded an apostolic source.
Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.
I don't think that's quite right either. Do you mean Luke and Matthew plagiarised from Mark? Even then I see no reason not to suppose that th oral tradition is the cause of the similarity.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:13:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:09:26 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.

He's interested in making some dumb remark such as "Oh, Iranaeus or someone decided that perchance we should come up with four gospel accounts because, after all, there are four directions of the wind." In other words, it had to be four - not three, not five, not ten. He thinks Iranaeus said so. We've seen it on here a dozen times, and it's been answered a dozen times, but it's about due again.

When you're that interested in trying to head someone off at the pass, Anna; it kinda looks like fear.

And likewise with you guys insulting Christians in every thread you start or post in.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:28:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:13:05 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:09:26 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.

He's interested in making some dumb remark such as "Oh, Iranaeus or someone decided that perchance we should come up with four gospel accounts because, after all, there are four directions of the wind." In other words, it had to be four - not three, not five, not ten. He thinks Iranaeus said so. We've seen it on here a dozen times, and it's been answered a dozen times, but it's about due again.

When you're that interested in trying to head someone off at the pass, Anna; it kinda looks like fear.

It kinda looks like accuracy to me. That's all the OP amounts to: an opportunity to be questioned, then bring forth a quote from Iranaeus. You, of all people, won't deny it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:11:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:09:26 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:55:45 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

Are you only interested in responses from Christians? I won't post a response if this is intended only for them.

He's interested in making some dumb remark such as "Oh, Iranaeus or someone decided that perchance we should come up with four gospel accounts because, after all, there are four directions of the wind." In other words, it had to be four - not three, not five, not ten. He thinks Iranaeus said so. We've seen it on here a dozen times, and it's been answered a dozen times, but it's about due again.

Just say you can't answer Annie, no-one will think any less of you?

Is that a question, or a statement? There are four accounts of the gospel - not four gospels. There are four simply because there are four. There could have been three. There could have been six. There happens to be four.

Most likely the "reason", if there is one, is that they have different target audiences: Jews, Greek, Romans and a latter one that sorta fills-in-the-blanks with details omitted from the first three.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:45:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

The problem is not 2 words, whole passages are the same word for word and how it can be real if they wrote separately its impossible. for example how do you explain this one - 2 Kings Chapter 19 are the same word for word to isaiah 37 whole chapter!. thats called plagiarism. somebody copying wholesale from somebody else.
Never fart near dog
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:54:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
Christians can you tell me why there are four gospels?

I have heard some say it has to do with what is considered four faces of the four beasts at the throne as in calf man loin and eagle it sounds nice, could be correct, but some what romantic. That could be looked upon as Christ the servant, calf, Christ the man, man, Christ the King, lion and Christ the Savior , eagle. I do believe those four beasts represent the same in other visions of the throne by prophets other than John. Its also considered the case when the Israelis where grouped together about the Tabernacle in the dessert, by their banners flown. Don't hold me to it though, I haven't looked into it.

As far as the history of the church when putting together the NT and why, there might be something on the web, but again the Catholic Church would have that history if anybody does.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:19:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:45:33 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

The problem is not 2 words, whole passages are the same word for word and how it can be real if they wrote separately its impossible. for example how do you explain this one - 2 Kings Chapter 19 are the same word for word to isaiah 37 whole chapter!. thats called plagiarism. somebody copying wholesale from somebody else.

It's not plagiarism when the author of II Kings gives credit to other sources, is it?

"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made the pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" The book of Isaiah, of course, was written first. The author of II Kings relied extensively on numerous other works, including "the book of the Acts of Solomon" - and says so.

Why would you identify plagiarism as "copying wholesale from somebody else" while naming the sources. That's a new definition, isn't it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 6:03:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:19:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:45:33 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

The problem is not 2 words, whole passages are the same word for word and how it can be real if they wrote separately its impossible. for example how do you explain this one - 2 Kings Chapter 19 are the same word for word to isaiah 37 whole chapter!. thats called plagiarism. somebody copying wholesale from somebody else.

It's not plagiarism when the author of II Kings gives credit to other sources, is it?

What the hell you talking about? what credit he is plagirasing something thats not his!!


"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made the pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" The book of Isaiah, of course, was written first. The author of II Kings relied extensively on numerous other works, including "the book of the Acts of Solomon" - and says so.

Why would you identify plagiarism as "copying wholesale from somebody else" while naming the sources. That's a new definition, isn't it?

Look you trying to justify the plagiarism of the author. if he "relied extensively on numerous other works, including "the book of the Acts of Solomon", it shows that he was copying other stuff and not inspired by the holy ghost as christains believe. so you admitting the plagiarism and rejecting the inspiration of the holy ghost? thats funny, God gave you a brain think for a moment numerous people cant write exactly the same thing word for word, except somebody copying the other. you dont need to be a genius to understand that.

And you know the book of kings ( 1 and 2 ) is written by an anonymous author, the bible is full of anonymous authors but you christains keep believing its from God, where is your mind?
Never fart near dog
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 6:19:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

"radical liberal scholars" Seriously? Did you learn nothing?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 7:20:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 6:03:32 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:19:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:45:33 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

The problem is not 2 words, whole passages are the same word for word and how it can be real if they wrote separately its impossible. for example how do you explain this one - 2 Kings Chapter 19 are the same word for word to isaiah 37 whole chapter!. thats called plagiarism. somebody copying wholesale from somebody else.

It's not plagiarism when the author of II Kings gives credit to other sources, is it?

What the hell you talking about? what credit he is plagirasing something thats not his!!


"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made the pool, and the conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?" The book of Isaiah, of course, was written first. The author of II Kings relied extensively on numerous other works, including "the book of the Acts of Solomon" - and says so.

Why would you identify plagiarism as "copying wholesale from somebody else" while naming the sources. That's a new definition, isn't it?

Look you trying to justify the plagiarism of the author. if he "relied extensively on numerous other works, including "the book of the Acts of Solomon", it shows that he was copying other stuff and not inspired by the holy ghost as christains believe. so you admitting the plagiarism and rejecting the inspiration of the holy ghost? thats funny, God gave you a brain think for a moment numerous people cant write exactly the same thing word for word, except somebody copying the other. you dont need to be a genius to understand that.

And you know the book of kings ( 1 and 2 ) is written by an anonymous author, the bible is full of anonymous authors but you christains keep believing its from God, where is your mind?

You forgot to answer the questions:

Why would you identify plagiarism as "copying wholesale from somebody else" while naming the sources. That's a new definition, isn't it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 7:34:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 6:19:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

"radical liberal scholars" Seriously? Did you learn nothing?

Yes, you told me that at one time radicals thought that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because, for one thing, writing was not that well developed at the time. For another, no code containing high ethics such as the Ten Commandments existed at the time. I have a book from the 1890's that confirms this fact. Then I have another book from the 1950's that states that Moses plagiarized ideas he gleaned from the Code of Hammurabi! I deny that, for we all know that writing in such a manner was unknown before about 1800 - 2000 BC.

I'm like "WTF". How could Moses plagiarize when the ability to write had not been developed yet? That's "radical scholarship" for ya. If you would like to see a copy of the book, I can refer you to it on archive.org.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 8:28:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Old Testament was written between 700 and 300 B.C., nothing earlier than 700 B.C. since there is no trace of Hebrews before this time period. All the stories of earlier Hebrews are complete fabrications. Israelites did exist but were actually Set worshipers during their stay in Egypt as part of the failed Hyksos invaders. Archeological digs at the Hyksos capital of Egypt at Avris, shows identical Israelite dwelling designing to Canaanite sites. Set was their main god which shows up in the OT in Genesis in the capture of Set for Hebrews as "Seth", the actual founding father of the whole human race because of Abel being killed and Cain run off. Jesus refers to this in John 8 as the father of the Jews. Set was a well-known murderous god and the origin of the cognate word, Setan, Satan. But Set's got other aspects though which make him indispensable in the Celestial Torah spiritual information. Because Set is indivisibly attached to the Celestial Torah.

As for why the Four Gospels. That was entirely purposeful to link the Gospels to the Celestial Torah's Chariot of God, Ezekiel's Merkabah astrological vehicle with its Four Faces of God, the Fixed Signs of Zodiac that form the Grand Cross of Heaven, Leo(lion) Taurus (Bull or Ox) Aquarius (Man) and Scorpio, (eagle). Without astrological knowledge there is no real interpretation of either the Old Testament or the New. The earthly torah of the Judah priests was supposed to be based on the Celestial Torah but was not since priests of Judah could not compete with professional astrologers like the Magi for example. So they outlawed linking astrology to the Word of God and look what that did..
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 8:34:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 8:28:29 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
The Old Testament was written between 700 and 300 B.C., nothing earlier than 700 B.C. since there is no trace of Hebrews before this time period. All the stories of earlier Hebrews are complete fabrications. Israelites did exist but were actually Set worshipers during their stay in Egypt as part of the failed Hyksos invaders. Archeological digs at the Hyksos capital of Egypt at Avris, shows identical Israelite dwelling designing to Canaanite sites. Set was their main god which shows up in the OT in Genesis in the capture of Set for Hebrews as "Seth", the actual founding father of the whole human race because of Abel being killed and Cain run off. Jesus refers to this in John 8 as the father of the Jews. Set was a well-known murderous god and the origin of the cognate word, Setan, Satan. But Set's got other aspects though which make him indispensable in the Celestial Torah spiritual information. Because Set is indivisibly attached to the Celestial Torah.

As for why the Four Gospels. That was entirely purposeful to link the Gospels to the Celestial Torah's Chariot of God, Ezekiel's Merkabah astrological vehicle with its Four Faces of God, the Fixed Signs of Zodiac that form the Grand Cross of Heaven, Leo(lion) Taurus (Bull or Ox) Aquarius (Man) and Scorpio, (eagle). Without astrological knowledge there is no real interpretation of either the Old Testament or the New. The earthly torah of the Judah priests was supposed to be based on the Celestial Torah but was not since priests of Judah could not compete with professional astrologers like the Magi for example. So they outlawed linking astrology to the Word of God and look what that did..

If you were there to witness all these things, then I would believe you but since you have no way of proving any of this, then you're like all the other liars of history who wrote from their own perspectives.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:38:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's 4 months to go, boring of god for your prophesy to end exactly like every single one of your Gentile predecessors who all egotistically believed they were privy to God's Plan when salvation is of us Jews. You're always out of line and a fatuous street corner doomsday prophet the likes of which have been seen for centuries, and we still here, aren't we?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 12:30:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 7:34:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 6:19:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

"radical liberal scholars" Seriously? Did you learn nothing?

Yes, you told me that at one time radicals thought that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because, for one thing, writing was not that well developed at the time. For another, no code containing high ethics such as the Ten Commandments existed at the time. I have a book from the 1890's that confirms this fact. Then I have another book from the 1950's that states that Moses plagiarized ideas he gleaned from the Code of Hammurabi! I deny that, for we all know that writing in such a manner was unknown before about 1800 - 2000 BC.

I'm like "WTF". How could Moses plagiarize when the ability to write had not been developed yet? That's "radical scholarship" for ya. If you would like to see a copy of the book, I can refer you to it on archive.org.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but never have I even heard such things about Moses. I know that Genesis has been found to have at least four different authors - possibly five and that while Deuteronomy is sometimes attributed to Moses, the writing mentions his own death and that he was buried in an unknown location, not to mention the parallels between Moses and King Sargon. But I'm quite sure I've never had that discussion with you or anyone else here.

I was referring to your use of labels to avoid the need to have any actual grounds for dismissal. You call a scholar a "liberal" or a "radical" and feel you have presented an appropriate substitute for having any actual complaint or reason to suggest them to be incorrect. That's not just lazy, but it's cowardly and a completely inappropriate methodology for discussion. Once again, Anna, Copernicus, Aristarchus, Da Vinci, the mythical "Jesus", early Christians, Jewish sympathizers in Nazi Germany, Isaac Newton, Giordano Bruno, Nikola Tesla, Joseph Lister... many of the most notable and famous names throughout history and science, were "radicals" and "liberals".

Radicals are simply people who are willing to break away from traditional ideas when they realize them to be wrong, rather than the dead fish (such as yourself), who prefer to remain safely ensconced in the thoughtless safety of majority opinion (your situation involving AA, not withstanding).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 1:50:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 12:30:22 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 7:34:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 6:19:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:36:19 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/23/2014 9:08:47 AM, Envisage wrote:
There are dozens of Gospels. The history of them is rather interesting if you look at them (the non-canonical ones). The Gospel of John was very nearly not included in the canon, which would have had huge implications for Christianity today if that did not happen.

All were written in comparable circumstances, although the canonical gospels are the earliest (except for John). The non canonical gospels have a number of stories about Jesus, such as between adolescence and adulthood, as well as different accounts of some of the shared events although these are mostly plagiarized like Luke and Matthew are plagiarized from John.

Matthew and Luke are plagiarized from John? Why don't you say, "My theory is that Matthew and Luke might be plagiarized from John"?

It appears to me that radical liberal scholars and skeptics love to assume that if two writers recount the same series of events, then one just had to plagiarize from the other. If "writer A" wrote "Jesus wept", and "writer B" also wrote "Jesus wept", they'd swear up and down that one copied the other. Even if two authors simply share the same narrative with very different wordings, they STILL claim plagiarism. It reminds me of two kids at school cheating on a discussion question or book report, and trying to change the wording just enough that the teacher can't spot it.

"radical liberal scholars" Seriously? Did you learn nothing?

Yes, you told me that at one time radicals thought that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch because, for one thing, writing was not that well developed at the time. For another, no code containing high ethics such as the Ten Commandments existed at the time. I have a book from the 1890's that confirms this fact. Then I have another book from the 1950's that states that Moses plagiarized ideas he gleaned from the Code of Hammurabi! I deny that, for we all know that writing in such a manner was unknown before about 1800 - 2000 BC.

I'm like "WTF". How could Moses plagiarize when the ability to write had not been developed yet? That's "radical scholarship" for ya. If you would like to see a copy of the book, I can refer you to it on archive.org.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but never have I even heard such things about Moses. I know that Genesis has been found to have at least four different authors - possibly five and that while Deuteronomy is sometimes attributed to Moses, the writing mentions his own death and that he was buried in an unknown location, not to mention the parallels between Moses and King Sargon. But I'm quite sure I've never had that discussion with you or anyone else here.

I was referring to your use of labels to avoid the need to have any actual grounds for dismissal. You call a scholar a "liberal" or a "radical" and feel you have presented an appropriate substitute for having any actual complaint or reason to suggest them to be incorrect. That's not just lazy, but it's cowardly and a completely inappropriate methodology for discussion. Once again, Anna, Copernicus, Aristarchus, Da Vinci, the mythical "Jesus", early Christians, Jewish sympathizers in Nazi Germany, Isaac Newton, Giordano Bruno, Nikola Tesla, Joseph Lister... many of the most notable and famous names throughout history and science, were "radicals" and "liberals".

Radicals are simply people who are willing to break away from traditional ideas when they realize them to be wrong, rather than the dead fish (such as yourself), who prefer to remain safely ensconced in the thoughtless safety of majority opinion (your situation involving AA, not withstanding).

Beastt you might as well have your say on the four gospels, we don't seem to have tempted the christians.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin