Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:Easy step.. open most modern Bibles and look at the end of Mark or some other sections. They'll mention it themselves.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

http://conversationalatheist.com/christi...the-bible/

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/02/in...erses.html
The end of Mark 16 remains in doubt among some conservatives and liberals alike. This is not what I'm referring to when I quoted John and Matthew multiple times to BB who claims people redacted the text. Thanks for the input though.

No doubt, BB left Mark off because he knows the "insertion" is a matter of doubt and controversy today, still.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:You want proof that I exsist huh? Well, because this is the internet you are going to have to take a level of faith on the subject. I could show you to my FB site or send you an email. I could even give you my SSN or credit card # but all in all, you are going to have to take a level of faith on the subject unless you see me in person. However, it can be rulled that you are talking to someone, maybe not the person you think I am or the person that I protray, but someone for certin. Unless you think that you might be schizophrenic, then maybe you are typing to yourself but do not remember it because it is your alter ego who is responding.
So unless you take my word for it, then there is no proof.
Still waiting for your proof about god. Smoking gun would sugest that I don't have to take your word for it, because it is not denyable. Got anything or not sir?
Are you a Christian? You want me to "take it on faith" that you exist? Really? Maybe you're a Muslim who thinks everything Muhammed wrote is "kosher" because you want me to take your (circular) word for things, too, as you wrote. Really?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 06:51 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:You just don't get it. PAUL cooked up Paulianity, (the religion you practice). HE wrote first. It took a long time for his ideas to get around. Mark is lacking much of the "salvation" stuff. It took a long time to develop. Hell, the first copies didn't even have a resurrection. I'm not saying the gospels were written first. Paul said HE already HAD his gospel, WAY before any of the others were cooked up. Anyway the word "euangelion" (which is translated to "gospel" from the Greek) just means "good news". It in now way referenced a written book or scroll.

Of course Jebus did not speak Greek, or use the word "ecclesia". There is no Aramaic equivalent, or Hebrew equivalent. That does b=not change the fact that the word "ecclesia" IS in the quote in the NT. Obviously the authors cooked up the quote to back-end justify the church's authority, and support the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It's just lime the rest of the Bible. It's a set of political books. Not religious texts.
No, YOU don't get that I get it, and got it, good, probably before you were born. I was in college almost 25 years ago hearing about liberal theories on the NT.

God used Paul to write much of the NT IMHO because of his marvelous testimony and his passion for the Jews and Gentiles alike to be converted. And since we fundies believe Jesus inspired and "wrote" all the Bible using amanuenses, we don't care whether a NT doctrine seems to be drawn from Paul--or as I mentioned and you ignored--Jesus's literal brothers who were also apostles...

Sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 06:53 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:First Thessalonians likely the oldest at 49 CE, Romans at 51... and the heck with "experts," it is obvious to one of intelligence that Paul is developing his theology through these epistles.
No, it is obvious to readers that Paul is not setting forth a developing theology but answering questions as would other Rabbis and writers throughout history (and most often, in person by verbal communication to their disciples). There is a total lack of understanding on Hebraic thought and culture in this process on your part and BB's... didn not Lord Paltrow explain all this to you already? Sigh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 07:04 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(10-04-2013 06:53 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:First Thessalonians likely the oldest at 49 CE, Romans at 51... and the heck with "experts," it is obvious to one of intelligence that Paul is developing his theology through these epistles.
No, it is obvious to readers that Paul is not setting forth a developing theology but answering questions as would other Rabbis and writers throughout history (and most often, in person by verbal communication to their disciples). There is a total lack of understanding on Hebraic thought and culture in this process on your part and BB's... didn not Lord Paltrow explain all this to you already? Sigh.

First of all, I love my Gwynnies! Heart

Secondly, it was my contention that Paul was a prophet. He saw that Judaism was dying of stagnation and rules-lawyering, but when he tried to effect change, the Jewish elders rejected him. And that is why, from Thessalonians onward, his theology becomes more and more anti-Semitic.

It's kinda funny that you would tell this guy, who remembers "being Ezekiel," that I do not understand Hebraic thought. The Jewish scholars that I have communicated with in the past would tend to disagree.

Besides, Imma prophet! What I say, goes. Unless you wanna come by and stone me to death. That's how we prophets settle arguments. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
10-04-2013, 07:53 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(10-04-2013 06:51 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:You just don't get it. PAUL cooked up Paulianity, (the religion you practice). HE wrote first. It took a long time for his ideas to get around. Mark is lacking much of the "salvation" stuff. It took a long time to develop. Hell, the first copies didn't even have a resurrection. I'm not saying the gospels were written first. Paul said HE already HAD his gospel, WAY before any of the others were cooked up. Anyway the word "euangelion" (which is translated to "gospel" from the Greek) just means "good news". It in now way referenced a written book or scroll.

Of course Jebus did not speak Greek, or use the word "ecclesia". There is no Aramaic equivalent, or Hebrew equivalent. That does b=not change the fact that the word "ecclesia" IS in the quote in the NT. Obviously the authors cooked up the quote to back-end justify the church's authority, and support the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It's just lime the rest of the Bible. It's a set of political books. Not religious texts.
No, YOU don't get that I get it, and got it, good, probably before you were born. I was in college almost 25 years ago hearing about liberal theories on the NT.

God used Paul to write much of the NT IMHO because of his marvelous testimony and his passion for the Jews and Gentiles alike to be converted. And since we fundies believe Jesus inspired and "wrote" all the Bible using amanuenses, we don't care whether a NT doctrine seems to be drawn from Paul--or as I mentioned and you ignored--Jesus's literal brothers who were also apostles...

Sorry.

PJ, I don't get that. The OT, which Jesus referred to is God making a covenant with the Israelites, and him commanding his followers to kill or enslave anyone that got in their way or had something God said was theirs. Now he picks Paul because he has a passion to convert Gentiles? Why didn't he start out that way in the OT if he wanted only to convert everybody else? Did he change his mind?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 08:46 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2013 10:38 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(10-04-2013 06:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Easy step.. open most modern Bibles and look at the end of Mark or some other sections. They'll mention it themselves.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

http://conversationalatheist.com/christi...the-bible/

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/02/in...erses.html
The end of Mark 16 remains in doubt among some conservatives and liberals alike. This is not what I'm referring to when I quoted John and Matthew multiple times to BB who claims people redacted the text. Thanks for the input though.

No doubt, BB left Mark off because he knows the "insertion" is a matter of doubt and controversy today, still.

It's not a matter of controversy at all. (Maybe it is in fundie circles). It's a well known fact. The verses are absent in the earliest extant versions of Mark, as everyone knows.
There are a number of early Bibles, and in them and and the Codex Sinaticus is the earliest. Mark had no resurrection. This is in NO dispute, whatsoever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
If the "word" is *inspired* and SO important, you'd think their god would have provided a decent original copy of the propaganda. Weeping
Keep trying to lie your way around the site Pleasy. Your credibility re scripture is zero. You have done nothing here except to prove that you are not above stealing time from your employer, in you pathetic attempt to try to make your nonsence seem logical.

You of all people here, are the LAST person who ought to be lecturing anyone about about not understand Hebrew culture, when you didn't even know the role of a prophet. The only things you know about anything are the brain-washings you got from your fundie belief system. You have proved that over and over.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 12:06 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(10-04-2013 06:51 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:You just don't get it. PAUL cooked up Paulianity, (the religion you practice). HE wrote first. It took a long time for his ideas to get around. Mark is lacking much of the "salvation" stuff. It took a long time to develop. Hell, the first copies didn't even have a resurrection. I'm not saying the gospels were written first. Paul said HE already HAD his gospel, WAY before any of the others were cooked up. Anyway the word "euangelion" (which is translated to "gospel" from the Greek) just means "good news". It in now way referenced a written book or scroll.

Of course Jebus did not speak Greek, or use the word "ecclesia". There is no Aramaic equivalent, or Hebrew equivalent. That does b=not change the fact that the word "ecclesia" IS in the quote in the NT. Obviously the authors cooked up the quote to back-end justify the church's authority, and support the primacy of the bishop of Rome. It's just lime the rest of the Bible. It's a set of political books. Not religious texts.
No, YOU don't get that I get it, and got it, good, probably before you were born. I was in college almost 25 years ago hearing about liberal theories on the NT.

God used Paul to write much of the NT IMHO because of his marvelous testimony and his passion for the Jews and Gentiles alike to be converted. And since we fundies believe Jesus inspired and "wrote" all the Bible using amanuenses, we don't care whether a NT doctrine seems to be drawn from Paul--or as I mentioned and you ignored--Jesus's literal brothers who were also apostles...

Sorry.

Why do you believe that?

It seems interesting to note that you are more willing to believe texts written 2000 years ago in an area of the world with high illiteracy rates is sufficient evidence for a person to exist but text written over the internet on a forum detailing ones personal existence is not sufficient evidence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:PJ, I don't get that. The OT, which Jesus referred to is God making a covenant with the Israelites, and him commanding his followers to kill or enslave anyone that got in their way or had something God said was theirs. Now he picks Paul because he has a passion to convert Gentiles? Why didn't he start out that way in the OT if he wanted only to convert everybody else? Did he change his mind?
The HB says, "It's too small a thing for [Messiah] to be for Israel alone; He is a light unto the Gentiles." The gospels say, "The people in darkness saw a great light" and entire chapters of Romans, for an example, are devoted to God's blessings on the Gentiles. Jesus Himself reminded His Jewish listeners that God blessed and visited Gentiles. All of that is different than the battles with the indigenous peoples when Israel arrived, who were beyond their pagan neighbors perverted and idolaters.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:The verses are absent in the earliest extant versions of Mark, as everyone knows.
I don't think that you lie, BB. I think that you tend when you're angry to use hyperbole. Your statement is a blanket saying ALL the earliest extant versions are missing the final verses of Mark (not true) and also that scholars have empirical evidence dating what they consider the earliest extant versions to be the earliest (they don't). Different media were used at the time in different locations to record the Bible. One can't even assert papyri that has been carbon dated to be the earliest text copies...

PS. You ducked again since many of the quotations you claimed were redacted weren't in Mark at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: