Mythology with real places & people

well thats not really what i'm saying. Personally I think that because the writers did not put their names to the gospels, it shows their sincerity.but in saying that, the early christians were aware of who wrote the gospels and certain ones among them cataloged the writings. the oldest of one of these catalogs is the Muratorian Fragment and that dates back to the 2nd century. These early catalogs are an evidence of the letters being in circulation and accepted by them. i agree totally.

do you understand what the cannon is?

the vatican support war, this puts them at odds with Christianity. Its one thing to teach christianity, another to live it. Michael J.Behe - is he a scientist or a creationist??? im glad you recognise that because i'm certainly not a scholar, nor am I an apologist. how would you know that something is not there if you are not willing to look at it?
Just because someone tells you what you want to hear doesnt make it right or reasonable. In the same way, just because you throw an objection and say here some information that proves it, doesnt mean that it proves anything.

Yes. What that has to do with anything being a gospel or not eludes me, however.

---

I hunt for the truth

Peg writes:

quote:

---

Christians are not followers of the mosaic law

---

Then you shall find no hope for salvation as Jesus directly said that not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled.Ooh! Maybe that's it! The world did end, this is hell, and that's why you're so cranky.No, more likely you seem to think that Paul is a better source of what god wants out of you than Jesus. You're not a Christian. You're a Paulian. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Flagged OT late.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

Well in the case of the Job vs, it is clearly speaking about Angels

---

I never said it wasn't. But where was it proclaimed that angels were actual children of god? Again, the phrase "sons of god" is a description of class, not a description of a parent/child relationship.

quote:

---

Its not a foundation of biblical Christianity at all...in fact its not in the scriptures anywhere.

---

(*GASP!*) You mean there is a concept of a religion that isn't directly stated in a holy book! Say it isn't so!After all, Mary Magdalene is never called a prostitute in the text, but that was the official position of the Catholic Church for quite some time. It was only because her story was told right after the story of the prostitute that the two became associated.But that said, you're simply wrong. Oh, it's true that the text never uses the word "trinity" or explicitly state it, but the idea of the trinity is in there: John opens with the description of the "word" being god and with god at the same time. The "word" is a reference to Jesus: Jesus himself refers to the holy spirit: The references pile up throughout the Bible. The idea that the trinity is not to be found in the text simply indicates that you haven't read it. Oh, the words may have presented to your eyes, but you didn't read it for content.When the Council of Nicaea met, they developed the concept that god and Jesus were "of the same substance." The Chalcedonia Creed says that god is of one essence, but three beings: "Three hypostases in one ousia."The Nicene Creed directly states it: The creed was developed, in part, to specifically to counter Arianism which stated that Jesus and god were of "similar essence" but not the same. In Greek, "homoiousios" (Arianism) as opposed to "homoousios" (Nicene).There is a reason that Jesus is described as the "begotton" son of god, not "created." Humanity was "created in the likeness" of god, but Jesus was not created by god. He was born of god.

quote:

---

So, i certainly dont believe in the trinity which is why i object to you calling Jesus the Almighty God.

---

Then you deny Jesus for he directly claims to be god. That's why he was brought before the Pharisees and sentenced to death: Blasphemy.Again, it seems quite apparent that you aren't actually a Christian. You routinely ignore the direct statements of Jesus, seemingly of the opinion that you know better.

quote:

---

Just because a church teaches a particular doctrine, does not make it christian.

---

Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The concept of the trinity is foundational to Christianity, being present in all three major schisms: Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Oh, you'll certainly find people who don't go along with it (Unitarians, for example), but your argument is most accurately applied to you: Just because you claim to be a Christian doesn't mean you follow Christ.

quote:

---

It was adopted by the clergy to appease the pagan romans.

---

Incorrect. It was adopted by the clergy to squash the Arian heresy.Do you know anything about the heritage of your supposed faith? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Flag OT late.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

he does say how...he says he made man from the soil of the ground, he blew breath into the man and he came to life

---

That isn't much of an explanation. The concept of abiogenesis is that life can come from non-biotic compounds. If one were being poetic, "the soild of the ground." And if one were being poetic regarding the creation of life from non-biotic compounds, one might say that god "blew life" into it.Why do you insist that the stories of the Bible must be literal rather than poetic?

quote:

---

The fact is that when Jesus is speaking a parable, its quite obvious and the parable is explained later in other passages.

---

So? Just because one text is being obvious about it ("And the moral of my story is") means no other text can ever be considered poetic because it doesn't come right out and say it?

quote:

---

Parables are not an issue and they certainly do not call into question other stories in the bible.

---

What is this "call into question"? You seem to be functioning under the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. That something has to be completely true in every single detail and if one speck of dust is out of place, then the entire thing is a sham with absolutely no connection to reality in any part.Again, I ask you directly since you still haven't answered the question:Why must the story be literal rather than poetic or lyrical?

quote:

---

Think about Naoh and the ark

---

You mean you agree that it never happened?

quote:

---

if you are telling a fable there is no need to add specific details such as the size and width and shape of the vessel

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Do you know nothing about good storytelling? Of course you provide the details. It's called "imagery" and that's one reason why books are often so much better than movies: They can take the time to describe the details of what's going on so that you can be more firmly placed in the vision of the story.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why the special pleading for this one?

---

​

Huh!?

​

Where did I special plead?

---

When you said the following in Message 102By trying to elevate the text beyond that, you attempt to make it something more than what we find in other works that we call "mythology." What's so special about your holy book?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ORperhaps Jesus himself fulfilled it on our behalf and thus he could say at John 3:17"For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him"and this could be why Paul was prompted to write "He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake" Col 2:13.I dont know, what do you make of that?

Peg writes:

quote:

---

Anyway, there are several secular historians (Tacitus/Josephus and others)

---

No, neither Tacitus nor Josephus can confirm the existence of Jesus. In fact, the passages often used to claim such have been found to be fraudulent.All references we have to Jesus eventually trace themselves back to the Bible. We don't have any non-biblical references to him...something quite surprising for someone who is described as being able to raise people from the dead, knew scripture as a child, and caused such a political uprising that he had to be executed in order to prevent a revolution.

quote:

---

Along with them are the writings of the Apostles

---

Ahem. Paul never met Jesus.And the writings that are called "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John" were not actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. None of them are contemporary but were written decades after the time when the events supposedly took place.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I said that unitarianism is a response to trinitarianism.

---

​

No, you didn't.

---

Yes, I did (Message 93): Now, I'll admit that I didn't directly spell it out for you, but the concept is quite clear. I am contrasting unitarianism with trinitarianism.

quote:

---

And you may well be basically wrong if that is what you meant.

---

Huh? You mean unitarianism is not the claim that there is only one apsect to god, not three? There's a reason that the Jefferson Bible has all the miracles cut out.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The big point of Christianity is that god came down from his high heaven in the bodily flesh of Jesus.

---

​

No, it is that Jesus was the much anticipated Messiah.

---

But more than that, the Messiah was god. That's the point of the Nicene Creed: Jesus and god are of the same essence, "homoousias."

quote:

---

What do you mean by "big point"?

---

That when the Powers That Be (C) got together to define what it was that they believed, they came to the conclusion that Jesus was not just a wise teacher but was, instead, actually the begotten son of god and divine. This was in contrast to Arianism which claimed that Jesus and god were of similar essence, but not identical, "homoiousias." Where is the ambiguity?

quote:

---

And how is it relevant?

---

That people believe a lot of things that often have nothing to do with what they claim to be the source of that belief. It would help if they were honest about it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Bailey responds to me in Message 164.Um, was there a point in there? I'm really not seeing it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

So, your evidence that Paul persecuted Christians is well Paul said he did!!!!!This is a circular argument Peg. You are saying that Paul persecuted Christians only because he said he did.What I am looking for is external evidence that Paul was persecuting Christians, how do you know that what he is claiming is true?

thats why I gave you ALL of those verses...together they showed that the 'Angels' were also called 'Sons' of God, and they are they same Holy Myriads who dwell in Heaven with God.They were all related.Now if Adam, a fleshly creature, can be called a 'son of God, Why cant the Angels, spiritual creatures, be called sons?If anything, they are more in Gods likeness then Adam ever was. The bible clearly calls them 'Sons' of God. This does not only have to mean a human child. The trinity is 3 in one. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
So if the 'Word' is with this trinity, then there are 4 present.You've got a hard task at explaining that one! Jesus says that the Father will send the holy ghost/spirit in Jesus Name. This verse in no way explains the relationship between them.In the 'name of' does not mean that it has to be a is a person. Its similar with the English expression 'in the name of the law' You wouldnt conclude that the law is a person. So why do you think the holy spirit is a person? If he was 'born' from God, how can he 'Be' God???
Its not possible. No, he did not say he was God. John 10:31-37 Read Jesus words carefully. The leaders charged him saying he was A god, but Jesus said what???

quote:

---

When charged by opposers with 'making himself a god,' Jesus reply was: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said: '"You are gods"'? If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am Gods Son?"

---

yes I know. But when did the teaching develop?Im sure you know that it developed after the christian writings were complete. None of the Apostles wrote or taught it. It came in with the help of constantine in the middle of the 3rd century who tried to bring the church back together after a rift caused by the trinity doctrine.
How can it possibly be 'foundational'?
Foundation means the first of something. Not later additions.

quote:

---

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, page 295.
It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity...One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification...When one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.

---

John 1:18
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained himIf John could say that no man has ever seen God, then the Apostles certainly did not view Jesus as God.
You can clearly see that John viewed Jesus as of 'divine origin' which he was. But he certainly was not God himself. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.