Reading the bible

yantorsen said:
A lot of churches do not have idols of Jesus in, certainly most reformed churches do not. Most catholic churches on the other hand do.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that :) most the churches I have seen, have pictures or idols on the outside, I haven't been inside that many though.
 
mishima said:
That's how corrupt things have got - idols, trinitarnism, and christening above most things. They are not true bible teachings...
Click to expand...

Nor is baptism in all fairness (if that's what you meant by christening being wrong and baptism being right), baptism was around a long time before Jesus or John the baptist, it was practiced in that region of the world quite a lot for both hygene and spritiuallity. infant baptism (what we now call a christening) was also another tradition similar to baptism.

but then to me I don't think it matters, it seems so petty, hence one reason why I'm not really pro organized religion.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
Aah, the Bible. The greatest work of fiction the world has ever known.
Click to expand...

mishima said:
Why bother making comments like this?
Click to expand...

Gotta admit it really doesn't help, it's just blatent trolling. Which is a shame because so far this thread hasn't been too bad as religion threads go. And it's on a nice specific topic of a certain religion,which is much better than having a general bash at all religions for the same things.
 
yantorsen said:
A man called Jesus (Yahweh) who was considered very important/the messiah, certainly existed.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that outside of the Gospels there is no actual evidence of the existence of Christ? There are no non biblical sources that mention him that are contemporary to him.

yantorsen said:
What I basically concluded from my research from an objective point of view, was that the majority of left out scripts, were simply left out because they were not needed as the chosen ones already did the job, or they were written to late and were as such considered less reliable by the compilers of the new testament biblical canon.
Click to expand...

I would firstly disagree with the fact that you formed an objective point of view, as a devout Christian you approached it with the assumption that the four cannonical gospels are already true. Secondly the arguement of repitition doesn't really hold any weight as the four canonical gospels are full of repitition.
 
yantorsen said:
But if you are just saying without giving a reason then it's pointless.

Also if you were to give a reason, you would probably find that it may well have been previously discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

It may well have been discussed already, so that means repeating what others have said is not welcome? I'm confused now as to what I can and cannot post.
 
yantorsen said:
Well I think you'll find certain orthodox and gnostic churches were actually separate and self defined with there own set of "true" scripts well before Nicea.
Click to expand...

Such as?

yantorsen said:
You last paragraph is in part true, but to say we will never know is a bit pessimistic, we have copies of the most of the stuff left out in at least in part.
Click to expand...

Well we don't have the Q manuscript which seems to have formed the basis for at least 2 of the Gospels and we also don't know what we don't know.
 
RDM said:
I was under the impression that outside of the Gospels there is no actual evidence of the existence of Christ? There are no non biblical sources that mention him that are contemporary to him.
Click to expand...

Well what I meant was because there is so much writing about him, both in the bible, but the majority out of it, he simply must have existed, what he was like is another matter. People didn't write fiction on that scale, because only the scholars and priests of the time could write and it would have been expensive, so to suggest it is a work of fiction and was written as that is silly.



RDM said:
I would firstly disagree with the fact that you formed an objective point of view, as a devout Christian you approached it with the assumption that the four cannonical gospels are already true. Secondly the arguement of repitition doesn't really hold any weight as the four canonical gospels are full of repitition.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call myself a devout christian, if I was shown evidence against it that was strong and not flawed then I'd reconsider. And I don't believe that the four canonical gospels are 100% true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom