Uh...those are his teachings. He was known as a teacher you know....LJS9502_basicI'm well aware he was a teacher, thank you. I think you missed the point; you have no way of knowing that everything written in the bible (and it's a big book) is correct. Just because Jesus is God does not mean "THEREFORE! the bible is right!" Jesus may be God but the bible could be absolutely riddled with inaccuracies and things he may believe to be wrong. Therefore saying jesus being god = the scripture is right, does not make sound enough sense.
Koran burning cancelled
This topic is locked from further discussion.
This is about as off track as a thread can get.:PrragnaarLoool has to be the funniest thing ive read all week, you know coming from a mod and all.
[QUOTE="ohdearohdear"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]What's wrong with being hostile to Islam? Because the Asian college student of Islamic faith that I know in Chicago does not deserve your hostility any more than I deserve to be hated because a black man robbed somebody once.I love how all these people on OT hostile to Islam try to hide it and try to come up with little ways to justify their gutter morality.
TBoogy
Amen to that.
I can only see things getting worse for people like your Asian friend when people keep adding fuel to the fire (no pun intended).
This is about as off track as a thread can get.:PrragnaarI think by page 7 any thread of this nature becomes a general mix 'n match of religious discussion. :P
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Next up, getting that mosque built else where!
Espada12
Not hard. Just raise taxes on New Yorkers to raise the 20 million dollars needed. New Yorkers want it moved, so they obviously will not oppose higher taxes for it.
Or we could have some people from the anti mosque committee meet with the owner and tell them why he should move it.
And he will ignore them as he always has. Again, he is offering to move it. Just not for free. If this issue is so important, why not pay?
And thus we go back to the initial logic puzzle. If Jesus is God....etc.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
And Catholic doctrine is not gospel.
GreySeal9
How does your logic puzzle result in Catholic doctrine being gospel?
As I stated......if Jesus is God....then his teachings are accurate to how one lives and is saved. And since he put those he left behind to spread the word....it logically follows that using his teachings....whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven etc....the initial statement would be quite correct. This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. You have to separate that....if he gave his followers.....and their successors the voice to forgive or hold liable....then a pope saying a non believer can be saved means just that. So on that basis....the argument against is moot. And if the entire premise is wrong to start with....then the argument would again be moot since there would be no saving. Either way......trying to denounce the doctrine doesn't work.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And thus we go back to the initial logic puzzle. If Jesus is God....etc.LJS9502_basic
How does your logic puzzle result in Catholic doctrine being gospel?
As I stated......if Jesus is God....then his teachings are accurate to how one lives and is saved. How? :?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]As I stated......if Jesus is God....then his teachings are accurate to how one lives and is saved. How? :? What do you mean how? That's self evident.7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01How does your logic puzzle result in Catholic doctrine being gospel?
Ninja-Hippo
How? :? What do you mean how? That's self evident.7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01 Again, what if his teachings in the bible are all wrong? What if there are stories in there literally just made up by people claiming they knew him? I mean it's a fact that the bible has been edited by the church several times. Jesus is god = bible correct is not a completely logical inference.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] As I stated......if Jesus is God....then his teachings are accurate to how one lives and is saved. LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And thus we go back to the initial logic puzzle. If Jesus is God....etc.LJS9502_basic
How does your logic puzzle result in Catholic doctrine being gospel?
As I stated......if Jesus is God....then his teachings are accurate to how one lives and is saved. And since he put those he left behind to spread the word....it logically follows that using his teachings....whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven etc....the initial statement would be quite correct. This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. You have to separate that....if he gave his followers.....and their successors the voice to forgive or hold liable....then a pope saying a non believer can be saved means just that. So on that basis....the argument against is moot. And if the entire premise is wrong to start with....then the argument would again be moot since there would be no saving. Either way......trying to denounce the doctrine doesn't work.You are using a vague statement that is open to interpretation and trying to establish some kind of water-tight connection with it.
Tell me how that statement means that a Pope can contradict scripture?
And also, if you believe that this logic is correct, then you would also agree that if a Pope says that everybody but the Popes goes to hell, that would be valid.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] He also inferred that people should pay taxes to him from scripture text. Doesn't mean the scripture says anything like that. Ninja-HippoWhat are you talking about? The only tax question I can recall was in regard to government...and Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar's. I'm talking about the time of the Holy Roman Empire when Kings had to pay tribute to the Pope. The point is a simple one; nowhere in the bible does it say the Pope is infallible. It matters not that he feels he can 'infer' it from the scripture. It doesn't say it. Simple as that. Well then unless you can provide me what scripture was used....I can't respond to that...anyway....they use these scriptures...
Believers of the church doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable to Scripture:
- John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
- Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
- Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
- Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
- Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
- Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5)
So whether you agree or not....the idea is older than your assumption.
7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What do you mean how? That's self evident.7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01 Again, what if his teachings in the bible are all wrong? What if there are stories in there literally just made up by people claiming they knew him? I mean it's a fact that the bible has been edited by the church several times. Jesus is god = bible correct is not a completely logical inference. It's not been edited. It's been translated. It's disingenuous to call that editing. Found this for you.... However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] How? :? Ninja-Hippo
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Not hard. Just raise taxes on New Yorkers to raise the 20 million dollars needed. New Yorkers want it moved, so they obviously will not oppose higher taxes for it.
Pixel-Pirate
Or we could have some people from the anti mosque committee meet with the owner and tell them why he should move it.
And he will ignore them as he always has. Again, he is offering to move it. Just not for free. If this issue is so important, why not pay?
Did they pay the reverend not to burn the qurans?
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What do you mean how? That's self evident.Again, what if his teachings in the bible are all wrong? What if there are stories in there literally just made up by people claiming they knew him? I mean it's a fact that the bible has been edited by the church several times. Jesus is god = bible correct is not a completely logical inference. It's not been edited. It's been translated. It's disingenuous to call that editing. Found this for you.... However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01LJS9502_basic
You pose a false either-or dilemna. It could have been translated and edited.
And it was in fact edited as some of the books of the Bible were left out.
How is that not editing?
I'm talking about the time of the Holy Roman Empire when Kings had to pay tribute to the Pope. The point is a simple one; nowhere in the bible does it say the Pope is infallible. It matters not that he feels he can 'infer' it from the scripture. It doesn't say it. Simple as that. Well then unless you can provide me what scripture was used....I can't respond to that...anyway....they use these scriptures...[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What are you talking about? The only tax question I can recall was in regard to government...and Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar's.LJS9502_basic
Believers of the church doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable to Scripture:
- John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
- Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
- Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
- Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
- Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
- Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5)
So whether you agree or not....the idea is older than your assumption.
7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01 I've seen the scriptures in Snipe's link. And it does nothing at all to change the point. You can INFER anything you want from the bible. Simple fact; the bible does not say that the pope is infallible. Heck, none of those scriptures even come CLOSE to saying the pope is infallible. So indeed; papal infallibility is merely an invention of the pope, and to cite it as any form of authority on a matter doesn't compute with me.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well then unless you can provide me what scripture was used....I can't respond to that...anyway....they use these scriptures...[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I'm talking about the time of the Holy Roman Empire when Kings had to pay tribute to the Pope. The point is a simple one; nowhere in the bible does it say the Pope is infallible. It matters not that he feels he can 'infer' it from the scripture. It doesn't say it. Simple as that. Ninja-Hippo
Believers of the church doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable to Scripture:
- John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
- Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
- Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
- Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
- Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
- Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5)
So whether you agree or not....the idea is older than your assumption.
7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01
I've seen the scriptures in Snipe's link. And it does nothing at all to change the point. You can INFER anything you want from the bible. Simple fact; the bible does not say that the pope is infallible. Heck, none of those scriptures even come CLOSE to saying the pope is infallible. So indeed; papal infallibility is merely an invention of the pope, and to cite it as any form of authority on a matter doesn't compute with me.B-but...teh logic puzzle!
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well then unless you can provide me what scripture was used....I can't respond to that...anyway....they use these scriptures...[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I'm talking about the time of the Holy Roman Empire when Kings had to pay tribute to the Pope. The point is a simple one; nowhere in the bible does it say the Pope is infallible. It matters not that he feels he can 'infer' it from the scripture. It doesn't say it. Simple as that. Ninja-Hippo
Believers of the church doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable to Scripture:
- John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
- Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
- Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
- Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
- Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
- Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5)
So whether you agree or not....the idea is older than your assumption.
7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01 I've seen the scriptures in Snipe's link. And it does nothing at all to change the point. You can INFER anything you want from the bible. Simple fact; the bible does not say that the pope is infallible. Heck, none of those scriptures even come CLOSE to saying the pope is infallible. So indeed; papal infallibility is merely an invention of the pope, and to cite it as any form of authority on a matter doesn't compute with me. Ah but I posted that to refute your assertion that it was a recent development. If they are using scripture...the ideology is much older than you asserted...and thus...you were incorrect in your opinion. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong. I've provided it for the reason I responded.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Where does he say he is infallible in Regards to the Scripture? The link I posted said his infallibility is based on religious Dogma...A pope out of the Blue didn't just claim he was infallible and it was widely accepted as fact...Ninja-HippoUm, that's EXACTLY what happened: In the year 1075, Pope Gregory VII asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy in Dictatus Papae: "22.That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness." "asserted 27 statements regarding the powers of the papacy" "that the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness" That doesn't mean the Pope just made Himself infallible. :/
"These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium" "A"ccording to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition" "For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church." "An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous Church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly" "Of course, an infallible teaching cannot contradict a previous infallible teaching, including the infallible teachings of the Holy Bible or Holy Tradition. " "Believers of the church doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable[4] to Scripture: John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock") Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock) Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.") Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost") Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.) Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5)."
I've seen the scriptures in Snipe's link. And it does nothing at all to change the point. You can INFER anything you want from the bible. Simple fact; the bible does not say that the pope is infallible. Heck, none of those scriptures even come CLOSE to saying the pope is infallible. So indeed; papal infallibility is merely an invention of the pope, and to cite it as any form of authority on a matter doesn't compute with me.[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well then unless you can provide me what scripture was used....I can't respond to that...anyway....they use these scriptures...
Believers of the church doctrine claim that their position is historically traceable to Scripture:
- John 1:42, Mark 3:16 ("And to Simon he gave the name "Peter", "Cephas", or "Rock")
- Matthew 16:18 ("thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"; cf. Matthew 7:24-28, (the house built on rock)
- Luke 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
- Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") ("the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost")
- Matthew 10:2 ("And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter,...") (Peter is first.)
- Ludwig Ott points out the many indications in Scripture that Peter was given a primary role with respect to the other Apostles: Mark 5:37, Matthew 17:1, Matthew 26:37, Luke 5:3, Matthew 17:27, Luke 22:32, Luke 24:34, and 1 Corinthians 15:5 (Fund., Bk. IV, Pt. 2, Ch. 2, §5)
So whether you agree or not....the idea is older than your assumption.
7557119a-b0b4-411f-8473-9ab0e1e5a8cc1.03.01GreySeal9
B-but...teh logic puzzle!
Logic puzzles such as if'/then. If Jesus is God...then......worked. Have you taken a logic cIass?For the third time, your link clearly states that one day the Pope decided to write down a list of powers the pope has. In said list, he included papal infallibility. It does not matter how said infallibility works. It does not matter what limits he decided to place on it. The simple and completely, 100% accurate point i made was that the only reason the doctrine of papal infallibility exists is because one day, many years ago, the Pope decided to make it so. Thus, saying the Pope is infallible is completely meaningless when said infallibility is bequeathed unto himself, by himself.*huge wall of text*
Snipes_2
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] I've seen the scriptures in Snipe's link. And it does nothing at all to change the point. You can INFER anything you want from the bible. Simple fact; the bible does not say that the pope is infallible. Heck, none of those scriptures even come CLOSE to saying the pope is infallible. So indeed; papal infallibility is merely an invention of the pope, and to cite it as any form of authority on a matter doesn't compute with me. LJS9502_basic
B-but...teh logic puzzle!
Logic puzzles such as if'/then. If Jesus is God...then......worked. Have you taken a logic cIass?Yes, I have.
The If/then does not automatically prove a point if your premises are weak or tenuous.
Both me and Ninja_Hippo think that your premises don't serve your ultimate point. And you seem to be unwilling or unable to explain why they do.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]For the third time, your link clearly states that one day the Pope decided to write down a list of powers the pope has. In said list, he included papal infallibility. It does not matter how said infallibility works. It does not matter what limits he decided to place on it. The simple and completely, 100% accurate point i made was that the only reason the doctrine of papal infallibility exists is because one day, many years ago, the Pope decided to make it so. Thus, saying the Pope is infallible is completely meaningless when said infallibility is bequeathed unto himself, by himself. It states no such thing. CAn you point out where Exactly it says this? ""These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium" "According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition"""An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous Church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly" "Of course, an infallible teaching cannot contradict a previous infallible teaching, including the infallible teachings of the Holy Bible or Holy Tradition. "*huge wall of text*
Ninja-Hippo
Dead Sea Scrolls are rather old man.....what some pastor does or does not do....is immaterial.LJS9502_basicIrrelevant. If there are enough versions of the bible to warrant any form of discussion as to which one is the most accurate, it has clearly been edited over time. One of the more obvious examples of this are the expression 'the son of God' in later versions of the Bible were in the earlier ones this is either not present at all, or instead referred to as 'the son of humanity'.
Logic puzzles such as if'/then. If Jesus is God...then......worked. Have you taken a logic cIass?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
B-but...teh logic puzzle!
GreySeal9
Yes, I have.
The If/then does not automatically prove a point if your premises are weak or tenuous.
Both me and Ninja_Hippo think that your premises don't serve your ultimate point. And you seem to be unwilling or unable to explain why they do.
You don't have to prove the premises are correct...only that they logically follow. And mine did.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dead Sea Scrolls are rather old man.....what some pastor does or does not do....is immaterial.Ninja-HippoIrrelevant. If there are enough versions of the bible to warrant any form of discussion as to which one is the most accurate, it has clearly been edited over time. One of the more obvious examples of this are the expression 'the son of God' in later versions of the Bible were in the earlier ones this is either not present at all, or instead referred to as 'the son of humanity'.I just gave you a quote saying the bible was relatively unchanged dude. So that is relevant. Should I requote it.....or will you read it again?
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dead Sea Scrolls are rather old man.....what some pastor does or does not do....is immaterial.LJS9502_basicIrrelevant. If there are enough versions of the bible to warrant any form of discussion as to which one is the most accurate, it has clearly been edited over time. One of the more obvious examples of this are the expression 'the son of God' in later versions of the Bible were in the earlier ones this is either not present at all, or instead referred to as 'the son of humanity'.I just gave you a quote saying the bible was relatively unchanged dude. So that is relevant. Should I requote it.....or will you read it again?
Mmm what I don't understand is if the Bible is supposedly the word of god.. Why was the bible a compilation of books and stories that had to be voted into by a council of men?
Wow that would not have been pretty... They were about to start something that they should never started!!! luckey is stoppedyonaswii08Meh....holy books have been burned before.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Dead Sea Scrolls are rather old man.....what some pastor does or does not do....is immaterial.LJS9502_basicIrrelevant. If there are enough versions of the bible to warrant any form of discussion as to which one is the most accurate, it has clearly been edited over time. One of the more obvious examples of this are the expression 'the son of God' in later versions of the Bible were in the earlier ones this is either not present at all, or instead referred to as 'the son of humanity'.I just gave you a quote saying the bible was relatively unchanged dude. So that is relevant. Should I requote it.....or will you read it again? Um, the quote from the Bible website? The one that ends with this: "Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God's Word, and we can trust it." If that isn't an unbiased source of academia i don't know what is! :P
I just gave you a quote saying the bible was relatively unchanged dude. So that is relevant. Should I requote it.....or will you read it again?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Irrelevant. If there are enough versions of the bible to warrant any form of discussion as to which one is the most accurate, it has clearly been edited over time. One of the more obvious examples of this are the expression 'the son of God' in later versions of the Bible were in the earlier ones this is either not present at all, or instead referred to as 'the son of humanity'.sSubZerOo
Mmm what I don't understand is if the Bible is supposedly the word of god.. Why was the bible a compilation of books and stories that had to be voted into by a council of men?
There were different groups...like the Gnostics teaching something quite different than the original message.....Eh good news.. It just bothers the hell out of me that they actually went out and said this would endanger soldiers lives.. We really can make this for excuse for absolutely ANY thing remotely critical of Islam or really anything with this excuse.. Not to mention being immensely hypocritical.sSubZerOoIts not criticism rather its a hateful act that can and will acheive nothing other than conjuring up hate, But sure hes free to do so.
Hey guys, remember when this thread was about the Qu'ran burning event?
It seems like it was only 20 pages ago.
Thread 9502 about the event I believe.....it's kind of a boring subject by now.Hey guys, remember when this thread was about the Qu'ran burning event?
It seems like it was only 20 pages ago.
THE_DRUGGIE
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] It states no such thing. CAn you point out where Exactly it says this? Ninja-HippoDo i really need to quote the line where it says the year and which Pope first declared that the pope is infallible? I mean i must have done it four or five times already on just the last few pages. I ask you Snipes, if the Pope/Vatican/Church didn't decide that the Pope is infallible - who did? Because it sure as heck aint in the bible.
The scriptural basis is from Matthew 16:19.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] The First Vatican and the Church did, I'm pretty sure I posted that multiple times. Church and Vatican do not equal the Pope. Also, there was an ecumenical council as well. Ninja-HippoAccording to your own link the first time it was written down was by the Pope. And who is in charge of the Vatican, Snipes? Who is leader of the Church? [spoiler] THE POPE! [/spoiler] So if i can finally just rest my case here; that saying the Pope is infallible is meaningless, when said infallibility was granted to him by himself/his fellow church leaders. What is an Ecumenical Council, a Group of Bishops. Furthermore, who, if not the Church or any of the Bishops is to decide what the Teachings are? :? A person of another religion?
Oh Look "However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time.[8] A minority, some 20 percent of the bishops, feared that defining papal infallibility would alienate some Catholics, create new difficulties for union with non-Catholics and would provoke interference by governments in Church affairs.[1] Those who held this view included most of the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, nearly half of the Americans, and one third of the French; of the Eastern Catholics, most of the Chaldaeans and Melkites, and a few Armenians shared this view.[1] Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts about the dogma itself.[1]"
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]Logic puzzles such as if'/then. If Jesus is God...then......worked. Have you taken a logic cIass?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
B-but...teh logic puzzle!
LJS9502_basic
Yes, I have.
The If/then does not automatically prove a point if your premises are weak or tenuous.
Both me and Ninja_Hippo think that your premises don't serve your ultimate point. And you seem to be unwilling or unable to explain why they do.
You don't have to prove the premises are correct...only that they logically follow. And mine did.[/QUOTEI didn't say you need to prove them absolutely "correct". I said that you need to prove that are not "tenuous", that they actually serve your conclusion.
Your premises to solid premises are like vapor is to brick.
You use that quote about "bound on heaven" and what not, yet you completely failed to explain how that quote serves your conclusion. What you did was the equivalent to writing a paper, quoting something and then not explaining how it serves your thesis.
I'm not going to get your point simply because it makes sense in your head. You need to flesh it out so that others can follow your thinking.
Also, like I said, by your own logic, the Pope can declare something totally ridiculous and contrary to scripture and it would stand.
[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]Thread 9502 about the event I believe.....it's kind of a boring subject by now.Hey guys, remember when this thread was about the Qu'ran burning event?
It seems like it was only 20 pages ago.
LJS9502_basic
But we don't need this turning into thread 943930448 on alleged conflicts in Christianity. D:
More proof than you provided that it was massively changed. They do have the manuscripts available....LJS9502_basicWhat proof is that? :lol: A bible website says 'the bible is 100% accurate, and it is the word of God and you can trust it!' and you're presenting that to me as proof?
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] People fail to realize this fact. That it was a protest...Snipes_2I could do some pretty terrible things in protest, doesn't make them right. Errr...Okay?\
Everyone knows its a protest. It's also a disgusting thing to do.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment