(03-29-2015 10:36 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, you take that all on faith.
Your video proves nothing other than that guy believes.

Obviously you didn't watch the video and didn't even realize what you were commenting on. Its a scientific study and examination of the authenticity of manuscripts at a secular academic level, not an exercise in faith.

(03-29-2015 10:51 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  As i said, I could write plenty that doesn't contradict scripture. Doesn't make my writings the truth.
That's all nice and well, but there are plenty of people who think they are doing just what you said, Westboro come to mind, something tells me we can both agree that neither of us would consider them Christians.

.
It doesn't really matter what you are told and shown if you are not open to hearing the truth or even the possibility that it is all true.

If your mind is made up already, then you will see no truth, even if its right in your face. NO MAN wants to be judged for his actions, so many reject the truth.

But I can tell you this much as fact, You cannot be a christian without accepting, confessing and believing that Jesus was and is the Son of the one and only living God. THAT IS THE WHOLE BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY.

Anyone who tells you differently is lying about the contents of the bible. You disagree? Point out in the bible were I am wrong.

(03-29-2015 10:36 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Why was nothing written about Jesus during his life, and we had to wait 30 years for anyone to write about him (Gospel of Mark supposedly)?

LOL (Forgive me for this)

It was 2000 years ago nitwit.

THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF PUBLISHING HOUSES OR BARNES and NOBLES IN THOSE DAYS YOU KNOW, AND YOU COULDN'T DOWNLOAD IT ON YOUR IPHONE.

They obviously DID have notes and papers written down about Jesus and and some were collated into their gospels, because we can trace the words of Matt and Mark scientifically all the way back as far as 68 AD......JUST AS OF TODAY. We continue to trace them back further every several years. Which means they had things written down before then as well.

Furthermore no one "had" the NT 30 years after the crucifixion either (Revelation had not even been written yet), that's just how far back we have traced the original words AS OF TODAY.

The early Church followers & leaders did not have the New Testament in book form. They did have some letters and writings and some ended up being included as books in the NT. Most importantly, they were given spiritual gifts as signs to unbelievers & believers to the message of Jesus and testimony of His life. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in a very unique way until the bible WAS completed and began to be available to all mankind. What I am describing to you is at the very heart of the ENTIRE New Testament, which you have obviously never read before because you would not have been asking this. TOTALLY BUSTED

The first full bible was not collated, completed and circulated until many centuries later.

The point of the manuscript studies and several other scientific studies are to show the accuracy of the words going back to the VERY beginning, so we KNOW the scriptures were not seriously altered as the Bible was being put together or in the translations that followed centuries later.

(03-29-2015 11:11 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 07:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:56 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:40 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Why would the date of the Nicene Creed be relevant? Does anything in it contradict scripture?

This isn't in the Bible.

"the holy catholic Church,"


I used to be catholic and as such I believed it because it was part of my catechism. The thief on the cross never was told that he wouldn't be in heaven because he wasn't a catholic. But he would be because of one thing, he believed in Jesus Christ as savior and God.

catholic Church - including a wide variety of things; all-embracing. I would consider the Orthodox Churches and most of the protestant Churches to be part the catholic church.

Catholic Church - What people call the roman Catholic Church.

This is why other Churches use the creed outside of Rome. FTR I am not a Roman Catholic.

It is my understanding that the use of Catholic in the creed means the "whole church"...not any general denomination.

I may have it backwards. There is a difference between "catholic" and "Catholic". One meaning, as you say "The whole Church" and the other meaning "The Roman Catholic Church".

I thought the little c was for the greater church body while the big C was specifically the roman catholic church.

I think that is correct....anyway the use of it the creed does not mean the Catholic church according to my Minister. I used to actually not repeat that part due to that misunderstanding. It still sounds weird.

(03-30-2015 01:23 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 10:36 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, you take that all on faith.
Your video proves nothing other than that guy believes.

Obviously you didn't watch the video and didn't even realize what you were commenting on. Its a scientific study and examination of the authenticity of manuscripts at a secular academic level, not an exercise in faith.

I did watch the video...50 minutes of my life I will never get back.

(03-30-2015 03:14 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-29-2015 10:36 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Why was nothing written about Jesus during his life, and we had to wait 30 years for anyone to write about him (Gospel of Mark supposedly)?

LOL (Forgive me for this)

It was 2000 years ago nitwit.

THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF PUBLISHING HOUSES OR BARNES and NOBLES IN THOSE DAYS YOU KNOW, AND YOU COULDN'T DOWNLOAD IT ON YOUR IPHONE.

They obviously DID have notes and papers written down about Jesus and and some were collated into their gospels, because we can trace the words of Matt and Mark scientifically all the way back as far as 68 AD......JUST AS OF TODAY. We continue to trace them back further every several years. Which means they had things written down before then as well.

Furthermore no virtually no one "had" the NT 30 years after the crucifixion either (Revelation had not even been written yet), that's just how far back we have traced the original words AS OF TODAY.

The early Church followers & leaders did not have the New Testament in book form. They did have some letters and writings and some ended up being included as books in the NT. Most importantly, they were given spiritual gifts as signs to unbelievers & believers to the message of Jesus and testimony of His life. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in a very unique way until the bible WAS completed and began to be available to all mankind. What I am describing to you is at the very heart of the ENTIRE New Testament, which you have obviously never read beyond a few passages because you would not have been asking this. TOTALLY BUSTED

The first full bible was not collated, completed and circulated until many centuries later.

The point of the manuscript studies and several other scientific studies are to show the accuracy of the words going back to the VERY beginning, so we KNOW the scriptures were not seriously altered as the Bible was being put together or in the translations that followed centuries later.

A lot of words and nothing really said, it is cute that you felt the need to call me a nitwit...really proves your point.

(03-29-2015 10:36 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 01:23 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 09:00 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Yeah, you take that all on faith.
Your video proves nothing other than that guy believes.

Obviously you didn't watch the video and didn't even realize what you were commenting on. Its a scientific study and examination of the authenticity of manuscripts at a secular academic level, not an exercise in faith.

I did watch the video...50 minutes of my life I will never get back.

Your comment already established and proved that you DID NOT.

Faith has NOTHING IN THE WORLD to do with a scientific study of manuscripts thru secular academic means.

BUSTED

If you don't want to read the whole article then just read what Josephus wrote about Jesus. There's two paragraphs. Blue, it's obvious that you don't want to believe and that's fine but don't discount the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and is the Messiah.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.a...8589952897

(03-28-2015 02:00 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 03:00 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 09:43 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  PCUSA has problems as a whole. My Presbytery voted against(and I approve) the latest change in the definition of marriage...but...more and more PCUSA Presbyteries are straying.

I am not Presbyterian, but I am a member at the local PCUSA church. We just voted as a church to leave the Presbytery and it was granted. About half of the local churches in our Presbytery left at the same time.

How will people denote your church from the old one? Is there a name change?

You know it's beyond me how a church group would admit practicing homosexuals as clergy when it's very obvious that the Bible is very much against homosexuality.

My church believes in not allowing women as pastors/teachers. It doesn't make any difference to me really I just can't get used to it. There was a woman who was teaching Apollo about Christ. Didn't Jesus say that if you weren't for Him you were against Him? I don't think that applies to gay clergy though. It's entirely different as being a woman isn't a sin.

There will be a minor name change I believe, but I am not sure about the timing. There is also a substantial payment(s) that has to be made due to the "revenue" that the presbytery is losing because of our departure. We are evidently the largest church in the Presbytery.