'Bad Religion'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

One doesn’t have to go the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove in text that Angels directly SINNED here,
How about the Book Of Jubilees in the Catholic Bible, a story which is virtually the SAME as
the Book Of Enoch…and there is MORE.
Why the resistance of this CLARITY here in Jubilees? The evidence is strong here and can’t be
denied.
Yes, I know about Martin Luther essentially discarding this book, as a matter of fact he ALMOST
ripped out the Book of Hebrews, Revelation and another one I can’t recall at the moment.
Nice Mr. Luther…after Centuries of the Book Of Jubilles being “legit”, you sir all of a sudden
dismiss it, and afterwards Christianity soon becomes fragmented with now an estimated over
20,000 Denominations now…good one Marty.

For it was on account of these three things [fornication, uncleanness, and injustice (see Jubilees 7:20] that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse ? apart from the mandate of their authority with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness. They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. Jubilees 7:21-22

102

[quote]Karado wrote:
One doesn’t have to go the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove in text that Angels directly SINNED here,
How about the Book Of Jubilees in the Catholic Bible, a story which is virtually the SAME as
the Book Of Enoch…and there is MORE.[/quote]

Lol. What?

[quote]Why the resistance of this CLARITY here in Jubilees? The evidence is strong here and can’t be
denied.
Yes, I know about Martin Luther essentially discarding this book, as a matter of fact he ALMOST
ripped out the Book of Hebrews, Revelation and another one I can’t recall at the moment.[/quote]

James.

[quote]Nice Mr. Luther…after Centuries of the Book Of Jubilles being “legit”, you sir all of a sudden
dismiss it, and afterwards Christianity soon becomes fragmented with now an estimated over
20,000 Denominations now…good one Marty.[/quote]

30,000

I do have to make a point that though it is not in the Canon, many early Church writers and early Church Fathers were familiar with the text. Though after the 4th century it pretty much went out of use.

103

[quote]Karado wrote:
One doesn’t have to go the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove in text that Angels directly SINNED here,
How about the Book Of Jubilees in the Catholic Bible, a story which is virtually the SAME as
the Book Of Enoch…and there is MORE.
Why the resistance of this CLARITY here in Jubilees? The evidence is strong here and can’t be
denied.
Yes, I know about Martin Luther essentially discarding this book, as a matter of fact he ALMOST
ripped out the Book of Hebrews, Revelation and another one I can’t recall at the moment.
Nice Mr. Luther…after Centuries of the Book Of Jubilles being “legit”, you sir all of a sudden
dismiss it, and afterwards Christianity soon becomes fragmented with now an estimated over
20,000 Denominations now…good one Marty.

For it was on account of these three things [fornication, uncleanness, and injustice (see Jubilees 7:20] that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse ? apart from the mandate of their authority with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness. They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. Jubilees 7:21-22[/quote]

Karado, this proves nothing. You really need to do better homework than this!

Are all texts that speak about an event equally authoritative witnesses to an event? I’ve gotten on Brother Chris’ case for this before, and its only fair I do the same to you. (NOTE: THIS NEXT POINT IS HYPOTHETICAL) If Brother Chris quotes Irenaeus (mid 2nd century A.D.) AND John Chrysostom (4th century A.D.) as evidence of the church’s “early” belief in the Eucharist as sacrifice, are the witnesses equal in weight? Of course not! John Chrysostom lived several hundred years after Irenaeus and was likely influenced by him; thus, if Chrysostom is dependent on Irenaeus, we only have ONE witness (Irenaeus). Chrysostom, in this case, is in functionally the same position we are.

Now, first of all, of course the story is the same in the Book of Jubilees as it is in 1 Enoch - JUBILEES IS DEPENDENT ON 1 ENOCH!!! The book of Jubilees CLEARLY shows dependence on 1 Enoch in the very same sections which you are quoting; scholars are agreed upon that fact. Jubilees was written AFTER 1 Enoch, and 1 Enoch was USED IN THE COMPOSITION OF JUBILEES; therefore, we do not have two witnesses; we have ONE. They are not separate texts witnessing to the same event; Jubilees is dependent on 1 Enoch.

Secondly, you are once again ignoring the VAST gap in time between the composition of GENESIS and the composition of 1 ENOCH and JUBILEES. Genesis was written (1) in a completely different cultural milieu (2) nearly a thousand years before Jubilees or 1 Enoch. The authors of 1 Enoch and Jubilees were NOT in positions to provide accurate information about what Genesis 6 “really means,” especially since, by the time 1 Enoch was composed, knowledge of biblical (classical) Hebrew was dying out. That’s why the Septuagint came into existence (and often mistranslates portions of the Hebrew Scriptures) before 1 Enoch even came out.

The point is, 1 Enoch and Jubilees are not two independent witnesses to some oral tradition; they are both attempts to INTERPRET Genesis 6, and only ONE of those texts actually witnesses INDEPENDENTLY to that tradition. So yes, both 1 Enoch and Jubilees interpret Genesis 6 as a reference to angelic intercourse; so what???

And as Brother Chris pointed out, Jubilees lost its authority a LONG time ago. It wasn’t Protestants who denied its authority first, dude.

104

[quote]Karado wrote:
One doesn’t have to go the Dead Sea Scrolls to prove in text that Angels directly SINNED here,
How about the Book Of Jubilees in the Catholic Bible, a story which is virtually the SAME as
the Book Of Enoch…and there is MORE.
Why the resistance of this CLARITY here in Jubilees? The evidence is strong here and can’t be
denied.
Yes, I know about Martin Luther essentially discarding this book, as a matter of fact he ALMOST
ripped out the Book of Hebrews, Revelation and another one I can’t recall at the moment.
Nice Mr. Luther…after Centuries of the Book Of Jubilles being “legit”, you sir all of a sudden
dismiss it, and afterwards Christianity soon becomes fragmented with now an estimated over
20,000 Denominations now…good one Marty.

For it was on account of these three things [fornication, uncleanness, and injustice (see Jubilees 7:20] that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse ? apart from the mandate of their authority with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness. They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim. Jubilees 7:21-22[/quote]

Also, our earliest manuscript (it is incomplete) of Jubilees was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Finally, you have to understand that the Jews did not maintain some sort of nice interpretive tradition for thousands of years. By and large, the Jewish people as a whole basically ignored their Scriptures until the 4th century B.C. (the 300’s). It is around that time that you start to find a concern with their cultural heritage, and the interpretation of Scripture spread from a handful of individuals to the populace at large. Consequently, the Jews of 4th-1st centuries A.D. (the Second Temple period) were NOT the most trustworthy guides for the meaning of their Scriptures. Too much had been lost; people had grown deaf to the resonances Genesis was originally meant to provoke. Questions changed; the Jewish people progressed from asking, “why are we, as a people group, suffering” to “why is there suffering in the world at all?” Genesis was read through that lens, and Jewish interpreters (including the author of 1 Enoch) were trying to make sense of Scripture. For the author of 1 Enoch (and many other Second Temple Jews after him), the answer could be found in sinful angels - THEY were the ones who REALLY brought evil into the world; their sins caused all of humanity to go astray.

The apostle Paul gives a different answer. HUMANITY is the primary cause of evil in the world; Adam invited evil in and doomed everyone to death when he disobeyed the divine command. My point is this - the fundamental question you are actually struggling with (why would God allow people to suffer if he is good) was actually answered by Paul IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE ANSWER 1 ENOCH IS MEANT TO PROVIDE. The author of 1 Enoch was just trying to understand Scripture, and offered a poor interpretation; Paul comes and offers the true one.

105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There Paul says the only foundation is Christ. How do you figure Paul squares this with his declaration to the church at Ephesus in 2:20-22?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And I can only repeat KingKai’s response. Except that I’ll add that the only part of my 10 point post having anything whatever to do with anything you’ve said is point #10.[/quote]
Which is a complete misrepresentation of everything I’ve said.[/quote]No it’s not, but I have a feeling that telling you why won’t make any difference. Your emotions are crippling your ability to reason. I wish you could see that. I also wish you could see that I’m not trying to be insulting in saying it.[/quote]
I have not taken anything as an insult. I don’t mean anything toward any of you as an insult, either. It’s just a discussion.

I simply don’t see why anyone can argue with following the simple instructions of Jesus Christ, or tell someone else they are wrong in doing so. That makes absolutely no sense to me, when Jesus clearly states that He is the only way. You can say that He meant ‘the church’, or ‘the Body of Christ’, or whatever interpretation you want, but I will always take His words at face value. Therefore, my ‘private interpretation’ is not an interpretation at all.

106

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There Paul says the only foundation is Christ. How do you figure Paul squares this with his declaration to the church at Ephesus in 2:20-22?

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And I can only repeat KingKai’s response. Except that I’ll add that the only part of my 10 point post having anything whatever to do with anything you’ve said is point #10.[/quote]
Which is a complete misrepresentation of everything I’ve said.[/quote]No it’s not, but I have a feeling that telling you why won’t make any difference. Your emotions are crippling your ability to reason. I wish you could see that. I also wish you could see that I’m not trying to be insulting in saying it.[/quote]
I have not taken anything as an insult. I don’t mean anything toward any of you as an insult, either. It’s just a discussion.

I simply don’t see why anyone can argue with following the simple instructions of Jesus Christ, or tell someone else they are wrong in doing so. That makes absolutely no sense to me, when Jesus clearly states that He is the only way. You can say that He meant ‘the church’, or ‘the Body of Christ’, or whatever interpretation you want, but I will always take His words at face value. Therefore, my ‘private interpretation’ is not an interpretation at all.[/quote]

Bud, you are missing a fundamental point here. Everything is interpretation. There is no such thing as “face value;” the idea of “face value” is an illusion. I am not slipping into some sort of interpretive nihilism here; I am simply saying that there is NO avoiding interpretation. Even your “face value” readings are interpretation. Someone had to interpret the Greek to give you an English translation, and you are having to interpret that English translation. This is linguistics 101, dude. We are ALWAYS interpreting. As I’ve pointed out time and time again, there are no SIMPLE instructions of Christ; they too require interpretation. Both Protestants and Catholics alike are in agreement on this issue - the necessity of interpretation - we only differ on whether or not the catholic church possesses an interpretive hegemony.

According to John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way (he hodos in Greek).” What is the “face value” of that statement? Hodos was used in multiple ways in koine Greek - it could refer to an actual road or highway, the action of traveling (journey), a course of behavior (conduct), or even a whole way of life (teaching). Which is the “face value” meaning? Don’t you see? You have to interpret! You have to ask, “what does Jesus mean here?” There is no “simple” or “Face value;” we ALWAYS have to interpret. So yes, your interpretations of Jesus’ words, predicated on the false assumption that the gospels give you EXACTLY what Jesus said without any interpretation, ARE private interpretations.

107

Definition of “SIMPLE” Simple Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Don’t be too shocked if our friend doesn’t get the ironic point.

108

Well, then, I’ll ask again:

[quote]So, then (and I suspect you saw this coming. Not that I was being overly deceptive), where does that leave modern you and me? How do we know what is right and wrong with the Bible, when hundreds of years of scholarship simply result in more and more squabbling (even as recently as 2005, specifically speaking of the Catholic church) as to what is the correct translation? Are we all supposed to be Biblical scholars and join in the squabbling?

How are we to introduce people to the story of the life and teachings of Christ, knowing that the stories are inaccurate, incomplete, and not even written by anyone who was there? [/quote]

The example you gave of John 14:16 isn’t the best example of your point, but I get it.

If we can’t trust the scholars throughout history whose job it was to translate the Scripture, then we are derelict. All of us. None of us were there to experience it, and there’s no way any of us could possibly claim to know what Christ really said or what he meant.

So what do we do?

109

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Well, then, I’ll ask again:

[quote]So, then (and I suspect you saw this coming. Not that I was being overly deceptive), where does that leave modern you and me? How do we know what is right and wrong with the Bible, when hundreds of years of scholarship simply result in more and more squabbling (even as recently as 2005, specifically speaking of the Catholic church) as to what is the correct translation? Are we all supposed to be Biblical scholars and join in the squabbling?

How are we to introduce people to the story of the life and teachings of Christ, knowing that the stories are inaccurate, incomplete, and not even written by anyone who was there? [/quote]

The example you gave of John 14:16 isn’t the best example of your point, but I get it.

If we can’t trust the scholars throughout history whose job it was to translate the Scripture, then we are derelict. All of us. None of us were there to experience it, and there’s no way any of us could possibly claim to know what Christ really said or what he meant.

So what do we do?[/quote]

I am little bit confused about the POINT of this question. Is the implication that you must be right about the way reality functions (i.e., that Jesus’ words don’t require interpretation; that we have direct access to Jesus’ words, etc.) because you don’t’ see another option? Or is this a genuine question? Because I have an answer, but I think you still think you’re right. I already made this point to Karado - the fact that you can only see one answer that (1) makes sense to you, and (2) that you actually LIKE, does not mean your answer is correct.

110

It is really a simple, direct question. If the translation is inaccurate and incomplete then what do we believe? How can we believe any of it? More importantly, how can we expect anyone else to believe it?

Do you really not see the simplicity of this dilemma? If we cannot trust the words given to us by the scholars who translated them, we are lost. Plain and simple. No amount of interpretation will do any good if the words are wrong.

111

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If the translation is inaccurate and incomplete…
[/quote]

What “translation?” There are multiple translations, some really accurate, some less so. What “translation” are you talking about?

[quote]
How can we believe any of it? More importantly, how can we expect anyone else to believe it?

Do you really not see the simplicity of this dilemma? If we cannot trust the words given to us by the scholars who translated them, we are lost. Plain and simple. No amount of interpretation will do any good if the words are wrong.[/quote]

I really think you are fundamentally misunderstanding my point, dude, and I am not sure if it is because you are not really reading my posts very carefully or if you are just stubborn. We WERE talking about the APOSTLES carrying Jesus’ teachings to others; now we are talking about translators?

Ahh, number 1, learn Greek. There’s a start. Then you can start to translate for yourself. I wasn’t denigrating particular scholars; I was repudiating BAD translations. You used the KJV; that’s a VERY BAD translation. It was made using a handful of late, inferior manuscripts.

Some of us have actually taken the time to learn Greek (me, for example). So I am not “lost” in the sense you mean it.

More importantly, however, the question isn’t about whether or not translators/scholars have gotten the words right. THAT’S NOT THE QUESTION!!! The question is this (i’ll put it in bold)…

DID THE “WORDS OF JESUS” AS RECORDED IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GOSPELS REFLECT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE APOSTLES AND GOSPEL WRITERS?

ARE THE WORDS ASCRIBED TO JESUS IN THE GOSPELS WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPTS OF JESUS’ STATEMENTS, OR ARE THEY PARAPHRASED AND TRANSLATED (IN OTHER WORDS, INTERPRETED) excerpts?

YES, the “words of Jesus” as recorded in the original Greek manuscripts of the gospels reflect the interpretation of the apostles and the gospel writers.

YES, the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels are paraphrased and translated (in other words, interpreted) excerpts.

Please, PLEASE GET THIS!

My point remains the same - WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE IPSISSIMA VERBA (the very words) of Jesus. We have access to the ipsissima vox (the very voice) of Jesus. We hear Jesus as interpreted through his AUTHORITATIVE, INSPIRED INTERPRETERS, the apostles and the gospel authors.

If what you want is a purely historical faith, one that doesn’t have to rely on notions of the inspiration of the apostles but rather simply on the authority of Jesus’s words… well, too bad. You are out of luck.

There is NO getting around the fact that Jesus the apostles had to be inspired in order to faithfully and authoritatively communicate Jesus’ teachings. What that means, therefore, is that YOU have no right to reject Paul. NONE. ZERO. I have already shown how horribly wrong you were in your misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 7; on what grounds then do you still reject the apostolic authority?

And once again, accepting the apostolic authority behind the Scriptures is NOT the same thing as accepting ROman Catholicism (no matter what Brother Chris says).

112

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Definition of “SIMPLE” Simple Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Don’t be too shocked if our friend doesn’t get the ironic point.[/quote]
I lol’ed.

You strike me as the type of person who says “bless his heart”, when you clearly mean otherwise. We have a lot of those folks down here. You know, you can say the most vile thing you can think of about anybody you want if you say “bless his heart” afterward.

You guys are clearly intellectually superior to me; even to the Biblical scholars of the past. You clearly know far more about Jesus’ true intentions through your complex dissection of current and past Biblical text, not to mention your years of immersion in true church doctrine.

So tell me, what is your interpretation of Jesus’ words “whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein”

The answer is simple.

113

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Definition of “SIMPLE” Simple Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster Don’t be too shocked if our friend doesn’t get the ironic point.[/quote]
I lol’ed.

You strike me as the type of person who says “bless his heart”, when you clearly mean otherwise. We have a lot of those folks down here. You know, you can say the most vile thing you can think of about anybody you want if you say “bless his heart” afterward.

You guys are clearly intellectually superior to me; even to the Biblical scholars of the past. You clearly know far more about Jesus’ true intentions through your complex dissection of current and past Biblical text, not to mention your years of immersion in true church doctrine.

So tell me, what is your interpretation of Jesus’ words “whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein”

The answer is simple.[/quote]

LOL, so true. Having spent some time in the south, I know too well the real meaning of the term “Bless Your/His/Her Heart”. I usually heard it uttered from a snooty sorority girl…in reference to some other girls appearance. Like, ‘Bless Her Heart, those shoes don’t even come CLOSE to matching her outfit’. I used to think, to myself of course, that nothing was uglier than that condescending attitude. Even if what she was saying was true.

114

KingKai25’s seemingly erudite musings included this hyothetical…"If Brother Chris quotes Irenaeus (mid 2nd century A.D.) AND John Chrysostom (4th century A.D.) as evidence of the church’s “early” belief in the Eucharist as sacrifice, are the witnesses equal in weight?

Of course not! John Chrysostom lived several hundred years after Irenaeus and was likely influenced by him; thus, if Chrysostom is dependent on Irenaeus, we only have ONE witness (Irenaeus). Chrysostom, in this case, is in functionally the same position we are."

I see your point there, you DID exclude however Ignatius Of Antioch who knew John, HE stressed the importance
of the Eucharist, that’s more than enough info one needs, a ‘hot off the presses’, JUST outside of Scripture
person who KNEW a Biblical character who NO DOUBT would have corrected Ignatius in his ‘tradition’ of the Eucharist if WAS NOT of great importance.
"Whoa WHOA Iggy, you don’t have to do THAAAAT!? That’s a nutty thing dude,
knock it off will ya?

You get credit for your diving into the deeper issues of Christianity, but I wonder if you scream from
the rooftops to OTHERS of the vast majority of ‘Hair Helmet’ Charlatan Christians that dominate the Television
airwaves, like Jack (Chicken Little) Van Impe, and his adoring Wife Broomhilda, 'er I mean Rexella, and their KIND…you exactly the kind I’m talking about…Fully Dispensationalist “Any Minute Now” Second Coming messengers whose ‘cottage industry’ has been the Hawking of Books and Tapes inspired by the Dispensationist
Gazilliion Selling best seller over 40 years ago, “The Late Great Planet Earth”.

Who are YOUR Teachers? I mean, you didn’t learn what you learned all by your lonesome, nor get it channelled
to you ala Esther Hicks, because I don’t know much, but I DO know you don’t watch “God TV”,
neither are you a Student of ‘almost everyone goes to Heaven’ Joel Osteen, or the ‘almost
everyone goes to hell’ Fire and Brimstoner, John Hagee.

Nothing personal against the Olsteen’s, I know about their philanthropic and charitable endeavors, which is more than I can ever do, as least they walk the walk in that department.
But IF they ever get to your ‘level’ of HOW you teach to the Christian masses, they would lose half of their congetation in that expensive Arena they populate every week.

As far as books being “inspired” and all that, I still have YET to find in Scripture where God sez to
‘put together a Bible, and ONLY put THESE Books in it’, BOY that would been so simple.
YET it all came down to "councils’ and whatnot…MEN ultimately decided what was to be included, and what
was to ‘cast out’, so now we’re putting our Faith in MAN, that WHATEVER is Canon at the moment, is ‘locked and loaded’ til the end of time.

Who is to say there WILL NOT be another “reformation” in the FUTURE, and MORE books are considered
Apocrypha?
I think it’s telling, and possibly not coincidental that the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered right at around time Israel became a Nation once again, granted I’ll accept the common notion that’s not 100% “inspired”
yada yada, I’ll go along to get along at the moment, but be advised just as yourself, I don’t commonly
watch ‘Tammy Faye Ver.2’, The Gaudy Pink Haired Lady on TBN…I’m sure she’s a nice lady…Uhhhhhh.

115

[quote]Karado wrote:
KingKai25’s seemingly erudite musings included this hyothetical…"If Brother Chris quotes Irenaeus (mid 2nd century A.D.) AND John Chrysostom (4th century A.D.) as evidence of the church’s “early” belief in the Eucharist as sacrifice, are the witnesses equal in weight?

Of course not! John Chrysostom lived several hundred years after Irenaeus and was likely influenced by him; thus, if Chrysostom is dependent on Irenaeus, we only have ONE witness (Irenaeus). Chrysostom, in this case, is in functionally the same position we are."

I see your point there, you DID exclude however Ignatius Of Antioch who knew John, HE stressed the importance
of the Eucharist, that’s more than enough info one needs, a ‘hot off the presses’, JUST outside of Scripture
person who KNEW a Biblical character who NO DOUBT would have corrected Ignatius in his ‘tradition’ of the Eucharist if WAS NOT of great importance.
"Whoa WHOA Iggy, you don’t have to do THAAAAT!? That’s a nutty thing dude,
knock it off will ya?
[/quote]

Do you understand how analogies function? Because I was drawing an analogy between your mistaken assumption that both 1 Enoch and Jubilees were independent and equal witnesses to the same tradition and a hypothetical situation revolving around Irenaeus and Chrysostom. I was NOT trying to argue against the early date or importance of the Eucharist; I was simply using that as an illustration.

Nice attempt to divert attention away from your mistake, though. “You get credit” for that.

Plenty of people have dealt with the mistakes these televangelists have made. What’s your point? Even though I am in no way, shape, or form a dispensationalist, I do find dispensationalism a far more credible and cogent interpretive lens than your strange flirtation and misuse of Second Temple texts. Nevertheless, if someone gets on here and starts proclaiming the truth of dispensationalism, I’d likely want to have a discussion with them too.

You’re asking where I was educated? That’s a little private, don’t you think? Let’s just say I did my undergraduate and graduate work in biblical studies and theology.

It was an infinitely more complex process than that. I’ve already dealt with that issue elsewhere (I now know How Tirib feels). Suffice it to say that councils fundamentally codified existing practice.

For a non-dispensationalist, you sound just like one. Are you actually implying that the discovery of the dead sea scrolls was a matter of divine providence, or have I misread you?

116

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
As far as books being “inspired” and all that, I still have YET to find in Scripture where God sez to
‘put together a Bible, and ONLY put THESE Books in it’, BOY that would been so simple.
YET it all came down to "councils’ and whatnot…MEN ultimately decided what was to be included, and what
was to ‘cast out’, so now we’re putting our Faith in MAN, that WHATEVER is Canon at the moment, is ‘locked and loaded’ til the end of time.
[/quote]
It was an infinitely more complex process than that. I’ve already dealt with that issue elsewhere (I now know How Tirib feels). Suffice it to say that councils fundamentally codified existing practice.[/quote]What specifically are you referring to here? If I might ask =]

117

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
As far as books being “inspired” and all that, I still have YET to find in Scripture where God sez to
‘put together a Bible, and ONLY put THESE Books in it’, BOY that would been so simple.
YET it all came down to "councils’ and whatnot…MEN ultimately decided what was to be included, and what
was to ‘cast out’, so now we’re putting our Faith in MAN, that WHATEVER is Canon at the moment, is ‘locked and loaded’ til the end of time.
[/quote]
It was an infinitely more complex process than that. I’ve already dealt with that issue elsewhere (I now know How Tirib feels). Suffice it to say that councils fundamentally codified existing practice.[/quote]What specifically are you referring to here? If I might ask =]
[/quote]

I understand why you prefer to just copy and paste links to the previous posts rather than always rehashing the same arguments. New people come into the mix regularly enough that the exact same conversations end up being held over and over again. It’s a lot easier to link to previous conversations.

118

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< So tell me, what is your interpretation of Jesus’ words “whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” >>>[/quote]With the unquestioning secure trust that a child has in his father. I will not beg you to believe anything I say. I have sincerely told you my attitude and my conscience is clear. Whether you receive it that way or not is beyond my control.

119

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I understand why you prefer to just copy and paste links to the previous posts rather than always rehashing the same arguments. New people come into the mix regularly enough that the exact same conversations end up being held over and over again. It’s a lot easier to link to previous conversations.[/quote]Oh indeed. It’s not people’s fault that they show up and don’t know that these conversations have been goin on here sometimes for months and even years. The trouble is most guys won’t read the conversations in the links I post. Some do. Sometimes it’s to make the “nothing new under the sun” point as well. Some of these cowboys come galloping in on their stick horses, cap guns blazing as if their arrival has brought with it some new unassailable unheard of information which is never the case.

120

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< So tell me, what is your interpretation of Jesus’ words “whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” >>>[/quote]With the unquestioning secure trust that a child has in his father. I will not beg you to believe anything I say. I have sincerely told you my attitude and my conscience is clear. Whether you receive it that way or not is beyond my control.
[/quote]
That is exactly what I got from it. And that’s why I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I trust what Christ said just the same as I trusted my dad’s instruction as a child.

Did I aim too high when I belted that irony right back at you, or are you just too proud to admit that you could be wrong about something?