Defining a 'True Christian'?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

You believe that stars are millions of light years away right? How do you know? Have you ever measured them?[/quote]

Yup. I believe in a lot of stuff I dont “know” and havent verified with my own two eyes.

But none of the stuff I believe goes against all the other things I see all the time. I dont believe anyone, anywhere, ever, has been able to levitate, because I see the effect of gravity on everyone all the time, without exception. Likewise I dont believe in other mythological claims, be they from christianity, greeks, romans, or anywhere else. I dont believe Buddha got up as soon as he was born and lotus petals blossomed in his footsteps - to believe this would go against everything I’ve ever seen regarding infants and plants.

Also, I dont have any logical reason to question those who say stars are millions of light-years away. I dont see how they could be trying to advance an agenda with that. However, when a group of people tell me things, like an omnipotent being controls the universe and only through them can I be saved from eternal torment when I die - oh, yeah, and I should give them money, I have good and clear reasons to question their motives. [/quote]

Well, first, your website makes no clear mention as to whether the extra prophecies were found in the Canon of the Bible. Admittedly, there were around 9 previously unknown Psalms that were found. None of which change the meanings of the Book of Psalms. The extra Biblical stories of people from the Bible are found in a paraphrasing of the Book of Genesis. Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible. The scroll it comes from is not considered the Book of Genesis, just a collection of stories regarding Genesis, that jumps from one subject to the next.

Second, our discussion is over since you are just pushing the same rehashed idea that Christianity is just some invention by money/power hungry leaders trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. You may believe that Judeo-Christian beliefs are really some millenia old conspiracy theory if you want. I’m not arguing the validity of Christianity again. Good day and God bless you.[/quote]

“Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible.”

The fuck happened to “virtually identical”?

How about we’re done because you people cant be honest and consistent about anything?

“Buh, well, its virtually identical except for all the parts that dont coincide.”[/quote]

40% of the scrolls are books from the Old Testament. They were virtually identical to what we have now. The other 60% of the scrolls contain other information. They are extra Biblical. Do a little research if you’re interested instead of looking at one website. I suppose you’re the open minded one though.[/quote]

So the majority of the scrolls contain information that does not appear in the bible.

Yet weren’t you the one who said the bible and the dead sea scrolls were 'virtually identical"?

Virtually identical except for the majority. Right. I must just be close minded to see a problem with that. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.

82

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

You believe that stars are millions of light years away right? How do you know? Have you ever measured them?[/quote]

Yup. I believe in a lot of stuff I dont “know” and havent verified with my own two eyes.

But none of the stuff I believe goes against all the other things I see all the time. I dont believe anyone, anywhere, ever, has been able to levitate, because I see the effect of gravity on everyone all the time, without exception. Likewise I dont believe in other mythological claims, be they from christianity, greeks, romans, or anywhere else. I dont believe Buddha got up as soon as he was born and lotus petals blossomed in his footsteps - to believe this would go against everything I’ve ever seen regarding infants and plants.

Also, I dont have any logical reason to question those who say stars are millions of light-years away. I dont see how they could be trying to advance an agenda with that. However, when a group of people tell me things, like an omnipotent being controls the universe and only through them can I be saved from eternal torment when I die - oh, yeah, and I should give them money, I have good and clear reasons to question their motives. [/quote]

Well, first, your website makes no clear mention as to whether the extra prophecies were found in the Canon of the Bible. Admittedly, there were around 9 previously unknown Psalms that were found. None of which change the meanings of the Book of Psalms. The extra Biblical stories of people from the Bible are found in a paraphrasing of the Book of Genesis. Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible. The scroll it comes from is not considered the Book of Genesis, just a collection of stories regarding Genesis, that jumps from one subject to the next.

Second, our discussion is over since you are just pushing the same rehashed idea that Christianity is just some invention by money/power hungry leaders trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. You may believe that Judeo-Christian beliefs are really some millenia old conspiracy theory if you want. I’m not arguing the validity of Christianity again. Good day and God bless you.[/quote]

“Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible.”

The fuck happened to “virtually identical”?

How about we’re done because you people cant be honest and consistent about anything?

“Buh, well, its virtually identical except for all the parts that dont coincide.”[/quote]

40% of the scrolls are books from the Old Testament. They were virtually identical to what we have now. The other 60% of the scrolls contain other information. They are extra Biblical. Do a little research if you’re interested instead of looking at one website. I suppose you’re the open minded one though.[/quote]

So the majority of the scrolls contain information that does not appear in the bible.

Yet weren’t you the one who said the bible and the dead sea scrolls were 'virtually identical"?

Virtually identical except for the majority. Right. I must just be close minded to see a problem with that. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.[/quote]

Well, I may not have clarified my point enough about what was virtually identical. No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not identical to the Bible. The lack anyting from the New Testament for one, and only 40% of the scrolls are actually books of the Bible. The scrolls that are the books of the Bible are virtually identical to oldest known manuscripts known to that point which date from around 1000AD. Around 30% contain what are known as pseudepigraphical works. They are either written well after the time period they were supposed to have taken place or they address problems and issues from the late 1st century AD which could not possibly have been known in the time they were supposed to have taken place. The reworking of Genesis and the Book of Enoch fall in this category. Some were already known about when the Canonical Bible was assembled in the 4th century AD and were discarded for one of those reasons. The remaining 30& deal with commentary on books of the Bible or laws and customs of the Essenes.

So yes, 60% is not identical with the Bible, but they were not supposed to be. It’s like finding an early work of Shakespeare containing another writers comments or interpretation of parts. The copy of Shakespeare’s writings could be dead on accurate, but there are extras which don’t matter. It would have been a big deal if between 150BC (around the time the first scrolls were written) and around the 9th century when the Masorectic texts were written there had been major changes to the books (i.e. different characters, different prophecies, different beliefs, etc). Since there weren’t, then again, the Bible has been proven to stand up to the age old criticism of errors or omissions either by accident or on purpose. So, next topic.

83

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

You believe that stars are millions of light years away right? How do you know? Have you ever measured them?[/quote]

Yup. I believe in a lot of stuff I dont “know” and havent verified with my own two eyes.

But none of the stuff I believe goes against all the other things I see all the time. I dont believe anyone, anywhere, ever, has been able to levitate, because I see the effect of gravity on everyone all the time, without exception. Likewise I dont believe in other mythological claims, be they from christianity, greeks, romans, or anywhere else. I dont believe Buddha got up as soon as he was born and lotus petals blossomed in his footsteps - to believe this would go against everything I’ve ever seen regarding infants and plants.

Also, I dont have any logical reason to question those who say stars are millions of light-years away. I dont see how they could be trying to advance an agenda with that. However, when a group of people tell me things, like an omnipotent being controls the universe and only through them can I be saved from eternal torment when I die - oh, yeah, and I should give them money, I have good and clear reasons to question their motives. [/quote]

Well, first, your website makes no clear mention as to whether the extra prophecies were found in the Canon of the Bible. Admittedly, there were around 9 previously unknown Psalms that were found. None of which change the meanings of the Book of Psalms. The extra Biblical stories of people from the Bible are found in a paraphrasing of the Book of Genesis. Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible. The scroll it comes from is not considered the Book of Genesis, just a collection of stories regarding Genesis, that jumps from one subject to the next.

Second, our discussion is over since you are just pushing the same rehashed idea that Christianity is just some invention by money/power hungry leaders trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. You may believe that Judeo-Christian beliefs are really some millenia old conspiracy theory if you want. I’m not arguing the validity of Christianity again. Good day and God bless you.[/quote]

“Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible.”

The fuck happened to “virtually identical”?

How about we’re done because you people cant be honest and consistent about anything?

“Buh, well, its virtually identical except for all the parts that dont coincide.”[/quote]

40% of the scrolls are books from the Old Testament. They were virtually identical to what we have now. The other 60% of the scrolls contain other information. They are extra Biblical. Do a little research if you’re interested instead of looking at one website. I suppose you’re the open minded one though.[/quote]

So the majority of the scrolls contain information that does not appear in the bible.

Yet weren’t you the one who said the bible and the dead sea scrolls were 'virtually identical"?

Virtually identical except for the majority. Right. I must just be close minded to see a problem with that. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.[/quote]

Well, I may not have clarified my point enough about what was virtually identical. No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not identical to the Bible. The lack anyting from the New Testament for one, and only 40% of the scrolls are actually books of the Bible. The scrolls that are the books of the Bible are virtually identical to oldest known manuscripts known to that point which date from around 1000AD. Around 30% contain what are known as pseudepigraphical works. They are either written well after the time period they were supposed to have taken place or they address problems and issues from the late 1st century AD which could not possibly have been known in the time they were supposed to have taken place. The reworking of Genesis and the Book of Enoch fall in this category. Some were already known about when the Canonical Bible was assembled in the 4th century AD and were discarded for one of those reasons. The remaining 30& deal with commentary on books of the Bible or laws and customs of the Essenes.

So yes, 60% is not identical with the Bible, but they were not supposed to be. It’s like finding an early work of Shakespeare containing another writers comments or interpretation of parts. The copy of Shakespeare’s writings could be dead on accurate, but there are extras which don’t matter. It would have been a big deal if between 150BC (around the time the first scrolls were written) and around the 9th century when the Masorectic texts were written there had been major changes to the books (i.e. different characters, different prophecies, different beliefs, etc). Since there weren’t, then again, the Bible has been proven to stand up to the age old criticism of errors or omissions either by accident or on purpose. So, next topic.[/quote]

So, the majority doesnt match, so you find reasons to say the nonmatching parts “don’t matter”.

Then, you claim that its “virtually identical”, because, according to you, only the parts that match matter. Unsurprisingly, you see no problem with this. “We’ll only count the parts that help our case and say the ones that tear our flimsy case to shreds dont matter! If you pray for something and it comes true, proof of god! If you pray for something and it doesnt, proof that god said no to your prayer… proof of god! heads I win, tails you lose!”

The bible stands up to no claims of accuracy on anything. Sorry, sport.

84

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

You believe that stars are millions of light years away right? How do you know? Have you ever measured them?[/quote]

Yup. I believe in a lot of stuff I dont “know” and havent verified with my own two eyes.

But none of the stuff I believe goes against all the other things I see all the time. I dont believe anyone, anywhere, ever, has been able to levitate, because I see the effect of gravity on everyone all the time, without exception. Likewise I dont believe in other mythological claims, be they from christianity, greeks, romans, or anywhere else. I dont believe Buddha got up as soon as he was born and lotus petals blossomed in his footsteps - to believe this would go against everything I’ve ever seen regarding infants and plants.

Also, I dont have any logical reason to question those who say stars are millions of light-years away. I dont see how they could be trying to advance an agenda with that. However, when a group of people tell me things, like an omnipotent being controls the universe and only through them can I be saved from eternal torment when I die - oh, yeah, and I should give them money, I have good and clear reasons to question their motives. [/quote]

Well, first, your website makes no clear mention as to whether the extra prophecies were found in the Canon of the Bible. Admittedly, there were around 9 previously unknown Psalms that were found. None of which change the meanings of the Book of Psalms. The extra Biblical stories of people from the Bible are found in a paraphrasing of the Book of Genesis. Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible. The scroll it comes from is not considered the Book of Genesis, just a collection of stories regarding Genesis, that jumps from one subject to the next.

Second, our discussion is over since you are just pushing the same rehashed idea that Christianity is just some invention by money/power hungry leaders trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. You may believe that Judeo-Christian beliefs are really some millenia old conspiracy theory if you want. I’m not arguing the validity of Christianity again. Good day and God bless you.[/quote]

“Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible.”

The fuck happened to “virtually identical”?

How about we’re done because you people cant be honest and consistent about anything?

“Buh, well, its virtually identical except for all the parts that dont coincide.”[/quote]

40% of the scrolls are books from the Old Testament. They were virtually identical to what we have now. The other 60% of the scrolls contain other information. They are extra Biblical. Do a little research if you’re interested instead of looking at one website. I suppose you’re the open minded one though.[/quote]

So the majority of the scrolls contain information that does not appear in the bible.

Yet weren’t you the one who said the bible and the dead sea scrolls were 'virtually identical"?

Virtually identical except for the majority. Right. I must just be close minded to see a problem with that. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.[/quote]

Well, I may not have clarified my point enough about what was virtually identical. No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not identical to the Bible. The lack anyting from the New Testament for one, and only 40% of the scrolls are actually books of the Bible. The scrolls that are the books of the Bible are virtually identical to oldest known manuscripts known to that point which date from around 1000AD. Around 30% contain what are known as pseudepigraphical works. They are either written well after the time period they were supposed to have taken place or they address problems and issues from the late 1st century AD which could not possibly have been known in the time they were supposed to have taken place. The reworking of Genesis and the Book of Enoch fall in this category. Some were already known about when the Canonical Bible was assembled in the 4th century AD and were discarded for one of those reasons. The remaining 30& deal with commentary on books of the Bible or laws and customs of the Essenes.

So yes, 60% is not identical with the Bible, but they were not supposed to be. It’s like finding an early work of Shakespeare containing another writers comments or interpretation of parts. The copy of Shakespeare’s writings could be dead on accurate, but there are extras which don’t matter. It would have been a big deal if between 150BC (around the time the first scrolls were written) and around the 9th century when the Masorectic texts were written there had been major changes to the books (i.e. different characters, different prophecies, different beliefs, etc). Since there weren’t, then again, the Bible has been proven to stand up to the age old criticism of errors or omissions either by accident or on purpose. So, next topic.[/quote]

So, the majority doesnt match, so you find reasons to say the nonmatching parts “don’t matter”.

Then, you claim that its “virtually identical”, because, according to you, only the parts that match matter. Unsurprisingly, you see no problem with this. “We’ll only count the parts that help our case and say the ones that tear our flimsy case to shreds dont matter! If you pray for something and it comes true, proof of god! If you pray for something and it doesnt, proof that god said no to your prayer… proof of god! heads I win, tails you lose!”

The bible stands up to no claims of accuracy on anything. Sorry, sport. [/quote]

Well, hopefully one day you will understand the validity in discarding parts that were already discarded for centuries. Until then, good day and God bless.

85

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

You believe that stars are millions of light years away right? How do you know? Have you ever measured them?[/quote]

Yup. I believe in a lot of stuff I dont “know” and havent verified with my own two eyes.

But none of the stuff I believe goes against all the other things I see all the time. I dont believe anyone, anywhere, ever, has been able to levitate, because I see the effect of gravity on everyone all the time, without exception. Likewise I dont believe in other mythological claims, be they from christianity, greeks, romans, or anywhere else. I dont believe Buddha got up as soon as he was born and lotus petals blossomed in his footsteps - to believe this would go against everything I’ve ever seen regarding infants and plants.

Also, I dont have any logical reason to question those who say stars are millions of light-years away. I dont see how they could be trying to advance an agenda with that. However, when a group of people tell me things, like an omnipotent being controls the universe and only through them can I be saved from eternal torment when I die - oh, yeah, and I should give them money, I have good and clear reasons to question their motives. [/quote]

Well, first, your website makes no clear mention as to whether the extra prophecies were found in the Canon of the Bible. Admittedly, there were around 9 previously unknown Psalms that were found. None of which change the meanings of the Book of Psalms. The extra Biblical stories of people from the Bible are found in a paraphrasing of the Book of Genesis. Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible. The scroll it comes from is not considered the Book of Genesis, just a collection of stories regarding Genesis, that jumps from one subject to the next.

Second, our discussion is over since you are just pushing the same rehashed idea that Christianity is just some invention by money/power hungry leaders trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. You may believe that Judeo-Christian beliefs are really some millenia old conspiracy theory if you want. I’m not arguing the validity of Christianity again. Good day and God bless you.[/quote]

“Since around 60% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are extra Biblical, many things have been found that don’t coincide with the Bible.”

The fuck happened to “virtually identical”?

How about we’re done because you people cant be honest and consistent about anything?

“Buh, well, its virtually identical except for all the parts that dont coincide.”[/quote]

40% of the scrolls are books from the Old Testament. They were virtually identical to what we have now. The other 60% of the scrolls contain other information. They are extra Biblical. Do a little research if you’re interested instead of looking at one website. I suppose you’re the open minded one though.[/quote]

So the majority of the scrolls contain information that does not appear in the bible.

Yet weren’t you the one who said the bible and the dead sea scrolls were 'virtually identical"?

Virtually identical except for the majority. Right. I must just be close minded to see a problem with that. Slavery is freedom. War is peace.[/quote]

Well, I may not have clarified my point enough about what was virtually identical. No, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not identical to the Bible. The lack anyting from the New Testament for one, and only 40% of the scrolls are actually books of the Bible. The scrolls that are the books of the Bible are virtually identical to oldest known manuscripts known to that point which date from around 1000AD. Around 30% contain what are known as pseudepigraphical works. They are either written well after the time period they were supposed to have taken place or they address problems and issues from the late 1st century AD which could not possibly have been known in the time they were supposed to have taken place. The reworking of Genesis and the Book of Enoch fall in this category. Some were already known about when the Canonical Bible was assembled in the 4th century AD and were discarded for one of those reasons. The remaining 30& deal with commentary on books of the Bible or laws and customs of the Essenes.

So yes, 60% is not identical with the Bible, but they were not supposed to be. It’s like finding an early work of Shakespeare containing another writers comments or interpretation of parts. The copy of Shakespeare’s writings could be dead on accurate, but there are extras which don’t matter. It would have been a big deal if between 150BC (around the time the first scrolls were written) and around the 9th century when the Masorectic texts were written there had been major changes to the books (i.e. different characters, different prophecies, different beliefs, etc). Since there weren’t, then again, the Bible has been proven to stand up to the age old criticism of errors or omissions either by accident or on purpose. So, next topic.[/quote]

So, the majority doesnt match, so you find reasons to say the nonmatching parts “don’t matter”.

Then, you claim that its “virtually identical”, because, according to you, only the parts that match matter. Unsurprisingly, you see no problem with this. “We’ll only count the parts that help our case and say the ones that tear our flimsy case to shreds dont matter! If you pray for something and it comes true, proof of god! If you pray for something and it doesnt, proof that god said no to your prayer… proof of god! heads I win, tails you lose!”

The bible stands up to no claims of accuracy on anything. Sorry, sport. [/quote]

Well, hopefully one day you will understand the validity in discarding parts that were already discarded for centuries. Until then, good day and God bless.[/quote]

There is no validity. The people who discarded those parts centuries ago did it for the exact same intellectually dishonest reason you do - so you can falsely claim accuracy and continuity when the fact is there are more differences than similarities.

Now your argument is the parts that dont match should be discarded because they were discarded by others with the exact same agenda you have.

Its terribly sad how religion has the ability to reduce otherwise honest, good people to this kind of garbage.

86

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< There is no validity. The people who discarded those parts centuries ago did it for the exact same intellectually dishonest reason you do - so you can falsely claim accuracy and continuity when the fact is there are more differences than similarities. >>>[/quote]If I may. Picture for the sake of illustration a library of 100 books of which 40 are canonical books of the old testament. The rest are not bible books at all. The 40 that are, are virtually identical (handful of grammatical variances) to the previously oldest known manuscripts of the same books that were 1000 years newer. The manuscripts were 1000 newer, not the books themselves.

The other 60 have nothing directly to do with the bible.

87

There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove).

88

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?

89

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< There is no validity. The people who discarded those parts centuries ago did it for the exact same intellectually dishonest reason you do - so you can falsely claim accuracy and continuity when the fact is there are more differences than similarities. >>>[/quote]If I may. Picture for the sake of illustration a library of 100 books of which 40 are canonical books of the old testament. The rest are not bible books at all. The 40 that are, are virtually identical (handful of grammatical variances) to the previously oldest known manuscripts of the same books that were 1000 years newer. The manuscripts were 1000 newer, not the books themselves.

The other 60 have nothing directly to do with the bible.
[/quote]

The other books have stories about people from the bible, new psalms, etc. They have lots directly to do with the bible.

Again, you’re only counting the ones that match so you can falsely claim consistency. Its dishonest.

90

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Blessed Mother Teresa, period. If a true Christian ever lived, it was her. The apostles were complete dicks compared to her. Her biggest regret is that she could not do more to serve Christ.[/quote]

Word.[/quote]

LOL! How the hell would YOU know? OMG…roflmao…

91

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?

92

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

Seven in the Old Testament: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Machabees

93

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Blessed Mother Teresa, period. If a true Christian ever lived, it was her. The apostles were complete dicks compared to her. Her biggest regret is that she could not do more to serve Christ.[/quote]

Word.[/quote]

LOL! How the hell would YOU know? OMG…roflmao…[/quote]

I do not get your point, HH?

94

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.

95

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is.

96

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.

97

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

What do you mean by individualism?

98

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

What do you mean by individualism?[/quote]

Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.

99

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There were around 800 documents contained in the 11 caves, which are the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most frequent transcripts were Biblical, except for Enoch, Jubilee, (actually Protestants might disagree with this because they have an incomplete Bible, which the Dead Sea Scrolls prove). [/quote]

What books are we missing in your opinion?[/quote]

There is a list of books to which he is referring that are in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible. They are called the Deuterocanonical books. They include:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
1 and 2 Macabees

There are also longer versions of Daniel and Esther

Martin Luther removed most of the them during the Reformation. They were all contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Texts so they are part of the original Biblical Canon as defined by the Council of Laodicea in 363AD.

Another question I would like to pose for Brother Chris though is whether he beleives Protestants to be true Christians. I know I’ve been approached multiple times with the question of whether Catholics are true Christians (which I do believe) due to beliefs they have that differ from Protestant Christianity.

So do you see any problem with a Protestant being considered a true Christian since we have differences such as in the Bible, belief about penance, purgatory, etc.?[/quote]

You forgot Ecclesiasticus.

It matters on their theology really, there is some “Christians” who don’t hold a valid baptismal sacrament or their theology is so off from Catholicism about God that we couldn’t possibly believe that they were Christians.[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I am not familiar with that one. I didn’t mention the Esdras either because I thought they were more extensions/connections of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Ok, so I think you have the same view on being a Christian as I do. Minor theological differences don’t necessarily matter. What makes a Christian is the view on who Christ is. [/quote]

I’m just not a fan of the individualism within some Protestant theologies.[/quote]

What do you mean by individualism?[/quote]

Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]

Actually thats not true (at least not for all of us). I believe that God created us to worship God together as brothers and sisters in Christ.

100

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Personal relationship with Jesus. The idea that you don’t need others besides Jesus.[/quote]

Ok, I think I get what you mean. You’re talking about the idea, as Martin Luther described it, as the priesthood of all believers? In other words, each individual person can handle his or her own repsonsibility in terms of intepreting the Bible or providing sacraments. I would say I would also disagree with that idea, but being raised a Lutheran, we still kept the idea of the sacraments and much of the corporate worship. When you look at some of the most aberrant teachings today, many come from preachers that received no formal theological education they just felt the call to preach.