Landlord Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 no they didn't because all they had were books loosely compiled. You act like the New Testament was being put together and what books constituted it as it was being written. That was far from the case. I never said that. All I'm stating is that the church bodies, well before the Council of Nicea or the official canon of the New Testament, accepted and rejected different writings. By and large, with rare exceptions, the writings and letters that were rejected and dismissed by the church (not by just by leaders but by members, all over the Mediterranean) were the same writings that are non-canonical and apocryphal. Not exactly. The Catholic Bible has more books where as the Protestant bible has what most christians think of as the standard. They also take a different view on mary(mother). The books in the Catholic Bible aren't considered heretical by the Protestants, however. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 no they didn't because all they had were books loosely compiled. You act like the New Testament was being put together and what books constituted it as it was being written. That was far from the case. I never said that. All I'm stating is that the church bodies, well before the Council of Nicea or the official canon of the New Testament, accepted and rejected different writings. By and large, with rare exceptions, the writings and letters that were rejected and dismissed by the church (not by just by leaders but by members, all over the Mediterranean) were the same writings that are non-canonical and apocryphal. Not exactly. The Catholic Bible has more books where as the Protestant bible has what most christians think of as the standard. They also take a different view on mary(mother). The books in the Catholic Bible aren't considered heretical by the Protestants, however. But do most Protestants actually know there is a difference? more than likely not. Most christians aren't educated about the bible or anything in it for the most part. Link to comment
Landlord Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 no they didn't because all they had were books loosely compiled. You act like the New Testament was being put together and what books constituted it as it was being written. That was far from the case. I never said that. All I'm stating is that the church bodies, well before the Council of Nicea or the official canon of the New Testament, accepted and rejected different writings. By and large, with rare exceptions, the writings and letters that were rejected and dismissed by the church (not by just by leaders but by members, all over the Mediterranean) were the same writings that are non-canonical and apocryphal. Not exactly. The Catholic Bible has more books where as the Protestant bible has what most christians think of as the standard. They also take a different view on mary(mother). The books in the Catholic Bible aren't considered heretical by the Protestants, however. But do most Protestants actually know there is a difference? more than likely not. Most christians aren't educated about the bible or anything in it for the most part. Strawman. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 no they didn't because all they had were books loosely compiled. You act like the New Testament was being put together and what books constituted it as it was being written. That was far from the case. I never said that. All I'm stating is that the church bodies, well before the Council of Nicea or the official canon of the New Testament, accepted and rejected different writings. By and large, with rare exceptions, the writings and letters that were rejected and dismissed by the church (not by just by leaders but by members, all over the Mediterranean) were the same writings that are non-canonical and apocryphal. Not exactly. The Catholic Bible has more books where as the Protestant bible has what most christians think of as the standard. They also take a different view on mary(mother). The books in the Catholic Bible aren't considered heretical by the Protestants, however. But do most Protestants actually know there is a difference? more than likely not. Most christians aren't educated about the bible or anything in it for the most part. I would disagree with that. Most Christians know there are a few books in the Catholic Bible that aren't in other bibles. I grew up non-Catholic and I knew that. I am now Catholic and I didn't have a problem with it before and I don't have a problem with it now. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 Strawman. completely changes the game. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted January 8, 2013 Author Share Posted January 8, 2013 I would disagree with that. Most Christians know there are a few books in the Catholic Bible that aren't in other bibles. I grew up non-Catholic and I knew that. I am now Catholic and I didn't have a problem with it before and I don't have a problem with it now. Just because you would know doesn't mean others would. Hell you can't find 10 people that can name all 50 states and they teach that. Link to comment
C N Red Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Here is something I thought explains things well. It basically says how Jesus fulfilled the jewish religion to start christianity and how some believed, others didn't etc. This was taken from catholic.com Full Question If Jesus was a Jew, why are we Catholic? Answer The term Jew is used in at least two senses in Scripture: to refer to those who are ethnically Jews and to those who are religiously Jews. Jesus was a Jew in both senses. In fact, he completed the Jewish religion by serving as the Messiah (Christ) whom the prophets had long foretold. The completed form of the Jewish religion is known as Christianity, and its adherents are Christians or "followers of the Christ." Unfortunately, many people who were ethnically Jewish did not recognize Jesus’ role as Messiah and so did not accept Christianity, the completed form of Judaism. Instead, they stayed with a partial, incomplete form of Judaism. Other Jews (the apostles and their followers) did recognize that Jesus was the Messiah and embraced the new, completed form of Judaism. Shortly thereafter it was recognized that one could be a follower of Christ even if one did not ethnically join the Jewish people. Thus the apostles began to make many Gentile converts to the Christian faith. It is thus possible for a person to be a Jew religiously (because he has accepted Christianity, the completed form of the Jewish faith) but not be a Jew ethnically. This is the case with most Christians today. It is this difference between being a Jew ethnically and religiously that lies behind Paul’s statement in Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal." Christians are those who Paul refers to as being inwardly (religiously) Jewish, while non-Christian Jews are those who he refers to as being outwardly (ethnically) Jewish. The former condition, he stresses, is the more important. Unfortunately, over the course of time some Christians broke away from the Church that Jesus founded, and so a name was needed to distinguish this Church from the ones that broke off from it. Because all the breakaways were particular, local groups, it was decided to call the Church Jesus founded the "universal" (Greek, kataholos = "according to the whole") Church, and thus the name Catholic was applied to it. That is why Jesus was a Jew and we are Catholics: Jesus came to complete the Jewish religion by creating a Church that would serve as its fulfillment and be open to people of all races, not just ethnic Jews. As Catholics, we are those who have accepted the fulfillment of the Jewish faith by joining the Church that Jesus founded. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 So there are people that actually think acrylics or clear plastics existed 2000 years ago? Makes me feel better that I simply feel an all all powerful God could do anything he wished to do. Tell me this, why couldn't God walk on water? But, no easy outs- you can't claim there is no God or creator in your answer. If you don't have any belief in God, that's fine by me- just don't answer at all. If an all powerful creator cannot control the laws of physics that he created, he sure wouldn't be too outstanding would he? Link to comment
husker_99 Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 So there are people that actually think acrylics or clear plastics existed 2000 years ago? Makes me feel better that I simply feel an all all powerful God could do anything he wished to do. Tell me this, why couldn't God walk on water? But, no easy outs- you can't claim there is no God or creator in your answer. If you don't have any belief in God, that's fine by me- just don't answer at all. If an all powerful creator cannot control the laws of physics that he created, he sure wouldn't be too outstanding would he? back in the day priests were pretty much illusionists. It wasn't meant to trick just more of explain and teach about God or Gods. Greek priests used this to the most extent. They had God figurines attached to pulleys and levers and then move the Gods around in the temple. It would have been pretty awesome back in those days. Jesus used "miracles" to teach all the time. The point of this thread that Jesus was probably a master illusionist aka magician. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 So there are people that actually think acrylics or clear plastics existed 2000 years ago? Makes me feel better that I simply feel an all all powerful God could do anything he wished to do. Tell me this, why couldn't God walk on water? But, no easy outs- you can't claim there is no God or creator in your answer. If you don't have any belief in God, that's fine by me- just don't answer at all. If an all powerful creator cannot control the laws of physics that he created, he sure wouldn't be too outstanding would he? back in the day priests were pretty much illusionists. It wasn't meant to trick just more of explain and teach about God or Gods. Greek priests used this to the most extent. They had God figurines attached to pulleys and levers and then move the Gods around in the temple. It would have been pretty awesome back in those days. Jesus used "miracles" to teach all the time. The point of this thread that Jesus was probably a master illusionist aka magician. I kind of got that was your point. My point was that I believe Jesus is the son of God, the creator of all that is seen and unseen, and therefore, if he chose to walk on water, raise people from the dead, cure blindness, or feed thousands with a couple fish and a few loaves of bread, then all those things are/were possible. I don't fault people for not believing these miracles happened because it takes belief and faith in a higher power. Either a person has that or they don't. I do, you don't. It's that simple. I've never been hungup on things mere humans couldn't do or things that seem to defy science. I've always assumed an all powerful entity could change the rules we are forced to live by. 1 Link to comment
Undone Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 The point of this thread that Jesus was probably a master illusionist aka magician. Oh, I have a pretty good feeling that your intent was to mock both Christianity and Christians. I doubt that you were inspired to use that particular youtube video to best espouse your deepest thoughts and feelings on the subject. But I'll give you this...it looks like you left room to doubt your doubts. Link to comment
husker_99 Posted January 9, 2013 Author Share Posted January 9, 2013 The point of this thread that Jesus was probably a master illusionist aka magician. Oh, I have a pretty good feeling that your intent was to mock both Christianity and Christians. I doubt that you were inspired to use that particular youtube video to best espouse your deepest thoughts and feelings on the subject. But I'll give you this...it looks like you left room to doubt your doubts. Even if Jesus was just a magician does it really change what he preached? Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The point of this thread that Jesus was probably a master illusionist aka magician. Oh, I have a pretty good feeling that your intent was to mock both Christianity and Christians. I doubt that you were inspired to use that particular youtube video to best espouse your deepest thoughts and feelings on the subject. But I'll give you this...it looks like you left room to doubt your doubts. Even if Jesus was just a magician does it really change what he preached? If he was just a magician, we would have no idea what he preached. What does David Copperfield say about how we should live our lives? What does the son of God say about it? See the difference? One is ignored and never considered, the other spreads like wildfire into all corners of the earth. Link to comment
Landlord Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The point of this thread that Jesus was probably a master illusionist aka magician. Oh, I have a pretty good feeling that your intent was to mock both Christianity and Christians. I doubt that you were inspired to use that particular youtube video to best espouse your deepest thoughts and feelings on the subject. But I'll give you this...it looks like you left room to doubt your doubts. Even if Jesus was just a magician does it really change what he preached? It changes absolutely everything. Link to comment
Recommended Posts