Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

[garyd]

Look The whole point of Christianity is that Christ was necessarily both Holy God and Wholly man. It took a man to pay for man's sins and it takes a being who exists outside the time stream - which God must if he created by some means the universe - in order to effect the entirety of the time stream not just what came after.

 

[Modbert]

Okay.....I'm gonna piss off a whole lot of people now........

Jesus DID have a virgin birth.

Joseph and Mary were heavy petting when premature ejaculation occurred. Scared them so bad they didn't have sex until after Jesus was born.

You may now throw stones............

I think Parthenogenesis is still a good bet. And the sky would be green in my world.

 

[Care4all]

I never showed that slaves indeed had rights. I have already proven slaves had NO rights in bibical times. Perhaps you're mistaking my arguments for Allie's.

YOU were SHOWN that slaves DID have rights via the Bible with Bible passages......did you miss it and not read the post?

you proved nothing of the kind robert...

 

[jeffrockit]

How do I have issues?

Hitler himself stated many times he was a Christian as well as several books on Hitler. Also, the actions done by Hitler showed he was a Christian.

What actions by Hitler prove he was a Christian?

 

[Modbert]

YOU were SHOWN that slaves DID have rights via the Bible with Bible passages......did you miss it and not read the post?

you proved nothing of the kind robert...

Do show me.

 

[Modbert]

What actions by Hitler prove he was a Christian?

The first two aren't BY Hitler but:

1.) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

2.) He attended a monastery school, was an altar boy in the catholic church.

As he wrote in his autobiography Mein Kampf:

“I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

3.) Hitler enacted doctrines of the Church as law. Outlawing all abortion, demanded corporal punishment in schools and home, and raged a war on Homosexuals.

Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933:

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

Hitler killed many athiests and pagans too as it should be noted.

 

[garyd]

Very selective quotes from Mein Kampf.

If he was a Christian why was he at such pains to recreate German Paganism in his own image? If he was a Christian why was the Church in Germany most notably the Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer among his greatest enemies within Germany.

 

[Modbert]

Very selective quotes from Mein Kampf.

If he was a Christian why was he at such pains to recreate German Paganism in his own image? If he was a Christian why was the Church in Germany most notably the Lutheran Dietrich Bonhoeffer among his greatest enemies within Germany.

They're not selective, they're quotes. What do you expect me to do? Quote the whole book?

To your first question, Hitler wanted to be seen as a God of sorts, least the conclusion I came to. Especially in his later years.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A.) He studied non-violent resistance with Ghandi.

B.) Played a role in the confessing church which opposed Hitler's Antisemitism.

I said Hitler was a Christian, not that everyone in the church was for him.

 

[Agnapostate]

And yet it IS the holy book of the CHRISTIAN FAITH. I guess you also missed the part where the child in question said he does not believe in Jesus Christ as anything other than a man.

Christians may argue about whether all the books are there or whether this or that translation is correct, but ALL Christian religions have as the Holy book, the Bible. Or perhaps you can name for me one that does not?

Also as to MAN putting the book together that too is covered in the Bible. The books were divinely inspired as was the decision on what Books would be used. And while you may have a very minor point with the New Testament the Old is another Story. Jesus believed in the Old Testament and preached the New Testament.

Or are you too going to claim one can be a CHRISTIAN and not believe in CHRIST?

At this point, all modern Christians use the Bible, and emphasize it to one degree or another, but for the first several centuries, various sects used their own respective texts, and claimed that those of the others were forgeries. Essentially all varieties of Christianity that currently exist have minor doctrinal differences, but they all agree that one God created the world, that he and his son are divine beings, that salvation for the world's inhabitants came from his son's crucifixion, etc.

Early Christians had a wide variety of beliefs. Some claimed that there was one god, while others claimed that there were as many as three hundred and sixty five gods. Some claimed that Yahweh had created the world, while others claimed that some impotent or malevolent entity had created the world. Some argued that Yahweh was not the god that had sent Jesus, and that he had been sent by a different god who wished to save them from Yahweh. Some claimed that Jesus was divine. Some claimed that he was human. Some claimed that he was both. Some claimed that his death had brought about the salvation of the world. Some claimed that the salvation of the world had nothing to do with his death. Eventually, one sect prevailed, and all sects today are descended from that one sect, and their differences are astoundingly minor in comparison.

On what grounds do you claim that your version of Christianity is superior or "authentic"? Should a different sect have been victorious, modern Christians might very well be using the Gospel of Thomas instead of the Gospel of Matthew, or the Epistle of Barnabas instead of the Epistle of James, or the Apocalypse of Peter instead of the Apocalypse of John. The Old Testament might very well not be used, or be the only testament used, thus not making it the "Old" Testament, or the New Testament the "New" Testament.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's an excellent post.

Those who regard the Bible as infallible have never been able to reconcile the two accounts plausibly, given the Quirinius issue.

Also, to add to your commentary on the likelihood that the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is likely also a forged passage, added by a later scribe to support the gender roles proscribed by the Pastoral Epistles. Examine the passage: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church."

No one disputes that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, but this passage in particular appears suspicious. Firstly, examine the wider context of the passage.

"How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order."

Why would "Paul" revert from a wider discussion of prophecy in the Church to randomly remark about the role of women in the Church for a few verses, and then go right back to a discussion of prophecy in the Church?

Moreover, in several Greek and Latin manuscripts, verses 34 and 35 are shuffled around to different portions of the text, some inserting the passage after verse 40.

Hence, it is unlikely that it is an original portion of the Bible.

Agna sent a PM asking me what I thought of this.

Loons and skeptics have been theorizing on these possibilties for years, but each year more evidence surfaces which supports the infallibility of the bible.

These are simply theories, nothing more. We can speculate all we like on them, but in the end, they're less plausible than the written word itself. Which is, after all, written and as such a much better historical guide than all the theories in the world.

 

[Agnapostate]

No amount of evidence will change the mind of someone entirely opposed to facts.

 

[Agnapostate]

How much longer will you continue to insist that obvious discrepancies and errors and alterations are mere "theories"?

 

[AllieBaba]

No amount of evidence will change the mind of someone entirely opposed to facts.

The fact is, your ridiculous rantings are nothing but moon-eyed theories. The evidence which exists does not support any of your theories. The evidence which exists in the historical record supports the bible..which is in and of itself the greatest trove of historical information there is.

Them's the facts.

 

[Agnapostate]

You're laughable. Evidence IS fact, moron.

What an idiot you are, blathering on about "theories" when you clearly know nothing about the textual structure of the Bible.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You're laughable. Evidence IS fact, moron.

Riiiiiiiiiiight...........

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit".

Evidence, that you would call fact, proved OJ didn't kill Nicole and her friend.

Suuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrre.

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief. You guys were made for each other. Have you verified that GayBiker really is underage before consummating your love?

 

[Agnapostate]

Good grief. You guys were made for each other. Have you verified that GayBiker really is underage before consummating your love?

This from the person with the Charlie Brown come-ons?

As hard as it is to believe, I think you can actually do better than that, Babble.

Let's focus now.

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sky dancer]

Good grief. You guys were made for each other. Have you verified that GayBiker really is underage before consummating your love?

You still haven't answered my question. Why do you use the word gay as a slur or insult?

BikerSailor isn't gay and you know this. Why do you try and use the word gay as an insult.

You're either gay or you're not. It's not an insult, its just what people are or aren't.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, well this thread has officially gone nutzoid.

 

[Agnapostate]

Ok, well this thread has officially gone nutzoid.

Is that the proper term to use when you possess an inability to respond to textual criticism of Scripture?