Mother Mary is here to stay

[SweetSue92]

Not surely anymore you don't. How we got from the NT to confessing your sins to priests and worshipping Mary is anyone's guess. Not to mention praying to dead people (!?)

We have lots of Saints, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, are you saying she was not special. Confess your sins to one another. Sins are confessed to a priest, broken laws are confessed to a court. Kind of takes the place of the Sanhedrin.

As to Mary, I have already answered about her. Of course she was special, she was chosen as Jesus' mother. "Blessed among women", the Bible says. But it is sinful to PRAY to her. She was a human just like us. She was not a perpetual virgin and has no special rank other than she was a faithful, blessed woman chosen for a very special purpose.

Who says its sinful to pray to her??

Penelope I think it's important to note that I have no animus toward you or almost any Catholics. Many of my husband's family are Catholic and in fact hubby when to a Catholic Jr high and high school, and went through the entire process of confirmation etc. I don't think Catholics are bad people; in fact I think many of them are absolutely God-fearing, Jesus-loving people who are simply doing the best the can, same as the rest of us.

I think it's important to contend for the faith, so that's what I'm doing. And I believe fully that many brothers and sisters that were God-fearing and Jesus-loving will be in Heaven with us on That Day. However, that is in *spite* of what their church teaches, not because of it. That's why I contend.

I do not go by the law of Moses, in Deuteronomy, or any of the books of the Torah. I am not a jew, whatever that means. The Catholic church is the original Christian religion and you would not have the bible if not for Rome.

There are three delineations of the Law of Moses in the OT: the civil law, the ceremonial law, and the moral law. We no longer need the civil law because we are not the Nation of Israel. We no longer need the ceremonial law because we do not worship in tabernacles and temples. However, the moral law will never pass away, "not one jot or tittle", as Jesus said. It stands even today.

ETA: I need to correct this actually--NONE of the Law will ever pass away but is perfectly fulfilled in Christ Jesus. However, Christians do not need to live by the precepts of the Civil or Ceremonial Law today because of the reasons stated above. However the lessons of the Moral Law never pass away.

 

[SweetSue92]

I hope that You understood the fact that I pointed out - That The Original Authors Of The Scriptures who were writing the Books Of The New Testament were making copies and personally passing out their own writings that are called The New Testament Books Of The Bible. - Remember - these authors, personally knew The Lord Yahshua ( IN PERSON )

^^^^^^^ try again whoever wrote the above nonsense -----most of the writers of the NT never met Jesus-----and some did not even speak his
language

Paul did not meet Jesus but for a revelation, this is true. But very many others did, or talked to those who did. Peter, James, Matthew, among others.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

I hope that You understood the fact that I pointed out - That The Original Authors Of The Scriptures who were writing the Books Of The New Testament were making copies and personally passing out their own writings that are called The New Testament Books Of The Bible. - Remember - these authors, personally knew The Lord Yahshua ( IN PERSON )

^^^^^^^ try again whoever wrote the above nonsense -----most of the writers of the NT never met Jesus-----and some did not even speak his
language

Paul did not meet Jesus but for a revelation, this is true. But very many others did, or talked to those who did. Peter, James, Matthew, among others.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

 

[irosie91]

there is nothing re "the name of ''god"" " that is "new" in the new testament.
The word "abba" is an Aramaic form----meaning--something like "father" ---
but also used as an honorific and a term of affection for important males.
Try to cut the garble, penny-----you are making a fool of yourself. What does
"only have the Babylonian Talmud" mean? It is a good source for understanding just how the Aramaic is used in the NT ------for details ask
a Talmud scholar (aka rabbi) Magda Goebbels is your SAINT

Hebrew died long before the first century, when the jews of the bible went to Babylon , and the first century Aramaic was the most popular language. Since the 1900's the Israelites are now relearning Hebrew, trying their best to restart the Israelites, in the US they still speak Yiddish. Funny how you all have to learn Hebrew.

is that ^^^^^^^ what your catechism whore told you?-------did you know that
FRENCH was very popular as a DAILY SPOKEN LANGUAGE by both the
English and the RUSSIAN aristocracy for centuries? Lots of them knew neither Russian or English There are medical textbooks written by ENGLISHMEN-----only a century ago that come to us
in FRENCH-----some only partially so-------I was so miffed over CRITCHLEY's "parietal lobes"------MACDONALD CRITCHLEY-----written in the early 20th century-------PAGE AFTER PAGE OF FRENCH (I did not stand a
chance------I would have been better off in Spanish or Hebrew----Hebrew never died and even Spanish is relatively unchanged for centuries. I have relatives from families kicked out of spain 500 years ago-----who never stopped speaking Spanish------and writing, speaking, and singing in Hebrew--------they
also do an interesting form of Spanish called LADINO----it is written he Hebrew script and lots of the words are actually hebrew- this language has an extensive literature))

It died out, the Canaanite language, old Hebrew , named after Eber died out around 400 BC after the move to Babylon.

It died out? People are still speaking it, reading in it and writing in it.-----it was never dead------even in the United States there are people speaking it, reading in it and writing in it since the time of the pilgrims. Your catechism whore lied. The Hebraized Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud never died
either------although just about NO ONE uses it as generally spoken language---
or even in new poetry or literature. What US true is ---the ENGLISH of 500 years ago is deader than a door knob

 

[irosie91]

I hope that You understood the fact that I pointed out - That The Original Authors Of The Scriptures who were writing the Books Of The New Testament were making copies and personally passing out their own writings that are called The New Testament Books Of The Bible. - Remember - these authors, personally knew The Lord Yahshua ( IN PERSON )

^^^^^^^ try again whoever wrote the above nonsense -----most of the writers of the NT never met Jesus-----and some did not even speak his
language

Paul did not meet Jesus but for a revelation, this is true. But very many others did, or talked to those who did. Peter, James, Matthew, among others.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

I hope that You understood the fact that I pointed out - That The Original Authors Of The Scriptures who were writing the Books Of The New Testament were making copies and personally passing out their own writings that are called The New Testament Books Of The Bible. - Remember - these authors, personally knew The Lord Yahshua ( IN PERSON )

^^^^^^^ try again whoever wrote the above nonsense -----most of the writers of the NT never met Jesus-----and some did not even speak his
language

Paul did not meet Jesus but for a revelation, this is true. But very many others did, or talked to those who did. Peter, James, Matthew, among others.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

 

[SweetSue92]

Paul did not meet Jesus but for a revelation, this is true. But very many others did, or talked to those who did. Peter, James, Matthew, among others.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

Paul did not meet Jesus but for a revelation, this is true. But very many others did, or talked to those who did. Peter, James, Matthew, among others.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

 

[irosie91]

there is nothing re "the name of ''god"" " that is "new" in the new testament.
The word "abba" is an Aramaic form----meaning--something like "father" ---
but also used as an honorific and a term of affection for important males.
Try to cut the garble, penny-----you are making a fool of yourself. What does
"only have the Babylonian Talmud" mean? It is a good source for understanding just how the Aramaic is used in the NT ------for details ask
a Talmud scholar (aka rabbi) Magda Goebbels is your SAINT

Hebrew died long before the first century, when the jews of the bible went to Babylon , and the first century Aramaic was the most popular language. Since the 1900's the Israelites are now relearning Hebrew, trying their best to restart the Israelites, in the US they still speak Yiddish. Funny how you all have to learn Hebrew.

is that ^^^^^^^ what your catechism whore told you?-------did you know that
FRENCH was very popular as a DAILY SPOKEN LANGUAGE by both the
English and the RUSSIAN aristocracy for centuries? Lots of them knew neither Russian or English There are medical textbooks written by ENGLISHMEN-----only a century ago that come to us
in FRENCH-----some only partially so-------I was so miffed over CRITCHLEY's "parietal lobes"------MACDONALD CRITCHLEY-----written in the early 20th century-------PAGE AFTER PAGE OF FRENCH (I did not stand a
chance------I would have been better off in Spanish or Hebrew----Hebrew never died and even Spanish is relatively unchanged for centuries. I have relatives from families kicked out of spain 500 years ago-----who never stopped speaking Spanish------and writing, speaking, and singing in Hebrew--------they
also do an interesting form of Spanish called LADINO----it is written he Hebrew script and lots of the words are actually hebrew- this language has an extensive literature))

It died out, the Canaanite language, old Hebrew , named after Eber died out around 400 BC after the move to Babylon.

penny seems to have been told by the catechism whore---that the BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY consisted over EVERY JEW IN THE WORLD ---
being marched to the banks of the Tigris/Eurphrates rivers. Poor innocent penny. IN FACT there were communities of LITERATE jews thruout what is today called "the middle east"- (literate in Hebrew) and spread along the SILK ROAD and Iran. Try telling an IRANIAN JEW----that his community FORGOT HEBREW Literacy is what preserves a language. English is an excellent example of what happens to a language of a MOSTLY ILLITERATE nation of people.

 

[irosie91]

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

Luke never met Jesus and would not have been able to speak to him---
he was a GREEK. John is a PEN NAME of some mushroom galvanized
mystic (not john the Baptist who was UNDOUTEDLY <imo> a real person---in fact one of the most believable characters in the whole story) James is
another shadowy character----or characters. It is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic
name------or any form thereof---it has been tied to "Jacob" ---somehow.
Matthew---based on his use of language is considered to have been a jew----
but his actual relationship to Jesus is legend

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

 

[zaangalewa]

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not perfect, is not god. That's maybe why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god because of the evil world then Satan will laugh!

I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I understand everyone, who loses his belief in god, who is in a similiar situation and I respect this very much. But on the other side: Is this not exactly what the Nazis tried to do? To let our hope die? To murder god together with his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was any longer able to sing there? No - I believe in god - not because I like to make Nazis angry - because god is my hope - and the hope of the world.

 

[Taz]

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

 

[zaangalewa]

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

It was clear that a Nazi like you has to give the first stupid answer to this what I said here. I'm on a death list of the Nazis here in Germany. Do you think this drives me only a little nervous? Be happy that I have control over my wishes. Otherwise you could land faster in the hell you try to produce for others than you are able to speak out the word "damn".

 

[Taz]

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

It was clear that a Nazi like you has to give the first stupid answer to this what I said here. I'm on a death list of the Nazis here in Germany. Do you think this drives me only a little nervous?

Where is this imaginary death list of yours?

 

[irosie91]

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

It was clear that a Nazi like you has to give the first stupid answer to this what I said here. I'm on a death list of the Nazis here in Germany. Do you think this drives me only a little nervous?

Where is this imaginary death list of yours?

the dog ate my homework

 

[ding]

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

Evil is not extant so that is just one more thing you are wrong about.

 

[Taz]

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

Evil is not extant so that is just one more thing you are wrong about.

So your "creator" didn't make everything in the universe? Then how did evil come about?

 

[ding]

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

Evil is not extant so that is just one more thing you are wrong about.

So your "creator" didn't make everything in the universe? Then how did evil come about?

That wasn’t my argument. My argument is that evil does not exist. Evil is the absence of good. Therefore God did not create evil.

 

[SweetSue92]

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

Sources for these claims please, except in the case of Luke, which I have already conceded.

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Ehrman made a career out of copyist errors and other ridiculous nonsense.

 

[irosie91]

can you be more specific as to which or what you want to consider a "claim"?

The "mushroom galvanized mystic"
James the brother of Jesus a "shadowy character". Honey it was 2000 years ago+, they're all shadowy from this far away.
Matthew--why is his relationship "considered" legend? By who? Bart Ehrman? lol

you got something against bart? There are lots of very, clearly NON SHADOWY characters of 2000 years ago. All kinds of things are known about your fave character PONTIUS PILATE and his and rome's friend
Caiphas. Even Josephus Flavius has a known history. Matthew ? ----
the "tax collector"? for whom or what was he collecting taxes? Seems like
a free-agent to me who was persona non-grata wherever he went

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Ehrman made a career out of copyist errors and other ridiculous nonsense.

not really-----he made a career----you just do not like him. I neither like nor dislike him

 

[Taz]

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

Evil is not extant so that is just one more thing you are wrong about.

So your "creator" didn't make everything in the universe? Then how did evil come about?

That wasn’t my argument. My argument is that evil does not exist. Evil is the absence of good. Therefore God did not create evil.

God made evil, and made it possible for evil to exist and thrive.

 

[ding]

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

Evil is not extant so that is just one more thing you are wrong about.

So your "creator" didn't make everything in the universe? Then how did evil come about?

That wasn’t my argument. My argument is that evil does not exist. Evil is the absence of good. Therefore God did not create evil.

God made evil, and made it possible for evil to exist and thrive.

Wrong. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of something else. It’s like darkness and cold. They are not extant either.

 

[zaangalewa]

Shake a stick at the average Internet Anti-Christian Warrior, hit a Bart Ehrman acolyte. My goodness it's so predictable and BORING

"anti-Christian warrior" ??? Bart Ehrman acolyte?? sheeeeesh----
you is paranoid. Bart is a scholar of the bible as reliable as any other

Bart Denton Ehrmann? ... He said he lost the belief in god because of the theodicy problem - but the theodicy problem of Leibnitz is known from Christians since a very long time of history. Lacantius (~250 - 320) was one of the first Christians who spoke about it. His argument is known under "Epicurus said", but indeed it was Lacantius who said so. Epicurus was not able to work with the idea of only one universal god and expressions like omnipotent, ominbenevolent or omniscient.

I fear the problem of this man was he learned that the bible is god when he was an Evangelical Christian - but later he found out that the bible is not god. That's why he is an atheist now.

The shortest form of the basic problem is: "Why exists evil?" - but nearly no one loses his belief in god because of the existance of the evil. Normally we could say if someone is losing the belief in god, because of the evil world: Satan will laugh! I believe for example in god although I lost family members in concentration camps of the Nazis. I udnrtadn everxyonew whi loses his belief in god who is in a similiar situation and I respect this. But o theoerh side,. Is not exacfyrl thsi what the Nazois treid to do? To murder god together with his his people and to burn him down together with his people in Auschwitz, in the alley of the birchs, while no bird was ablento sing there?

God made evil.

It was clear that a Nazi like you has to give the first stupid answer to this what I said here. I'm on a death list of the Nazis here in Germany. Do you think this drives me only a little nervous?

Where is this imaginary death list of yours?

Counterquestion: How often a day calls you someone "idiot" and why are the people so stupid to do so?