What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Any Christians Having Trouble With Backsliding?

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
Nope, it is not just like the Gospel of Luke. Unlike the book of Thomas, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the author of Luke actually was Luke, the physician.

Secondly, even if your claim that Luke did not actually write Luke is true (which I’m not saying it is, but for the sake of argument, even if that were true) the so-called Gospel of Thomas still fails to meet any of the basic principles that determine whether or not a New Testament book was inspired and reliable.

In fact it goes against all the criteria… which is why it was generally known by early Christians to be a forgery.

The book of Thomas is a gnostic writing, and gnosticism is not Christian, it is basically anti-Christian, from a spiritual standpoint.
What are the reasons to believe Luke wrote it? You realize it wasn't credited to him till the late second century early third century. The same Christians that credited him for it, also credited him for Acts. Which has proven to be around 150 years older than Luke. Which isn't possible. So I would love to hear the reasons why.

What are those basic principles? Who created the principles? Who decides on whether something is principled enough?

I disagree. It was thrown out because it didn't meet the requirements of a select few HUMANS interpretation of what Christianity is. The same Christianity you all are involved in...

Please explain how the Gospel of Thomas is gnostic.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
32,172
Reaction score
19,908
Points
1,915

Any Christians Having Trouble With Backsliding?​


Keep your legs straight and your arms by your side...

waterslides-in-sydney.jpg
 

buttercup

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
3,559
Points
1,020
What are the reasons to believe Luke wrote it? You realize it wasn't credited to him till the late second century early third century. The same Christians that credited him for it, also credited him for Acts. Which has proven to be around 150 years older than Luke. Which isn't possible. So I would love to hear the reasons why.

What are those basic principles? Who created the principles? Who decides on whether something is principled enough?

I disagree. It was thrown out because it didn't meet the requirements of a select few HUMANS interpretation of what Christianity is. The same Christianity you all are involved in...

Please explain how the Gospel of Thomas is gnostic.


Before I reply to the rest of your post.... something you said needs to be clarified.

Were you claiming that Acts was written 150 years after the gospel of Luke? If so, I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. It is generally agreed upon that Luke and Acts were written roughly around the same time. Even secular sources, as far as I’ve seen, date the book of Acts in the same time period as Luke, Acts being written only slightly after Luke. Or were you saying that the book of Acts was written 150 years after Luke the man lived? If so, that too goes against the consensus among scholars, and there are many reasons for that. Again, where are you getting this stuff? Frankly it sounds like you get your information from extremely anti-Christian sources.

As far as the rest of your post, I'll try to get back to this later because I have something I have to do soon, but the answers to all your questions above are out there, if you sincerely and genuinely want to know the truth. One thing I've noticed that non-Christians and atheists do a lot is demand that others do their homework for them. I don't know if that comes from laziness, or some other reason, but anyone who genuinely wants the truth seeks it for themselves. Jesus said "seek and you will find." I absolutely believe that is true, but seeking doesn't mean only giving weight to hardcore anti-christian atheist sources, while dismissing other sources. Or choosing to only believe late-dated spurious New-Agey "gospels" that portray Jesus negatively and clearly have their own agenda, while at the same time rejecting the Gospels that were/are widely considered inspired and reliable, that point to Jesus as the Messiah.
 
Last edited:

SweetSue92

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
13,973
Reaction score
7,105
Points
1,065
Location
USA
As that's currently me right now. A lot of liberals are frustrating me and getting on my nerves and I'm saying things that I shouldn't be saying about them, to them, and about our so called "president" if you take a look into my signature.

Yes. I say things I shouldn't, laugh at things I shouldn't, etc. Get frustrated and take on what I shouldn't. I do not wish harm or death on anyone though. I am not a Leftist.

however, this is beyond Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. This is:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.--Ephesians 6:12
 

strollingbones

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
89,564
Reaction score
23,722
Points
2,190
Location
chicken farm
1634723248818.png


at this point christians are denying the biblical jesus for a trump jesus
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
6,005
Points
290
I don't follow the gospels. I don't follow any actual formal religion. 99% of it is dogma.

I am a believer in the Gospel of Jesus as uttered by his own words. The rest is pretty much mankind doing that whole interpretive dance thing.

Besides, why would you believe only a gospel that puts Jesus in the worst light and ignore those that put him in his best light?
The problem with that is Jesus never actually wrote anything down so what you are calling his gospels are second, third... 125th accounts
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
Before I reply to the rest of your post.... something you said needs to be clarified.

Were you claiming that Acts was written 150 years after the gospel of Luke? If so, I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. It is generally agreed upon that Luke and Acts were written roughly around the same time. Even secular sources, as far as I’ve seen, date the book of Acts in the same time period as Luke, Acts being written only slightly after Luke. Or were you saying that the book of Acts was written 150 years after Luke the man lived? If so, that too goes against the consensus among scholars, and there are many reasons for that. Again, where are you getting this stuff? Frankly it sounds like you get your information from extremely anti-Christian sources.

As far as the rest of your post, I'll try to get back to this later because I have something I have to do soon, but the answers to all your questions above are out there, if you sincerely and genuinely want to know the truth. One thing I've noticed that non-Christians and atheists do a lot is demand that others do their homework for them. I don't know if that comes from laziness, or some other reason, but anyone who genuinely wants the truth seeks it for themselves. Jesus said "seek and you will find." I absolutely believe that is true, but seeking doesn't mean only giving weight to hardcore anti-christian atheist sources, while dismissing other sources. Or choosing to only believe late-dated spurious New-Agey "gospels" that portray Jesus negatively and clearly have their own agenda, while at the same time rejecting the Gospels that were/are widely considered inspired and reliable, that point to Jesus as the Messiah.
I dont read stuff from zealots. I read independent sources.
Is this modern scholars, or repeating the opinions of the church fathers? Argumentum ad populum is also not a reasonable argument. Like Climate Science debate.
Im not trying to get you do my homework. I am just wanting a conversation.
 

Meriweather

Not all who wander are lost
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
8,770
Reaction score
1,396
Points
165
at this point christians are denying the biblical jesus for a trump jesus
There is no such thing as a "Trump Jesus" just like there is no such thing as a Biden or Obama or a Trump antichrist. People need to distinguish between history and present day. President Trump and Jesus had different goals. Where they were similar is that they both loved their nations and their histories.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
No, not really.
Thats exactly what it said.
But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.'

IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died.
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
19,376
Points
1,905
Thats exactly what it said.
But the son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. 2 And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph's house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him 'for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.'

IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died.
If we were to compare the number of innocent folks' deaths that the Christ is supposedly responsible for, in comparison, to say, Moses, or Mohammad? The numbers don't even compare. If you read that complete Gospel, your characterization of him as going on a "murdering spree," is a bit, well, disingenuous.

. . . and even still, when the community had been taught those lessons of the creator? "immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse."

For, if folks truly believe that he is the product if a divine and omniscience creator, we can not really know why he would choose to end those lives that he did, when, and why, at that time, for the creator's purposes. Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son?

For it is also stated in that gospel, that this five year old child was saddled with the knowledge and wisdom of every person's days, from beginning to end. SO? What are we to make of that? Who are we to say what activities these folks may have committed in the future had the fear of the lord not be put into their souls?

All of those curses which he performed, after he had confounded his tutor, Zacchaeus, and explained to the community his purpose, and the knowledge and wisdom of the divine he was burdened with, he undid those deaths, and things which he had done as lessons for the community.

"VIII. 1 And as the Jews were counselling Zacchaeus, the young child laughed greatly and said: Now let those bear fruit that were barren (Gr. that are thine) and let them see that were blind in heart. I am come from above that I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, even as he commanded which hath sent me for your sakes. 2 And when the young child ceased speaking, immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse. And no man after that durst provoke him, lest he should curse him, and he should be maimed."


These of course, are legends and parables, and I do agree with you, about early scholars having an agenda as to which to make doctrine. But it does not help with you twisting their meaning out of context.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
If we were to compare the number of innocent folks' deaths that the Christ is supposedly responsible for, in comparison, to say, Moses, or Mohammad? The numbers don't even compare. If you read that complete Gospel, your characterization of him as going on a "murdering spree," is a bit, well, disingenuous.

. . . and even still, when the community had been taught those lessons of the creator? "immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse."

For, if folks truly believe that he is the product if a divine and omniscience creator, we can not really know why he would choose to end those lives that he did, when, and why, at that time, for the creator's purposes. Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son?

For it is also stated in that gospel, that this five year old child was saddled with the knowledge and wisdom of every person's days, from beginning to end. SO? What are we to make of that? Who are we to say what activities these folks may have committed in the future had the fear of the lord not be put into their souls?

All of those curses which he performed, after he had confounded his tutor, Zacchaeus, and explained to the community his purpose, and the knowledge and wisdom of the divine he was burdened with, he undid those deaths, and things which he had done as lessons for the community.

"VIII. 1 And as the Jews were counselling Zacchaeus, the young child laughed greatly and said: Now let those bear fruit that were barren (Gr. that are thine) and let them see that were blind in heart. I am come from above that I may curse them, and call them to the things that are above, even as he commanded which hath sent me for your sakes. 2 And when the young child ceased speaking, immediately all they were made whole which had come under his curse. And no man after that durst provoke him, lest he should curse him, and he should be maimed."


These of course, are legends and parables, and I do agree with you, about early scholars having an agenda as to which to make doctrine. But it does not help with you twisting their meaning out of context.
"murdering spree" was a bit hyperbolic but it is what it is.
He murdered people as a child. I didnt claim much more than that, so far.
Jesus was a punk ass kid up until the town was fed up with it. Then, the Pharisees slaps a bit of reality of into him, as well. Then he saw the error of his ways. Thats what i get from the Gospel. It was him maturing. Realizing his selfishness and anger wasnt the way to live. Which is part of the reason why this book got excluded. Because it shows he isnt perfect.
I dont think I twisted anything, my man.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
Isnt it weird how Jesus childhood is missing from the bible but here we have a gospel, written around the same time, that tells of it. And no one wants to believe it.
Because the church fathers said so..
Christianity isnt even a religion centered around Jesus, really. Its centered around what a select few said it should be centered around.
I cant think of other man made religions about god/s where HUMANS Decided what people should believe. Picking and choosing doesnt seem very honest, IMO.
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
19,376
Points
1,905
"murdering spree" was a bit hyperbolic but it is what it is.
He murdered people as a child. I didnt claim much more than that, so far.
Jesus was a punk ass kid up until the town was fed up with it. Then, the Pharisees slaps a bit of reality of into him, as well. Then he saw the error of his ways. Thats what i get from the Gospel. It was him maturing. Realizing his selfishness and anger wasnt the way to live. Which is part of the reason why this book got excluded. Because it shows he isnt perfect.
I dont think I twisted anything, my man.
I suppose, that is one way to look at it.

That interaction with Zacchaeus? This doesn't sound like the confessions of a man that "slapped a bit of reality into a child. . . "

". . . I have deceived myself, thrice wretched man that I am: I strove to get me a disciple and I am found to have a master. 3 I think, O my friends, upon my shame, for that being old I have been overcome by a young child;- and I am even ready to faint and to die because of the boy, for I am not able at this present hour to look him in the face. And when all men say that I have been overcome by a little child, what have I to say? and what can I tell concerning the lines of the first letter whereof he spake to me? I am ignorant, O my friends, for neither beginning nor end of it (or him) do I know. 4 Wherefore I beseech thee, my brother Joseph, take him away unto thine house: for he is somewhat great, whether god or angel or what I should call him, I know not. . .. "
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
19,376
Points
1,905
He murdered people as a child. I didnt claim much more than that, so far.
. . . and upon this statement?

The Christ "murdering people?"

When god or prophets smote folks, for whatever its' reasons, they don't classify it as, "murder." Believers tend to defer to the divine has having its' reasons for doing what it does.

No one really accuses the creator of, "genocide," for the flood of Noah.

Do they?

I believe you are an atheist or an agnostic, so you probably come at this from a different perspective.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
I suppose, that is one way to look at it.

That interaction with Zacchaeus? This doesn't sound like the confessions of a man that "slapped a bit of reality into a child. . . "

". . . I have deceived myself, thrice wretched man that I am: I strove to get me a disciple and I am found to have a master. 3 I think, O my friends, upon my shame, for that being old I have been overcome by a young child;- and I am even ready to faint and to die because of the boy, for I am not able at this present hour to look him in the face. And when all men say that I have been overcome by a little child, what have I to say? and what can I tell concerning the lines of the first letter whereof he spake to me? I am ignorant, O my friends, for neither beginning nor end of it (or him) do I know. 4 Wherefore I beseech thee, my brother Joseph, take him away unto thine house: for he is somewhat great, whether god or angel or what I should call him, I know not. . .. "
No, the pharisees at the temple. His mother found him there after Jesus separated from them
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
77,100
Reaction score
27,886
Points
2,250
. . . and upon this statement?

The Christ "murdering people?"

When god or prophets smote folks, for whatever its' reasons, they don't classify it as, "murder." Believers tend to defer to the divine has having its' reasons for doing what it does.

No one really accuses the creator of, "genocide," for the flood of Noah.

Do they?

I believe you are an atheist or an agnostic, so you probably come at this from a different perspective.
Reasons such as bumping into them walking down the street?
I dont think getting technical on terminology will really get us anywhere.
 

Clyde 154

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
474
Reaction score
170
Points
143
As that's currently me right now. A lot of liberals are frustrating me and getting on my nerves and I'm saying things that I shouldn't be saying about them, to them, and about our so called "president" if you take a look into my signature.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -- 1 John 1:8 The question is.........simply because you become angry does that anger always end with sin? There is no sin in confronting lies and deceit.

Even the Christ was "intolerant" at times. There are certain truths found in scripture that are undeniable. God is Love. This is clearly stated in scripture (1 John 4:8,16). God's love for man was so great that He allowed His only begotten Son take on the sin of the world by sacrificing Himself (John 3:16). Many do not look at the flip side of this coin....... "...the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." -- Deut. 4:24 There is no contradiction here, the 2 sides simply make a whole. If God can become angered, why not man?

God wants all men to be saved by coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2:3-4). When one attempts to spread this good news (gospel truth).......and when that which is holy and good delivered with Love (even tough love) is blatantly rejected like a swine trampling pearls anger might provoke any Christian. While God offers salvation to all mankind, many, even the majority reject that display of love......in the end that rejection leads to their total destruction, NOT YOURS. (Titus 2:11, Matt. 10:28, 2 Thess. 1:9).

God has no respect of person (Romans 2:11). Yet.......the many that reject the word of God when offered to them in good conscience they act as if they are SPECIAL and demand we do not confront them with TRUTH. The Christ had no problem in calling a "lying dog........a LYING DOG". Why should you feel guilt when you are delivering TRUTH? :dunno:

Jesus was very intolerant of sin and those who promoted it openly in disregard for the word of God. He warned His disciples to be beware of the message the Pharisees and Sadducees were spreading to the people. (Matt. 16:6, 12). The Christ openly called these hypocrites out, calling them SERPENTS, A BROOD OF VIPERS, He charged them with self indulgence and lawlessness, He charged them with pretending to be religious, making long prayers...etc., in order to prey upon widows..etc. Thus, He warned them of God's judgment that awaited them (Matt. 11:21-22)

Jesus was intolerant of anyone that set aside God's law in favor of man made traditions (Matt. 15:3-9). He had no problem in telling individuals such as this that they were ignorant of God's will and Law in not knowing the scriptures (Matt. 22:29).

Delivering the Truth while confronting lies and deceit is far from sin. :ahole-1:'S always exist, we all become angered with these pretentious blatant hypocrites. Never fear Truth, where truth exists, freedom exists......freedom can never be realized where there is no truth. For God is TRUTH (John 17:17)
 

MisterBeale

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
35,789
Reaction score
19,376
Points
1,905
Reasons such as bumping into them walking down the street?
I dont think getting technical on terminology will really get us anywhere.
You are thinking like a mortal, a human.

You are not trying to even conceptualize as if prophets or gods even exist.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top