Part 32 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

We may not always agree, Giftdone and I, but we certainly understand each other. You don't seem to understand anyone or anything to do with speaking truthfully.

 

More misrepresentation on your part. I had asked you why you preferred to use 'theology' when I had distinctly talked about 'theologic'. The problem was one focused on 'logic vs theologic' and you wanted to talk about 'theology' and 'theocratic'. Your memory of events seems to be failing you, however the record of this forum details the truth of what has transpired. So stop all of the rationalizations (making excuses for your behavior) and just go back and answer those initial questions in an honest and intelligent manner.

 

Ahhhh yes... the plight of the many gods. Which "God" is "the real God"? Just name the God that you believe to be "the real God".

 

I think many of these early Gospels are not frauds. They were certainly written by people who had a reason for writing them. It is what is written that is the matter of conjecture. It seems to me that some were written for self glory (Jesus told only me such and such). Others put for gnostoc views. Others were based things the writer 'had heard from reliable sources'.
Several 'Nativity Gospels' purport to give Jesus life as a child. In at least one Jesus does miracles, murders another child and brings him back to life, and many other things. Another tells us Jesus was 'enamoured' with Mary. And we now wonder if Jesus was married.

At the last count of books written like this was around 60+.
The early church were right to be cautious about these books. You really should read the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Acts of Pilate. 1 book under either title. It tells you how even the images in Pilates hall bowed to Jesus. Its a bit long though.

 

You mean like surgical strike kill only the adults?
So who will take care of the babies after all the adults are dead?

 

I don't think God mandated the slaughter of babies.. I think that's Jewish fiction.

 

Seems you made a small error in your atheist dictators.

 

This gospel is full of doubt that only conspiracy theorist are interested in it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/gospel-jesus-wife_n_5206932.html
The arguments against the papyrus's authenticity by Depuydt and others are complex, but a key problem they cite is that the Coptic text is full of errors, to the extent that it is hard to believe that an ancient Coptic writer could have composed it.

Karen is wrong and many scholars doubt her sincerity.

http://pacampobasso.hubpages.com/hub/Scroll-of-Jesus-Wife
As for the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, well the verdict is still out on its authenticity, with researchers unlikely to reach a consensus in the near future.

Gospel of Mary has been proven to be fraud only the deniers are trying hard to proof it is not.

There is nothing true about your claim in fact you yourself said it it is still being studied.

 

So Giftdone understand your claim that cannibalism was not consider evil thousands of years ago?
If that is the case then killing babies is not evil thousands of years then right?
Why suddenly so interested in babies of thosuands of years ago and not babies of today what is the difference are babies of thousands of years ago more important than today's babies?

 

No error at all atheist will ally with all evil individuals against Christians. and only Christians will stand up against them for we are not afraid.

[video=youtube;gKNNTyUhujE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKNNTyUhujE[/video]

 

God has never sat down with me and given me its name.

If you want to believe in a flip flopping hypocritical baby killing God with the most petty and shallow of human characteristics that is your choice.

I just do not share that belief.

 

Then can I safely assume that "the real God" you worship did not make man in Gods own image?

 

ROFL Your own link states "The verdict is still out on authenticity" which is just what I said.

Yet in the same post you have the audacity to say "The Gospel of Mary has been Proven a fraud"

What is wrong with your brain that you can make a false claim, post a link stating your claim is false, and then pretend the link that YOU posted does not exist by again making the same false claim.

You are under the influence of some serious mind control.

From Time Magazine:

http://time.com/57336/jesus-wife-papyrus-harvard-authentic/

Obviously the "Gospel of Mary" has not been "proven" to be a fake.

Yet another one of your false claims.

 

You are so pathetic it is painful. I answered your question:

I told you a number of times already to just replace the word theology with "theologic". Since you are incapable of this simple act I have done it for you.

 

The Israelites?

 

Regardless of where this gospel came from, it is just one piece of evidence for a tradition which suggested Jesus had a wife !

There a fair bit of evidence that has been building of late. In my last post to the village " " , I included a link to a Time Magazine article http://time.com/57336/jesus-wife-papyrus-harvard-authentic/ stating "Scientists say the Gospel of Jesus's wife is probably not a fake".


While this is not proof, it shows that WR's claim "It has been Proven to be a fake" (for which of course he has no support) is clearly false.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would you assume that ?

 

You did not replace the word "theology". You placed the word "theologic" alongside the word "theology" giving both the same importance when the two are not the same. Perhaps it would help you if you were to study the definitions of the two words and come to realize that they are not the same.

 

The Gospel of Mary is accepted as a genuine document. The only questionable thing is which Mary is referred to. Most accept it is Mary Magdalene. If you read some of the other gospels, Mary Magdalene seems the most likely candidate. And who actually wrote it. After all the gospels are accepted by Christians, even though their authors are unknown. Why not some of the other gospels.

The gospel of Mary is attested to in later 3rd century documents.


If the criteria for accepting anything is that they are no longer being studied then we can't accept the Bible as it is still being studied.

On the contrary most of the non-canonical gospels are of interest. They help us to understand some of the thinking of the time. Something you would not understand.

 

Because if God made man in His own image, then the things that you chastise God about is equally applicable to man. So, is it really God that should be chastised or is it the Free Will of man that should be chastised?

 

Are you saying that God is as evil as the people he destroyed in the "global flood"?

 

There were several Marys in scripture..

The Magdalene, the virgin and Mary, the mother of James and Mary Salome.

 

You mean just like the 62% of the german population who were Christians stood up and fought Hitler? Like the Catholic Church did?

Perhaps a good history book would do you so good.

 

Not at all. All I am saying is that there is no sense in criticizing God for something which is a factor common to mankind but in less magnitude in mankind. As an example. An order of one man caused another man to push a button which destroyed two cities and killed thousands of people in one simple movement of the finger. I speak of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

Weak (and lame) analogy. What you are describing is strictly a mechenical process.

Bur that doesn't mean reason does not play a part, as it does in Love. Perhaps Christianity's history in the West is the reason Western atheists such as yourself regard religion in such a matter.

Your damn right every religion thinks their right- everyone thinks their right. It's simply that we have evidence on our side.

Also, the Qur'an isn't any ordinary dictation, especially considering its sources.

We can start by defining Him as perfect. His divine attributes (from being all-powerful to all-wise) naturally flow from this quality of perfection.

But their books are corrupted, and their theology differs from ours. For example, Christians believe God did not create evil. But Islam teaches that God, being the all-powerful Creator that He is, created everything.

Supposition? Not at all. His divine attributes have been revealed to us through His own words. More so, His divine qualities are based on reason as well. How else can God not be all-good?

Denial is the first step. Don't think that your objections haven't been put forth before and ultimately failed. Your type is portrayed well in the Qur'an:

And...?

I know that.

So?

What does this have to do with the early period of Islam? Anyway, are you aware of what dhimmitude is? Non-Muslims simply had to pay taxes, as all citizens are expected to do in a state.

Of course. All human affairs (from the family to the state level) is politics.

I know that.

Absolute nonsense. The Prophet not only lived an austere life (who had very little wealth by the time he died); he could have easily become economically powerful and stop preaching God' message if he wanted to. Indeed, he was offered to be king of the Quraysh if he would have only ceased spreading his message.

As was the case of profits before them.

Not according to history. They rejected Islam for the same reasons other nations rejected their prophets: they simply hated the Truth, hence why the early Muslims were tortured and oppressed.

1. Prosaic? Maybe if your reading an English translation. Qur'anic recitations only and always sound beautiful in their pure, original form.

2. Which hadiths are you talking about? Give an example.

You haven't persuaded us that this was the case.

Yes, yes, atheists have all the facts. We get it. But my point was that you essentially see what you believe. We believe in God and see Him behind everything, but we can don't have to ignore science at work (maybe not all of us). Atheists, who have a materialistic outlook on life, naturally just see science. Of course, they pick and choose what they want to consider non-materialistic fashion, of course.

The standard derisive arrogance one can expect from atheists. They are such a bitter bunch, aren't they? I wonder why.

In any event, we have evidence. You have nothing. And there is nothing meaningful about a Godless life.

 

Gospel of Mary that Gnostic and now atheist believe it is true!