Protestantism

» pink101 - Refiring the Canon

In response to Canon posted by Migisi:
.
Gasp!
.
Does ....does.....does this mean we're reliving the past? Are we going to go through this whole thing again?
.
Gasp. Woof!
.
I could start chasing my tail and barking at the moon.
.
:)
.
But, thanks for the links, Migisi. Or is that Hawknut?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Refiring the Canon

In response to Refiring the Canon posted by pink101:
.
You know, I liked Hawknut. Yes, even when she was a he. Tee hee.
.
Hey Pink, we're old players in this 'prove it' game.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Follow up on Matthew

In response to Follow up on Matthew posted by redback:

.
Hi Jeff. You might want to read an interesting critique of 'A Case For Christ' here: http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Hold on, Pink

In response to Canon posted by pink101:

You completely sidestepped by points concerning early church history and the canon process - and instead proceeded to respond to my religious beliefs concerning divine inspiration.

In my previous post, I was simply making the argument that the early church (as in the FIRST century church and the early 2nd century church) WIDELY and STRONGLY embraced the first four Gospels as being credible, trustworthy, and accurate portraits of the life of Jesus Christ. Are you disputing that? If so, show me your evidence to the contrary.

» Brian Tubbs - Discussion of History

Migisi and Pink,
I don't say this to be rude, but you're both twisting and distorting my argument in THIS thread in a way that's extremely unfair.

Yes, I am a Christian. Yes, I believe in the Bible. Yes. Yes. Yes. But I'm attempting to discuss this subject in a way that's respectful and cordial and constructive. I'm pointing to the historical record and to biblical scholarship - scholarship that includes non-Christians, by the way.

If you're not interested in a constructive discussion centered on the historical record, that's fine. But do not disrespect me by implying that I'm just spouting off a "The Bible says it, that settles it" kind of argument. I'm not doing that, and you know it.

And it's very unfair for you to just throw out this "We've been down this road before" nonsense. That's dismissive and disrespectful. You didn't discuss this with ME in 2004. I am an individual, and I expect to be treated as such.

I'm citing evidence and historical facts and making logical arguments from that. You don't have to agree with me. That's fine. Cite your arguments. Let's discuss this rationally. If you're not interested in a constructive, rational dialog, that's fine. Tell me now. I certainly have other things to do with my time.

» Migisi - Discussion of History

In response to Discussion of History posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I don't say this to be rude, but you're both twisting and distorting my argument in THIS thread in a way that's extremely unfair.
.
You got me here. Um, what's your 'argument', and which part did I distort?
.
But I'm attempting to discuss this subject in a way that's respectful and cordial and constructive.
.
And you think I haven't? Point out where I haven't been cordial and constructive?
.
I'm pointing to the historical record and to biblical scholarship - scholarship that includes non-Christians, by the way.
.
Um, so have I. What's your point?
.
If you're not interested in a constructive discussion centered on the historical record, that's fine. But do not disrespect me by implying that I'm just spouting off a "The Bible says it, that settles it" kind of argument. I'm not doing that, and you know it.
.
And it's very unfair for you to just throw out this "We've been down this road before" nonsense. That's dismissive and disrespectful. You didn't discuss this with ME in 2004. I am an individual, and I expect to be treated as such.
.
Geez, Brian. You're flipping out over NOTHING. I was going down memory lane with Pink, since we're old posters here. It had nothing to do with you.
.
I'm citing evidence and historical facts and making logical arguments from that. You don't have to agree with me. That's fine. Cite your arguments. Let's discuss this rationally. If you're not interested in a constructive, rational dialog, that's fine. Tell me now. I certainly have other things to do with my time.
.
Chill out! If you pitch fits like this because you haven't 'wowed' me with your logic and evidence, I surely WON'T be interested in having any further constructive or rational dialog with you. You're behaving childishly, Mr. Brian. If you want me to leave your topic, just say so. But don't make things up just to pick a fight. Not necessary.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Discussion of History

In response to Discussion of History posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Here's what I had to say on the subject of who wrote the scriptures, "We can argue about its specific human sources such as was it written by a team of writers or what."
.
I signed off having an opinion on the idea that it was the Revealed or Inspired Word of God.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Discussion of History

In response to Discussion of History posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Is your current study work on the origins of these four Gospels, Brian?
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - In So Many Ways

In response to Discussion of History posted by Migisi:
.
tsk tsk.
.
I think Brian is having a bad week and it's only Tuesday.
.
:)
.
We have to understand how much we're all alike in so many ways.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - reflux

In response to Follow up on Matthew posted by Migisi:

I'm unsure if Brian responds to me here. Sometimes all I hear is a distant echo and I'm left to ponder whether the Book of Jeffus should be included in Bible discussions at all.

Yep, I read Strobel (as I do anything) with an open mind so your linked article is highly relevant...thanx. Slightly familiar so maybe I've read it before. It just seemed his book referenced/supported some of what Brian was saying some of the time so I cited it for that purpose.

Maybe some readers are only trying to read disagreement into everything I post or assume I'm a clone of this or that modern day poster here so should be avoided. BTW some of the questions raised by you and Pink on some matters are understood by me some of the time, too.

As I understood it, Brian relayed what the historical mainstream belief was re the authors of the Gospels and some of the argument in Strobel was helpful on that score too. I thought I could agree on that without necessarily agreeing on the subsequent interpretations of Gospel. I'm 'reliant' on sources like Strobel...Brian on far far more study.

The "formally anonymous" statement was discussed in 'The Case for Christ' and while Strobel seemed quickly convinced, twas not one of the compelling arguments for me. Strobel did concede his book was unable to cover everything Jeff may ask.

I'm yet to finish 'The Case For Faith' and can't recall now who within suite101 recommended these books.

If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were simply messengers, they, like Brian, are undeserving of being shot. But then, I'm certainly less "emotionally invested" in that aspect than Brian. Interesting term, that and risks sounding dismissive to lesser mortals such as I.

I'm not up on the timelines that you referred to. There's Biblical history and there's the relative accuracy of the Gospels in the 21st Century, not to mention relevance. And glossing over who were the (inspired) authors and how they came by their Jesus' biography doesn't routinely advance my understanding of the interpretations placed on those facts.

IMO Mark 6:13 raises a belief in demon possession. The 10 Commandments indicate there are other lesser gods who should not be worshipped by your parents for fear of punishment on the child. This could include demons and Satan and supernatural beings but not man-made imagery. That would cater more to a superstitous age and is arguably less relevant today. Is it those living a hedonistic life are not worshipping another God...they are simply not worshipping God?

And try as I might, I'm far from convinced the heart has any potential for any of the functions ascribed it in the Bible.

-- posted by redback