Godly Love

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Roman catholocism doesnt predate your faith?  It traces back to Pentacost CE 30...i think you are wrong since you've stated multiple times you follow the kjv which clearly didnt exist till king james and fully published in the 1600's...

 

 

Well, if you trace Christianity back to a historic Jesus -- who would have been speaking Aramaic .......

 

We have already established, that God was not concerned with mistake free translations.  Only mistake free originals.  Has anybody seen the original Gospels, in Aramaic?

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

Dan says he follows the kjv.  He also says its not different than the originals nor the oldest surviving copies.  Why follow the version from more than 1200 years since it was codified?  Why not an earlier one?  Why not 'the great bible' or 'the bishops'?  I mean, they ARE all the same and english with no significant translation errors...but Dan insists on kjv instead of one of the numerous english translations.

 

My best guess is the kjv closely resembles what he wants to be true...meaning its dan's choice, not gods.

Edited January 7, 2019 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

16 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Dan says he follows the kjv.  He also says its not different than the originals nor the oldest surviving copies.  Why follow the version from more than 1200 years since it was codified?  Why not an earlier one?  Why not 'the great bible' or 'the bishops'?  I mean, they ARE all the same and english with no significant translation errors...but Dan insists on kjv instead of one of the numerous english translations.

 

My best guess is the kjv closely resembles what he wants to be true...meaning its dan's choice, not gods.

 

 

Orthodox Jews go straight to the Hebrew text, because they don't trust any translation.  This is taking text seriously.

 

 

[Dan56]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Roman catholocism doesnt predate your faith?  It traces back to Pentacost CE 30...i think you are wrong since you've stated multiple times you follow the kjv which clearly didnt exist till king james and fully published in the 1600's...

 

All Christians follow a bible, but their faith isn't based on the date a bible was published. And despite what the Catholic's might say, that religion didn't exist at Pentecost. Keep in mind that Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope too, but he wasn't. Also consider that there's no biblical record of Peter ever going to Rome..Paul was the first to go to Rome, he was imprisoned for 2 years prior to being decapitated. 

 

When I say my faith, I'm not referring to any specific denomination. My faith is in the teachings of Christ, not on any religion that was organized post Christ. And no where in the New Testament is Catholicism mentioned or described.

[cuchulain]

9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

All Christians follow a bible, but their faith isn't based on the date a bible was published. And despite what the Catholic's might say, that religion didn't exist at Pentecost. Keep in mind that Catholics claim Peter was the first Pope too, but he wasn't. Also consider that there's no biblical record of Peter ever going to Rome..Paul was the first to go to Rome, he was imprisoned for 2 years prior to being decapitated. 

 

When I say my faith, I'm not referring to any specific denomination. My faith is in the teachings of Christ, not on any religion that was organized post Christ. And no where in the New Testament is Catholicism mentioned or described.

You protest what I say because Roman Catholocism makes a claim that they cannot prove...and immediately follow up with a claim you cannot prove.

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You protest what I say because Roman Catholocism makes a claim that they cannot prove...and immediately follow up with a claim you cannot prove.

 

My only claim is based on biblical evidence.. If Catholicism was started at Pentecost, show me in Acts where this is confirmed? I can prove my claim by the bible, the Catholics can't, and that was my only point. Remember that you wrote that the RCC was older than anything I believe, but since my faith is in the words and life of Christ, the RCC could not have proceeded him. 

[cuchulain]

On 1/7/2019 at 9:11 PM, Dan56 said:

 

My only claim is based on biblical evidence.. If Catholicism was started at Pentecost, show me in Acts where this is confirmed? I can prove my claim by the bible, the Catholics can't, and that was my only point. Remember that you wrote that the RCC was older than anything I believe, but since my faith is in the words and life of Christ, the RCC could not have proceeded him. 

You still cant prove your faith is older, even if i concede that rcc wasnt founded at pentecost.  You cant prove you follow the original teachings since you rely on spotty witnesses at best whos original texts were lost but you got copies of copies that have known translation and scribal errors...

 

Biblical evidence is not evidence no matter how you parse it.

[cuchulain]

And you follow the kjv which was published...when?  Not before roman catholocism, thats certain.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

And you follow the kjv which was published...when?  Not before roman catholocism, thats certain.

 

The horse is dead.     

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You still cant prove your faith is older, even if i concede that rcc wasnt founded at pentecost.  You cant prove you follow the original teachings since you rely on spotty witnesses at best whos original texts were lost but you got copies of copies that have known translation and scribal errors...

 

Biblical evidence is not evidence no matter how you parse it.

 

Put a date on the origin of what you have faith in, and that is the age of your faith.. My faith is in Christ, who proceeded every Christian denomination.. As previously stated, I don't consider witnesses who nearly all died for their testimony, to be spotty witnesses.. As I also stated, I don't believe scribal errors are a factor since we have thousands of copies and mistakes are easily rectified when comparing each copied verse by many scribes (i.e;  If 5833 copies of a verse all say the same thing and 3 copies of that same verse are different, the error is easily spotted).. And any language to language translation questions can easily be answered by using a concordance to define the Hebrew or Greek word being translated to other languages.

 

10 hours ago, cuchulain said:

And you follow the kjv which was published...when?  Not before roman catholocism, thats certain.

 

The date a bible was published isn't relevant, I follow the message preserved in the KJV.. If I lived during an era predating the printing press, I would have likely followed the manuscripts & parchments containing the gospels & apostle letters, all of which were preserved and later published comprising the new testament. And 'no', I don't believe Catholicism predates the letters of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, etc... I'm at a loss to understand your determination to make Catholicism predate what I believe, but if your simply trying to say that they may have older books, I'll concede that they probably do have an older complete codex of the NT?

 

[cuchulain]

On 1/9/2019 at 9:42 PM, Dan56 said:

 

Put a date on the origin of what you have faith in, and that is the age of your faith.. My faith is in Christ, who proceeded every Christian denomination.. As previously stated, I don't consider witnesses who nearly all died for their testimony, to be spotty witnesses.. As I also stated, I don't believe scribal errors are a factor since we have thousands of copies and mistakes are easily rectified when comparing each copied verse by many scribes (i.e;  If 5833 copies of a verse all say the same thing and 3 copies of that same verse are different, the error is easily spotted).. And any language to language translation questions can easily be answered by using a concordance to define the Hebrew or Greek word being translated to other languages.

 

 

The date a bible was published isn't relevant, I follow the message preserved in the KJV.. If I lived during an era predating the printing press, I would have likely followed the manuscripts & parchments containing the gospels & apostle letters, all of which were preserved and later published comprising the new testament. And 'no', I don't believe Catholicism predates the letters of Paul, Peter, Luke, John, etc... I'm at a loss to understand your determination to make Catholicism predate what I believe, but if your simply trying to say that they may have older books, I'll concede that they probably do have an older complete codex of the NT?

 

Prove the kjv accurately preserved the original message by showing me the original message.

 

Its not that i care when Catholic belief came into being.  The point is to show that you have the same spotty evidence as they do but insist yours is better.  Their interpretation of the same book is different than yours, just as unproven...but yours is better?  Egocentric at best, dan.

Edited January 11, 2019 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Prove the kjv accurately preserved the original message by showing me the original message.

 

Its not that i care when Catholic belief came into being.  The point is to show that you have the same spotty evidence as they do but insist yours is better.  Their interpretation of the same book is different than yours, just as unproven...but yours is better?  Egocentric at best, dan.

 

 

What do we get from old religious manuscripts?  Old assertions.  As reliable then, as the internet is now.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Prove the kjv accurately preserved the original message by showing me the original message.

 

You obviously need an original manuscript to accept that something could be accurate, but for reasons previously stated, I don't need to see an original to accept that accurate copies were made.  Accuracy can be proven by volume, because defects in any single copy would stand out by not complying with what's written in the majority of texts.. Its a process of elimination that puts a spot light on every word, whereby errors on any single copy are easily detected. Say you have  5000 copies of Mark Twain's  Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, if 16 of those 5000 copies have sentences that don't match the other 4984 copies, logic would dictate that 16 books had copyist errors, and not that all of the books were inaccurate.

[cuchulain]

17 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

You obviously need an original manuscript to accept that something could be accurate, but for reasons previously stated, I don't need to see an original to accept that accurate copies were made.  Accuracy can be proven by volume, because defects in any single copy would stand out by not complying with what's written in the majority of texts.. Its a process of elimination that puts a spot light on every word, whereby errors on any single copy are easily detected. Say you have  5000 copies of Mark Twain's  Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, if 16 of those 5000 copies have sentences that don't match the other 4984 copies, logic would dictate that 16 books had copyist errors, and not that all of the books were inaccurate.

Circular.

 

You claim something unprovable, then decry some others for claiming something unprovable while saying its me that rejects the proof unfairly...then we do the definition game where you use erroneous definitions of proof and i point out the correct one.  Then you claim the definition depends on things like context age and the individuals using it, but acede that you believe yours because of faith, which is believed without proof.  I say you should prove up if you want me to believe, but you claim i reject all proof, which you also just agreed doesn't exist but then claim you have a different definition for...

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Circular.

 

You claim something unprovable, then decry some others for claiming something unprovable while saying its me that rejects the proof unfairly...then we do the definition game where you use erroneous definitions of proof and i point out the correct one.  Then you claim the definition depends on things like context age and the individuals using it, but acede that you believe yours because of faith, which is believed without proof.  I say you should prove up if you want me to believe, but you claim i reject all proof, which you also just agreed doesn't exist but then claim you have a different definition for...

 

Bottom line is that the original letters of the NT no longer exist, but were preserved by scribes.. A person either believes that they were capable of accurately copying those letters, or that all of the thousands of copies were all screwed-up..  You look for reasons not to believe, so I have a hunch that if just one of the thousands of copies had a period where a coma should be, you'd dismiss them all as untrustworthy. The level of proof you demand is unattainable.. I suspect your real objection isn't with the accuracy or authenticity of scripture, but rather lies in your direct opposition to what's written.. In other words, you'd reject it even if you had the originals.

[cuchulain]

29 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Bottom line is that the original letters of the NT no longer exist, but were preserved by scribes.. A person either believes that they were capable of accurately copying those letters, or that all of the thousands of copies were all screwed-up..  You look for reasons not to believe, so I have a hunch that if just one of the thousands of copies had a period where a coma should be, you'd dismiss them all as untrustworthy. The level of proof you demand is unattainable.. I suspect your real objection isn't with the accuracy or authenticity of scripture, but rather lies in your direct opposition to what's written.. In other words, you'd reject it even if you had the originals.

Again...you cant provide proof so resort to an attack that i wouldnt accept it any way.  Does this personal attack further your point or your ego?

[Dan56]

5 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Again...you cant provide proof so resort to an attack that i wouldnt accept it any way.  Does this personal attack further your point or your ego?

 

I was making a point, not an attack... To illustrate my point, would you be a Christian if we had all the original letters and gospels that comprise the new testament? My point was that you would not likely accept the message regardless. 

[cuchulain]

On 1/12/2019 at 11:49 PM, Dan56 said:

 

I was making a point, not an attack... To illustrate my point, would you be a Christian if we had all the original letters and gospels that comprise the new testament? My point was that you would not likely accept the message regardless. 

Sure dan.

 

I would accept the point you were actually making, that the book was unchanged.  There are lots of reasons i dont believe, so proving me wrong on one is just one step on a trail.  See how the straw man works?  Your point was that it was the same message, now its that i wouldnt be convinced to be christian if it was proven. Two different arguments that are moot anyway since you havent proven the originals match what we have.

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

you havent proven the originals match what we have.

 

I never set-out to prove that, I've only submitted reasons why I think its very probable... Obviously, you can't prove a copy matches an original when no original exist.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Sure dan.

 

I would accept the point you were actually making, that the book was unchanged.  There are lots of reasons i dont believe, so proving me wrong on one is just one step on a trail.  See how the straw man works?  Your point was that it was the same message, now its that i wouldnt be convinced to be christian if it was proven. Two different arguments that are moot anyway since you havent proven the originals match what we have.

 

 

Aside from the question of originality, is the question of content.  Is the content true?

 

In the modern world, we don't accept everything as true, just because it is printed.  Likewise, the ancient world is full of manuscripts, that have no true content.

 

How sad and suspicious, that God needed Human scribes.  The mind that spoke all of existence into being -- needed help publishing The Books.  

 

How odd that the same God, needed the help of Humans, to create The Temple.  It seems that the God who created trees and cats and all other wonders -- can't make anything that people can make.

 

It's almost as though God had nothing to do with any of it.  Or are we dealing with a trickster God -- who pretended to have nothing to do with anything?  To test our Faith?

 

Interesting thought.  That means that Humanity has been set up, to be vulnerable to every con artist and swindler -- to the end of time.  Since we can't trust evidence or reason.  Only Faith.  What kind of God makes gullibility our most treasured feature?