Re: About Tzieth
Met your quota for stupid? Please don't insult yourself Mr Ed. Gosh darnit I completely did not want to get into an argument but do I have a choice now?
Haggai 2:7: And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
Isaiah 11:10: And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Both are way out of context and you know it. I am curious though.. Why are you using haggai as a reference?
"I'll buy you a new Mercedes if you can prove that statement, friend. A counsel meeting in the 4th century by some pasta-slurpers who are credited for canonizing the Bible doesn't mean they had a thing to do with creating its contents, or even with making it popular and accepted."
You are not a true pastor are you? Aside from the fact that you sling insults like a sailor, your historical facts are seriously lacking.
The Proof is in the fact that the Romans documented everything as did the Greeks. But okay, I will play your game lol.
A) Your word of mouth theory does apply to the torah but in no way does it apply to the New Testament. The gospels were written accounts and/or letters. As for your proof of how the Bible was put together... Well, there is more proof of that in written documentation by historians of the time, than there is that the Gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. As for Acts and the rest? A Tax-man who is en-route to persecute Christians (Who by the way never knew Jesus when Jesus lived.) Suddenly claims to have an encounter then writes a bunch of letters protesting churches of the time. How is this any different from what Jim Jones or David Koresch claimed? (Rome put it in because it was all about control and servitude... I personally do not give these books credence.. but thats just me.. Same with Revelations which by the way again talks about the "do not judge" thing.
We know there was no Bible pre-Nicea because this is not "Prehistory" as like the Old Testament was. For 200 years Christians were killing Christians and that is well documented. It was the reason for the Counsel. There was only the Torah and the Gospels. And there were a-lot more Gospels that were floating around then what was put into the Bible. These "Pasta-Slurpers" (Does your bigotry have no end? I am 4th gen Italian by the way, so thanks for that.) that you speak of may or may not have been christian. But they are the ones that decided what went in and what was to be left out. Am I to understand that God left his divine word into the hands of infidel Pasta-slurpers? (FYI Nicea was in Bithynia {modern day Turkey} not Italy.)
So which is it, Pastor Ed? The Bible was the result of pagan Infernal Romans, or Christian Pre-Catholics who were truly inspired by Christ in the name of true righteousness? There is no third option here...
Originally posted by Pastor Ed Lowman
View Post
Met your quota for stupid? Please don't insult yourself Mr Ed. Gosh darnit I completely did not want to get into an argument but do I have a choice now?
Haggai 2:7: And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
Isaiah 11:10: And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Both are way out of context and you know it. I am curious though.. Why are you using haggai as a reference?
"I'll buy you a new Mercedes if you can prove that statement, friend. A counsel meeting in the 4th century by some pasta-slurpers who are credited for canonizing the Bible doesn't mean they had a thing to do with creating its contents, or even with making it popular and accepted."
You are not a true pastor are you? Aside from the fact that you sling insults like a sailor, your historical facts are seriously lacking.
The Proof is in the fact that the Romans documented everything as did the Greeks. But okay, I will play your game lol.
A) Your word of mouth theory does apply to the torah but in no way does it apply to the New Testament. The gospels were written accounts and/or letters. As for your proof of how the Bible was put together... Well, there is more proof of that in written documentation by historians of the time, than there is that the Gospels were actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. As for Acts and the rest? A Tax-man who is en-route to persecute Christians (Who by the way never knew Jesus when Jesus lived.) Suddenly claims to have an encounter then writes a bunch of letters protesting churches of the time. How is this any different from what Jim Jones or David Koresch claimed? (Rome put it in because it was all about control and servitude... I personally do not give these books credence.. but thats just me.. Same with Revelations which by the way again talks about the "do not judge" thing.
We know there was no Bible pre-Nicea because this is not "Prehistory" as like the Old Testament was. For 200 years Christians were killing Christians and that is well documented. It was the reason for the Counsel. There was only the Torah and the Gospels. And there were a-lot more Gospels that were floating around then what was put into the Bible. These "Pasta-Slurpers" (Does your bigotry have no end? I am 4th gen Italian by the way, so thanks for that.) that you speak of may or may not have been christian. But they are the ones that decided what went in and what was to be left out. Am I to understand that God left his divine word into the hands of infidel Pasta-slurpers? (FYI Nicea was in Bithynia {modern day Turkey} not Italy.)So which is it, Pastor Ed? The Bible was the result of pagan Infernal Romans, or Christian Pre-Catholics who were truly inspired by Christ in the name of true righteousness? There is no third option here...






Comment