Here is a site that shows the spread of five major religions through history.
Because of it's age Hinduism can call all the others cults.
Buddhism a reaction to Hinduism. Christianity a reaction to Judaism, Islam a reaction to both.
Take your pick on which one is right. Swords and guns for sale cheap to prove your choice.
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html
Wow, look how much ground Christianity has gained. And their weapon of choice is The Bible.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 22 2009, 09:16 AM)
Wow, look how much ground Christianity has gained. And their weapon of choice is The Bible.
Only the Bible? really?
this is actually a very good animation, thank you for posting.
Only the Bible? really?
this is actually a very good animation, thank you for posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia
"Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland."
"Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland."
Spreads like a disease.
QUOTE (orestis+Sep 22 2009, 05:23 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia
"Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland."
Sounds like what Muhammad did
"Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland."
Sounds like what Muhammad did
orestis: Your Wikipedia link has to do with the antics of the so-called "Holy Roman Empire", led by the Papacy. How ironic that a "Crusader" such as yourself cannot distinguish between the antics of the Papacy and their "Crusades" and the teachings of Jesus CHRIST, from whence true CHRISTianity arises. As we both know, Jesus CHRIST taught His disciples, the CHRISTians, to merely "shake the dust off of their feet" and to move on when confronted by those who reject the gospel. NO TALK WHATSOEVER of "destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters". Rather than simply accept this REALITY, you, as well as the other willfully (?...Perhaps I've OVERestimated you? Perhaps you're just plain old stupid?) imbecilic around here, will undoubtedly chant "THE NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!"...convincing your imbecilic selves that you've actually said something intelligent. You haven't, but don't let me burst your bubble (of ingorance), okay?
Matador: Due to your moniker, I can't help but wonder how you would fare against a "Papal BULL"... My guess is that you'd wind up gored in the... Take care.
what i say?
QUOTE (FGG+)
Spreads like a disease.
FGG: Yes, IGNORANCE does "spread like a disease". Here's hoping that YOUR CASE is not terminal.
Matador: Due to your moniker, I can't help but wonder how you would fare against a "Papal BULL"... My guess is that you'd wind up gored in the... Take care.
FGG: Yes, IGNORANCE does "spread like a disease". Here's hoping that YOUR CASE is not terminal.
Matador: Due to your moniker, I can't help but wonder how you would fare against a "Papal BULL"... My guess is that you'd wind up gored in the... Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 11:15 AM)
Matador: Due to your moniker, I can't help but wonder how you would fare against a "Papal BULL"... My guess is that you'd wind up gored in the... Take care.
what i say?
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 07:15 AM)
Your Wikipedia link has to do with the antics of the so-called "Holy Roman Empire", led by the Papacy. How ironic that a "Crusader" such as yourself cannot distinguish between the antics of the Papacy and their "Crusades" and the teachings of Jesus CHRIST, from whence true CHRISTianity arises. As we both know, Jesus CHRIST taught His disciples, the CHRISTians, to merely "shake the dust off of their feet" and to move on when confronted by those who reject the gospel. NO TALK WHATSOEVER of "destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters". Rather than simply accept this REALITY, you, as well as the other willfully (?...Perhaps I've OVERestimated you? Perhaps you're just plain old stupid?) imbecilic around here, will undoubtedly chant "THE NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY!"...convincing your imbecilic selves that you've actually said something intelligent. You haven't, but don't let me burst your bubble (of ingorance), okay?
If it wasn't for those forced conversions, Christianity would never have survived the fall of the Roman Empire. You yourself would not be a Christian if it was not for one of your great ancestors who chose to convert rather than to be killed. (I am assuming that you are of European descent)
In that case, maybe those "unchristian" actions were actually just your god's way of spreading his religion?
If it wasn't for those forced conversions, Christianity would never have survived the fall of the Roman Empire. You yourself would not be a Christian if it was not for one of your great ancestors who chose to convert rather than to be killed. (I am assuming that you are of European descent)
In that case, maybe those "unchristian" actions were actually just your god's way of spreading his religion?
To add to that King James would not have been a Christian, and would not have commisioned his version of the Bible.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 07:15 AM)
orestis: As we both know, Jesus CHRIST taught His disciples, the CHRISTians, to merely "shake the dust off of their feet" and to move on when confronted by those who reject the gospel.
If you believe that then what the *** are you doing back here again? Don't you see the contradiction between what you say and what you do, Olaf?
I'd love to stay and chat, dummy, but I have to catch a plane.
If you believe that then what the *** are you doing back here again? Don't you see the contradiction between what you say and what you do, Olaf?
I'd love to stay and chat, dummy, but I have to catch a plane.
QUOTE (orestis+)
If you believe that then what the *** are you doing back here again? Don't you see the contradiction between what you say and what you do, Olaf?
orestis: There's no "contradiction". Do you HONESTLY believe that you've EVER even discussed "the gospel" here? Get real. What you've (individually and collectively) discussed is a bunch of GARBAGE related to things/people like the Crusades, Hitler, George W. Bush, Roman Catholicism, etc., etc., etc. I doubt that you even know what "the gospel" is. Anyhow, if you'd really like to get rid of me, then just figure out what "the gospel" is and then start a thread in which you ask the forum members here to admit that all of the GARBAGE that they've been going on about for years has nothing to do with "the gospel" and then ask them to publicly reject what "the gospel" actually is and I'll disappear. Deal?
orestis: There's no "contradiction". Do you HONESTLY believe that you've EVER even discussed "the gospel" here? Get real. What you've (individually and collectively) discussed is a bunch of GARBAGE related to things/people like the Crusades, Hitler, George W. Bush, Roman Catholicism, etc., etc., etc. I doubt that you even know what "the gospel" is. Anyhow, if you'd really like to get rid of me, then just figure out what "the gospel" is and then start a thread in which you ask the forum members here to admit that all of the GARBAGE that they've been going on about for years has nothing to do with "the gospel" and then ask them to publicly reject what "the gospel" actually is and I'll disappear. Deal?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
To add to that King James would not have been a Christian, and would not have commisioned his version of the Bible.
buttershug: What are you suggesting/stating? That the commissioning of a literary work makes one a Christian? If you have proof of King James' Christianity, then offer it. I, for one, would like to see it. In reality, there were many who referred to King James as "Queen James" for his assumed bi-sexuality. Additionally, it was pretty much "the norm" for kings to USE THE BIBLE TO FURTHER THEIR OWN AGENDAS. For example:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...king-james.html
James dissolved the English Parliament on February 8, 1622, following a dispute involving parliamentary criticisms of a marriage proposed by James, of his son Charles to Princess Maria Anna of Spain. King James was quoted as saying, "Monarchy is the greatest thing on earth. Kings are rightly called gods since just like God they have power of life and death over all their subjects in all things. They are accountable to God only ... so it is a crime for anyone to argue about what a king can do."
James' quote was based upon some loose interpretations of certain Bible passages...Bible passages that were USED FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. Surely, you can't be that ignorant of history, can you? Maybe Rob can help you out? On second thought, our resident "historian" can't even read my posting HISTORY...
buttershug: What are you suggesting/stating? That the commissioning of a literary work makes one a Christian? If you have proof of King James' Christianity, then offer it. I, for one, would like to see it. In reality, there were many who referred to King James as "Queen James" for his assumed bi-sexuality. Additionally, it was pretty much "the norm" for kings to USE THE BIBLE TO FURTHER THEIR OWN AGENDAS. For example:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...king-james.html
James dissolved the English Parliament on February 8, 1622, following a dispute involving parliamentary criticisms of a marriage proposed by James, of his son Charles to Princess Maria Anna of Spain. King James was quoted as saying, "Monarchy is the greatest thing on earth. Kings are rightly called gods since just like God they have power of life and death over all their subjects in all things. They are accountable to God only ... so it is a crime for anyone to argue about what a king can do."
James' quote was based upon some loose interpretations of certain Bible passages...Bible passages that were USED FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. Surely, you can't be that ignorant of history, can you? Maybe Rob can help you out? On second thought, our resident "historian" can't even read my posting HISTORY...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
If it wasn't for those forced conversions, Christianity would never have survived the fall of the Roman Empire.
flyingbuttressman: "Those forced conversions" were designed to DESTROY Christianity...NOT to help it to "survive". Salvation is of the Lord. In other words, it is the work/influence of the Holy Spirit upon one's life that draws one to salvation...NOT the edge of the sword.
flyingbuttressman: "Those forced conversions" were designed to DESTROY Christianity...NOT to help it to "survive". Salvation is of the Lord. In other words, it is the work/influence of the Holy Spirit upon one's life that draws one to salvation...NOT the edge of the sword.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You yourself would not be a Christian if it was not for one of your great ancestors who chose to convert rather than to be killed. (I am assuming that you are of European descent)
My natural descent has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my Christianity. Christianity of the Biblical sort is the direct result of a series of SUPERnatural events.
My natural descent has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my Christianity. Christianity of the Biblical sort is the direct result of a series of SUPERnatural events.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
In that case, maybe those "unchristian" actions were actually just your god's way of spreading his religion?
NOT "my God's way", but "YOUR god's way". Go figure. I already have. Take care.
NOT "my God's way", but "YOUR god's way". Go figure. I already have. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 09:56 AM)
flyingbuttressman: "Those forced conversions" were designed to DESTROY Christianity...NOT to help it to "survive". Salvation is of the Lord. In other words, it is the work/influence of the Holy Spirit upon one's life that draws one to salvation...NOT the edge of the sword.
So, when Charlemagne forced the conversion of the citizens of his empire, that didn't affect the proliferation of Christianity in any way? EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has some history of forced religious conversion. Christianity only grew because of forced conversion. Do we really have to go through the sheer number of examples? If no-one was ever forced to convert to Christianity, it is doubtful that it would have spread out of the former Roman Empire.
It has EVERYTHING to do with your religious choices. If you were of Saudi Arabian descent, it would be extremely probable that you would be a Muslim. If you were of Indian descent, it would be highly probable that you would be a Muslim or a Hindu.
To think that you actually chose Christianity because you conducted a fair study of all religions before picking one is hilarious. Affirming your choice post-conversion is a joke.
So, when Charlemagne forced the conversion of the citizens of his empire, that didn't affect the proliferation of Christianity in any way? EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has some history of forced religious conversion. Christianity only grew because of forced conversion. Do we really have to go through the sheer number of examples? If no-one was ever forced to convert to Christianity, it is doubtful that it would have spread out of the former Roman Empire.
QUOTE
My natural descent has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my Christianity. Christianity of the Biblical sort is the direct result of a series of SUPERnatural events.
It has EVERYTHING to do with your religious choices. If you were of Saudi Arabian descent, it would be extremely probable that you would be a Muslim. If you were of Indian descent, it would be highly probable that you would be a Muslim or a Hindu.
To think that you actually chose Christianity because you conducted a fair study of all religions before picking one is hilarious. Affirming your choice post-conversion is a joke.
QUOTE (Matador+)
what I say?
Matador: Nothing, really. I was just attempting to make a point and I used your username to that end. Had orestis continued his quote, we would have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia
Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland.
After Olaf's defeat at the Battle of Svolder in 1000 there was a partial relapse to paganism in Norway under the rule of the Jarls of Lade. In the following reign of Saint Olaf, 1015-1028, pagan remnants were stamped out and Christianity entrenched.
Nicholas Breakspear, the later Pope Adrian IV, visited Norway from 1152 to 1154. During his visit, he set out a church structure for Norway. The Papal bull confirming the establishment of an Norwegian archdiocese at Nidaros (Archdiocese of Nidaros) is dated November 30, 1154.
Actually, throughout the article, there are numerous references to the Papacy/Popes, The Holy Roman Empire, etc. In other words, as usual, orestis refuses to differentiate between the UNbiblical actions of the Papacy and what is contained within the plain teachings of Jesus. Take care.
Matador: Nothing, really. I was just attempting to make a point and I used your username to that end. Had orestis continued his quote, we would have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia
Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian. Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland.
After Olaf's defeat at the Battle of Svolder in 1000 there was a partial relapse to paganism in Norway under the rule of the Jarls of Lade. In the following reign of Saint Olaf, 1015-1028, pagan remnants were stamped out and Christianity entrenched.
Nicholas Breakspear, the later Pope Adrian IV, visited Norway from 1152 to 1154. During his visit, he set out a church structure for Norway. The Papal bull confirming the establishment of an Norwegian archdiocese at Nidaros (Archdiocese of Nidaros) is dated November 30, 1154.
Actually, throughout the article, there are numerous references to the Papacy/Popes, The Holy Roman Empire, etc. In other words, as usual, orestis refuses to differentiate between the UNbiblical actions of the Papacy and what is contained within the plain teachings of Jesus. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 10:06 AM)
Actually, throughout the article, there are numerous references to the Papacy/Popes, The Holy Roman Empire, etc. In other words, as usual, orestis refuses to differentiate between the UNbiblical actions of the Papacy and what is contained within the plain teachings of Jesus. Take care.
Again, I will say that even though you despise the Papacy, you are a Christian today thanks in part to the Catholic Church's efforts to spread Christianity (many time by force) through all of Europe. You should be thanking them for making your faith possible.
Again, I will say that even though you despise the Papacy, you are a Christian today thanks in part to the Catholic Church's efforts to spread Christianity (many time by force) through all of Europe. You should be thanking them for making your faith possible.
flyingbuttressman: All that you're doing is showing your abysmal ignorance of what Christianity actually is. Christ existed FROM THE BEGINNING...LONG BEFORE the pagan Roman Catholic church or the so-called "Holy" Roman Empire ever reared their ugly heads. Keep on spouting your ignorance...doesn't faze me in the least. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 02:17 PM)
flyingbuttressman: All that you're doing is showing your abysmal ignorance of what Christianity actually is. Christ existed FROM THE BEGINNING...LONG BEFORE the pagan Roman Catholic church or the so-called "Holy" Roman Empire ever reared their ugly heads. Keep on spouting your ignorance...doesn't faze me in the least. Take care.
FBM is talking about knowledge of Christ.
Unless you care to tell us how you came by it with no influence of the Roman's.
FBM is talking about knowledge of Christ.
Unless you care to tell us how you came by it with no influence of the Roman's.
butershug: As usual, you're a riot. On the one hand, you speak of those who commissioned a translation of the Bible while, on the other hand, you speak of ROME WHO NOT ONLY BURNED BIBLES, BUT BURNED AT THE STAKE SOME OF THOSE WHO TRANSLATED IT INTO THE TONGUE OF THE PEOPLE. Read up on William Tyndale, who was but one recipient of "Rome's influence" when he was PUBLICLY STRANGLED AND BURNED AT THE STAKE. Better yet, read about John Wyckliffe. So infuriated was Rome by his translation of the scriptures into the tongue of the people that they dug up his bones AND BURNED THEM. As entertaining as you guys are, I just promised my children that I'd take them to an aquarium before packing for my trip home from North Carolina back to Pennsylvania. Keep up the comedy in my absence, won't you? I bet that you will...
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 10:33 AM)
butershug: As usual, you're a riot. On the one hand, you speak of those who commissioned a translation of the Bible while, on the other hand, you speak of ROME WHO NOT ONLY BURNED BIBLES, BUT BURNED AT THE STAKE SOME OF THOSE WHO TRANSLATED IT INTO THE TONGUE OF THE PEOPLE. Read up on William Tyndale, who was but one recipient of "Rome's influence" when he was PUBLICLY STRANGLED AND BURNED AT THE STAKE. Better yet, read about John Wyckliffe. So infuriated was Rome by his translation of the scriptures into the tongue of the people that they dug up his bones AND BURNED THEM. As entertaining as you guys are, I just promised my children that I'd take them to an aquarium before packing for my trip home from North Carolina back to Pennsylvania. Keep up the comedy in my absence, won't you? I bet that you will...
Let's put this in simple terms you can understand.
Jesus. It's word. You know of this word because you heard it from someone else, and because you read it in the bible. Here we have two sources of knowledge: word of mouth and the bible.
You heard about Jesus from someone else, and they heard it from yet another person. This continues back to the early days of Christianity. From the reign of Emperor Constantine onward, positions of power have been used to spread the word "Jesus" to the citizens of Europe by force. If this didn't happen, Christianity would not have spread as far as it did. England would probably have stuck with the pagan religions that pre-dated Christianity. Without a Christian England, there would be no English translation of the bible. Therefore, you would have a greatly decreased chance of hearing the word "Jesus" from another person, and you would be unable to read the bible, because it would not exist in the English language.
See how simple that was?
Let's put this in simple terms you can understand.
Jesus. It's word. You know of this word because you heard it from someone else, and because you read it in the bible. Here we have two sources of knowledge: word of mouth and the bible.
You heard about Jesus from someone else, and they heard it from yet another person. This continues back to the early days of Christianity. From the reign of Emperor Constantine onward, positions of power have been used to spread the word "Jesus" to the citizens of Europe by force. If this didn't happen, Christianity would not have spread as far as it did. England would probably have stuck with the pagan religions that pre-dated Christianity. Without a Christian England, there would be no English translation of the bible. Therefore, you would have a greatly decreased chance of hearing the word "Jesus" from another person, and you would be unable to read the bible, because it would not exist in the English language.
See how simple that was?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Without a Christian England, there would be no English translation of the bible. Therefore, you would have a greatly decreased chance of hearing the word "Jesus" from another person, and you would be unable to read the bible, because it would not exist in the English language.
flyingbuttressman: Dude, PLEAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!! When I read that, I laughed so hard that I almost choked on my own saliva! What are you trying to do...kill me? "A Christian England"?!? Dude!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
Reaction of the Catholic Church
Tyndale’s translations were condemned by both church and state in England, where it must be said it took longer for the reform movement to take hold. Tyndale was forced to flee England for the continent where he found safe haven in pro-reform areas.[12] The church and state reacted strongly against Tyndale’s work, banning his New Testament of 1526 from England. In addition any copy of his work found in England was to be burned.[13] Many Catholic scholars attacked Tyndale and his translations, the foremost of whom was Thomas More.[14] More and the Catholic Church refuted Tyndale’s translations because they argued that Tyndale had purposefully mistranslated the texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views.[15] More specifically attacked Tyndale on the grounds that he had corrupted scripture by changing certain words and thus the meaning of scripture. More focused on four key words that Tyndale had changed in his translation. The terms, as appearing in the Catholic texts, were “church”, “priest”, “do penance” and “charity”. These words became “congregation”, “senior” (changed to elder in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love” in Tyndale translation.[16] More and the Church took great offense to these changes because they challenged many of the systems and doctrines that made up the foundation of the Catholic Church during this period of time. The Catholic Church burned Tyndale at the stake in 1536.
flyingbuttressman: Dude, PLEAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!! When I read that, I laughed so hard that I almost choked on my own saliva! What are you trying to do...kill me? "A Christian England"?!? Dude!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
Reaction of the Catholic Church
Tyndale’s translations were condemned by both church and state in England, where it must be said it took longer for the reform movement to take hold. Tyndale was forced to flee England for the continent where he found safe haven in pro-reform areas.[12] The church and state reacted strongly against Tyndale’s work, banning his New Testament of 1526 from England. In addition any copy of his work found in England was to be burned.[13] Many Catholic scholars attacked Tyndale and his translations, the foremost of whom was Thomas More.[14] More and the Catholic Church refuted Tyndale’s translations because they argued that Tyndale had purposefully mistranslated the texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views.[15] More specifically attacked Tyndale on the grounds that he had corrupted scripture by changing certain words and thus the meaning of scripture. More focused on four key words that Tyndale had changed in his translation. The terms, as appearing in the Catholic texts, were “church”, “priest”, “do penance” and “charity”. These words became “congregation”, “senior” (changed to elder in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love” in Tyndale translation.[16] More and the Church took great offense to these changes because they challenged many of the systems and doctrines that made up the foundation of the Catholic Church during this period of time. The Catholic Church burned Tyndale at the stake in 1536.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
See how simple that was?
DUDE, if by "simple" you mean "STUPID", then it was mind-boggingly "simple". Well, God has spared my life. My wife is almost ready, so I won't have to read any more of your stupidity until I'm better suited to bear it. Take care.
DUDE, if by "simple" you mean "STUPID", then it was mind-boggingly "simple". Well, God has spared my life. My wife is almost ready, so I won't have to read any more of your stupidity until I'm better suited to bear it. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 11:07 AM)
Dude, PLEAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEEEEE!!! When I read that, I laughed so hard that I almost choked on my own saliva! What are you trying to do...kill me? "A Christian England"?!? Dude!!!
Apparently your ability to read is diminished. Come back when can actually read a post before you assume its contents.
You are apparently unable to separate historical Christianity from your own beliefs.
newguy,
You deliberately misunderstand and gloss over opposing viewpoints to avoid actually thinking about other points of view. That can only be described as cowardice.
Apparently your ability to read is diminished. Come back when can actually read a post before you assume its contents.
You are apparently unable to separate historical Christianity from your own beliefs.
newguy,
You deliberately misunderstand and gloss over opposing viewpoints to avoid actually thinking about other points of view. That can only be described as cowardice.
If you don't want to read anything "stupid", just don't post here. Stick to what you know to be "true", DUDE*. 
* hypocrite.
* hypocrite.
Hey, Granouille/Jim Jones is back. Dude, you really should use the emoticon with the sunglasses...it fits your persona so much better. What flavor of Kool-Aid are you serving this Sunday? "Goofy Grape"? Perfect choice. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 11:20 AM)
Hey, Granouille/Jim Jones is back. Dude, you really should use the emoticon with the sunglasses...it fits your persona so much better. What flavor of Kool-Aid are you serving this Sunday? "Goofy Grape"? Perfect choice. Take care.
More insults, no attempt to think or reply to actual content.
Coward.
More insults, no attempt to think or reply to actual content.
Coward.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Come back when can actually read a post before you assume its contents.
flyingbuttressman: Dude, take it easy...you're starting to mumble. There was no "assumption"...your stupidity is right there for all to see (well, probably not the right thing to say at "Helen Keller's School of the Blind" a.k.a. "physforum").
flyingbuttressman: Dude, take it easy...you're starting to mumble. There was no "assumption"...your stupidity is right there for all to see (well, probably not the right thing to say at "Helen Keller's School of the Blind" a.k.a. "physforum").
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You are apparently unable to separate historical Christianity from your own beliefs.
DUDE...you should do stand up comedy. I AM UNABLE? What a riot! Talk about "the old switcheroo"! YOU ARE UNABLE. For starters, your so-called "historical Christianity" is nothing more/less than the prophesied APOSTASY. Why do you constantly avoid the direct teachings of Jesus? Hmmm? We both know the answer to that question, don't we? Of course, we do. Secondly, I have spent the better part of 4 years here trying to draw a line of distinction between BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY and what professes to be Christianity in many circles. Where've you been? Living in a cave (as part of the atheistic taliban) ?
Thank you! Not too many people remember the two brothers, or their struggles with Coyote.
Maybe Tom saw a squirrel?
DUDE...you should do stand up comedy. I AM UNABLE? What a riot! Talk about "the old switcheroo"! YOU ARE UNABLE. For starters, your so-called "historical Christianity" is nothing more/less than the prophesied APOSTASY. Why do you constantly avoid the direct teachings of Jesus? Hmmm? We both know the answer to that question, don't we? Of course, we do. Secondly, I have spent the better part of 4 years here trying to draw a line of distinction between BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY and what professes to be Christianity in many circles. Where've you been? Living in a cave (as part of the atheistic taliban) ?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
newguy,
You deliberately misunderstand and gloss over opposing viewpoints to avoid actually thinking about other points of view. That can only be described as cowardice.
In your dreams. In reality, I just finished DIRECTLY ANSWERING your most recent idiocy. YOU, in turn, have tried (unsuccessfully) to divert the very issues THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. See you around, COWARD...
You deliberately misunderstand and gloss over opposing viewpoints to avoid actually thinking about other points of view. That can only be described as cowardice.
In your dreams. In reality, I just finished DIRECTLY ANSWERING your most recent idiocy. YOU, in turn, have tried (unsuccessfully) to divert the very issues THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. See you around, COWARD...
Nah, it's quite in line with what I expect from the 'DUDE'. He's very easy to prod, as you may have noticed.
Watch. Even though he said he's leaving, he'll have just a little more time to spread the love of Jesus to us heathens...
Watch. Even though he said he's leaving, he'll have just a little more time to spread the love of Jesus to us heathens...
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 11:34 AM)
DUDE...you should do stand up comedy. I AM UNABLE? What a riot! Talk about "the old switcheroo"! YOU ARE UNABLE. For starters, your so-called "historical Christianity" is nothing more/less than the prophesied APOSTASY. Why do you constantly avoid the direct teachings of Jesus? Hmmm? We both know the answer to that question, don't we? Of course, we do. Secondly, I have spent the better part of 4 years here trying to draw a line of distinction between BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY and what professes to be Christianity in many circles. Where've you been? Living in a cave (as part of the atheistic taliban) ?
I made it simple enough for you, it's not my fault if you still don't understand.
I think it's hilarious that you think that your "flavor" of Christianity is above and beyond all other "flavors." You can't even admit that your faith is a direct effect of the existence of the Christianity that you so despise. Tyndale's faith was certainly inspired by the Roman Catholic Church. Do you really think he just became a Christian magically? He had to get his source material somewhere. Who do you think provided the Hebrew and Greek source materials?
I made it simple enough for you, it's not my fault if you still don't understand.
I think it's hilarious that you think that your "flavor" of Christianity is above and beyond all other "flavors." You can't even admit that your faith is a direct effect of the existence of the Christianity that you so despise. Tyndale's faith was certainly inspired by the Roman Catholic Church. Do you really think he just became a Christian magically? He had to get his source material somewhere. Who do you think provided the Hebrew and Greek source materials?
Wow... I just saw this thread. Newguy is completely off his leash out here.
As usual he seems to delight in mangling history to suit his own purpose.
It doesn't matter whether the Roman Catholic Church is run by Satan himself. The historical fact is that Christianity was spread by the Church and no one else. flyingbuttressman is absolutely correct in saying that without the Roman Catholic church, most of us, including yourself would likely be pagan or some other variant religion at this time because we would have never heard of Christianity at all.
Bringing up a 16th century variance has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. By then Christianity was the rule and whether you think this was true Christianity or not, the truth is that you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church. Period.
As usual he seems to delight in mangling history to suit his own purpose.
QUOTE
For starters, your so-called "historical Christianity" is nothing more/less than the prophesied APOSTASY. Why do you constantly avoid the direct teachings of Jesus?
It doesn't matter whether the Roman Catholic Church is run by Satan himself. The historical fact is that Christianity was spread by the Church and no one else. flyingbuttressman is absolutely correct in saying that without the Roman Catholic church, most of us, including yourself would likely be pagan or some other variant religion at this time because we would have never heard of Christianity at all.
Bringing up a 16th century variance has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. By then Christianity was the rule and whether you think this was true Christianity or not, the truth is that you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church. Period.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 03:34 PM)
Where've you been? Living in a cave (as part of the atheistic taliban) ?
"Atheistic Taliban"??
What a load of stupidity.
Like you, the Taliban are every bit as convinced of their particular view of THE SAME USELESS god whose cock you suck.
They occupy the exact same end of the socio-political/culture spectrum as you. They're fundie-nutbags too!
You Phooking moronic piece of shite.
"Atheistic Taliban"??
What a load of stupidity.
Like you, the Taliban are every bit as convinced of their particular view of THE SAME USELESS god whose cock you suck.
They occupy the exact same end of the socio-political/culture spectrum as you. They're fundie-nutbags too!
You Phooking moronic piece of shite.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 02:33 PM)
butershug: As usual, you're a riot. On the one hand, you speak of those who commissioned a translation of the Bible while, on the other hand, you speak of ROME WHO NOT ONLY BURNED BIBLES, BUT BURNED AT THE STAKE SOME OF THOSE WHO TRANSLATED IT INTO THE TONGUE OF THE PEOPLE. Read up on William Tyndale, who was but one recipient of "Rome's influence" when he was PUBLICLY STRANGLED AND BURNED AT THE STAKE. Better yet, read about John Wyckliffe. So infuriated was Rome by his translation of the scriptures into the tongue of the people that they dug up his bones AND BURNED THEM. As entertaining as you guys are, I just promised my children that I'd take them to an aquarium before packing for my trip home from North Carolina back to Pennsylvania. Keep up the comedy in my absence, won't you? I bet that you will...
It would only take one Roman leader for Rome to have been vital to the spread of Christianity. It doesn't matter how much they persecuted them before that spreading of Christianity.
Oh say Emperor Constantine?
Are you going to say that the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible you have?
And yet again I must ask, How do you know it was God that spared your life?
Even if one accepts that there are Gods and Demons and such, maybe it was Loki that did it for fun. Or maybe the First Nation's Trickster. Did you see a raven around the time time that "God" spared your life?
It would only take one Roman leader for Rome to have been vital to the spread of Christianity. It doesn't matter how much they persecuted them before that spreading of Christianity.
Oh say Emperor Constantine?
Are you going to say that the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible you have?
And yet again I must ask, How do you know it was God that spared your life?
Even if one accepts that there are Gods and Demons and such, maybe it was Loki that did it for fun. Or maybe the First Nation's Trickster. Did you see a raven around the time time that "God" spared your life?
Thank you! Not too many people remember the two brothers, or their struggles with Coyote.Maybe Tom saw a squirrel?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It doesn't matter whether the Roman Catholic Church is run by Satan himself. The historical fact is that Christianity was spread by the Church and no one else. flyingbuttressman is absolutely correct in saying that without the Roman Catholic church, most of us, including yourself would likely be pagan or some other variant religion at this time because we would have never heard of Christianity at all.
Rob: Dude, I had to read that about 3 or 4 times, just to make sure that you actually wrote what you wrote. Let me see if I have this straight...
It doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic church is run by Satan himself...they still spread Christianity?
In other words, Satan is now spreading Christianity?
Do you have a thermometer at home? Shove it up your butt (right next to your brains)...I think that you're running a temperature.
Rob: Dude, I had to read that about 3 or 4 times, just to make sure that you actually wrote what you wrote. Let me see if I have this straight...
It doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic church is run by Satan himself...they still spread Christianity?
In other words, Satan is now spreading Christianity?
Do you have a thermometer at home? Shove it up your butt (right next to your brains)...I think that you're running a temperature.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Bringing up a 16th century variance has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. By then Christianity was the rule and whether you think this was true Christianity or not, the truth is that you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church.
And yet more stupidity. You keep insisting that no one would have heard of Christianity without the Roman Catholic church. Where's your proof of this? Don't tell me...let me guess...
You're omniscient.
Dude, you're an IDIOT. Trust me on this one.
Although you insist that Satan is the spreader of the gospel, that job belongs to those who genuinely belong to God. That would excuse Popes...you can still kiss his ring (or any part of his anatomy, if you'd like to), though.
And yet more stupidity. You keep insisting that no one would have heard of Christianity without the Roman Catholic church. Where's your proof of this? Don't tell me...let me guess...
You're omniscient.
Dude, you're an IDIOT. Trust me on this one.
Although you insist that Satan is the spreader of the gospel, that job belongs to those who genuinely belong to God. That would excuse Popes...you can still kiss his ring (or any part of his anatomy, if you'd like to), though.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Period.
Yeah, you remind me of a "period"...and I'm not talking about a punctuation mark.
Yeah, you remind me of a "period"...and I'm not talking about a punctuation mark.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Oh say Emperor Constantine?
Are you going to say that the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible you have?
buttershug: Yes, that's exactly what I'm going to say...for at least the third time.
http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008...caea-roman.html
Let me know how you make out with the above link, okay?
Are you going to say that the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible you have?
buttershug: Yes, that's exactly what I'm going to say...for at least the third time.
http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008...caea-roman.html
Let me know how you make out with the above link, okay?
What's up? No reply for me, DUD?
Oh, yeah... You haven't read anything but the KJV, so mention of the two brothers went right past you. Not to mention the works of C.S. Lewis, who I'm sure you'd denounce as a heathen as well for his Perelandra Trilogy, or even the Screwtape Letters.
Ignorant hypocrite...
Edit: Oh, I forgot. Take care.
Oh, yeah... You haven't read anything but the KJV, so mention of the two brothers went right past you. Not to mention the works of C.S. Lewis, who I'm sure you'd denounce as a heathen as well for his Perelandra Trilogy, or even the Screwtape Letters.
Ignorant hypocrite...
Edit: Oh, I forgot. Take care.
QUOTE (Mr. Sunshine+)
"Atheistic Taliban"??
Mr. Sunshine: It was a reference to a previous post of mine:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry428297
Mr. Sunshine: It was a reference to a previous post of mine:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...20&#entry428297
QUOTE (Mr. Sunshine+)
Like you, the Taliban are every bit as convinced of their particular view of THE SAME USELESS god whose cock you suck.
"C*cksucker"? Me? Dude, you've got me confused with some other forum member (take your pick...there are a lot of defenders of that lifestyle here). I've got a wife and three kids, thank you. You? You seem to like hockey players...
"C*cksucker"? Me? Dude, you've got me confused with some other forum member (take your pick...there are a lot of defenders of that lifestyle here). I've got a wife and three kids, thank you. You? You seem to like hockey players...
QUOTE (Mr. Sunshine+)
You Phooking moronic piece of shite.
Thanks for the kind words. Take care.
Thanks for the kind words. Take care.
POS. "Take care", whiner...
Go sell something in a market that has buyers, you f'ing jerk.
Go sell something in a market that has buyers, you f'ing jerk.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 10:03 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Oh say Emperor Constantine?
Are you going to say that the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible you have?
buttershug: Yes, that's exactly what I'm going to say...for at least the third time.
http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008...caea-roman.html
Let me know how you make out with the above link, okay?
Give me a break.
I have a book called 50 Oh. Henry Short Stories.
Would proving that they were written before the book was published prove that the editors of the book did not select the stories?
That is parallel to what that page is saying.
The only one that comes close to meaning anything is the claim to have 50 manuscripts that predate the council.
And I would want to see confirmation that the manuscripts a) really exist and match what we now call the Bible.
and Irenaeus didn't say what the four Gospels were or what they said.
Are you going to say that the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the Bible you have?
buttershug: Yes, that's exactly what I'm going to say...for at least the third time.
http://shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008...caea-roman.html
Let me know how you make out with the above link, okay?
Give me a break.
I have a book called 50 Oh. Henry Short Stories.
Would proving that they were written before the book was published prove that the editors of the book did not select the stories?
That is parallel to what that page is saying.
The only one that comes close to meaning anything is the claim to have 50 manuscripts that predate the council.
And I would want to see confirmation that the manuscripts a) really exist and
match what we now call the Bible.and Irenaeus didn't say what the four Gospels were or what they said.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 05:41 PM)
Rob: Dude, I had to read that about 3 or 4 times, just to make sure that you actually wrote what you wrote. Let me see if I have this straight...
It doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic church is run by Satan himself...they still spread Christianity?
And yet more stupidity. You keep insisting that no one would have heard of Christianity without the Roman Catholic church. Where's your proof of this? Don't tell me...let me guess...
Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that YOU'VE NEVER READ A HISTORY BOOK. Any idea that you had the tiniest amount of logical grounding just went out the window. You are willfully ignorant.
Good day to you.
(P.S. Remember: they like it when you swallow)
It doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic church is run by Satan himself...they still spread Christianity?
And yet more stupidity. You keep insisting that no one would have heard of Christianity without the Roman Catholic church. Where's your proof of this? Don't tell me...let me guess...
Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that YOU'VE NEVER READ A HISTORY BOOK. Any idea that you had the tiniest amount of logical grounding just went out the window. You are willfully ignorant.
Good day to you.
(P.S. Remember: they like it when you swallow)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
The only one that comes close to meaning anything is the claim to have 50 manuscripts that predate the council.
And I would want to see confirmation that the manuscripts a) really exist and match what we now call the Bible.
and Irenaeus didn't say what the four Gospels were or what they said.
buttershug: The writings of THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS are equally as important. It's been a while, but, if my memory serves me correctly, then there's only about 11 verses from the entire New Testament that are NOT contained within their writings WHICH PREDATE THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. As far as your "confirmation" is concerned, I'm not going to do all of your homework for you. I've pointed you in the right direction...how far you go on your journey is entirely up to you.
And I would want to see confirmation that the manuscripts a) really exist and match what we now call the Bible.
and Irenaeus didn't say what the four Gospels were or what they said.
buttershug: The writings of THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS are equally as important. It's been a while, but, if my memory serves me correctly, then there's only about 11 verses from the entire New Testament that are NOT contained within their writings WHICH PREDATE THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. As far as your "confirmation" is concerned, I'm not going to do all of your homework for you. I've pointed you in the right direction...how far you go on your journey is entirely up to you.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Wow, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that YOU'VE NEVER READ A HISTORY BOOK. Any idea that you had the tiniest amount of logical grounding just went out the window.
flyingbuttressman: I have more knowledge of church history in my tiniest fingernail than you'll ever amass in your life. How ironic (moronic?) that you refuse to differentiate between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity WHEN EVEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS FULLY AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO. They didn't burn people at the stake for being "good Catholics", you know (you probably don't).
flyingbuttressman: I have more knowledge of church history in my tiniest fingernail than you'll ever amass in your life. How ironic (moronic?) that you refuse to differentiate between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity WHEN EVEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS FULLY AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO. They didn't burn people at the stake for being "good Catholics", you know (you probably don't).
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
You are willfully ignorant.
That would be you...UNLESS, of course, you're just plain old stupid. Take your pick.
That would be you...UNLESS, of course, you're just plain old stupid. Take your pick.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Good day to you.
Are you leaving? Don't forget to write...
Are you leaving? Don't forget to write...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
(P.S. Remember: they like it when you swallow)
I'm not your priest. Go confess it somewhere else. Take care.
I'm not your priest. Go confess it somewhere else. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 07:30 PM)
I have more knowledge of church history in my tiniest fingernail than you'll ever amass in your life.
Doubtful.
You are purposefully missing the point because you don't like the conclusions.
Let's simplify it even more shall we?
If it wasn't for Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church, the concept of Jesus would not have spread beyond the Middle East. Christianity was still considered a cult up until Constantine who legitimized it.
Your alternate church history is nothing but religious propaganda.
Doubtful.
You are purposefully missing the point because you don't like the conclusions.
Let's simplify it even more shall we?
If it wasn't for Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church, the concept of Jesus would not have spread beyond the Middle East. Christianity was still considered a cult up until Constantine who legitimized it.
Your alternate church history is nothing but religious propaganda.
Well... apart from insults and gay banter... this has gone nowhere at all.
Newguy
Can you please stop mangling history to suit your own purpose? I don't care what you believe but it's annoying to see so much ignorance masquerading as information.
That isn't what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension is not getting any better.
I said that it doesn't matter what you think of the Church of Rome nor of the Pope (thereby comparing him to Satan... certainly true in your estimate it seems), it remains a historical fact that the religion of Christianity and the words in the Bible were spread by the Church of Rome. Only someone deliberately ignorant of history would contest that.
That isn't what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension is not getting any better.
I said that it doesn't matter what you think of the Church of Rome nor of the Pope (thereby comparing him to Satan... certainly true in your estimate it seems), it remains a historical fact that the religion of Christianity and the words in the Bible were spread by the Church of Rome. Only someone deliberately ignorant of history would contest that.
You keep insisting that no one would have heard of Christianity without the Roman Catholic church. Where's your proof of this?
So... you contend that the Church did not spread Christianity? Who did then? Names please.
My proof...
Simple... who amongst the converters, missionaries, etc. who are known to have converted other faiths to Christianity did not consider themselves part of the Church?
Well...let's get into specifics to show that you don't know what you are talking about.
1. The earliest surviving text of the New Testament is The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment. It's a few sentences and dates from a bit after AD 100. The exact date past that is disputed.
2. From around the second century AD we have a number of partial texts of various books of the bible, most on papyrus such as the Magdalen Papyrus dated between 200 AD and 300 AD.
3. In the early 5th century we get the Vulgate, written by St Jerome who was commissioned by the Church to do so in order to eliminate the various conflicting versions of the bible texts that existed at that time.
Any way that you slice it... the bible you read and believe in was written by the Church.
flyingbuttressman: I have more knowledge of church history in my tiniest fingernail than you'll ever amass in your life.
But you are still going in circles.
Your source of information about the Bible is the Bible.
A physics textbook's source of information is not itself it's from experiments.
Were there any non-Catholic Christians before Martin Luther got struck by lightning?
As far as I know there were, but did they have the Bible as you know it?
Why did you use such a low quality link? It talked about 40 manuscripts but did not name one of them.
I'll happily defend homosexuals. They were born with their misdirected tendencies. It comes naturally to them.
However, you made the conscious decision to get down on your knees in front of a mythical deity with millions of others in some vain attempt to collectively overcome it's obvious impotence. It's all pretty ineffecitve anyway. He clearly hasn't had an erection for thousands of years.
You mention your wife and kids? LOL. That's a funny one. Your pathetic impotent deity comes first with you. You'd throw your wife and kids under a bus in an instant if your god asked you to do so.
Ever explain that to the fruit of your fetid loins? If you did, then was it something like this:
Dear Bobby and JonJon,
I love god way more than I love you. If he asked me, I'd put a bullet in your heads.
Love,
Dud
Newguy
Can you please stop mangling history to suit your own purpose? I don't care what you believe but it's annoying to see so much ignorance masquerading as information.
QUOTE
It doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic church is run by Satan himself...they still spread Christianity?
In other words, Satan is now spreading Christianity?
In other words, Satan is now spreading Christianity?
That isn't what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension is not getting any better.
I said that it doesn't matter what you think of the Church of Rome nor of the Pope (thereby comparing him to Satan... certainly true in your estimate it seems), it remains a historical fact that the religion of Christianity and the words in the Bible were spread by the Church of Rome. Only someone deliberately ignorant of history would contest that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It doesn't matter if the Roman Catholic church is run by Satan himself...they still spread Christianity? In other words, Satan is now spreading Christianity? |
That isn't what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension is not getting any better.
I said that it doesn't matter what you think of the Church of Rome nor of the Pope (thereby comparing him to Satan... certainly true in your estimate it seems), it remains a historical fact that the religion of Christianity and the words in the Bible were spread by the Church of Rome. Only someone deliberately ignorant of history would contest that.
You keep insisting that no one would have heard of Christianity without the Roman Catholic church. Where's your proof of this?
So... you contend that the Church did not spread Christianity? Who did then? Names please.
My proof...
Simple... who amongst the converters, missionaries, etc. who are known to have converted other faiths to Christianity did not consider themselves part of the Church?
QUOTE
The writings of THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS are equally as important. It's been a while, but, if my memory serves me correctly, then there's only about 11 verses from the entire New Testament that are NOT contained within their writings WHICH PREDATE THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA.
Well...let's get into specifics to show that you don't know what you are talking about.
1. The earliest surviving text of the New Testament is The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment. It's a few sentences and dates from a bit after AD 100. The exact date past that is disputed.
2. From around the second century AD we have a number of partial texts of various books of the bible, most on papyrus such as the Magdalen Papyrus dated between 200 AD and 300 AD.
3. In the early 5th century we get the Vulgate, written by St Jerome who was commissioned by the Church to do so in order to eliminate the various conflicting versions of the bible texts that existed at that time.
Any way that you slice it... the bible you read and believe in was written by the Church.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 11:30 PM)
flyingbuttressman: I have more knowledge of church history in my tiniest fingernail than you'll ever amass in your life.
But you are still going in circles.
Your source of information about the Bible is the Bible.
A physics textbook's source of information is not itself it's from experiments.
Were there any non-Catholic Christians before Martin Luther got struck by lightning?
As far as I know there were, but did they have the Bible as you know it?
Why did you use such a low quality link? It talked about 40 manuscripts but did not name one of them.
QUOTE
C*cksucker"? Me? Dude, you've got me confused with some other forum member (take your pick...there are a lot of defenders of that lifestyle here). I've got a wife and three kids, thank you. You? You seem to like hockey players...
I'll happily defend homosexuals. They were born with their misdirected tendencies. It comes naturally to them.
However, you made the conscious decision to get down on your knees in front of a mythical deity with millions of others in some vain attempt to collectively overcome it's obvious impotence. It's all pretty ineffecitve anyway. He clearly hasn't had an erection for thousands of years.
You mention your wife and kids? LOL. That's a funny one. Your pathetic impotent deity comes first with you. You'd throw your wife and kids under a bus in an instant if your god asked you to do so.
Ever explain that to the fruit of your fetid loins? If you did, then was it something like this:
Dear Bobby and JonJon,
I love god way more than I love you. If he asked me, I'd put a bullet in your heads.
Love,
Dud
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Can you please stop mangling history to suit your own purpose? I don't care what you believe but it's annoying to see so much ignorance masquerading as information.
RobDegraves: OH, THE IRONY!!!
RobDegraves: OH, THE IRONY!!!
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
That isn't what I said. Apparently your reading comprehension is not getting any better.
I said that it doesn't matter what you think of the Church of Rome nor of the Pope (thereby comparing him to Satan... certainly true in your estimate it seems), it remains a historical fact that the religion of Christianity and the words in the Bible were spread by the Church of Rome. Only someone deliberately ignorant of history would contest that.
No, only someone as ignorant as you would continue to insist that the church of Rome "spread Christianity". Tell me/us, Rob, when the Crusaders were doing their slaughtering, were they "spreading Christianity"? Tell me/us, Rob, when the Inquisitors were torturing people and when people were being burned alive at the stake, was "Christianity being spread"? If you can answer "Yes" to these questions, then you're a screwball to the zillionth degree. The ignorance, as usual, lies within YOU.
I said that it doesn't matter what you think of the Church of Rome nor of the Pope (thereby comparing him to Satan... certainly true in your estimate it seems), it remains a historical fact that the religion of Christianity and the words in the Bible were spread by the Church of Rome. Only someone deliberately ignorant of history would contest that.
No, only someone as ignorant as you would continue to insist that the church of Rome "spread Christianity". Tell me/us, Rob, when the Crusaders were doing their slaughtering, were they "spreading Christianity"? Tell me/us, Rob, when the Inquisitors were torturing people and when people were being burned alive at the stake, was "Christianity being spread"? If you can answer "Yes" to these questions, then you're a screwball to the zillionth degree. The ignorance, as usual, lies within YOU.
QUOTE (newguy+)
The writings of THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS are equally as important. It's been a while, but, if my memory serves me correctly, then there's only about 11 verses from the entire New Testament that are NOT contained within their writings WHICH PREDATE THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Well...let's get into specifics to show that you don't know what you are talking about.
1. The earliest surviving text of the New Testament is The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment. It's a few sentences and dates from a bit after AD 100. The exact date past that is disputed.
2. From around the second century AD we have a number of partial texts of various books of the bible, most on papyrus such as the Magdalen Papyrus dated between 200 AD and 300 AD.
3. In the early 5th century we get the Vulgate, written by St Jerome who was commissioned by the Church to do so in order to eliminate the various conflicting versions of the bible texts that existed at that time.
Any way that you slice it... the bible you read and believe in was written by the Church.
And yet more stupidity. Why did you quote what I said about THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS and then NOT even mention them or their writings in your supposed refutation? I'll tell you why...
You're an IDIOT.
Good night.
1. The earliest surviving text of the New Testament is The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment. It's a few sentences and dates from a bit after AD 100. The exact date past that is disputed.
2. From around the second century AD we have a number of partial texts of various books of the bible, most on papyrus such as the Magdalen Papyrus dated between 200 AD and 300 AD.
3. In the early 5th century we get the Vulgate, written by St Jerome who was commissioned by the Church to do so in order to eliminate the various conflicting versions of the bible texts that existed at that time.
Any way that you slice it... the bible you read and believe in was written by the Church.
And yet more stupidity. Why did you quote what I said about THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS and then NOT even mention them or their writings in your supposed refutation? I'll tell you why...
You're an IDIOT.
Good night.
Mr. Sunshine: How ironic to hear you speak of that which is supposedly "mythical" while you simultaneously spout a myth of your own. I genuinely feel sorry for you. Try to resist the urge to walk into a crowded church this weekend with a loaded weapon. You seem the type.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 10:56 PM)
No, only someone as ignorant as you would continue to insist that the church of Rome "spread Christianity". Tell me/us, Rob, when the Crusaders were doing their slaughtering, were they "spreading Christianity"? Tell me/us, Rob, when the Inquisitors were torturing people and when people were being burned alive at the stake, was "Christianity being spread"? If you can answer "Yes" to these questions, then you're a screwball to the zillionth degree. The ignorance, as usual, lies within YOU.
History fail.
You really don't know anything outside of your religious opinions apparently.
I thought maybe that you might at least be somewhat knowledgeable about the history of your own religion, but alas, no.
The problem is that your faith does not allow you to accept the possibility that god's work was done by evil people. You are right to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, and I would agree that they don't follow "true Christianity," but you can't deny the fact that they are directly responsible for your faith. You didn't learn of Jesus by magic, someone told you, and someone told them. All roads go back to the Roman Catholic Church whether you like it or not.
Each time you insult my intelligence, you just prove that your contempt for the facts.
History fail.
You really don't know anything outside of your religious opinions apparently.
I thought maybe that you might at least be somewhat knowledgeable about the history of your own religion, but alas, no.
The problem is that your faith does not allow you to accept the possibility that god's work was done by evil people. You are right to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, and I would agree that they don't follow "true Christianity," but you can't deny the fact that they are directly responsible for your faith. You didn't learn of Jesus by magic, someone told you, and someone told them. All roads go back to the Roman Catholic Church whether you like it or not.
Each time you insult my intelligence, you just prove that your contempt for the facts.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Each time you insult my intelligence, you just prove that your contempt for the facts.
flyingbuttressman: What "intelligence"? I think that you're an idiot and your posts bear witness of such. For example:
flyingbuttressman: What "intelligence"? I think that you're an idiot and your posts bear witness of such. For example:
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
All roads go back to the Roman Catholic Church whether you like it or not.
Okay...I'll play. How do the Hebrew scriptures "go back to the Roman Catholic church"? Careful...
Okay...I'll play. How do the Hebrew scriptures "go back to the Roman Catholic church"? Careful...
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 11:19 PM)
Okay...I'll play. How do the Hebrew scriptures "go back to the Roman Catholic church"? Careful...
The Church is YOUR connection to the Hebrew and Greek texts. If it wasn't for them, you wouldn't even know about them.
If Tyndale had never heard the name of Jesus from the Catholics, would he have set out to translate the bible into English? I think not.
The Church is YOUR connection to the Hebrew and Greek texts. If it wasn't for them, you wouldn't even know about them.
If Tyndale had never heard the name of Jesus from the Catholics, would he have set out to translate the bible into English? I think not.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 24 2009, 03:02 AM)
Mr. Sunshine: How ironic to hear you speak of that which is supposedly "mythical" while you simultaneously spout a myth of your own. I genuinely feel sorry for you. Try to resist the urge to walk into a crowded church this weekend with a loaded weapon. You seem the type.
The chances that you'd pull an Andrea Yates on your children are certainly greater than me propagating any sort of violence against people I don't know.
Shall we examine how many atheists walked into churches and killed people versus how many xtian parents offed their kids? Let's ....
From this xtian website
All that lunacy has existed for eons, it began with the original prophet of your religion, Abraham who if not for last minute intervention would have HAPPILY killed one of his children.
Your turn ... show me some documented instances where hate-mongering atheists killed some chruch-goers.
I fear for your children. I really do. Fervent believers in your mythology are ready at seemingly almost any instant to murder their babies. And since you're quite fervent, I can only hope you don't at some point try to add to these 24 senseless deaths.
The chances that you'd pull an Andrea Yates on your children are certainly greater than me propagating any sort of violence against people I don't know.
Shall we examine how many atheists walked into churches and killed people versus how many xtian parents offed their kids? Let's ....
From this xtian website
QUOTE
Magdalena Lopez murdered her two sons Antonio and Erik on July 19, 2005 in Dyer, Indiana. Police reported that she beat her two sons to death with a ten-pound dumbbell because she thought they'd be better off in heaven. Both deaths were caused by massive skull fractures. Mrs. Lopez was quoted as saying, "They're in a much better place now."
Suffering from postpartum depression, Dena Schlosser severed both of her daughter's arms in Plano, Texas on November 23, 2004; in a bout of religious fervor. Ten month old Margaret did not survive.
Suffering from postpartum depression, an intensely devout Deanna Laney murdered two of her sons and severely injured a third near Tyler, Texas on May 10, 2003. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and is now (2006) in the state mental facility at Rusk, Texas.
Sherry Marie Delker murdered her daughter Samantha on March 29, 2002 in Austintown, Ohio. Mrs. Delker admitted to running her daughter down with her car outside a church. Police said she wanted to send her daughter to a "better place." Sherry Delker is now serving twenty years to life in prison.
A severely depressed Andrea Pia Yates drowned her five children Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary in the bathtub of her Clearlake area home in Houston, Texas, on June 20, 2001.
Marilyn Lemak murdered her three children on March 4, 1999 in their Naperville, Illinois home. Mrs. Lemak feed the children peanut butter laced with antidepressants, laid them down to sleep, then smothered them with her hands. She wanted to kill the children and herself so they could
be reunited in a happier place. "She perceived herself as a loving mother tenderly taking her children into another existence," stated psychiatrist Philip Resnick.
On September 3, 1998, Khoua Her strangled her six children in St. Paul, Minnesota. She then hanged herself in a failed suicide attempt. Khoua had become a Christian after immigrating to the United States, and thought she would be reunited with the children in the afterlife. Prosecuter Chris Wilton stated, "I know that she did this for religious reasons."
Christina Marie Riggs smothered her two children Justin and Shelby with a pillow in Sherwood, Arkansas. She then attempted suicide by swallowing twenty-eight Elavil tablets and injecting enough potassium chloride to kill five people. Incredibly, she survived. She requested and received the death penalty, then fought for her right to die. From death row, she told an interviewer, "I'll be with my children and with God. I'll be where there's no more pain. Maybe I'll find some peace." She was executed by lethal injection outside Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on May 3rd of 2000. In her last statement she proclaimed, "Now I can be with my babies, as I always intended."
Suffering from postpartum depression and feeling totally alone and helpless in the world, Debra Lynn Gindorf fed her twenty-three month old daughter Christina and three month old son Jason lethal doses of crushed sleeping pills in a cup of juice. She then unsuccessfully attempted suicide. She believed she and her babies would be reunited in heaven, where they would be safe and happy together for eternity.
Suffering from postpartum depression, Dena Schlosser severed both of her daughter's arms in Plano, Texas on November 23, 2004; in a bout of religious fervor. Ten month old Margaret did not survive.
Suffering from postpartum depression, an intensely devout Deanna Laney murdered two of her sons and severely injured a third near Tyler, Texas on May 10, 2003. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and is now (2006) in the state mental facility at Rusk, Texas.
Sherry Marie Delker murdered her daughter Samantha on March 29, 2002 in Austintown, Ohio. Mrs. Delker admitted to running her daughter down with her car outside a church. Police said she wanted to send her daughter to a "better place." Sherry Delker is now serving twenty years to life in prison.
A severely depressed Andrea Pia Yates drowned her five children Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary in the bathtub of her Clearlake area home in Houston, Texas, on June 20, 2001.
Marilyn Lemak murdered her three children on March 4, 1999 in their Naperville, Illinois home. Mrs. Lemak feed the children peanut butter laced with antidepressants, laid them down to sleep, then smothered them with her hands. She wanted to kill the children and herself so they could
be reunited in a happier place. "She perceived herself as a loving mother tenderly taking her children into another existence," stated psychiatrist Philip Resnick.
On September 3, 1998, Khoua Her strangled her six children in St. Paul, Minnesota. She then hanged herself in a failed suicide attempt. Khoua had become a Christian after immigrating to the United States, and thought she would be reunited with the children in the afterlife. Prosecuter Chris Wilton stated, "I know that she did this for religious reasons."
Christina Marie Riggs smothered her two children Justin and Shelby with a pillow in Sherwood, Arkansas. She then attempted suicide by swallowing twenty-eight Elavil tablets and injecting enough potassium chloride to kill five people. Incredibly, she survived. She requested and received the death penalty, then fought for her right to die. From death row, she told an interviewer, "I'll be with my children and with God. I'll be where there's no more pain. Maybe I'll find some peace." She was executed by lethal injection outside Pine Bluff, Arkansas, on May 3rd of 2000. In her last statement she proclaimed, "Now I can be with my babies, as I always intended."
Suffering from postpartum depression and feeling totally alone and helpless in the world, Debra Lynn Gindorf fed her twenty-three month old daughter Christina and three month old son Jason lethal doses of crushed sleeping pills in a cup of juice. She then unsuccessfully attempted suicide. She believed she and her babies would be reunited in heaven, where they would be safe and happy together for eternity.
All that lunacy has existed for eons, it began with the original prophet of your religion, Abraham who if not for last minute intervention would have HAPPILY killed one of his children.
Your turn ... show me some documented instances where hate-mongering atheists killed some chruch-goers.
I fear for your children. I really do. Fervent believers in your mythology are ready at seemingly almost any instant to murder their babies. And since you're quite fervent, I can only hope you don't at some point try to add to these 24 senseless deaths.
Newguy...
Maybe you are confused so I will try to clear up a few things for you.
1. Insulting people doesn't make you right.
2. Saying that you are right is not an argument.
Do you get that or should I repeat it?
I never claimed that the Church was holy or even good... I just pointed out the historical fact that it was the Church that wrote and copied the text that you believe in now. Shall I go through the various authors of the Bible then?
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
I never claimed that the Church was holy or even good... I just pointed out the historical fact that it was the Church that wrote and copied the text that you believe in now. Shall I go through the various authors of the Bible then?
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza;[91] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which versions were extensively referred to - as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[92] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot; but in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version – which in these readings derives directly from the Vulgate
Wiki article
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
Easy stuff.
It's actually because you can't read.
I included all forms of writing .. even the early Church fathers... because none of their writings remain other than in copied form... copied by... *drum roll*... the Church.
Unless you have some original historical documents that you want to show us. I would be delighted to see them.
Maybe you are confused so I will try to clear up a few things for you.
1. Insulting people doesn't make you right.
2. Saying that you are right is not an argument.
Do you get that or should I repeat it?
QUOTE
No, only someone as ignorant as you would continue to insist that the church of Rome "spread Christianity". Tell me/us, Rob, when the Crusaders were doing their slaughtering, were they "spreading Christianity"? Tell me/us, Rob, when the Inquisitors were torturing people and when people were being burned alive at the stake, was "Christianity being spread"? If you can answer "Yes" to these questions, then you're a screwball to the zillionth degree. The ignorance, as usual, lies within YOU.
I never claimed that the Church was holy or even good... I just pointed out the historical fact that it was the Church that wrote and copied the text that you believe in now. Shall I go through the various authors of the Bible then?
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, only someone as ignorant as you would continue to insist that the church of Rome "spread Christianity". Tell me/us, Rob, when the Crusaders were doing their slaughtering, were they "spreading Christianity"? Tell me/us, Rob, when the Inquisitors were torturing people and when people were being burned alive at the stake, was "Christianity being spread"? If you can answer "Yes" to these questions, then you're a screwball to the zillionth degree. The ignorance, as usual, lies within YOU. |
I never claimed that the Church was holy or even good... I just pointed out the historical fact that it was the Church that wrote and copied the text that you believe in now. Shall I go through the various authors of the Bible then?
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza;[91] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which versions were extensively referred to - as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[92] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot; but in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version – which in these readings derives directly from the Vulgate
Wiki article
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
Easy stuff.
QUOTE
And yet more stupidity. Why did you quote what I said about THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS and then NOT even mention them or their writings in your supposed refutation? I'll tell you why...
It's actually because you can't read.
I included all forms of writing .. even the early Church fathers... because none of their writings remain other than in copied form... copied by... *drum roll*... the Church.
Unless you have some original historical documents that you want to show us. I would be delighted to see them.
Rob,
All his assertions are based on his imagined fact that none of those people were Xtians. See ... what he believes is Xtianity. Nothing else. With that being the case he wins any and every argument about Xtianity.
All his assertions are based on his imagined fact that none of those people were Xtians. See ... what he believes is Xtianity. Nothing else. With that being the case he wins any and every argument about Xtianity.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 24 2009, 08:37 AM)
Rob,
All his assertions are based on his imagined fact that none of those people were Xtians. See ... what he believes is Xtianity. Nothing else. With that being the case he wins any and every argument about Xtianity.
But meanwhile Xtianity is so weak it's not even attracked enough people to form a denomination.
So many people seeking the Truth, and a lot of them with KJV's but so few get it right.
And doesn't even contain the answer to the simplist of questions such as how does he know it's God and not something else.
All his assertions are based on his imagined fact that none of those people were Xtians. See ... what he believes is Xtianity. Nothing else. With that being the case he wins any and every argument about Xtianity.
But meanwhile Xtianity is so weak it's not even attracked enough people to form a denomination.
So many people seeking the Truth, and a lot of them with KJV's but so few get it right.
And doesn't even contain the answer to the simplist of questions such as how does he know it's God and not something else.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
I never claimed that the Church was holy or even good... I just pointed out the historical fact that it was the Church that wrote and copied the text that you believe in now. Shall I go through the various authors of the Bible then?
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Rob: What the...? You say that you want to "look at the King James version" and then you talk about Wyckliffe? DUDE, YOU'RE HILARIOUS! Actually, you're a deceitful snake. Isn't this correct? Of course, it is. Unlike your ignorant "disciples", I'm well aware that most of THE KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible comes from the translation of WILLIAM TYNDALE...NOT Wyckliffe. Let's see what your sacred "Wiki" has to say about Tyndale, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tindall or Tyndall; pronounced /ˈtɪndəl/) (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th-century Protestant reformer and scholar who, influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther, translated the Bible into the Early Modern English of his day. While a number of partial and complete Old English translations had been made from the seventh century onward, and Middle English translations particularly during the 14th century, Tyndale's was the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. In 1535, Tyndale was arrested on the orders of King Henry VIII, jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year, tried for heresy and burned at the stake. He was strangled before his body was burnt.
Much of Tyndale's work eventually found its way into the King James Version (or "Authorised Version") of the Bible, published in 1611, which, as the work of 54 independent scholars revising the existing English versions, drew significantly on Tyndale's translations. The King James Version New Testament is 83.7 per cent Tyndale's work, with the KJV Old Testament 75.7 per cent Tyndale's.[1]
Can you read? The King James Version New Testament in 83.7% TYNDALE'S WORK and the King James Version Old Testament is 75.7% TYNDALE'S WORK. TYNDALE'S WORK was the first English translation TO DRAW DIRECTLY FROM HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS.
Take your Latin Vulgate and shove it up your @ss...right next to your brains, you deceitful snake.
Wait...it gets better!
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Rob: What the...? You say that you want to "look at the King James version" and then you talk about Wyckliffe? DUDE, YOU'RE HILARIOUS! Actually, you're a deceitful snake. Isn't this correct? Of course, it is. Unlike your ignorant "disciples", I'm well aware that most of THE KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible comes from the translation of WILLIAM TYNDALE...NOT Wyckliffe. Let's see what your sacred "Wiki" has to say about Tyndale, shall we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
William Tyndale (sometimes spelled Tindall or Tyndall; pronounced /ˈtɪndəl/) (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th-century Protestant reformer and scholar who, influenced by the work of Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther, translated the Bible into the Early Modern English of his day. While a number of partial and complete Old English translations had been made from the seventh century onward, and Middle English translations particularly during the 14th century, Tyndale's was the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. In 1535, Tyndale was arrested on the orders of King Henry VIII, jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year, tried for heresy and burned at the stake. He was strangled before his body was burnt.
Much of Tyndale's work eventually found its way into the King James Version (or "Authorised Version") of the Bible, published in 1611, which, as the work of 54 independent scholars revising the existing English versions, drew significantly on Tyndale's translations. The King James Version New Testament is 83.7 per cent Tyndale's work, with the KJV Old Testament 75.7 per cent Tyndale's.[1]
Can you read? The King James Version New Testament in 83.7% TYNDALE'S WORK and the King James Version Old Testament is 75.7% TYNDALE'S WORK. TYNDALE'S WORK was the first English translation TO DRAW DIRECTLY FROM HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS.
Take your Latin Vulgate and shove it up your @ss...right next to your brains, you deceitful snake.
Wait...it gets better!
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
Wiki article
Ah, yet more willful deceit. Well, at least you're consistent. Had you started your quote a little earlier, we would have/should have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
Translation
Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; while two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source.
Dude, that's from the very same link that you provided. What is it about "the Authorized Version was translated PRIMARILY from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts" that you don't understand? Why did you seek to imply that the "secondary references" were the primary source? I'll answer the questions for you, okay?
You're a deceitful snake.
Well, you've got some "disciples" at least. Start a church. Mr. Sunshine, flyingbuttressman and buttershug will attend...if they can find the building, that is.
Wiki article
Ah, yet more willful deceit. Well, at least you're consistent. Had you started your quote a little earlier, we would have/should have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
Translation
Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; while two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source.
Dude, that's from the very same link that you provided. What is it about "the Authorized Version was translated PRIMARILY from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts" that you don't understand? Why did you seek to imply that the "secondary references" were the primary source? I'll answer the questions for you, okay?
You're a deceitful snake.
Well, you've got some "disciples" at least. Start a church. Mr. Sunshine, flyingbuttressman and buttershug will attend...if they can find the building, that is.
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
Easy stuff.
Oh, it's "easy stuff", alright. It's "easy stuff" to shoot holes through your repeated attempts at deceit...kind of like shooting ducks in ones bathtub. Not too difficult at all.
QUOTE
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza;[91] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which versions were extensively referred to - as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[92] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot; but in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version – which in these readings derives directly from the Vulgate
Wiki article
Ah, yet more willful deceit. Well, at least you're consistent. Had you started your quote a little earlier, we would have/should have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
Translation
Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; while two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source.
Dude, that's from the very same link that you provided. What is it about "the Authorized Version was translated PRIMARILY from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts" that you don't understand? Why did you seek to imply that the "secondary references" were the primary source? I'll answer the questions for you, okay?
You're a deceitful snake.
Well, you've got some "disciples" at least. Start a church. Mr. Sunshine, flyingbuttressman and buttershug will attend...if they can find the building, that is.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza;[91] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which versions were extensively referred to - as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[92] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot; but in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version – which in these readings derives directly from the Vulgate |
Wiki article
Ah, yet more willful deceit. Well, at least you're consistent. Had you started your quote a little earlier, we would have/should have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
Translation
Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; while two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source.
Dude, that's from the very same link that you provided. What is it about "the Authorized Version was translated PRIMARILY from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts" that you don't understand? Why did you seek to imply that the "secondary references" were the primary source? I'll answer the questions for you, okay?
You're a deceitful snake.
Well, you've got some "disciples" at least. Start a church. Mr. Sunshine, flyingbuttressman and buttershug will attend...if they can find the building, that is.
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
Easy stuff.
Oh, it's "easy stuff", alright. It's "easy stuff" to shoot holes through your repeated attempts at deceit...kind of like shooting ducks in ones bathtub. Not too difficult at all.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It's actually because you can't read.
I included all forms of writing .. even the early Church fathers... because none of their writings remain other than in copied form... copied by... *drum roll*... the Church.
Unless you have some original historical documents that you want to show us. I would be delighted to see them.
Oh, I can read SNAKE quite well, thank you. In your desperation, now you've resorted to the ultimate double standard/hypocrisy. Let me see if I have this straight...
According to you, you've refuted my "copies" (the writings of the early church fathers) with YOUR "copies" (unless you have any "original documents" of the scriptures to produce).
Dude, as usual, you're a friggin' riot!
Actually, you're a deceitful snake and I find nothing humorous about that.
Tell your "disciples" that I said "BOO!". Take care.
I included all forms of writing .. even the early Church fathers... because none of their writings remain other than in copied form... copied by... *drum roll*... the Church.
Unless you have some original historical documents that you want to show us. I would be delighted to see them.
Oh, I can read SNAKE quite well, thank you. In your desperation, now you've resorted to the ultimate double standard/hypocrisy. Let me see if I have this straight...
According to you, you've refuted my "copies" (the writings of the early church fathers) with YOUR "copies" (unless you have any "original documents" of the scriptures to produce).
Dude, as usual, you're a friggin' riot!
Actually, you're a deceitful snake and I find nothing humorous about that.
Tell your "disciples" that I said "BOO!". Take care.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
The Church is YOUR connection to the Hebrew and Greek texts. If it wasn't for them, you wouldn't even know about them.
flyingbuttressman: I told you to be "careful"... Once again, you're attempting to put the proverbial cart BEFORE the horse. The Hebrew and Greek texts came BEFORE Roman Catholicism...like it or not. Additionally, as history easily attests, it was your beloved "church" that did everything in its power TO SUPPRESS the scriptures from coming into the hands/common tongues of the people. You speak of Tyndale...
Publicly strangled and burned at the stake.
His crime?
Translating the scriptures into the tongue of the common people SO THAT THEY WOULD NO LONGER HAVE TO BE OPPRESSED BY THE POPES/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Read up on Jan Hus/John Hus when you get a chance. He was not only burned at the stake, but Wyckiffe's manuscript Bibles were used as kindling for the flames.
Yeah, those Roman Catholics sure do know how to "spread Christianity".
Actually, you people just know how to SPREAD FERTILIZER.
You seemingly enjoy the stench. To each his own, I guess.
Take care.
P.S. Since you apparently find yourself to be somewhat of a "history buff", perhaps you'd like to speak to the forum members about Thomas Linacre? What's that? You never heard of him? Here...I'll help you out:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...as-linacre.html
Linacre, Colet, and the Protestant Reformation
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… of we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Do me a favor and pass that information along to your mentor, Rob. Better yet, DO YOURSELF A FAVOR and RUN FOR YOUR LIFE the next time that Rob stands behind his "pulpit".
flyingbuttressman: I told you to be "careful"... Once again, you're attempting to put the proverbial cart BEFORE the horse. The Hebrew and Greek texts came BEFORE Roman Catholicism...like it or not. Additionally, as history easily attests, it was your beloved "church" that did everything in its power TO SUPPRESS the scriptures from coming into the hands/common tongues of the people. You speak of Tyndale...
Publicly strangled and burned at the stake.
His crime?
Translating the scriptures into the tongue of the common people SO THAT THEY WOULD NO LONGER HAVE TO BE OPPRESSED BY THE POPES/ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
Read up on Jan Hus/John Hus when you get a chance. He was not only burned at the stake, but Wyckiffe's manuscript Bibles were used as kindling for the flames.
Yeah, those Roman Catholics sure do know how to "spread Christianity".
Actually, you people just know how to SPREAD FERTILIZER.
You seemingly enjoy the stench. To each his own, I guess.
Take care.
P.S. Since you apparently find yourself to be somewhat of a "history buff", perhaps you'd like to speak to the forum members about Thomas Linacre? What's that? You never heard of him? Here...I'll help you out:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...as-linacre.html
Linacre, Colet, and the Protestant Reformation
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… of we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Do me a favor and pass that information along to your mentor, Rob. Better yet, DO YOURSELF A FAVOR and RUN FOR YOUR LIFE the next time that Rob stands behind his "pulpit".
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 24 2009, 08:33 AM)
flyingbuttressman: I told you to be "careful"... Once again, you're attempting to put the proverbial cart BEFORE the horse. The Hebrew and Greek texts came BEFORE Roman Catholicism...like it or not. Additionally, as history easily attests, it was your beloved "church" that did everything in its power TO SUPPRESS the scriptures from coming into the hands/common tongues of the people. You speak of Tyndale...
Again, you didn't actually read what I wrote. I never said that Roman Catholicism came first.
You are mining posts for things to get all worked up about because you can't bear to actually answer the questions.
Where/how did Tyndale first hear the name Jesus?
Obviously from the established church or his parents, who were most likely Catholics.
Where/how did Tyndale get copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts?
The Roman Catholic Church obviously BROUGHT the copies to England, since there is no record of Tyndale actually visiting Palestine.
If you misquote me again, you will only prove yourself a coward.
What makes you think that the Greek didn't suffer a similar degradation? It too was copied many times no? How was it that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained verses that weren't included in other Greek manuscripts? How did Tyndale decide which books to include in his version of the bible? If he chose it based on his own criteria, why does it match the list of books included in the Catholic bible?
Again, you didn't actually read what I wrote. I never said that Roman Catholicism came first.
You are mining posts for things to get all worked up about because you can't bear to actually answer the questions.
Where/how did Tyndale first hear the name Jesus?
Obviously from the established church or his parents, who were most likely Catholics.
Where/how did Tyndale get copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts?
The Roman Catholic Church obviously BROUGHT the copies to England, since there is no record of Tyndale actually visiting Palestine.
If you misquote me again, you will only prove yourself a coward.
QUOTE
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… of we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
What makes you think that the Greek didn't suffer a similar degradation? It too was copied many times no? How was it that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained verses that weren't included in other Greek manuscripts? How did Tyndale decide which books to include in his version of the bible? If he chose it based on his own criteria, why does it match the list of books included in the Catholic bible?
True or False.
Martin Luther was born and raised as a Roman Catholic.
Martin Luther was born and raised as a Roman Catholic.
He's too busy scouring the internet to find one example of an atheist who went into a church and killed people.
Andrea Yates probably belonged to the same irrelevant sect as him. I wonder if Woroniecki is his last name.
Andrea Yates probably belonged to the same irrelevant sect as him. I wonder if Woroniecki is his last name.
Sigh... more insults and frantic fact avoidance from Newguy
Newguy
I gave a number of general examples and based on that you decided to forgo all of the centuries from 100 AD to the 16th century. I take it then that up until William Tyndale, Christianity had spread magically with the Church being not involved at all? A completely silly premise obviously.
So.... let's get specific then.
William Tyndale
Let's see where Tyndale got his info specifically shall we.
Hmmm... who is Erasmus?
Hmmm... who is Erasmus?
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (sometimes known as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam) (October 27, 1466/1469, Rotterdam – July 12, 1536, Basel) was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and a Catholic Christian theologian.
In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus "synchronized" or "unified" the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated (he would say: "purified") version of either simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually presenting the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions "compatible". This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek. Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, or where he simply preferred the Vulgate’s reading to the Greek text. [19]
I wonder....
Do you really believe that Erasmus and Tyndale had access to actual documents from the 1st to 3rd century AD?
Or is it that they had access to copies made in the centuries since... slowly altered or reworked... by monks of the Church you so despise?
Obviously your grasp of history is either extremely poor or so biased as to not be able to grasp what is plain to see for everyone else.
Because it's carried by rats?
Newguy
I gave a number of general examples and based on that you decided to forgo all of the centuries from 100 AD to the 16th century. I take it then that up until William Tyndale, Christianity had spread magically with the Church being not involved at all? A completely silly premise obviously.
So.... let's get specific then.
William Tyndale
Let's see where Tyndale got his info specifically shall we.
QUOTE
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek.
Hmmm... who is Erasmus?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. |
Hmmm... who is Erasmus?
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (sometimes known as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam) (October 27, 1466/1469, Rotterdam – July 12, 1536, Basel) was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and a Catholic Christian theologian.
QUOTE
The 3rd edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The 3rd edition of 1522 was probably used by Tyndale for the first English New Testament (Worms, 1526) and was the basis for the 1550 Robert Stephanus edition used by the translators of the Geneva Bible and King James Version of the English Bible. |
In a way it is legitimate to say that Erasmus "synchronized" or "unified" the Greek and the Latin traditions of the New Testament by producing an updated (he would say: "purified") version of either simultaneously. Both being part of canonical tradition, he clearly found it necessary to ensure that both were actually presenting the same content. In modern terminology, he made the two traditions "compatible". This is clearly evidenced by the fact that his Greek text is not just the basis for his Latin translation, but also the other way round: there are numerous instances where he edits the Greek text to reflect his Latin version. For instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from his Greek manuscript, Erasmus translated the Vulgate's text back into Greek. Erasmus also translated the Latin text into Greek wherever he found that the Greek text and the accompanying commentaries were mixed up, or where he simply preferred the Vulgate’s reading to the Greek text. [19]
I wonder....
Do you really believe that Erasmus and Tyndale had access to actual documents from the 1st to 3rd century AD?
Or is it that they had access to copies made in the centuries since... slowly altered or reworked... by monks of the Church you so despise?
Obviously your grasp of history is either extremely poor or so biased as to not be able to grasp what is plain to see for everyone else.
Rob: First of all, the wireless signal went down in my hotel room. Secondly, I decided to travel up the road to a coffee shop and to pay a nominal fee to be able to respond to your post. I just spent about 25 minutes or so, typing a rather detailed response, only to have it just disappear. Anyhow, I'll try again when I get back home to PA. Don't expect a response before late tomorrow night or Saturday morning. Until then...
So... at that point can I expect a rational response or just more yelling, insults and having you act like an religious zealot?
Just curious.
A rational response without any kind of ridiculous accusations, insults or MASSIVE CAPITAL LETTERS would be a nice change.
Just curious.
A rational response without any kind of ridiculous accusations, insults or MASSIVE CAPITAL LETTERS would be a nice change.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 24 2009, 05:45 PM)
Rob: First of all, the wireless signal went down in my hotel room. Secondly, I decided to travel up the road to a coffee shop and to pay a nominal fee to be able to respond to your post. I just spent about 25 minutes or so, typing a rather detailed response, only to have it just disappear. Anyhow, I'll try again when I get back home to PA. Don't expect a response before late tomorrow night or Saturday morning. Until then...
I'm sure you will think I"m mocking or something but I"m serious.
How do you know God didn't do that?
How do you tell the difference between the Divine and the non-Divine?
You didn't see any ravens on the way to the coffee shop did you?
Ok so the last was mocking but the rest was sincere.
I'm sure you will think I"m mocking or something but I"m serious.
How do you know God didn't do that?
How do you tell the difference between the Divine and the non-Divine?
You didn't see any ravens on the way to the coffee shop did you?
Ok so the last was mocking but the rest was sincere.
QUOTE
Spreads like a disease.
Yeah, just like the Black Death.
QUOTE
Yeah, just like the Black Death.
Because it's carried by rats?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+ "Did God Create the Jewish As Superior?")
I personally don't care if you never answer.
I just don't like it when anyone.. you or anyone else... mangles facts.
Rob: Although this comment of yours appeared on another thread, it did pertain to the discussion on this one, so I chose it as a "springboard" for what I'm about to say. So, you don't like it when ANYONE "mangles facts", eh? Then you must not like YOURSELF, as I'm about to show.
I just don't like it when anyone.. you or anyone else... mangles facts.
Rob: Although this comment of yours appeared on another thread, it did pertain to the discussion on this one, so I chose it as a "springboard" for what I'm about to say. So, you don't like it when ANYONE "mangles facts", eh? Then you must not like YOURSELF, as I'm about to show.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Sigh... more insults and frantic fact avoidance from Newguy
There's your second charge...
According to you, I'm not only a "fact mangler", but a "fact avoider" as well.
Once again, we're about to see that both of these charges pertain directly TO YOU (Oh, dear...I've done it, again. I used MASSIVE CAPITAL LETTERS and have thereby further damaged your overly sensitive, thin, PRETENTIOUS skin. C'est la vie.).
There's your second charge...
According to you, I'm not only a "fact mangler", but a "fact avoider" as well.
Once again, we're about to see that both of these charges pertain directly TO YOU (Oh, dear...I've done it, again. I used MASSIVE CAPITAL LETTERS and have thereby further damaged your overly sensitive, thin, PRETENTIOUS skin. C'est la vie.).
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Newguy
I gave a number of general examples and based on that you decided to forgo all of the centuries from 100 AD to the 16th century.
I "decided to forgo" NOTHING. What I did was address your SPECIFIC (NOT "general") examples and show them to be the NONSENSE that they are. Would you like a quick refresher course? I'll gladly oblige.
For starters, in one of your SPECIFIC examples, YOU "frantically" (isn't it amazing how you always seek to transfer YOUR PROBLEMS to me?) sought to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version of the Bible. Why did you do this? Because you wanted to show your imagined importance of the Vulgate (which Wyckliffe used) in the bringing about of the King James version of the Bible. I pointed out to you that the majority of the King James version of the Bible comes from TYNDALE'S translation... Did you admit your error? Of course not. Rather, as usual, you sought to transfer YOUR "FACT MANGLING" to me. You didn't stop there, though. No, you deliberately AVOIDED FACTS about the Authorized Version and chose to partially quote the Wikipedia article in another vain attempt to show your imagined importance of the Vulgate in relation to this translation. I, in turn, backed up your quote a little to show the forum members your attempt to DECEIVE THEM. Just for the record. Let's move on, shall we?
I gave a number of general examples and based on that you decided to forgo all of the centuries from 100 AD to the 16th century.
I "decided to forgo" NOTHING. What I did was address your SPECIFIC (NOT "general") examples and show them to be the NONSENSE that they are. Would you like a quick refresher course? I'll gladly oblige.
For starters, in one of your SPECIFIC examples, YOU "frantically" (isn't it amazing how you always seek to transfer YOUR PROBLEMS to me?) sought to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version of the Bible. Why did you do this? Because you wanted to show your imagined importance of the Vulgate (which Wyckliffe used) in the bringing about of the King James version of the Bible. I pointed out to you that the majority of the King James version of the Bible comes from TYNDALE'S translation... Did you admit your error? Of course not. Rather, as usual, you sought to transfer YOUR "FACT MANGLING" to me. You didn't stop there, though. No, you deliberately AVOIDED FACTS about the Authorized Version and chose to partially quote the Wikipedia article in another vain attempt to show your imagined importance of the Vulgate in relation to this translation. I, in turn, backed up your quote a little to show the forum members your attempt to DECEIVE THEM. Just for the record. Let's move on, shall we?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
I take it then that up until William Tyndale, Christianity had spread magically with the Church being not involved at all? A completely silly premise obviously.
Your ignorance is astounding. "The Church" (for those who don't know, he's taken it upon himself to remove the words "Roman Catholic" from "church" to help muddy the waters and further confuse people) did NOT "spread Christianity"...they SPREAD ROMAN CATHOLICISM. It's not my fault that you're too ignorant to recognize the difference between the two. Anyhow, I'll address this some more, later on in this post.
Your ignorance is astounding. "The Church" (for those who don't know, he's taken it upon himself to remove the words "Roman Catholic" from "church" to help muddy the waters and further confuse people) did NOT "spread Christianity"...they SPREAD ROMAN CATHOLICISM. It's not my fault that you're too ignorant to recognize the difference between the two. Anyhow, I'll address this some more, later on in this post.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
So.... let's get specific then.
William Tyndale
Let's see where Tyndale got his info specifically shall we.
And? Yes, it is true that Tyndale utilized Erasmus' GREEK edition of the New Testament. And? YOU were the one who was going on about THE LATIN VULGATE...NOT me. I merely sought to set things straight. I find it rather interesting, by the way, that you're not providing links to your quotes. Why is this? It couldn't be ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE ON YOUR PART, could it? I have several reasons to suspect that it is. Anyhow, here's a little longer "quote", WITH THE ACCOMPANYING LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original.
Once again, no mention of THE LATIN VULGATE that YOU were intially going on about. I also included this longer quote because I'll address flyingbuttressman's question about the Hebrew text later on. YOUR "missing links" and cherry-picked "quotes" get really interesting when we come to Erasmus. Let's take a peek, shall we?
And? Yes, it is true that Tyndale utilized Erasmus' GREEK edition of the New Testament. And? YOU were the one who was going on about THE LATIN VULGATE...NOT me. I merely sought to set things straight. I find it rather interesting, by the way, that you're not providing links to your quotes. Why is this? It couldn't be ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE ON YOUR PART, could it? I have several reasons to suspect that it is. Anyhow, here's a little longer "quote", WITH THE ACCOMPANYING LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original.
Once again, no mention of THE LATIN VULGATE that YOU were intially going on about. I also included this longer quote because I'll address flyingbuttressman's question about the Hebrew text later on. YOUR "missing links" and cherry-picked "quotes" get really interesting when we come to Erasmus. Let's take a peek, shall we?
Hmmm... who is Erasmus?
Interesting choice of "quotes" there, Rob. Even though you didn't provide the link, I'll quote some other things about Erasmus that you deliberately neglected FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE. Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Education and scholarship
In 1495, with the bishop's consent and stipend, he went on to study at the University of Paris, in the Collčge de Montaigu, a centre of reforming zeal, under the direction of the ascetic Jan Standonck, of whose rigours Erasmus complained. The University was then the chief seat of Scholastic learning, but already coming under the influence of Renaissance humanism. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Leuven (Louvain in Brabant), England, and Basel; yet he never belonged firmly in any one of these places. His time in England was fruitful in the making of lifelong friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of King Henry VIII: John Colet, Thomas More, John Fisher, Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn. At the University of Cambridge, he was the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and had the option of spending the rest of his life as an English professor. He stayed at Queens' College, Cambridge, and may have been an alumnus.
In 1499, while in England, Erasmus was particularly impressed by the Bible teaching of John Colet who pursued a style more akin to the church fathers than the scholastics. This prompted him, upon his return from England, to master the Greek language, which would enable him to study theology on a more profound level and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation. On one occasion he wrote Colet:
"I cannot tell you, dear Colet, how I hurry on, with all sails set, to holy literature. How I dislike everything that keeps me back, or retards me."[10]
What's that? Erasmus had lifelong friendships with John Colet and Thomas Linacre? Colet's BIBLE TEACHING PROMPTED ERASMUS to master the Greek language and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation...YOUR "BELOVED" LATIN VULGATE? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? I don't know, but somehow those names sound familiar...? Ah, yes...THEY'RE THE SAME JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE WHOM I MENTIONED IN A RESPONSE TO FLYINGBUTTRESSMAN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. Sorry to yell, but YOU seem to be a bit disorientated. Let's review what I previously posted in regard to Colet and Linacre, shall we? Here goes:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...as-linacre.html
Linacre, Colet, and the Protestant Reformation
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Oh, my. Thomas Linacre "discovered that the Greek manuscripts WERE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LATIN VULGATE" and shared his "discovery" with JOHN COLET. Colet, in turn, studied Greek and helped bring about "PUBLIC AWARENESS that the Roman Catholic Church's LATIN VULGATE TEXT COULD NOT BE TRUSTED and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated". Well, my dear Rob, it seems rather obvious that this PUBLIC AWARENESS included your beloved "Catholic Christian theologian", ERASMUS. In other words, your "Catholic" was heavily influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS. Let's see what else we can derive from your *AHEM* "missing link" to Erasmus, shall we? Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Publication of the Greek New Testament
The first New Testament printed in Greek was part of the Complutensian Polyglot. This portion was printed in 1514, but publication was delayed until 1522 by waiting for the Old Testament portion, and the sanction of Pope Leo X.[14] Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on this Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[15] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[16] While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended to produce a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."[17] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."[18] So he included the Greek text to permit qualified readers to verify the quality of his Latin version.
Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not.
Interesting choice of "quotes" there, Rob. Even though you didn't provide the link, I'll quote some other things about Erasmus that you deliberately neglected FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE. Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Education and scholarship
In 1495, with the bishop's consent and stipend, he went on to study at the University of Paris, in the Collčge de Montaigu, a centre of reforming zeal, under the direction of the ascetic Jan Standonck, of whose rigours Erasmus complained. The University was then the chief seat of Scholastic learning, but already coming under the influence of Renaissance humanism. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Leuven (Louvain in Brabant), England, and Basel; yet he never belonged firmly in any one of these places. His time in England was fruitful in the making of lifelong friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of King Henry VIII: John Colet, Thomas More, John Fisher, Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn. At the University of Cambridge, he was the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and had the option of spending the rest of his life as an English professor. He stayed at Queens' College, Cambridge, and may have been an alumnus.
In 1499, while in England, Erasmus was particularly impressed by the Bible teaching of John Colet who pursued a style more akin to the church fathers than the scholastics. This prompted him, upon his return from England, to master the Greek language, which would enable him to study theology on a more profound level and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation. On one occasion he wrote Colet:
"I cannot tell you, dear Colet, how I hurry on, with all sails set, to holy literature. How I dislike everything that keeps me back, or retards me."[10]
What's that? Erasmus had lifelong friendships with John Colet and Thomas Linacre? Colet's BIBLE TEACHING PROMPTED ERASMUS to master the Greek language and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation...YOUR "BELOVED" LATIN VULGATE? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? I don't know, but somehow those names sound familiar...? Ah, yes...THEY'RE THE SAME JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE WHOM I MENTIONED IN A RESPONSE TO FLYINGBUTTRESSMAN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. Sorry to yell, but YOU seem to be a bit disorientated. Let's review what I previously posted in regard to Colet and Linacre, shall we? Here goes:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...as-linacre.html
Linacre, Colet, and the Protestant Reformation
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Oh, my. Thomas Linacre "discovered that the Greek manuscripts WERE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LATIN VULGATE" and shared his "discovery" with JOHN COLET. Colet, in turn, studied Greek and helped bring about "PUBLIC AWARENESS that the Roman Catholic Church's LATIN VULGATE TEXT COULD NOT BE TRUSTED and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated". Well, my dear Rob, it seems rather obvious that this PUBLIC AWARENESS included your beloved "Catholic Christian theologian", ERASMUS. In other words, your "Catholic" was heavily influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS. Let's see what else we can derive from your *AHEM* "missing link" to Erasmus, shall we? Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Publication of the Greek New Testament
The first New Testament printed in Greek was part of the Complutensian Polyglot. This portion was printed in 1514, but publication was delayed until 1522 by waiting for the Old Testament portion, and the sanction of Pope Leo X.[14] Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on this Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[15] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[16] While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended to produce a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."[17] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."[18] So he included the Greek text to permit qualified readers to verify the quality of his Latin version.
Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not.
I wonder....
Do you really believe that Erasmus and Tyndale had access to actual documents from the 1st to 3rd century AD?
Or is it that they had access to copies made in the centuries since... slowly altered or reworked... by monks of the Church you so despise?
The Ante-Nicene Fathers apparently did and from their writings can almost the entire New Testament be confirmed. Look...I understand your "point"...
Roman Catholicism is a MAJOR FACTOR in church history. Big deal. Just because they play a MAJOR ROLE in church history DOES NOT mean that they play a MAJOR ROLE in "spreading Christianity". THIS is my contention. In essence, what you and flyingbuttressman are saying is the equivalent of saying that:
DISEASE played a major role in spreading cures.
Think about it.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM is a DISEASE. It has spread such things as Inquisitions, tortures, burnings at the stake, Crusades, burnings of Bibles, etc.
YOU may consider that to be "spreading Christianity", but I don't and never will. As this DISEASE spread, REFORMERS, PHYSICIANS IF YOU WILL, sprang up to stop the spread of this DISEASE. THROUGH THE WORK OF REFORMERS, "Christianity spread". If you can't/won't understand that, then there is no need for further discussion along these lines. I've stated my viewpoints and used FACTS to back them up. Believe whatever you'd like. You're entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts. Gee, I think I read that in someone's signature, once... Take care.
P.S. Don't forget your signature, hand-wavey BS about how I've only "insulted" you and not answered your questions/objections. You're pathetic.
P.P.S. Although "Christianity spread" through the work of Reformers, so did a bunch of garbage. I am IN NO WAY stating or insinuating that I agree with EVERYTHING that was done by Reformers. In many instances, they (the Reformers) were as maniacal as their Roman Catholic counterparts.
William Tyndale
Let's see where Tyndale got his info specifically shall we.
QUOTE
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek.
And? Yes, it is true that Tyndale utilized Erasmus' GREEK edition of the New Testament. And? YOU were the one who was going on about THE LATIN VULGATE...NOT me. I merely sought to set things straight. I find it rather interesting, by the way, that you're not providing links to your quotes. Why is this? It couldn't be ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE ON YOUR PART, could it? I have several reasons to suspect that it is. Anyhow, here's a little longer "quote", WITH THE ACCOMPANYING LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original.
Once again, no mention of THE LATIN VULGATE that YOU were intially going on about. I also included this longer quote because I'll address flyingbuttressman's question about the Hebrew text later on. YOUR "missing links" and cherry-picked "quotes" get really interesting when we come to Erasmus. Let's take a peek, shall we?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. |
And? Yes, it is true that Tyndale utilized Erasmus' GREEK edition of the New Testament. And? YOU were the one who was going on about THE LATIN VULGATE...NOT me. I merely sought to set things straight. I find it rather interesting, by the way, that you're not providing links to your quotes. Why is this? It couldn't be ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE ON YOUR PART, could it? I have several reasons to suspect that it is. Anyhow, here's a little longer "quote", WITH THE ACCOMPANYING LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original.
Once again, no mention of THE LATIN VULGATE that YOU were intially going on about. I also included this longer quote because I'll address flyingbuttressman's question about the Hebrew text later on. YOUR "missing links" and cherry-picked "quotes" get really interesting when we come to Erasmus. Let's take a peek, shall we?
Hmmm... who is Erasmus?
QUOTE
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (sometimes known as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam) (October 27, 1466/1469, Rotterdam – July 12, 1536, Basel) was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and a Catholic Christian theologian.
Interesting choice of "quotes" there, Rob. Even though you didn't provide the link, I'll quote some other things about Erasmus that you deliberately neglected FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE. Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Education and scholarship
In 1495, with the bishop's consent and stipend, he went on to study at the University of Paris, in the Collčge de Montaigu, a centre of reforming zeal, under the direction of the ascetic Jan Standonck, of whose rigours Erasmus complained. The University was then the chief seat of Scholastic learning, but already coming under the influence of Renaissance humanism. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Leuven (Louvain in Brabant), England, and Basel; yet he never belonged firmly in any one of these places. His time in England was fruitful in the making of lifelong friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of King Henry VIII: John Colet, Thomas More, John Fisher, Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn. At the University of Cambridge, he was the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and had the option of spending the rest of his life as an English professor. He stayed at Queens' College, Cambridge, and may have been an alumnus.
In 1499, while in England, Erasmus was particularly impressed by the Bible teaching of John Colet who pursued a style more akin to the church fathers than the scholastics. This prompted him, upon his return from England, to master the Greek language, which would enable him to study theology on a more profound level and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation. On one occasion he wrote Colet:
"I cannot tell you, dear Colet, how I hurry on, with all sails set, to holy literature. How I dislike everything that keeps me back, or retards me."[10]
What's that? Erasmus had lifelong friendships with John Colet and Thomas Linacre? Colet's BIBLE TEACHING PROMPTED ERASMUS to master the Greek language and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation...YOUR "BELOVED" LATIN VULGATE? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? I don't know, but somehow those names sound familiar...? Ah, yes...THEY'RE THE SAME JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE WHOM I MENTIONED IN A RESPONSE TO FLYINGBUTTRESSMAN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. Sorry to yell, but YOU seem to be a bit disorientated. Let's review what I previously posted in regard to Colet and Linacre, shall we? Here goes:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...as-linacre.html
Linacre, Colet, and the Protestant Reformation
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Oh, my. Thomas Linacre "discovered that the Greek manuscripts WERE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LATIN VULGATE" and shared his "discovery" with JOHN COLET. Colet, in turn, studied Greek and helped bring about "PUBLIC AWARENESS that the Roman Catholic Church's LATIN VULGATE TEXT COULD NOT BE TRUSTED and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated". Well, my dear Rob, it seems rather obvious that this PUBLIC AWARENESS included your beloved "Catholic Christian theologian", ERASMUS. In other words, your "Catholic" was heavily influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS. Let's see what else we can derive from your *AHEM* "missing link" to Erasmus, shall we? Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Publication of the Greek New Testament
The first New Testament printed in Greek was part of the Complutensian Polyglot. This portion was printed in 1514, but publication was delayed until 1522 by waiting for the Old Testament portion, and the sanction of Pope Leo X.[14] Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on this Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[15] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[16] While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended to produce a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."[17] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."[18] So he included the Greek text to permit qualified readers to verify the quality of his Latin version.
Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (sometimes known as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam) (October 27, 1466/1469, Rotterdam – July 12, 1536, Basel) was a Dutch Renaissance humanist and a Catholic Christian theologian. |
Interesting choice of "quotes" there, Rob. Even though you didn't provide the link, I'll quote some other things about Erasmus that you deliberately neglected FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE. Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Education and scholarship
In 1495, with the bishop's consent and stipend, he went on to study at the University of Paris, in the Collčge de Montaigu, a centre of reforming zeal, under the direction of the ascetic Jan Standonck, of whose rigours Erasmus complained. The University was then the chief seat of Scholastic learning, but already coming under the influence of Renaissance humanism. The chief centers of his activity were Paris, Leuven (Louvain in Brabant), England, and Basel; yet he never belonged firmly in any one of these places. His time in England was fruitful in the making of lifelong friendships with the leaders of English thought in the stirring days of King Henry VIII: John Colet, Thomas More, John Fisher, Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn. At the University of Cambridge, he was the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity and had the option of spending the rest of his life as an English professor. He stayed at Queens' College, Cambridge, and may have been an alumnus.
In 1499, while in England, Erasmus was particularly impressed by the Bible teaching of John Colet who pursued a style more akin to the church fathers than the scholastics. This prompted him, upon his return from England, to master the Greek language, which would enable him to study theology on a more profound level and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation. On one occasion he wrote Colet:
"I cannot tell you, dear Colet, how I hurry on, with all sails set, to holy literature. How I dislike everything that keeps me back, or retards me."[10]
What's that? Erasmus had lifelong friendships with John Colet and Thomas Linacre? Colet's BIBLE TEACHING PROMPTED ERASMUS to master the Greek language and to prepare a new edition of Jerome's Bible translation...YOUR "BELOVED" LATIN VULGATE? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? John Colet and Thomas Linacre...? I don't know, but somehow those names sound familiar...? Ah, yes...THEY'RE THE SAME JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE WHOM I MENTIONED IN A RESPONSE TO FLYINGBUTTRESSMAN A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO. Sorry to yell, but YOU seem to be a bit disorientated. Let's review what I previously posted in regard to Colet and Linacre, shall we? Here goes:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-...as-linacre.html
Linacre, Colet, and the Protestant Reformation
As a professor of philosophy at Oxford, Linacre founded the Department for Greek Studies. He did this after a two-year sojourn to Italy to learn Greek himself. Upon returning to Oxford, Linacre discovered that the Greek manuscripts were dramatically different from the Latin Vulgate. He wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians”. The Latin Vulgate had become progressively more and more corrupted with each passing generation over the previous 1,000 years.
Linacre notified John Colet, another Oxford professor, and Colet was inspired to follow in Linacre’s footsteps and take a two-year sabbatical to Italy to study Greek. Upon returning to Oxford, Colet assisted Linacre in the production of the first Greek grammar book printed in England. The work of Colet and Linacre contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate text could not be trusted, and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated.
Oh, my. Thomas Linacre "discovered that the Greek manuscripts WERE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE LATIN VULGATE" and shared his "discovery" with JOHN COLET. Colet, in turn, studied Greek and helped bring about "PUBLIC AWARENESS that the Roman Catholic Church's LATIN VULGATE TEXT COULD NOT BE TRUSTED and called for Christian scholars to return to the original Greek manuscripts to translate, or at least to understand, the Gospel as it was originally meant to be communicated". Well, my dear Rob, it seems rather obvious that this PUBLIC AWARENESS included your beloved "Catholic Christian theologian", ERASMUS. In other words, your "Catholic" was heavily influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS. Let's see what else we can derive from your *AHEM* "missing link" to Erasmus, shall we? Here goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Publication of the Greek New Testament
The first New Testament printed in Greek was part of the Complutensian Polyglot. This portion was printed in 1514, but publication was delayed until 1522 by waiting for the Old Testament portion, and the sanction of Pope Leo X.[14] Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on this Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."[15] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[16] While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended to produce a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."[17] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."[18] So he included the Greek text to permit qualified readers to verify the quality of his Latin version.
Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not.
I wonder....
Do you really believe that Erasmus and Tyndale had access to actual documents from the 1st to 3rd century AD?
Or is it that they had access to copies made in the centuries since... slowly altered or reworked... by monks of the Church you so despise?
The Ante-Nicene Fathers apparently did and from their writings can almost the entire New Testament be confirmed. Look...I understand your "point"...
Roman Catholicism is a MAJOR FACTOR in church history. Big deal. Just because they play a MAJOR ROLE in church history DOES NOT mean that they play a MAJOR ROLE in "spreading Christianity". THIS is my contention. In essence, what you and flyingbuttressman are saying is the equivalent of saying that:
DISEASE played a major role in spreading cures.
Think about it.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM is a DISEASE. It has spread such things as Inquisitions, tortures, burnings at the stake, Crusades, burnings of Bibles, etc.
YOU may consider that to be "spreading Christianity", but I don't and never will. As this DISEASE spread, REFORMERS, PHYSICIANS IF YOU WILL, sprang up to stop the spread of this DISEASE. THROUGH THE WORK OF REFORMERS, "Christianity spread". If you can't/won't understand that, then there is no need for further discussion along these lines. I've stated my viewpoints and used FACTS to back them up. Believe whatever you'd like. You're entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts. Gee, I think I read that in someone's signature, once... Take care.
P.S. Don't forget your signature, hand-wavey BS about how I've only "insulted" you and not answered your questions/objections. You're pathetic.
P.P.S. Although "Christianity spread" through the work of Reformers, so did a bunch of garbage. I am IN NO WAY stating or insinuating that I agree with EVERYTHING that was done by Reformers. In many instances, they (the Reformers) were as maniacal as their Roman Catholic counterparts.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Where/how did Tyndale first hear the name Jesus?
Obviously from the established church or his parents, who were most likely Catholics.
flyingbuttressman: Neither you nor I know where Tyndale first heard the name Jesus. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that you'd like to share? If so, then present it. If not, then this is just guesswork on your part. Additionally, since you so desperately seek to link the hearing of Jesus' name to Roman Catholicism, do you HONESTLY believe that the "Jesus" of Roman Catholicism is the same Jesus of the Bible? If you do, then you've got A LOT to learn. Also, if you have some documentation regarding the religious affiliation of Tyndale's parents, then please share it (not that it really matters, anyway).
My natural descent has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my Christianity. Christianity of the Biblical sort is the direct result of a series of SUPERnatural events.
Then find out about that prize that Rob was talking about and claim it.
Were your posting problems supernatural?
And how do you know one way or the other?
edit and your whole Tynsdale arguement sounds like the "Hans shot first debate".
That is you could just as easily be talking about a work of fiction.
You still havn't said why your evidence is valid but that Hindu woman's isn't.
Obviously from the established church or his parents, who were most likely Catholics.
flyingbuttressman: Neither you nor I know where Tyndale first heard the name Jesus. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that you'd like to share? If so, then present it. If not, then this is just guesswork on your part. Additionally, since you so desperately seek to link the hearing of Jesus' name to Roman Catholicism, do you HONESTLY believe that the "Jesus" of Roman Catholicism is the same Jesus of the Bible? If you do, then you've got A LOT to learn. Also, if you have some documentation regarding the religious affiliation of Tyndale's parents, then please share it (not that it really matters, anyway).
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Where/how did Tyndale get copies of the Greek and Hebrew texts?
The Roman Catholic Church obviously BROUGHT the copies to England, since there is no record of Tyndale actually visiting Palestine.
As far as the Greek is concerned, it's already been documented on this thread how Erasmus' Greek text was utilized by Tyndale. As far as your comments regarding the Hebrew texts are concerned, that's mere speculation on your part, UNLESS you're privy to information that seems to have escaped others. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
The sources Tyndale used for his translation of the Pentateuch however are not known for sure. Scholars believe that Tyndale used either the Hebrew Pentateuch or the Polyglot Bible. It is suspected that his other Old Testament works were translated directly from a copy of the Hebrew Bible.[11]
Additionally, in Tyndale's last recorded letter written from his prison cell, we read:
http://www.captivefaith.org/reformation/tyndale.php
I believe, right worshipful, that you are not ignorant of what has been determined concerning me [by the Council of Brabant]; therefore I entreat your lordship and that by the Lord Jesus, that if I am to remain here [in Vilvorde] during the winter, you will request the Procureur to be kind enough to send me from my goods which he has in his possession, a warmer cap, for I suffer extremely from cold in the head, being afflicted with a perpetual catarrh, which is considerably increased in this cell. A warmer coat also, for that which I have is very thin: also a piece of cloth to patch my leggings: my overcoat is worn out; my shirts are also worn out. He has a woollen shirt of mine, if he will be kind enough to send it. I have also with him leggings of thicker cloth for putting on above; he also has warmer caps for wearing at night. I wish also his permission to have a lamp in the evening, for it is wearisome to sit alone in the dark. But above all, I entreat and beseech your clemency to be urgent with the Procureur that he may kindly permit me to have my Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Grammar, and Hebrew Dictionary, that I may spend my time with that study. And in return, may you obtain your dearest wish, provided always it be consistent with the salvation of your soul. But if, before the end of the winter, a different decision be reached concerning me, I shall be patient, abiding the will of God to the glory of the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose Spirit, I pray, may ever direct your heart. Amen. — W. Tyndale. [The original was in Latin, the international language]
Where Tyndale obtained these bold-faced items, I cannot tell for sure. Anyhow, if you have documentation that Tyndale received his Hebrew texts through the INDIRECT works of the Roman Catholic church, then please provide it. I say INDIRECT works because the Roman Catholic church REFUSED to allow Tyndale to translate the Bible into the common language, which is why he ultimately did so as a fugitive who was hunted by the Roman Catholic authorities and their "bounty hunters" until he was ultimately captured, imprisoned, publicly strangled and burned at the stake by your so-called "spreaders of Christianity".
As far as your other questions are concerned, I'll need to address them when I have the time. I've got a TON of work to do today and tomorrow, before heading into another very busy work week. Additionally, as I just finished explaining to Rob, I'm WELL AWARE of the Roman Catholic church's place in church history. However, as I already noted, to equate their involvement with the "spreading of Christianity" is tantamount to equating DISEASE with the spreading of a cure, as far as I'm concerned. You, in turn, are entitled to believe as you will. Take care.
P.S. I almost forgot to mention how your so-called "spreaders of Christianity" PURCHASED AND BURNED as many of Tyndale's Bibles as they could get their hands on.
The Roman Catholic Church obviously BROUGHT the copies to England, since there is no record of Tyndale actually visiting Palestine.
As far as the Greek is concerned, it's already been documented on this thread how Erasmus' Greek text was utilized by Tyndale. As far as your comments regarding the Hebrew texts are concerned, that's mere speculation on your part, UNLESS you're privy to information that seems to have escaped others. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible
The sources Tyndale used for his translation of the Pentateuch however are not known for sure. Scholars believe that Tyndale used either the Hebrew Pentateuch or the Polyglot Bible. It is suspected that his other Old Testament works were translated directly from a copy of the Hebrew Bible.[11]
Additionally, in Tyndale's last recorded letter written from his prison cell, we read:
http://www.captivefaith.org/reformation/tyndale.php
I believe, right worshipful, that you are not ignorant of what has been determined concerning me [by the Council of Brabant]; therefore I entreat your lordship and that by the Lord Jesus, that if I am to remain here [in Vilvorde] during the winter, you will request the Procureur to be kind enough to send me from my goods which he has in his possession, a warmer cap, for I suffer extremely from cold in the head, being afflicted with a perpetual catarrh, which is considerably increased in this cell. A warmer coat also, for that which I have is very thin: also a piece of cloth to patch my leggings: my overcoat is worn out; my shirts are also worn out. He has a woollen shirt of mine, if he will be kind enough to send it. I have also with him leggings of thicker cloth for putting on above; he also has warmer caps for wearing at night. I wish also his permission to have a lamp in the evening, for it is wearisome to sit alone in the dark. But above all, I entreat and beseech your clemency to be urgent with the Procureur that he may kindly permit me to have my Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Grammar, and Hebrew Dictionary, that I may spend my time with that study. And in return, may you obtain your dearest wish, provided always it be consistent with the salvation of your soul. But if, before the end of the winter, a different decision be reached concerning me, I shall be patient, abiding the will of God to the glory of the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose Spirit, I pray, may ever direct your heart. Amen. — W. Tyndale. [The original was in Latin, the international language]
Where Tyndale obtained these bold-faced items, I cannot tell for sure. Anyhow, if you have documentation that Tyndale received his Hebrew texts through the INDIRECT works of the Roman Catholic church, then please provide it. I say INDIRECT works because the Roman Catholic church REFUSED to allow Tyndale to translate the Bible into the common language, which is why he ultimately did so as a fugitive who was hunted by the Roman Catholic authorities and their "bounty hunters" until he was ultimately captured, imprisoned, publicly strangled and burned at the stake by your so-called "spreaders of Christianity".
As far as your other questions are concerned, I'll need to address them when I have the time. I've got a TON of work to do today and tomorrow, before heading into another very busy work week. Additionally, as I just finished explaining to Rob, I'm WELL AWARE of the Roman Catholic church's place in church history. However, as I already noted, to equate their involvement with the "spreading of Christianity" is tantamount to equating DISEASE with the spreading of a cure, as far as I'm concerned. You, in turn, are entitled to believe as you will. Take care.
P.S. I almost forgot to mention how your so-called "spreaders of Christianity" PURCHASED AND BURNED as many of Tyndale's Bibles as they could get their hands on.
LOL!!! (Actually, it's not funny at all)
This just in...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_...u/eu_czech_pope
Pope decries Czech communist-era persecution
By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer William J. Kole, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 1 min ago
PRAGUE – Pope Benedict XVI criticized the communist era's fierce religious persecution Saturday as he began a three-day pilgrimage to the Czech Republic, and urged the heavily secular nation to rediscover its Christian roots.
At a welcome ceremony at Prague's Ruzyne International Airport, the 82-year-old pope spoke of how the communist regime, which was overthrown in 1989, ruthlessly persecuted the Roman Catholic Church.
This is ALMOST comical. For those of you who aren't already aware:
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticle...PreReformer.htm
In the middle of Old Town Square, in the heart of Prague, Czech Republic, stands a large discolored statue of John Huss (ca. 1370-1415). The Czech spelling is Jan Has – pronounced, "yan hoose." Appropriately, Hus rhymes with the English translation of his last name – "goose," a term he often used of himself. Not far from the statue, about a ten-minute walk through the picturesque narrow streets and walkways of Old Town is a relatively small, nondescript, building known as Bethlehem Chapel. Many foreigners have passed by without realizing its significance – yours truly among them! It is the church where Hus preached for several years. Who was this man and why is his statue in the middle of a famous square?
Jan Hus was born in Bohemia (part of the region, along with Moravia, we now call the Czech Republic), ca. 1370. He studied philosophy and theology at Prague University. Though only regarded as an average student, he received an undergraduate degree in 1396 and a Masters in 1398. In 1402 he was ordained as a priest in the Catholic Church and became rector and priest at Bethlehem Chapel. Hus lived in a time of great political and religious upheaval and to fully understand the man and his circumstances, some background is necessary. Domestic political turmoil was emerging in Bohemia and in the early 1400s the Catholic Church was enmeshed in the Great Schism in which three rival popes vied for control of the church. The schism led to the formation of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). This Council would prove pivotal to the fate of Jan Hus.
Oh, it proved "pivotal", alright. Hus was ultimately BURNED AT THE STAKE AS A HERETIC because he exposed a bunch of BS within the teachings of Roman Catholicism. What was used as kindling for Hus' flames? The manuscipts of Wyckliffe's Bible translation...the same Wyckliffe whose bones were exhumed AND BURNED at the demands of the Roman Catholic heirarchy. And now THE POPE is "decrying persecution"?!?
If you imbeciles can't see the HYPROCRISY in this, then there is absolutely NO HOPE for you. Take care.
This just in...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090926/ap_on_...u/eu_czech_pope
Pope decries Czech communist-era persecution
By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer William J. Kole, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 1 min ago
PRAGUE – Pope Benedict XVI criticized the communist era's fierce religious persecution Saturday as he began a three-day pilgrimage to the Czech Republic, and urged the heavily secular nation to rediscover its Christian roots.
At a welcome ceremony at Prague's Ruzyne International Airport, the 82-year-old pope spoke of how the communist regime, which was overthrown in 1989, ruthlessly persecuted the Roman Catholic Church.
This is ALMOST comical. For those of you who aren't already aware:
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticle...PreReformer.htm
In the middle of Old Town Square, in the heart of Prague, Czech Republic, stands a large discolored statue of John Huss (ca. 1370-1415). The Czech spelling is Jan Has – pronounced, "yan hoose." Appropriately, Hus rhymes with the English translation of his last name – "goose," a term he often used of himself. Not far from the statue, about a ten-minute walk through the picturesque narrow streets and walkways of Old Town is a relatively small, nondescript, building known as Bethlehem Chapel. Many foreigners have passed by without realizing its significance – yours truly among them! It is the church where Hus preached for several years. Who was this man and why is his statue in the middle of a famous square?
Jan Hus was born in Bohemia (part of the region, along with Moravia, we now call the Czech Republic), ca. 1370. He studied philosophy and theology at Prague University. Though only regarded as an average student, he received an undergraduate degree in 1396 and a Masters in 1398. In 1402 he was ordained as a priest in the Catholic Church and became rector and priest at Bethlehem Chapel. Hus lived in a time of great political and religious upheaval and to fully understand the man and his circumstances, some background is necessary. Domestic political turmoil was emerging in Bohemia and in the early 1400s the Catholic Church was enmeshed in the Great Schism in which three rival popes vied for control of the church. The schism led to the formation of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). This Council would prove pivotal to the fate of Jan Hus.
Oh, it proved "pivotal", alright. Hus was ultimately BURNED AT THE STAKE AS A HERETIC because he exposed a bunch of BS within the teachings of Roman Catholicism. What was used as kindling for Hus' flames? The manuscipts of Wyckliffe's Bible translation...the same Wyckliffe whose bones were exhumed AND BURNED at the demands of the Roman Catholic heirarchy. And now THE POPE is "decrying persecution"?!?
If you imbeciles can't see the HYPROCRISY in this, then there is absolutely NO HOPE for you. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 23 2009, 01:56 PM)
My natural descent has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with my Christianity. Christianity of the Biblical sort is the direct result of a series of SUPERnatural events.
Then find out about that prize that Rob was talking about and claim it.
Were your posting problems supernatural?
And how do you know one way or the other?
edit and your whole Tynsdale arguement sounds like the "Hans shot first debate".
That is you could just as easily be talking about a work of fiction.
You still havn't said why your evidence is valid but that Hindu woman's isn't.
I felt that I should add the following before heading out...
I'm ALSO well aware of Roman Catholic involvement in such things as hospitals (in fact, I got banned from working in one of them...a SPECIAL board meeting was held in relation to me and I was officially banned from setting up and selling my merchandise at their facility due to my viewpoints regarding the Pope) and charities. My beef with Roman Catholicism has to do primarily with their heirarchy and doctrine...NOT necessarily with individuals found within their church. As I have noted before, I do have Roman Catholic friends (who are familiar with my viewpoints, by the way) and I've also personally experienced the help of at least one Roman Catholic organization in the past. Gotta go...
P.S.
muttershug (not a typo): You're free to follow me around as long as you'd like, but know this...
Although you consider yourself to be the Sanhedrin (look it up), I consider you to be an imbecilic, muttering m0ron (sorry...but I'm not one to mince words). As such, consider yourself officially ignored from now on. Have a nice life.
I'm ALSO well aware of Roman Catholic involvement in such things as hospitals (in fact, I got banned from working in one of them...a SPECIAL board meeting was held in relation to me and I was officially banned from setting up and selling my merchandise at their facility due to my viewpoints regarding the Pope) and charities. My beef with Roman Catholicism has to do primarily with their heirarchy and doctrine...NOT necessarily with individuals found within their church. As I have noted before, I do have Roman Catholic friends (who are familiar with my viewpoints, by the way) and I've also personally experienced the help of at least one Roman Catholic organization in the past. Gotta go...
P.S.
muttershug (not a typo): You're free to follow me around as long as you'd like, but know this...
Although you consider yourself to be the Sanhedrin (look it up), I consider you to be an imbecilic, muttering m0ron (sorry...but I'm not one to mince words). As such, consider yourself officially ignored from now on. Have a nice life.
Looks like someone had an interesting relationship with a Roman Catholic priest as a little boy.
newguy, what denomination do you belong to? What church do you and your family attend?
I also want to know if you consider yourself a spokesman for God.
I am asking these questions in light of your replies on this thread, because if the tree is known by it's fruit, you would be wise to consider in what way neutral or curious/searching people that may be here feel about the tone of these replies. I am guessing you might see me passively aggressive here, but remember, we don't agree religiously already. However, my thoughts aren't as much about philosophy as they are about presentation of oneself. Why, for instance, you would invoke Helen Keller in an uncharitable way (ironic to see, since I just returned from an event that focused on her contributions) is yet another head-scratcher to me, when there are so many others that you could have picked.
newguy, you have antagonism here; you cop attitude remarkably fast, and it isn't consistent with being full of grace, something that Ms. Keller seemed to be, despite a hardship that you, I and everyone else here cannot compare to.
I also want to know if you consider yourself a spokesman for God.
I am asking these questions in light of your replies on this thread, because if the tree is known by it's fruit, you would be wise to consider in what way neutral or curious/searching people that may be here feel about the tone of these replies. I am guessing you might see me passively aggressive here, but remember, we don't agree religiously already. However, my thoughts aren't as much about philosophy as they are about presentation of oneself. Why, for instance, you would invoke Helen Keller in an uncharitable way (ironic to see, since I just returned from an event that focused on her contributions) is yet another head-scratcher to me, when there are so many others that you could have picked.
newguy, you have antagonism here; you cop attitude remarkably fast, and it isn't consistent with being full of grace, something that Ms. Keller seemed to be, despite a hardship that you, I and everyone else here cannot compare to.
QUOTE
Once I knew only darkness and stillness... my life was without past or future... but a little word from the fingers of another fell into my hand that clutched at emptiness, and my heart leaped to the rapture of living.
QUOTE (newguy+)
DISEASE played a major role in spreading cures.
Think about it.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM is a DISEASE. It has spread such things as Inquisitions, tortures, burnings at the stake, Crusades, burnings of Bibles, etc.
YOU may consider that to be "spreading Christianity", but I don't and never will. As this DISEASE spread, REFORMERS, PHYSICIANS IF YOU WILL, sprang up to stop the spread of this DISEASE. THROUGH THE WORK OF REFORMERS, "Christianity spread". If you can't/won't understand that, then there is no need for further discussion along these lines. I've stated my viewpoints and used FACTS to back them up. Believe whatever you'd like. You're entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts. Gee, I think I read that in someone's signature, once... Take care.
That's a bad example. A cure cannot exist without the disease. A cure without a disease is useless. Is Jesus useless without the Catholic Church? Find another example.
By your admission, the "cure" came as a response to the "disease," which means that you owe your faith to the Catholic Church.
I use "the Church" in a historical context, as the Catholic Church has existed for over 1700 years, while the earliest roots of Protestantism are only 650 years old (Wycliffe).
You have some serious anger issues towards Catholics, especially for someone who claims to know "real Christianity," which is the exact same fault that the Catholic Church has.
Think about it.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM is a DISEASE. It has spread such things as Inquisitions, tortures, burnings at the stake, Crusades, burnings of Bibles, etc.
YOU may consider that to be "spreading Christianity", but I don't and never will. As this DISEASE spread, REFORMERS, PHYSICIANS IF YOU WILL, sprang up to stop the spread of this DISEASE. THROUGH THE WORK OF REFORMERS, "Christianity spread". If you can't/won't understand that, then there is no need for further discussion along these lines. I've stated my viewpoints and used FACTS to back them up. Believe whatever you'd like. You're entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts. Gee, I think I read that in someone's signature, once... Take care.
That's a bad example. A cure cannot exist without the disease. A cure without a disease is useless. Is Jesus useless without the Catholic Church? Find another example.
By your admission, the "cure" came as a response to the "disease," which means that you owe your faith to the Catholic Church.
I use "the Church" in a historical context, as the Catholic Church has existed for over 1700 years, while the earliest roots of Protestantism are only 650 years old (Wycliffe).
You have some serious anger issues towards Catholics, especially for someone who claims to know "real Christianity," which is the exact same fault that the Catholic Church has.
Newguy
Well... I am again disappointed by your inability to conduct a simple discussion without resorting to cheap insults and cheaper tactics. Again you also demonstrate that you either can't read well or you are deliberately twisting what you read.
Let's be very clear what my point is first... then I will go through your enormous post to show how you distort every fact to fit your biased view.
My point is...
The Roman Catholic Church was the main organized body of Christians during the period between the 1st century and the 13th century (approximately). Therefore, they were in the main responsible for the spread of Christianity, the copying of manuscripts and the retention of knowledge of the New Testament and therefore of Christ's words and actions. This knowledge would have likely have been lost to time and the endemic warfare of the so called "dark ages" in Europe if it had not been for that organization.
OK... moving on.
It doesn't damage me... it just makes you look like the stereotypical religious fanatic. Not only does it not damage me, but by making yourself look like a fool, you rather weaken your own argument.
It doesn't damage me... it just makes you look like the stereotypical religious fanatic. Not only does it not damage me, but by making yourself look like a fool, you rather weaken your own argument.
For starters, in one of your SPECIFIC examples, YOU "frantically" (isn't it amazing how you always seek to transfer YOUR PROBLEMS to me?) sought to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version of the Bible
I did not seek to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version. This is what I said...
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
This is the main argument.
Where did any of the authors you care to mention from the 15th and 16th century get their documentation?
From the translations provided by the monks who copied them. Therefore.. the Catholic Church.
Let's try to stick to the main points and not get lost in your pointless rants shall we.
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Moving on...
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Moving on...
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
This is again completely besides the point. A lot of people in the Catholic church have wanted reform. During the middle ages it was a constant balancing act for monastic institutions to walk the line between reform and being declared heretics. The Catholic church has never been real big on calls for reform.
However... that does not change which organization they belonged to nor does it change where they got their documentation.
This again, does not change the fact that the texts they were using for the New Testament were drawn from copies made by the Catholic church. You are also making the mistake of thinking that the Greek translations were more accurate to the original text than the Vulgate. This is not provable as the originals are not available now, nor were available then.
This again, does not change the fact that the texts they were using for the New Testament were drawn from copies made by the Catholic church. You are also making the mistake of thinking that the Greek translations were more accurate to the original text than the Vulgate. This is not provable as the originals are not available now, nor were available then.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers apparently did and from their writings can almost the entire New Testament be confirmed
Again... you would not be looking at original documents from that period but rather copies thereof.. provided by.. well..you know by now.
I am not trying to convince you in any way, since that would be impossible. No one ever convinces a religious fanatic of anything since that would threaten his beliefs, something he could not endure.
However, I will continue to oppose lies and disinformation. Your approval is not required.
That is certainly true... however you forget to point out that Christianity would still be a small unknown cult if not for Roman Catholism... for the reasons I outlined before.
Knowledge of Christianity, such as you believe it is, could have only come through the Catholic church.
Also...
Accusing the Roman Catholic church of apostasy assumes that you are correct in your interpretation of what Christ might have wanted to see and that the Catholic church is wrong. This is hardly a proven matter, quite to the contrary.
As an aside, from a personal point of view, I think you are both wrong. Assuming that Christ actually lived... and I do assume that myself... I think it's rather difficult to tell what his words and deeds actually were based on the massive unreliability of the extant documentation.
Heck, it's nearly impossible to tell exactly what Shakespeare actually wrote... and that's a mere 400 years ago. People who argue as to the exact meaning of a phrase in the bible are arguing from general ignorance on all sides.
Well... I am again disappointed by your inability to conduct a simple discussion without resorting to cheap insults and cheaper tactics. Again you also demonstrate that you either can't read well or you are deliberately twisting what you read.
Let's be very clear what my point is first... then I will go through your enormous post to show how you distort every fact to fit your biased view.
My point is...
The Roman Catholic Church was the main organized body of Christians during the period between the 1st century and the 13th century (approximately). Therefore, they were in the main responsible for the spread of Christianity, the copying of manuscripts and the retention of knowledge of the New Testament and therefore of Christ's words and actions. This knowledge would have likely have been lost to time and the endemic warfare of the so called "dark ages" in Europe if it had not been for that organization.
OK... moving on.
QUOTE
(Oh, dear...I've done it, again. I used MASSIVE CAPITAL LETTERS and have thereby further damaged your overly sensitive, thin, PRETENTIOUS skin. C'est la vie.).
It doesn't damage me... it just makes you look like the stereotypical religious fanatic. Not only does it not damage me, but by making yourself look like a fool, you rather weaken your own argument.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| (Oh, dear...I've done it, again. I used MASSIVE CAPITAL LETTERS and have thereby further damaged your overly sensitive, thin, PRETENTIOUS skin. C'est la vie.). |
It doesn't damage me... it just makes you look like the stereotypical religious fanatic. Not only does it not damage me, but by making yourself look like a fool, you rather weaken your own argument.
For starters, in one of your SPECIFIC examples, YOU "frantically" (isn't it amazing how you always seek to transfer YOUR PROBLEMS to me?) sought to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version of the Bible
I did not seek to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version. This is what I said...
QUOTE
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's look at the King James version.... First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation? Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church. Let's look at the Authorised Version... |
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
This is the main argument.
Where did any of the authors you care to mention from the 15th and 16th century get their documentation?
From the translations provided by the monks who copied them. Therefore.. the Catholic Church.
Let's try to stick to the main points and not get lost in your pointless rants shall we.
QUOTE
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original.
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Moving on...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original. |
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Moving on...
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
This is again completely besides the point. A lot of people in the Catholic church have wanted reform. During the middle ages it was a constant balancing act for monastic institutions to walk the line between reform and being declared heretics. The Catholic church has never been real big on calls for reform.
However... that does not change which organization they belonged to nor does it change where they got their documentation.
QUOTE
Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not.
This again, does not change the fact that the texts they were using for the New Testament were drawn from copies made by the Catholic church. You are also making the mistake of thinking that the Greek translations were more accurate to the original text than the Vulgate. This is not provable as the originals are not available now, nor were available then.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not. |
This again, does not change the fact that the texts they were using for the New Testament were drawn from copies made by the Catholic church. You are also making the mistake of thinking that the Greek translations were more accurate to the original text than the Vulgate. This is not provable as the originals are not available now, nor were available then.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers apparently did and from their writings can almost the entire New Testament be confirmed
Again... you would not be looking at original documents from that period but rather copies thereof.. provided by.. well..you know by now.
QUOTE
YOU may consider that to be "spreading Christianity", but I don't and never will.
I am not trying to convince you in any way, since that would be impossible. No one ever convinces a religious fanatic of anything since that would threaten his beliefs, something he could not endure.
However, I will continue to oppose lies and disinformation. Your approval is not required.
soundhertz: Apparently, I initially misdiagnosed you (I've recently begun to see the light). How telling that all that you've taken away from this thread is the "gnat" of a Helen Keller comment that wasn't even meant as a slight to her (I was merely mentioning someone who was known to be blind to make a point). Well, at least your "strainer" will never gather dust, nor will you ever die from a lack of "camel" intake. As far as your personal questions are concerned, that's no longer any of your business. "Neutral or curious/searching people"? I hope that you're not trying to sell me the package of goods that suggests that YOU fall into either of these categories. Stick to the "god" whom you've fashioned into your own likeness. As for me, I've got work to do and I've already wasted enough time here. Take care.
flyingbuttressman: You're right...I should have used a better example, but I trust that you understood the point that I was attempting to make. At the same time, though, I disagree with your comments regarding Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on the following grounds. Although Roman Catholicism did precede Protestantism (they were protesting against Roman Catholic doctrine, afterall), Roman Catholicism did NOT precede Christianity. This is the FACT that you seemingly refuse to accept. Roman Catholicism was/is a by-product of a GREAT APOSTASY...NOT a by-product of following Christ. Nothing that you can ever say will change that, although you're certainly free to keep on insisting differently. Finally, I have NO "anger issues" towards Roman Catholics, per se. As I've already explained, although I'm vehemently opposed to Roman Catholicism, I do have Roman Catholic friends. Nothing that you can ever suggest will ever change that present-day reality. Take care.
flyingbuttressman: You're right...I should have used a better example, but I trust that you understood the point that I was attempting to make. At the same time, though, I disagree with your comments regarding Roman Catholicism and Protestantism on the following grounds. Although Roman Catholicism did precede Protestantism (they were protesting against Roman Catholic doctrine, afterall), Roman Catholicism did NOT precede Christianity. This is the FACT that you seemingly refuse to accept. Roman Catholicism was/is a by-product of a GREAT APOSTASY...NOT a by-product of following Christ. Nothing that you can ever say will change that, although you're certainly free to keep on insisting differently. Finally, I have NO "anger issues" towards Roman Catholics, per se. As I've already explained, although I'm vehemently opposed to Roman Catholicism, I do have Roman Catholic friends. Nothing that you can ever suggest will ever change that present-day reality. Take care.
QUOTE
Roman Catholicism did NOT precede Christianity.
That is certainly true... however you forget to point out that Christianity would still be a small unknown cult if not for Roman Catholism... for the reasons I outlined before.
Knowledge of Christianity, such as you believe it is, could have only come through the Catholic church.
Also...
Accusing the Roman Catholic church of apostasy assumes that you are correct in your interpretation of what Christ might have wanted to see and that the Catholic church is wrong. This is hardly a proven matter, quite to the contrary.
As an aside, from a personal point of view, I think you are both wrong. Assuming that Christ actually lived... and I do assume that myself... I think it's rather difficult to tell what his words and deeds actually were based on the massive unreliability of the extant documentation.
Heck, it's nearly impossible to tell exactly what Shakespeare actually wrote... and that's a mere 400 years ago. People who argue as to the exact meaning of a phrase in the bible are arguing from general ignorance on all sides.
newguy, it's not a gnat to me. And no, I don't fall into the camp I mentioned, but people come here all the time; you are a spokesman for God; and you get mad quickly and become assuming. You can clarify your points without getting huffy and resorting to slurs and name calling, even when it's done to you, especially since... well look at your title! And your contentions! You are a self-proclaimed fisher of men, offering the philosophy of God, Christ, and the Bible. But look at the stuff you've been flinging. They are visceral exchanges, and detrimental not helpful to winning the people over in this thread, this forum. And I do have a right to say this because from a spiritual pov you are to hold yourself to a wiser and more prudent communication.
soundhertz: Apparently, I initially misdiagnosed you (I've recently begun to see the light).
That may be true for both of us. I just went to your very first post, and went to that url you posted.....
In my feedback to you in '06, I said: "Though I've retreated from traditional religious views, I respect newguy's take on it." If this url is a true representation of your frame of mind concerning your faith, I was wrong in that part of the feedback. The first reply to that horrid website goes for me too: " Wow. For me, someone who actually believes in God, I'm ashamed a website like that actually exists. It is tactless and I wouldn't be surprised if people turned further away from religion just because of people like you who believe in these sites or actually create them!"
And he is absolutely right. That site could have been pulled from my Baltimore Catechism (except not even it's images used as much fire and death masks). And you responded: "And, YES, the website is deliberately "tactless". According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "tact" is "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense." How can you "avoid offense" when Jesus Christ is "the rock of offense"(I Peter 2:8)?"
What a reprehensible way to portray Christianity! Even the Baptists are less draconian than you.
QUOTE
soundhertz: Apparently, I initially misdiagnosed you (I've recently begun to see the light).
That may be true for both of us. I just went to your very first post, and went to that url you posted.....
In my feedback to you in '06, I said: "Though I've retreated from traditional religious views, I respect newguy's take on it." If this url is a true representation of your frame of mind concerning your faith, I was wrong in that part of the feedback. The first reply to that horrid website goes for me too: " Wow. For me, someone who actually believes in God, I'm ashamed a website like that actually exists. It is tactless and I wouldn't be surprised if people turned further away from religion just because of people like you who believe in these sites or actually create them!"
And he is absolutely right. That site could have been pulled from my Baltimore Catechism (except not even it's images used as much fire and death masks). And you responded: "And, YES, the website is deliberately "tactless". According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "tact" is "a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense." How can you "avoid offense" when Jesus Christ is "the rock of offense"(I Peter 2:8)?"
What a reprehensible way to portray Christianity! Even the Baptists are less draconian than you.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
newguy, it's not a gnat to me.
soundhertz: It's still a gnat, nevertheless.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I can pretty much respond in one word, without any further need to quote you...
HYPOCRITE!
Aren't you THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN PREACHING TO ME OF LATE?
Yep, same guy.
What happened to your "god" with his many "spokes" WHICH ALL LEAD TO HEAVEN, according to YOU?
Why the need to "win people over"?
"Over" to what?
ACCORDING TO YOU, they're already there.
Also, why the need for concern in relation to me, HYPOCRITE?
Am I not on one of those "spokes" that YOU preach about? Even if I didn't make your "top 4", surely there must at least be a "spoke" for me on the spare tire in your "god's" trunk, no?
Do me a favor, HYPOCRITE. Come back when you actually believe YOUR OWN PROFESSIONS and we'll talk, okay?
Finally, would to God that the Baltimore catechism identified the Pope as the antichrist. Change your feedback to reflect your current stance. After our most recent round of dialogue, your opinion really means nothing to me anyway.
Take care.
soundhertz: It's still a gnat, nevertheless.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I can pretty much respond in one word, without any further need to quote you...
HYPOCRITE!
Aren't you THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN PREACHING TO ME OF LATE?
Yep, same guy.
What happened to your "god" with his many "spokes" WHICH ALL LEAD TO HEAVEN, according to YOU?
Why the need to "win people over"?
"Over" to what?
ACCORDING TO YOU, they're already there.
Also, why the need for concern in relation to me, HYPOCRITE?
Am I not on one of those "spokes" that YOU preach about? Even if I didn't make your "top 4", surely there must at least be a "spoke" for me on the spare tire in your "god's" trunk, no?
Do me a favor, HYPOCRITE. Come back when you actually believe YOUR OWN PROFESSIONS and we'll talk, okay?
Finally, would to God that the Baltimore catechism identified the Pope as the antichrist. Change your feedback to reflect your current stance. After our most recent round of dialogue, your opinion really means nothing to me anyway.
Take care.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Let's be very clear what my point is first... then I will go through your enormous post to show how you distort every fact to fit your biased view.
My point is...
The Roman Catholic Church was the main organized body of Christians during the period between the 1st century and the 13th century (approximately). Therefore, they were in the main responsible for the spread of Christianity, the copying of manuscripts and the retention of knowledge of the New Testament and therefore of Christ's words and actions. This knowledge would have likely have been lost to time and the endemic warfare of the so called "dark ages" in Europe if it had not been for that organization.
Rob: What "distortions" and "biased view" would that be? Well, at least you've backpedaled a little bit. Now, you're using such terminology as "main", as opposed to only, and "would have likely", as opposed to would definitely have. I've always understood and AGREED WITH your "point":
Roman Catholicism is mainly/partly responsible for COPYING and RETAINING texts.
BIG DEAL. Did it ever occur to you that THE JEWS COPIED and RETAINED the Hebrew scriptures as well? Doesn't that also mean that they are responsible for "spreading Christianity"? THIS is my objection. Although the HEBREW TEXTS were used in the spreading of Christianity, most Jews themselves diametrically opposed the spreading of Christianity. Can't you see this? The same principle applies with Roman Catholicism. Although TEXTS which they helped to preserve were utilized to spread Christianity, many within the ranks of Roman Catholicism diametrically opposed Christianity. Surely, you don't need me to remind you again of Bible burnings, heretic burnings, Inquisitions, Crusades, excommunications, etc., etc.
My point is...
The Roman Catholic Church was the main organized body of Christians during the period between the 1st century and the 13th century (approximately). Therefore, they were in the main responsible for the spread of Christianity, the copying of manuscripts and the retention of knowledge of the New Testament and therefore of Christ's words and actions. This knowledge would have likely have been lost to time and the endemic warfare of the so called "dark ages" in Europe if it had not been for that organization.
Rob: What "distortions" and "biased view" would that be? Well, at least you've backpedaled a little bit. Now, you're using such terminology as "main", as opposed to only, and "would have likely", as opposed to would definitely have. I've always understood and AGREED WITH your "point":
Roman Catholicism is mainly/partly responsible for COPYING and RETAINING texts.
BIG DEAL. Did it ever occur to you that THE JEWS COPIED and RETAINED the Hebrew scriptures as well? Doesn't that also mean that they are responsible for "spreading Christianity"? THIS is my objection. Although the HEBREW TEXTS were used in the spreading of Christianity, most Jews themselves diametrically opposed the spreading of Christianity. Can't you see this? The same principle applies with Roman Catholicism. Although TEXTS which they helped to preserve were utilized to spread Christianity, many within the ranks of Roman Catholicism diametrically opposed Christianity. Surely, you don't need me to remind you again of Bible burnings, heretic burnings, Inquisitions, Crusades, excommunications, etc., etc.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It doesn't damage me... it just makes you look like the stereotypical religious fanatic. Not only does it not damage me, but by making yourself look like a fool, you rather weaken your own argument.
Actually, it just makes you look like the petty crybaby that you are.
Actually, it just makes you look like the petty crybaby that you are.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
I did not seek to create a link between John Wyckliffe and the King James version. This is what I said...
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
This is the main argument.
Where did any of the authors you care to mention from the 15th and 16th century get their documentation?
From the translations provided by the monks who copied them. Therefore.. the Catholic Church.
Let's try to stick to the main points and not get lost in your pointless rants shall we.
"Pointless rants"? You really should try reading YOUR OWN POSTS. By way of reminder, your "main argument" started like this:
QUOTE
Let's look at the King James version....
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation?
Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Let's look at the Authorised Version...
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let's look at the King James version.... First... what did John Wycliffe use as a basis for his translation? Answer... The Vulgate.. the bible in Latin written by St Jerome at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church. Let's look at the Authorised Version... |
My use of the term "first" indicates, in normal conversation that I intend to make a statement before I address the main point. For example.. "We will now show you some exciting clips of the President's speech.. but first... a message from our sponsors..."
I can see how the term would lead to confusion but one would think you would have looked at the actual argument...
So... where did all these authors get their version of the words of God?
From the translations and documents written by the Church of Rome.
This is the main argument.
Where did any of the authors you care to mention from the 15th and 16th century get their documentation?
From the translations provided by the monks who copied them. Therefore.. the Catholic Church.
Let's try to stick to the main points and not get lost in your pointless rants shall we.
"Pointless rants"? You really should try reading YOUR OWN POSTS. By way of reminder, your "main argument" started like this:
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It doesn't matter whether the Roman Catholic Church is run by Satan himself. The historical fact is that Christianity was spread by the Church and no one else. flyingbuttressman is absolutely correct in saying that without the Roman Catholic church, most of us, including yourself would likely be pagan or some other variant religion at this time because we would have never heard of Christianity at all.
Bringing up a 16th century variance has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. By then Christianity was the rule and whether you think this was true Christianity or not, the truth is that you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church. Period.
Aside from the fact that you would need to be omniscient (you're not claiming to be "god", are you?) in order to emphatically state that "no one else" but the Roman Catholic church "spread Christianity" during the timeframes of which you speak, you also ERRED GREATLY when you stated that "you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church. Period."
Really?
Has anyone ever told you that you speak out of both sides of your mouth? If not, then allow me to be the first. What of things like the Dead Sea scrolls? Might I not have "heard of Christ" through them? Also, you've gone on endlessly of how certain manuscript fragments weren't even available at the time in which we're discussing. Well, they're available NOW, aren't they? Might I not have "heard of Christ" through them? Those are but a couple of examples which SHOOT HOLES in your "main argument". Exclamation point (a period isn't emphatic enough).
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Once again, you make me chuckle. Didn't you just finish attempting to lay this charge at my doorstep:
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Once again, you make me chuckle. Didn't you just finish attempting to lay this charge at my doorstep:
Again you also demonstrate that you either can't read well or you are deliberately twisting what you read.
???
What's the matter, Rob...don't they have any MIRRORS in Canada? YOU are the one who has the reading problem, not me. Tell me/us, Rob, what "error" there was in my "logic", won't you? IN REALITY, the "error" lies in your inability to read. Of course, I understand that the Pentateuch is found in the Old Testament. I PLAINLY TOLD YOU why I extended your quote, didn't I? Sure, I did. Here it is, AGAIN:
Bringing up a 16th century variance has absolutely nothing to do with the facts. By then Christianity was the rule and whether you think this was true Christianity or not, the truth is that you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church. Period.
Aside from the fact that you would need to be omniscient (you're not claiming to be "god", are you?) in order to emphatically state that "no one else" but the Roman Catholic church "spread Christianity" during the timeframes of which you speak, you also ERRED GREATLY when you stated that "you would have never heard of Christ or anything to do with it if it had not been for the Catholic Church. Period."
Really?
Has anyone ever told you that you speak out of both sides of your mouth? If not, then allow me to be the first. What of things like the Dead Sea scrolls? Might I not have "heard of Christ" through them? Also, you've gone on endlessly of how certain manuscript fragments weren't even available at the time in which we're discussing. Well, they're available NOW, aren't they? Might I not have "heard of Christ" through them? Those are but a couple of examples which SHOOT HOLES in your "main argument". Exclamation point (a period isn't emphatic enough).
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
QUOTE
While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original.
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Once again, you make me chuckle. Didn't you just finish attempting to lay this charge at my doorstep:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| While translating, Tyndale followed Erasmus' (1522) Greek edition of the New Testament. In his Preface to his 1534 New Testament ("WT unto the Reader") he not only goes into some detail about the Greek tenses but also points out that there is often a Hebrew idiom underlying the Greek. The Tyndale Society adduces much further evidence to show that his translations were made directly from the original Hebrew and Greek sources he had at his disposal. For example, the Prolegomena in Mombert's William Tyndale's Five Books of Moses show that Tyndale's Pentateuch is a translation of the Hebrew original. |
One would think that you would know enough about the bible to spot the error in your logic in this one.
The Pentateuch is the Old Testament. Tyndale would have translated that straight from the Torah, which is not what we are discussing here.
To begin with... the Torah of the 1st century AD would not have been available to Tyndale since even the Jews didn't have one.
Secondly... Greek sources does not mean original documents from the 1st to 3rd centuries, because no one had those in anything but for a few fragments.
Once again, you make me chuckle. Didn't you just finish attempting to lay this charge at my doorstep:
Again you also demonstrate that you either can't read well or you are deliberately twisting what you read.
???
What's the matter, Rob...don't they have any MIRRORS in Canada? YOU are the one who has the reading problem, not me. Tell me/us, Rob, what "error" there was in my "logic", won't you? IN REALITY, the "error" lies in your inability to read. Of course, I understand that the Pentateuch is found in the Old Testament. I PLAINLY TOLD YOU why I extended your quote, didn't I? Sure, I did. Here it is, AGAIN:
QUOTE (newguy+)
Once again, no mention of THE LATIN VULGATE that YOU were intially going on about. I also included this longer quote because I'll address flyingbuttressman's question about the Hebrew text later on.
Flyingbuttressman had asked me a question about BOTH the Greek and Hebrew texts. I extended your quote as a precursor to my discussion with him. Perhaps a pair of reading glasses will help in the future? It might be worth a try.
Flyingbuttressman had asked me a question about BOTH the Greek and Hebrew texts. I extended your quote as a precursor to my discussion with him. Perhaps a pair of reading glasses will help in the future? It might be worth a try.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Moving on...
This is again completely besides the point. A lot of people in the Catholic church have wanted reform. During the middle ages it was a constant balancing act for monastic institutions to walk the line between reform and being declared heretics. The Catholic church has never been real big on calls for reform.
However... that does not change which organization they belonged to nor does it change where they got their documentation.
No. It may be "completely besides the point" of where they got their documentation (something that I've never disagreed with), but it is vitally important to MY POINT:
CHRISTIANITY WAS SPREAD THROUGH REFORM...NOT THROUGH TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
There. That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?
Traditional Roman Catholicism KILLED reformers and BURNED their works and sometimes BURNED THEM as well, as I trust we both know and recognize.
THAT is my point.
Perhaps you live in a one point world? You really should get out more often, if that's the case.
This is again completely besides the point. A lot of people in the Catholic church have wanted reform. During the middle ages it was a constant balancing act for monastic institutions to walk the line between reform and being declared heretics. The Catholic church has never been real big on calls for reform.
However... that does not change which organization they belonged to nor does it change where they got their documentation.
No. It may be "completely besides the point" of where they got their documentation (something that I've never disagreed with), but it is vitally important to MY POINT:
CHRISTIANITY WAS SPREAD THROUGH REFORM...NOT THROUGH TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
There. That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?
Traditional Roman Catholicism KILLED reformers and BURNED their works and sometimes BURNED THEM as well, as I trust we both know and recognize.
THAT is my point.
Perhaps you live in a one point world? You really should get out more often, if that's the case.
QUOTE
Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics.
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE:
This is again completely besides the point. A lot of people in the Catholic church have wanted reform. During the middle ages it was a constant balancing act for monastic institutions to walk the line between reform and being declared heretics. The Catholic church has never been real big on calls for reform.
However... that does not change which organization they belonged to nor does it change where they got their documentation.
No. It may be "completely besides the point" of where they got their documentation (something that I've never disagreed with), but it is vitally important to MY POINT:
CHRISTIANITY WAS SPREAD THROUGH REFORM...NOT THROUGH TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
There. That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?
Traditional Roman Catholicism KILLED reformers and BURNED their works and sometimes BURNED THEM as well, as I trust we both know and recognize.
THAT is my point.
Perhaps you live in a one point world? You really should get out more often, if that's the case.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Erasmus lived through the Reformation period and he consistently criticized some contemporary popular Christian beliefs. In relation to clerical abuses in the Church, Erasmus remained committed to reforming the Church from within. He also held to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which some Protestant Reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. His middle road disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Martin Luther, as well as conservative Catholics. Oh, yeah...Erasmus was a "Catholic Christian theologian", alright. However, you neglected to mention that he took THE MIDDLE ROAD and angered both Protestants and Catholics alike. You also neglected to mention that he sought to REFORM the Catholic church FROM WITHIN. Where do you suppose that his desires for REFORM came from? Hmmm...I wonder? Here's a clue, FROM YOUR SAME SOURCE: |
This is again completely besides the point. A lot of people in the Catholic church have wanted reform. During the middle ages it was a constant balancing act for monastic institutions to walk the line between reform and being declared heretics. The Catholic church has never been real big on calls for reform.
However... that does not change which organization they belonged to nor does it change where they got their documentation.
No. It may be "completely besides the point" of where they got their documentation (something that I've never disagreed with), but it is vitally important to MY POINT:
CHRISTIANITY WAS SPREAD THROUGH REFORM...NOT THROUGH TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
There. That wasn't so hard to understand, was it?
Traditional Roman Catholicism KILLED reformers and BURNED their works and sometimes BURNED THEM as well, as I trust we both know and recognize.
THAT is my point.
Perhaps you live in a one point world? You really should get out more often, if that's the case.
QUOTE (newguy+)
Erasmus, LIKE HIS PROTESTANT REFORMER LIFELONG FRIENDS, JOHN COLET AND THOMAS LINACRE, found the Vulgate to be so screwed up that he included a Greek translation alongside of his Latin translation to verify the quality of his Latin version. In other words, greatly influenced by PROTESTANT REFORMERS, such as Linacre and Colet, ERASMUS SOUGHT REFORM HIMSELF, FROM WITHIN. Not much of a difference, really. Anyhow, it was Erasmus' GREEK translation, A TRANSLATION THAT WAS INSPIRED THROUGH THE TEACHING OF PROTESTANT REFORMERS, which was utilized by Tyndale. Those are the UNavoided and UNmangled facts...like it or not.
This again, does not change the fact that the texts they were using for the New Testament were drawn from copies made by the Catholic church. You are also making the mistake of thinking that the Greek translations were more accurate to the original text than the Vulgate. This is not provable as the originals are not available now, nor were available then.
Oh, my. I was merely attempting to show that the Latin Vulgate that you were going on about was/is a piss-poor translation from the Greek texts which were available at that time.
This again, does not change the fact that the texts they were using for the New Testament were drawn from copies made by the Catholic church. You are also making the mistake of thinking that the Greek translations were more accurate to the original text than the Vulgate. This is not provable as the originals are not available now, nor were available then.
Oh, my. I was merely attempting to show that the Latin Vulgate that you were going on about was/is a piss-poor translation from the Greek texts which were available at that time.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
QUOTE (newguy+)
The Ante-Nicene Fathers apparently did and from their writings can almost the entire New Testament be confirmed.
Again... you would not be looking at original documents from that period but rather copies thereof.. provided by.. well..you know by now.
AGAIN, you deliberately miss the point. My comments were a response to this:
Again... you would not be looking at original documents from that period but rather copies thereof.. provided by.. well..you know by now.
AGAIN, you deliberately miss the point. My comments were a response to this:
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
I wonder....
Do you really believe that Erasmus and Tyndale had access to actual documents from the 1st to 3rd century AD?
Or is it that they had access to copies made in the centuries since... slowly altered or reworked... by monks of the Church you so despise?
I couldn't care less who copied the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers. My point was and is that they apparently had some sort of documents from which they were all quoting. These documents would have had to, of necessity, precede the Roman Catholic church. Since you don't seem to be able to follow along, I'll tell you AGAIN why I bring up such a point...
There are those who insist that the Bible came into being at the Council of Nicaea...I'm just attempting to show that almost the entire Bible can be reproduced from the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers...writings which originated BEFORE the Council of Nicaea. Is that so hard to understand?
Do you really believe that Erasmus and Tyndale had access to actual documents from the 1st to 3rd century AD?
Or is it that they had access to copies made in the centuries since... slowly altered or reworked... by monks of the Church you so despise?
I couldn't care less who copied the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers. My point was and is that they apparently had some sort of documents from which they were all quoting. These documents would have had to, of necessity, precede the Roman Catholic church. Since you don't seem to be able to follow along, I'll tell you AGAIN why I bring up such a point...
There are those who insist that the Bible came into being at the Council of Nicaea...I'm just attempting to show that almost the entire Bible can be reproduced from the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers...writings which originated BEFORE the Council of Nicaea. Is that so hard to understand?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
QUOTE (newguy+)
YOU may consider that to be "spreading Christianity", but I don't and never will.
I am not trying to convince you in any way, since that would be impossible. No one ever convinces a religious fanatic of anything since that would threaten his beliefs, something he could not endure.
Congratulations. You made me chuckle twice in one post. As usual, you flatter yourself way too much. You're only a "threat" to YOURSELF, although I doubt that you'll recognize that before it's too late. Additionally, my "beliefs" extend far beyond the realm of a book. As I've plainly stated before, the primary purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help bring one into direct contact with "the Lord of the book". Been there. Done that.
I am not trying to convince you in any way, since that would be impossible. No one ever convinces a religious fanatic of anything since that would threaten his beliefs, something he could not endure.
Congratulations. You made me chuckle twice in one post. As usual, you flatter yourself way too much. You're only a "threat" to YOURSELF, although I doubt that you'll recognize that before it's too late. Additionally, my "beliefs" extend far beyond the realm of a book. As I've plainly stated before, the primary purpose of "the book of the Lord" is to help bring one into direct contact with "the Lord of the book". Been there. Done that.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
However, I will continue to oppose lies and disinformation. Your approval is not required.
Now you've REALLY done it. A third chuckle...the last one was quite loud. "Lies" and "disinformation"? In your dreams.
Take care.
Now you've REALLY done it. A third chuckle...the last one was quite loud. "Lies" and "disinformation"? In your dreams.
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 27 2009, 07:10 AM)
Roman Catholicism is mainly/partly responsible for COPYING and RETAINING texts.
In other words, we won the argument, but you can't/won't admit it. That's kind of childish if you ask me. Rob's posts have been very straightforward and well-written. Your posts, newguy, are indicative of someone who has anger issues. Whether this rage only appears on the internet or not is beyond my knowledge, but I would still recommend some kind of anger counseling. Why is it that someone who is so close to god has such a bigger problem of controlling his anger than the heathens that have rejected your savior? Your anger undermines your statements of belief, and makes you a hypocrite. No-one on this forum believes that you are actually following "true Christianity" because it is apparent that you are a disturbed, angry individual. Even MisterBelfry is freaked out by you. Your anger proves nothing aside from your own incompetence.
P.S. Before you start tard-raging or laughing maniacally, you should know that those are both defense mechanisms triggered by things that make you uncomfortable.
In other words, we won the argument, but you can't/won't admit it. That's kind of childish if you ask me. Rob's posts have been very straightforward and well-written. Your posts, newguy, are indicative of someone who has anger issues. Whether this rage only appears on the internet or not is beyond my knowledge, but I would still recommend some kind of anger counseling. Why is it that someone who is so close to god has such a bigger problem of controlling his anger than the heathens that have rejected your savior? Your anger undermines your statements of belief, and makes you a hypocrite. No-one on this forum believes that you are actually following "true Christianity" because it is apparent that you are a disturbed, angry individual. Even MisterBelfry is freaked out by you. Your anger proves nothing aside from your own incompetence.
P.S. Before you start tard-raging or laughing maniacally, you should know that those are both defense mechanisms triggered by things that make you uncomfortable.
newguy, does God want to be worshipped and praised (and feared)? If so, why?
And you never answered my question about whether you believe that death is a divine retribution.
Derek
And you never answered my question about whether you believe that death is a divine retribution.
Derek
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
In other words, we won the argument, but you can't/won't admit it.
flyingbuttressman: You have my entire posting history at your disposal. Go ahead and document where I ever said or even implied that the Roman Catholic church did NOT copy or retain texts. The so-called "argument" that you won only exists in your imagination. If not, then provide a quote from me to back up your assertion. Go ahead...I'll be waiting. MY contention has ALWAYS been that Roman Catholicism spread ROMAN CATHOLICISM...NOT Christianity. That you don't understand the difference between the two only speaks of your ignorance. Additionally, my posting history is LOADED with quotes of mine that would easily back my assertions. Sad (for you), but true.
flyingbuttressman: You have my entire posting history at your disposal. Go ahead and document where I ever said or even implied that the Roman Catholic church did NOT copy or retain texts. The so-called "argument" that you won only exists in your imagination. If not, then provide a quote from me to back up your assertion. Go ahead...I'll be waiting. MY contention has ALWAYS been that Roman Catholicism spread ROMAN CATHOLICISM...NOT Christianity. That you don't understand the difference between the two only speaks of your ignorance. Additionally, my posting history is LOADED with quotes of mine that would easily back my assertions. Sad (for you), but true.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
That's kind of childish if you ask me.
And why would I even consider asking you? On just this thread alone, you've made more than one erroneous statement. Hardly the type of counselor that I'd run to for advice.
And why would I even consider asking you? On just this thread alone, you've made more than one erroneous statement. Hardly the type of counselor that I'd run to for advice.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Your posts, newguy, are indicative of someone who has anger issues. Whether this rage only appears on the internet or not is beyond my knowledge, but I would still recommend some kind of anger counseling. Why is it that someone who is so close to god has such a bigger problem of controlling his anger than the heathens that have rejected your savior? Your anger undermines your statements of belief, and makes you a hypocrite. No-one on this forum believes that you are actually following "true Christianity" because it is apparent that you are a disturbed, angry individual. Even MisterBelfry is freaked out by you. Your anger proves nothing aside from your own incompetence.
And this, my dear flyingbuttressman, is one of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, why I view you and others here as desperate, deluded imbeciles. You've never even come close to angering me and you never will. My borderline use of certain words, such as idiot and imbecile, doesn't stem from any anger issues. I use those terms, or others like them, simply because I'm a straightforward guy and I've never encountered more desperately stupid people in my entire life as I've encountered here (with some exceptions...I don't view everyone here as being either desperate or stupid). Never. On top of this, outside of this forum, I can honestly say that I only recall two people who have ever accused me of being angry IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. The two (my own wife and my younger sister) conspired together recently and concocted some ridiculous charges (which included charges of domestic violence and MULTIPLE cases of child abuse) against me and actually called the police on me (I wasn't arrested) and I had to appear in court to defend myself against such charges. I was the 27th and last case to be heard that day...the first 26 defendants ALL LOST. I not only won, defending myself, but I won by A LANDSLIDE. In fact, so ridiculous were the charges that were levelled against me, that the Judge barely let me speak in my own defense and she (the Judge) was ready to "throw the book" AT MY ACCUSERS...the same accusers who sought to convince the Judge that I needed to undergo psychiatric evaluation. MY ACCUSERS provided more than enough evidence to EXONERATE me. In fact, had I followed the advice of the lawyer with whom I sought counsel before choosing to defend myself in court, then I could have pressed criminal charges against at least one of my accusers for her LIES that she told to Police Officers and to the Judge (not to mention the LIES that she uttered before God, after swearing with her right hand on the Bible). And you think that you "rookies" faze me in the least?!? Get your head out of your @ss, man. Better yet, just enjoy the stench of your own sh*t and continue to flatter yourself. Let forum members make all the desperately deluded suggestions that they want to that I'm either violent, angry, a child abuser or potentially one. I've already faced such charges IN A REAL COURT OF LAW AND WAS FOUND TO BE TOTALLY INNOCENT BY THE JUDGE, THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED AND THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES WHO WERE INVOLVED TO INVESTIGATE SUCH TOTALLY FALSE CHARGES. See? Your (whether individual or collective) desperately deluded, IDIOTIC charges mean nothing to me. I live in the real world, with real QUALIFIED Judges. Anyhow, contine to call me "angry" all that you'd like to. Me? I'll just continue being the calm, cool and collected individual that I actually am. Doesn't mean that I won't call an idiot "an idiot" when I confront one, though. Heck, in your case, I might even add some adjectives to better describe your particular brand of idiocy. Time will tell.
And this, my dear flyingbuttressman, is one of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, why I view you and others here as desperate, deluded imbeciles. You've never even come close to angering me and you never will. My borderline use of certain words, such as idiot and imbecile, doesn't stem from any anger issues. I use those terms, or others like them, simply because I'm a straightforward guy and I've never encountered more desperately stupid people in my entire life as I've encountered here (with some exceptions...I don't view everyone here as being either desperate or stupid). Never. On top of this, outside of this forum, I can honestly say that I only recall two people who have ever accused me of being angry IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. The two (my own wife and my younger sister) conspired together recently and concocted some ridiculous charges (which included charges of domestic violence and MULTIPLE cases of child abuse) against me and actually called the police on me (I wasn't arrested) and I had to appear in court to defend myself against such charges. I was the 27th and last case to be heard that day...the first 26 defendants ALL LOST. I not only won, defending myself, but I won by A LANDSLIDE. In fact, so ridiculous were the charges that were levelled against me, that the Judge barely let me speak in my own defense and she (the Judge) was ready to "throw the book" AT MY ACCUSERS...the same accusers who sought to convince the Judge that I needed to undergo psychiatric evaluation. MY ACCUSERS provided more than enough evidence to EXONERATE me. In fact, had I followed the advice of the lawyer with whom I sought counsel before choosing to defend myself in court, then I could have pressed criminal charges against at least one of my accusers for her LIES that she told to Police Officers and to the Judge (not to mention the LIES that she uttered before God, after swearing with her right hand on the Bible). And you think that you "rookies" faze me in the least?!? Get your head out of your @ss, man. Better yet, just enjoy the stench of your own sh*t and continue to flatter yourself. Let forum members make all the desperately deluded suggestions that they want to that I'm either violent, angry, a child abuser or potentially one. I've already faced such charges IN A REAL COURT OF LAW AND WAS FOUND TO BE TOTALLY INNOCENT BY THE JUDGE, THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED AND THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES WHO WERE INVOLVED TO INVESTIGATE SUCH TOTALLY FALSE CHARGES. See? Your (whether individual or collective) desperately deluded, IDIOTIC charges mean nothing to me. I live in the real world, with real QUALIFIED Judges. Anyhow, contine to call me "angry" all that you'd like to. Me? I'll just continue being the calm, cool and collected individual that I actually am. Doesn't mean that I won't call an idiot "an idiot" when I confront one, though. Heck, in your case, I might even add some adjectives to better describe your particular brand of idiocy. Time will tell.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
P.S. Before you start tard-raging or laughing maniacally, you should know that those are both defense mechanisms triggered by things that make you uncomfortable.
Unlike you, I don't need any "defense mechanisms". THE TRUTH has consistently been the only defense that I've needed. Worked perfectly fine for me in a REAL court...you "Judge Judy" wannabees only make me laugh (and not maniacally, either). Well, as always, it's been a blast. Enjoy your imagined victory, won't you? I bet that you will. Take care.
P.S. I might also add that my wife spent MONTHS trying to convince a whole host of people who know me to go along with her BS. This host of people included more of my own family members, friends and a bunch of different people who know me through my work. Although all of these people knew me too well to go along with her BS, my wife finally found her "patsy"...my little sister who has had a beef with me for about 40 years or so. Well, actually my wife found two "patsies"...she also found the wife of one of my "friends" (in quotes, deliberately). She also appeared in court to testify against me, but she was spared the wrath of the Judge because she had to leave before my case was heard.
Unlike you, I don't need any "defense mechanisms". THE TRUTH has consistently been the only defense that I've needed. Worked perfectly fine for me in a REAL court...you "Judge Judy" wannabees only make me laugh (and not maniacally, either). Well, as always, it's been a blast. Enjoy your imagined victory, won't you? I bet that you will. Take care.
P.S. I might also add that my wife spent MONTHS trying to convince a whole host of people who know me to go along with her BS. This host of people included more of my own family members, friends and a bunch of different people who know me through my work. Although all of these people knew me too well to go along with her BS, my wife finally found her "patsy"...my little sister who has had a beef with me for about 40 years or so. Well, actually my wife found two "patsies"...she also found the wife of one of my "friends" (in quotes, deliberately). She also appeared in court to testify against me, but she was spared the wrath of the Judge because she had to leave before my case was heard.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
newguy, does God want to be worshipped and praised (and feared)? If so, why?
Derek: A much better question would be:
"Does God DESERVE TO BE worshipped and praised (and feared)?
To this much better question, I will most definitely answer "YES!"
But one moment in His actual Presence will answer the part about "why".
Derek: A much better question would be:
"Does God DESERVE TO BE worshipped and praised (and feared)?
To this much better question, I will most definitely answer "YES!"
But one moment in His actual Presence will answer the part about "why".
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
And you never answered my question about whether you believe that death is a divine retribution.
I honestly don't recall that question...sorry if I either missed it or neglected to answer it in the past. Of course, I believe that death entered the world as a result of sin. "Death", in and of itself, is not necessary a "Divine retribution". I say this because, from a Biblical perspective, AFTER DEATH comes judgment. The Bible speaks of BOTH a resurrection of the just and a resurrection of the damned, depending on how one fares at the Judgment seat of Christ. I hope that answers your question. Take care.
I honestly don't recall that question...sorry if I either missed it or neglected to answer it in the past. Of course, I believe that death entered the world as a result of sin. "Death", in and of itself, is not necessary a "Divine retribution". I say this because, from a Biblical perspective, AFTER DEATH comes judgment. The Bible speaks of BOTH a resurrection of the just and a resurrection of the damned, depending on how one fares at the Judgment seat of Christ. I hope that answers your question. Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 27 2009, 12:17 PM)
And this, my dear flyingbuttressman, is one of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, why I view you and others here as desperate, deluded imbeciles. You've never even come close to angering me and you never will. My borderline use of certain words, such as idiot and imbecile, doesn't stem from any anger issues. I use those terms, or others like them, simply because I'm a straightforward guy and I've never encountered more desperately stupid people in my entire life as I've encountered here (with some exceptions...I don't view everyone here as being either desperate or stupid). Never. On top of this, outside of this forum, I can honestly say that I only recall two people who have ever accused me of being angry IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. The two (my own wife and my younger sister) conspired together recently and concocted some ridiculous charges (which included charges of domestic violence and MULTIPLE cases of child abuse) against me and actually called the police on me (I wasn't arrested) and I had to appear in court to defend myself against such charges. I was the 27th and last case to be heard that day...the first 26 defendants ALL LOST. I not only won, defending myself, but I won by A LANDSLIDE. In fact, so ridiculous were the charges that were levelled against me, that the Judge barely let me speak in my own defense and she (the Judge) was ready to "throw the book" AT MY ACCUSERS...the same accusers who sought to convince the Judge that I needed to undergo psychiatric evaluation. MY ACCUSERS provided more than enough evidence to EXONERATE me. In fact, had I followed the advice of the lawyer with whom I sought counsel before choosing to defend myself in court, then I could have pressed criminal charges against at least one of my accusers for her LIES that she told to Police Officers and to the Judge (not to mention the LIES that she uttered before God, after swearing with her right hand on the Bible). And you think that you "rookies" faze me in the least?!? Get your head out of your @ss, man. Better yet, just enjoy the stench of your own sh*t and continue to flatter yourself. Let forum members make all the desperately deluded suggestions that they want to that I'm either violent, angry, a child abuser or potentially one. I've already faced such charges IN A REAL COURT OF LAW AND WAS FOUND TO BE TOTALLY INNOCENT BY THE JUDGE, THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED AND THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES WHO WERE INVOLVED TO INVESTIGATE SUCH TOTALLY FALSE CHARGES. See? Your (whether individual or collective) desperately deluded, IDIOTIC charges mean nothing to me. I live in the real world, with real QUALIFIED Judges. Anyhow, contine to call me "angry" all that you'd like to. Me? I'll just continue being the calm, cool and collected individual that I actually am. Doesn't mean that I won't call an idiot "an idiot" when I confront one, though. Heck, in your case, I might even add some adjectives to better describe your particular brand of idiocy. Time will tell.
Too. Much. Information.
Either you are an extremely devoted troll who gets a kick out of playing the part of a Christian fundamentalist, or you have no idea about how to maintain your anonymity on the internet.
The information you have given on this forum is enough for someone to find your true identity. That's not a good idea.
Also, the anonymous nature of the internet gives people license to act like a*sholes when they wouldn't in real life. I'm betting that in real life, people are less willing to confront you on your morally repugnant views.
Too. Much. Information.
Either you are an extremely devoted troll who gets a kick out of playing the part of a Christian fundamentalist, or you have no idea about how to maintain your anonymity on the internet.
The information you have given on this forum is enough for someone to find your true identity. That's not a good idea.
Also, the anonymous nature of the internet gives people license to act like a*sholes when they wouldn't in real life. I'm betting that in real life, people are less willing to confront you on your morally repugnant views.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
Too. Much. Information.
flyingbuttressman: Or, when somebody has NOTHING to hide... I couldn't care less about hiding "my true identity". In fact, I've given it out on this very forum in the past. Here's something about me, the real "newguy", that you've apparently missed:
I live my life in the open. Consistent with my professed Christianity, I realize that God sees, hears and knows EVERYTHING that I do. To try to "hide" anything from any human would be asinine. Humans ultimately are not my judge. God is.
Comprende?
Also, my point was that the schoolyard BS that transpires on this forum isn't even equivalent to a mosquito bite when compared to what I've experienced in the real world. As I've repeatedly said, you people flatter yourselves way too much. If you ever want to engage in REAL dialogue with me, then you'll have to check your delusions of grandeur at the door. Take care.
As transparent, calm, cool and collected as ever:
newguy (accept no substitutes)
flyingbuttressman: Or, when somebody has NOTHING to hide... I couldn't care less about hiding "my true identity". In fact, I've given it out on this very forum in the past. Here's something about me, the real "newguy", that you've apparently missed:
I live my life in the open. Consistent with my professed Christianity, I realize that God sees, hears and knows EVERYTHING that I do. To try to "hide" anything from any human would be asinine. Humans ultimately are not my judge. God is.
Comprende?
Also, my point was that the schoolyard BS that transpires on this forum isn't even equivalent to a mosquito bite when compared to what I've experienced in the real world. As I've repeatedly said, you people flatter yourselves way too much. If you ever want to engage in REAL dialogue with me, then you'll have to check your delusions of grandeur at the door. Take care.
As transparent, calm, cool and collected as ever:
newguy (accept no substitutes)
Why do I suddenly feel the urge to belt out a little bit of "Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here"?
Ummm...I know that you all love me, but I'll be gone for a few hours (if not a few days). Until then...
Ummm...I know that you all love me, but I'll be gone for a few hours (if not a few days). Until then...
Newguy
That was quite the bizarre post. You reveal quite a bit more about yourself than I care to hear but it wasn't really a surprise to be honest.
I am going to stick to the argument at hand. I could point out how contradictory your half lies about yourself are...but I won't bother. It's not central to the argument.
However....
Ignoring again your general potty mouth... we have a couple of points to go over.
1.
Alrighty then.
2.
Alrighty then.
2. BIG DEAL. Did it ever occur to you that THE JEWS COPIED and RETAINED the Hebrew scriptures as well? Doesn't that also mean that they are responsible for "spreading Christianity"?
No... because Christianity doesn't originate with the Hebrew scriptures, that would be the Old Testament. Christianity begins with Christ... you might note the similar sounding names there.
They didn't copy the New Testament because they don't believe in it. That would be the Church that copied those... because they believe in it.
Likely many did.
Did they all? Or did some of them spread Christianity?
I am curious about your reformers. How did Christianity spread between the 3rd century AD and the Protestant (etc) reformations more than a millenia later?
Were there reformers between those periods that claimed not to be part of the Church? Let's discuss those...
Bring me a few names... should be fun.
Here's the problem....
You believe that Christianity is only that specific variant which you believe to be true. If anyone believes differently they are obviously not Christian therefore they didn't spread Christianity.
It's a point of view that you would need to be a religious fanatic to understand fully.
However....
Likely many did.
Did they all? Or did some of them spread Christianity?
I am curious about your reformers. How did Christianity spread between the 3rd century AD and the Protestant (etc) reformations more than a millenia later?
Were there reformers between those periods that claimed not to be part of the Church? Let's discuss those...
Bring me a few names... should be fun.
Here's the problem....
You believe that Christianity is only that specific variant which you believe to be true. If anyone believes differently they are obviously not Christian therefore they didn't spread Christianity.
It's a point of view that you would need to be a religious fanatic to understand fully.
However....
Surely, you don't need me to remind you again of Bible burnings, heretic burnings, Inquisitions, Crusades, excommunications, etc., etc.
Hardly... I am quite familiar with the Inquisition... it's one of my specialties actually and the Crusades is the specific subject of my current work.
I wonder how you would treat a heretic. From your behavior here, I imagine it would resemble a number of medieval practices.
So... you think that without the Church's spread of Christianity anyone would have cared about the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Or the various fragments of biblical texts?
Let's say that everyone is currently Roman style pagan. Well.. other than the Buddhists.
Someone finds the Dead Sea scrolls. They end up in a museum. Historians translate them and think... "that was an interesting religion... ".
That's it.
How much do you really know about Norse Gods?
Or the Cretan Bull God?
Etc.
Do you believe in them?
I'm agnostic, newguy. That means I don't believe in your God. It also means whatever that "God" might be, it exceeds any of our puny perceptions. But if there is such a one (or more) "out there' - and what a woeful description "out there' likely is - , then the most logical, rational, reasonable testimonials of those through the centuries are all we have.
The NT is full of wisdom, including the suggestion of removing the chaff from the wheat - the bad apples from the barrel, the tarnish off the silver - and by doing that to the Bible itself, a different perception of deity begins to emerge. That the Bible itself contains so many conflicting statements is suggesting removal of chaff; an intelligent rational perusal of scripture and it becomes plain. Perhaps all along the Bible has been trying to tell you newguy that the chaff needs to be extracted.
If you were God, would you forgive all and let whomsoever wanted to, enter your kingdom on their own free decision? Would you love all whom you created, even the prodigals? Can you look at 'newer guy' and banish him to eternal fire if he doesn't accept your faith? If you were omnipotent, would your love for newer guy overcome "Justice"?
I'm not religious by the hair of my chinny chin chin, but I could answer those in a New York minute. POOF goes the dogma!
'
I'm agnostic, newguy. That means I don't believe in your God. It also means whatever that "God" might be, it exceeds any of our puny perceptions. But if there is such a one (or more) "out there' - and what a woeful description "out there' likely is - , then the most logical, rational, reasonable testimonials of those through the centuries are all we have.
The NT is full of wisdom, including the suggestion of removing the chaff from the wheat - the bad apples from the barrel, the tarnish off the silver - and by doing that to the Bible itself, a different perception of deity begins to emerge. That the Bible itself contains so many conflicting statements is suggesting removal of chaff; an intelligent rational perusal of scripture and it becomes plain. Perhaps all along the Bible has been trying to tell you newguy that the chaff needs to be extracted.
If you were God, would you forgive all and let whomsoever wanted to, enter your kingdom on their own free decision? Would you love all whom you created, even the prodigals? Can you look at 'newer guy' and banish him to eternal fire if he doesn't accept your faith? If you were omnipotent, would your love for newer guy overcome "Justice"?
I'm not religious by the hair of my chinny chin chin, but I could answer those in a New York minute. POOF goes the dogma!
'
Aren't you THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN PREACHING TO ME OF LATE?
Yes.
Ave Torquemada, morituri te salutant.
Torquemada believed.
The 9/11 hijackers believed.
A cause can be a great deal worse than just wrong.
Wrong according to whom?
Just curious.
Wrong according to whom?
Just curious.
The Christian God 'saves' from eternal damnation, but does little to save from terrestrial concerns, as witnessed by the long list of martyrs stoned, burnt and otherwise dealt with.
That's why Thor is so much better. He also saves from eternal damnation but does a lot to save you from terrestrial concerns by encouraging his followers to stand on their own and fight back when someone comes along to stone, burn or otherwise deal with them.
Wrong according to whom?
Just curious.
That's the point, isn't it? It is a matter of perception.
That was quite the bizarre post. You reveal quite a bit more about yourself than I care to hear but it wasn't really a surprise to be honest.
I am going to stick to the argument at hand. I could point out how contradictory your half lies about yourself are...but I won't bother. It's not central to the argument.
However....
Ignoring again your general potty mouth... we have a couple of points to go over.
1.
QUOTE
Roman Catholicism is mainly/partly responsible for COPYING and RETAINING texts.
Alrighty then.
2.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Roman Catholicism is mainly/partly responsible for COPYING and RETAINING texts. |
Alrighty then.
2. BIG DEAL. Did it ever occur to you that THE JEWS COPIED and RETAINED the Hebrew scriptures as well? Doesn't that also mean that they are responsible for "spreading Christianity"?
No... because Christianity doesn't originate with the Hebrew scriptures, that would be the Old Testament. Christianity begins with Christ... you might note the similar sounding names there.
They didn't copy the New Testament because they don't believe in it. That would be the Church that copied those... because they believe in it.
QUOTE
Although TEXTS which they helped to preserve were utilized to spread Christianity, many within the ranks of Roman Catholicism diametrically opposed Christianity.
Likely many did.
Did they all? Or did some of them spread Christianity?
I am curious about your reformers. How did Christianity spread between the 3rd century AD and the Protestant (etc) reformations more than a millenia later?
Were there reformers between those periods that claimed not to be part of the Church? Let's discuss those...
Bring me a few names... should be fun.
Here's the problem....
You believe that Christianity is only that specific variant which you believe to be true. If anyone believes differently they are obviously not Christian therefore they didn't spread Christianity.
It's a point of view that you would need to be a religious fanatic to understand fully.
However....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although TEXTS which they helped to preserve were utilized to spread Christianity, many within the ranks of Roman Catholicism diametrically opposed Christianity. |
Likely many did.
Did they all? Or did some of them spread Christianity?
I am curious about your reformers. How did Christianity spread between the 3rd century AD and the Protestant (etc) reformations more than a millenia later?
Were there reformers between those periods that claimed not to be part of the Church? Let's discuss those...
Bring me a few names... should be fun.
Here's the problem....
You believe that Christianity is only that specific variant which you believe to be true. If anyone believes differently they are obviously not Christian therefore they didn't spread Christianity.
It's a point of view that you would need to be a religious fanatic to understand fully.
However....
Surely, you don't need me to remind you again of Bible burnings, heretic burnings, Inquisitions, Crusades, excommunications, etc., etc.
Hardly... I am quite familiar with the Inquisition... it's one of my specialties actually and the Crusades is the specific subject of my current work.
I wonder how you would treat a heretic. From your behavior here, I imagine it would resemble a number of medieval practices.
QUOTE
What of things like the Dead Sea scrolls? Might I not have "heard of Christ" through them?
So... you think that without the Church's spread of Christianity anyone would have cared about the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Or the various fragments of biblical texts?
Let's say that everyone is currently Roman style pagan. Well.. other than the Buddhists.
Someone finds the Dead Sea scrolls. They end up in a museum. Historians translate them and think... "that was an interesting religion... ".
That's it.
How much do you really know about Norse Gods?
Or the Cretan Bull God?
Etc.
Do you believe in them?
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 27 2009, 12:50 PM)
flyingbuttressman: Or, when somebody has NOTHING to hide... I couldn't care less about hiding "my real identity". In fact, I've given it out on this very forum in the past. Here's something about me, the real "newguy", that you've apparently missed:
I live my life in the open. Consistent with my professed Christianity, I realize that God sees, hears and knows EVERYTHING that I do. To try to "hide" anything from any human would be asinine. Humans ultimately are not my judge. God is.
I'm actually talking about your safety, not whether people will "judge" you. There have been a number of cases where bullying online can bleed over into real life. This is usually caused when someone who is disliked provides too many personal details and certain unscrupulous individuals take advantage of this. This can translate into prank calls and harassment. If you don't mind that happening, then by all means, post your phone number.
This is meant as a general warning, not as any kind of threat.
I live my life in the open. Consistent with my professed Christianity, I realize that God sees, hears and knows EVERYTHING that I do. To try to "hide" anything from any human would be asinine. Humans ultimately are not my judge. God is.
I'm actually talking about your safety, not whether people will "judge" you. There have been a number of cases where bullying online can bleed over into real life. This is usually caused when someone who is disliked provides too many personal details and certain unscrupulous individuals take advantage of this. This can translate into prank calls and harassment. If you don't mind that happening, then by all means, post your phone number.
This is meant as a general warning, not as any kind of threat.
QUOTE
What happened to your "god" with his many "spokes" WHICH ALL LEAD TO HEAVEN, according to YOU?
I'm agnostic, newguy. That means I don't believe in your God. It also means whatever that "God" might be, it exceeds any of our puny perceptions. But if there is such a one (or more) "out there' - and what a woeful description "out there' likely is - , then the most logical, rational, reasonable testimonials of those through the centuries are all we have.
The NT is full of wisdom, including the suggestion of removing the chaff from the wheat - the bad apples from the barrel, the tarnish off the silver - and by doing that to the Bible itself, a different perception of deity begins to emerge. That the Bible itself contains so many conflicting statements is suggesting removal of chaff; an intelligent rational perusal of scripture and it becomes plain. Perhaps all along the Bible has been trying to tell you newguy that the chaff needs to be extracted.
If you were God, would you forgive all and let whomsoever wanted to, enter your kingdom on their own free decision? Would you love all whom you created, even the prodigals? Can you look at 'newer guy' and banish him to eternal fire if he doesn't accept your faith? If you were omnipotent, would your love for newer guy overcome "Justice"?
I'm not religious by the hair of my chinny chin chin, but I could answer those in a New York minute. POOF goes the dogma!
'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What happened to your "god" with his many "spokes" WHICH ALL LEAD TO HEAVEN, according to YOU? |
I'm agnostic, newguy. That means I don't believe in your God. It also means whatever that "God" might be, it exceeds any of our puny perceptions. But if there is such a one (or more) "out there' - and what a woeful description "out there' likely is - , then the most logical, rational, reasonable testimonials of those through the centuries are all we have.
The NT is full of wisdom, including the suggestion of removing the chaff from the wheat - the bad apples from the barrel, the tarnish off the silver - and by doing that to the Bible itself, a different perception of deity begins to emerge. That the Bible itself contains so many conflicting statements is suggesting removal of chaff; an intelligent rational perusal of scripture and it becomes plain. Perhaps all along the Bible has been trying to tell you newguy that the chaff needs to be extracted.
If you were God, would you forgive all and let whomsoever wanted to, enter your kingdom on their own free decision? Would you love all whom you created, even the prodigals? Can you look at 'newer guy' and banish him to eternal fire if he doesn't accept your faith? If you were omnipotent, would your love for newer guy overcome "Justice"?
I'm not religious by the hair of my chinny chin chin, but I could answer those in a New York minute. POOF goes the dogma!
'
Aren't you THE INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN PREACHING TO ME OF LATE?
Yes.
QUOTE
Why the need to "win people over"?
My attempts are "winning you away" from draconian dogma. It is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why the need to "win people over"? |
My attempts are "winning you away" from draconian dogma. It is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over.Am I not on one of those "spokes" that YOU preach about?
Yes.
QUOTE
Come back when you actually believe YOUR OWN PROFESSIONS and we'll talk, okay?
I believe them, for my part. They are gentle, they extend to a positive goal, even if the goal is a but a smile and kind word to the harried cashier at the store who looks like she could have more on her plate than she needs. Not saying you don't do that, but when you do, it's doing some of "my own professions". If you take "my own professions" far enough, it would be 'heavenly'.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
I'm actually talking about your safety, not whether people will "judge" you. There have been a number of cases where bullying online can bleed over into real life. This is usually caused when someone who is disliked provides too many personal details and certain unscrupulous individuals take advantage of this. This can translate into prank calls and harassment. If you don't mind that happening, then by all means, post your phone number.
This is meant as a general warning, not as any kind of threat.
flyingbuttressman: I have to leave, but I wanted to briefly comment on this, before I go. I genuinely appreciate what you're saying and I'm more than aware of the inherent dangers of which you speak. At the same time, however, I absolutely refuse to live my life in fear. There was a time when I was TOTALLY bound by the fear of man...so much so that I had panic attacks almost 24/7. I've been set free from all of that. Incidentally, isn't it rather ironic that you're somewhat afraid/concerned that someone might do me/mine harm when I'm supposedly the angry, violent lunatic? Perhaps you should start sharing your judgments OF OTHER FORUM MEMBERS as well? Gotta go...
This is meant as a general warning, not as any kind of threat.
flyingbuttressman: I have to leave, but I wanted to briefly comment on this, before I go. I genuinely appreciate what you're saying and I'm more than aware of the inherent dangers of which you speak. At the same time, however, I absolutely refuse to live my life in fear. There was a time when I was TOTALLY bound by the fear of man...so much so that I had panic attacks almost 24/7. I've been set free from all of that. Incidentally, isn't it rather ironic that you're somewhat afraid/concerned that someone might do me/mine harm when I'm supposedly the angry, violent lunatic? Perhaps you should start sharing your judgments OF OTHER FORUM MEMBERS as well? Gotta go...
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 27 2009, 04:55 PM)
Why do I suddenly feel the urge to belt out a little bit of "Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here"?
Ummm...I know that you all love me, but I'll be gone for a few hours (if not a few days). Until then...
Fidei defensor.
Ummm...I know that you all love me, but I'll be gone for a few hours (if not a few days). Until then...
Fidei defensor.
Ab asino lanam
newguy, the statements:
"My attempts are 'winning you away' from draconian dogma. It is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over"
should read
"My attempt has been to 'win you away' from draconian dogma, which is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over."
btw, there are villains in this world newguy. I wouldn't enable them if I were you. As Spock would say, "Martyring yourself for a forum is not logical, Doctor."
"My attempts are 'winning you away' from draconian dogma. It is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over"
should read
"My attempt has been to 'win you away' from draconian dogma, which is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over."
btw, there are villains in this world newguy. I wouldn't enable them if I were you. As Spock would say, "Martyring yourself for a forum is not logical, Doctor."
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 27 2009, 08:48 PM)
newguy, the statements:
"My attempts are 'winning you away' from draconian dogma. It is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over"
should read
"My attempt has been to 'win you away' from draconian dogma, which is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over."
btw, there are villains in this world newguy. I wouldn't enable them if I were you. As Spock would say, "Martyring yourself for a forum is not logical, Doctor."
But he is the Defender of the Faith. Right or wrong a cause can bear a certain nobility to it. If its leader is at least a true believer.
"My attempts are 'winning you away' from draconian dogma. It is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over"
should read
"My attempt has been to 'win you away' from draconian dogma, which is not beneficial when you are trying to win people over."
btw, there are villains in this world newguy. I wouldn't enable them if I were you. As Spock would say, "Martyring yourself for a forum is not logical, Doctor."
But he is the Defender of the Faith. Right or wrong a cause can bear a certain nobility to it. If its leader is at least a true believer.
QUOTE
But he is the Defender of the Faith. Right or wrong a cause can bear a certain nobility to it. If its leader is at least a true believer.
Ave Torquemada, morituri te salutant.
Torquemada believed.
The 9/11 hijackers believed.
A cause can be a great deal worse than just wrong.
True. But not every cause is wrong. That is where the philosophy of morality comes into to play.
Well, newguy is no terrorist. But like all the Shakespearian tragic heroes, his hubris may be his downfall. The Christian God 'saves' from eternal damnation, but does little to save from terrestrial concerns, as witnessed by the long list of martyrs stoned, burnt and otherwise dealt with.
QUOTE
True. But not every cause is wrong. That is where the philosophy of morality comes into to play.
Wrong according to whom?
Just curious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| True. But not every cause is wrong. That is where the philosophy of morality comes into to play. |
Wrong according to whom?
Just curious.
The Christian God 'saves' from eternal damnation, but does little to save from terrestrial concerns, as witnessed by the long list of martyrs stoned, burnt and otherwise dealt with.
That's why Thor is so much better. He also saves from eternal damnation but does a lot to save you from terrestrial concerns by encouraging his followers to stand on their own and fight back when someone comes along to stone, burn or otherwise deal with them.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 28 2009, 04:49 PM)
Wrong according to whom?
Just curious.
That's the point, isn't it? It is a matter of perception.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.