A challenge to Atheists
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Now this one I will jump back in the thread for.
Can you find me something anywhere that states the same thing but is from an unbiased, non-religious source?
OK, that appears to be correct, but they did decide on some major issues of orthodoxy, thus excluding popular acceptance of certain gospels to the contrary.
Then you're obviously not reading the same posts I am.
Try post #120 (again).
Right. Everyone knows Christ returned in 1879...
Or:
Yep, 1877 et seq. was a terrible time. Worse than anything in previous history.
Etc etc.
Sorry, I confused post #120 to #112, which is actually a perfect example of how 1 misunderstanding can ruin a whole conversation
Say what?
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
:thankyou:
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
;-)
Good times, great oldies. Oldies 103.3.... oh wait... um..... wrong medium....................where am I? :shrug:
Then you're obviously not reading the same posts I am.
Try post #120 (again).
Right. Everyone knows Christ returned in 1879...
Or:
Yep, 1877 et seq. was a terrible time. Worse than anything in previous history.
Etc etc.
For all we know, that could have been taken out of context. It doesn't plainly say that Christ came to earth at that time. That would go against everything the JWs believe. I can't find anything official of this source and could be something just made up as the only sites that have this info are, as JWs would say, "Apostate" sites.
;-)
Good times, great oldies. Oldies 103.3.... oh wait... um..... wrong medium....................where am I? :shrug:
Your in my nightmare. Welcome!
Gday,
Well, I cited you the actual original document that the Council of Nicea produced. Did you bother to read it ?
Or do you somehow think the CoN lied about their OWN official decisions?
How about this non-religious un-biased site on the formation of the NT canon :
http://www.ntcanon.org/
Note that the CoN is NOT mentioned.
Or how about a quick check of non-religious un-biased Wiki on the CoN :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Note that the NT canon is NOT mentioned.
Or how about a quick check of non-religious un-biased Wiki on the NT canon :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
Note that the CoN is NOT mentioned.
What about non-religious un-biased Encyclopedia Britannica on the CoN :
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea
Note that the NT canon is NOT mentioned.
Or how about this non-religious un-biased essay by a historian Richard Carrier :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
What about this essay by non-religious un-biased Roger Pearse who specifically discusses this false claim here :
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
The facts are crystal clear - the Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible. Every historical source says the same thing.
Anyone who checks the facts will find it is clear and certain - the CoN did NOT chose the books of the NT at all. But for some reason it's become a popular online meme, endlessly repeated over and over, again and agaim, ad nauseum, over and over, again and again, on and on....
K.
Well, I cited you the actual original document that the Council of Nicea produced. Did you bother to read it ?
Or do you somehow think the CoN lied about their OWN official decisions?
How about this non-religious un-biased site on the formation of the NT canon :
http://www.ntcanon.org/
Note that the CoN is NOT mentioned.
Or how about a quick check of non-religious un-biased Wiki on the CoN :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
Note that the NT canon is NOT mentioned.
Or how about a quick check of non-religious un-biased Wiki on the NT canon :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
Note that the CoN is NOT mentioned.
What about non-religious un-biased Encyclopedia Britannica on the CoN :
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea
Note that the NT canon is NOT mentioned.
Or how about this non-religious un-biased essay by a historian Richard Carrier :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html
What about this essay by non-religious un-biased Roger Pearse who specifically discusses this false claim here :
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
The facts are crystal clear - the Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible. Every historical source says the same thing.
Anyone who checks the facts will find it is clear and certain - the CoN did NOT chose the books of the NT at all. But for some reason it's become a popular online meme, endlessly repeated over and over, again and agaim, ad nauseum, over and over, again and again, on and on....
K.
No, they plainly said Jesus was returning in 1914. They were wrong and now they're trying to save face.
Huh?
And you're saying that because... it ruins your argument about 1914 being the first prediction?
Regardless of how literally it was meant it DOES show that 1914 was NOT the first date to be predicted by the JWs.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I can imagine that defending your faith against impossible odds and legitimate logic is really a nightmare.
Just remember, 1+1 ≠ 5
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but I don't put it past theists to fabricate sources to prove a point. But I will say that I am impress with your findings. I guess you really do learn something every day.
Gday,
Thank you for that
It increases my respect for you - most posters in places like this cannot admit error.
Oh yes, their decisions were important and certainly indirectly influenced which books came to be accepted. (At that time it appears Hermas and Barnabas were still in the canon. But by late 3rd C. it was settled.)
Of course, what THEY considered important issues were a little odd to modern ears -
Here is the FIRST Canon in their list :
"If you chopped you own balls off - you can't be a priest; but if a Greek doctor did it - then that's OK."(Paraphrased a bit
K.
Thank you for that
It increases my respect for you - most posters in places like this cannot admit error.
Oh yes, their decisions were important and certainly indirectly influenced which books came to be accepted. (At that time it appears Hermas and Barnabas were still in the canon. But by late 3rd C. it was settled.)
Of course, what THEY considered important issues were a little odd to modern ears -
Here is the FIRST Canon in their list :
"If you chopped you own balls off - you can't be a priest; but if a Greek doctor did it - then that's OK."(Paraphrased a bit
K.
No one has Watchtowers back that far except for a few collectors and the Society themselves
I can't find an official source for Watchtower, Oct 1879, p. 4. Your not going to take someone's word for it, are you?
Gday,
Thanks for that
Actually yes - church history is full of fabrications, like the Donation of Constantine - in which emperor Constantine declared the Pope to be superior to him and indeed all rulers, and to even hold the official divine right to crown all kings !
This fantastic document turned up in the 8th C. IIRC, when the Pope was struggling for political power. Hallelujah !
K.
Thanks for that
Actually yes - church history is full of fabrications, like the Donation of Constantine - in which emperor Constantine declared the Pope to be superior to him and indeed all rulers, and to even hold the official divine right to crown all kings !
This fantastic document turned up in the 8th C. IIRC, when the Pope was struggling for political power. Hallelujah !
K.
You didn't know about the non-canonical gospels?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds;_or_Plan_of_Redemption
This.
So your first citation has been blown out of the barrel, and if they had the belief of 1914 in 1877, I have little reason to believe that they would change it suddenly in 1979 and then change it back in 1890!Wikipedia said: