welcome to the world of text critical issues
behold and thou shall see
(gee come to think of it, I can't think of an alternative explanation of the injunctions about camel maintenance either .....)
Last edited:
The Viral "Sinner" Mentality
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
welcome to the world of text critical issues
behold and thou shall see
(gee come to think of it, I can't think of an alternative explanation of the injunctions about camel maintenance either .....)
After all of your irrelevant discourse and we finally come to some settlement in the form of wikipedia, (citation needed).
I'm very happy that we have come this far.
What we have here, and I think it's important you take the time to understand, is an argument not over interpretation of a passage, but if that passage is even legitimate.
If you were paying attention you would have noticed that back on page 4 I stated:
"we could always debate the position and value of these texts themselves but not if someone claims that those texts are the word of god - in which case when god says you can drink poison, you can."
Read that statement a couple of times if you will. Do you now perhaps see and understand what is being said? You have jumped into this discussion unprepared and frankly I resent it which is why I added you to ignore the first time round.
Once that has soaked in, feel free to continue with your irrelevant blithering.
As for some whacky interpretation that according to revolvr.. christians "don't":
Clearly christians "do".
The argument now is probably going to come down to argumentum ad populum. If not, I indeed urge you, (if you can keep a conversation relevant), to dismiss these 'christians' as incorrect using your amazing text critical ability :bugeye:
Of course I'd personally prefer to hear the christian tell me that the passage is not gods word but just a human addition. It will hold more weight imo than a hindu telling me parts of the bible are fake, no disrespect.
I'm very happy that we have come this far.
What we have here, and I think it's important you take the time to understand, is an argument not over interpretation of a passage, but if that passage is even legitimate.
If you were paying attention you would have noticed that back on page 4 I stated:
"we could always debate the position and value of these texts themselves but not if someone claims that those texts are the word of god - in which case when god says you can drink poison, you can."
Read that statement a couple of times if you will. Do you now perhaps see and understand what is being said? You have jumped into this discussion unprepared and frankly I resent it which is why I added you to ignore the first time round.
Once that has soaked in, feel free to continue with your irrelevant blithering.
As for some whacky interpretation that according to revolvr.. christians "don't":
Clearly christians "do".
The argument now is probably going to come down to argumentum ad populum. If not, I indeed urge you, (if you can keep a conversation relevant), to dismiss these 'christians' as incorrect using your amazing text critical ability :bugeye:
Of course I'd personally prefer to hear the christian tell me that the passage is not gods word but just a human addition. It will hold more weight imo than a hindu telling me parts of the bible are fake, no disrespect.
I think you have missed the point
It is commonly understood that the bible is a compilation and doesn't represent the contribution of one particular author or even from one particular time.
This means that there are particular instructions to particular persons given at particular times. (certainly explains why jews in NYC don't obey injunctions for camel maintenance)
Anyone even half familiar with theistic practices knows that scripture is commonly understood by hermeneutics (although they are probably familiar with it by less academic terminology)
In short, this is the essence of your argument is - Given that scripture is not understood by hermeneutics, all passages are on equal footing, and text critical issues do not come in to play, why don't christians prove they are the real thing by handling snakes?
As revolvr suggested earlier, why don't you try gathering scriptural knowledge outside of anti-christian web sites?
Ohhhhh lol, I missed the point :bugeye:
Ok, I haven't actually said anything contrary to this anywhere, but nm.
But please, you need to be clear. You have provided two sources for your claims. The first source didn't even say anything other than the word Mark, (lol).... the second was wiki and it argued, and you seemingly agreed, that the passage seen in mark is a later addition, is not part of gods word and is only really considered so by fools. You now seem to have changed tact and are telling me that it is legitimate text but that it simply does not apply to modern day humans.
You are now offering me an argument along the lines of revolvr's argument - that this ability was with these christians for a very short period just to make christianity popular. Anything for votes.
Do you have any scripture to support your claims? Do you have any scripture that states one can no longer drink poison as mark only applied to ancient people? Does mark have a use by date attached? Simply saying it is so is not an argument. Take that into account before responding, (I know you wont).
A fallacious appeal to authority, however I have yet to see you or these "anyones" show how mark only applies to ancient people, I have yet to see revolvr's clear scripture showing that they only had these abilities for a few years, have yet to see you even actually discuss mark, have yet to see any of you adequately show how these other christian denominations are wrong, or how if god says you can drink poison that you actually can't.
The day you can actually focus on the topic at hand, come back to me. Please, stop wasting my time with irrelevant nonsense and worthless condescension.
you find the idea of being wrong or misinterpreting given information a hilarious absurdity?
its a short succinct indication that there are text critical issues that surround your pampered anti-christian scriptural quote
If you are not curious to follow it up and thus develop the possibility of understanding how your argument is not cohesive, that's not my problem
its not clear why having several different authors from several different times somehow indicates that its not the word of god
.
gee, I also can't provide any support for the claim that jews can flaunt injunctions for camel maintenance in downtown NYC - you've got me stumped
first of all establish that people don't commonly approach scripture through hermeneutics then perhaps we will entertain your whacky spins
I guess I will have to focus more on reflecting your good qualities