Hey Danny! Thanks man! I will certainly view this documentary now. -Marty McFly
FireNBandits
JoinedPosts by FireNBandits
-
7
KNOCKING; A Movie Sure To Please Us All!
by FireNBandits inthey are moral conservatives who stay out of politics, but they won a record number of court cases expanding freedom for everyone.
they refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds, but they embrace the science behind bloodless surgery.
in nazi germany, they could fight for hitler or go to the concentration camps.
-
-
-
7
Another Jehovah Witness psycho
by cultswatter inhttp://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/news/news/tm_method=full%26objectid=18888963%26siteid=109975-name_page.html.
-
-
FireNBandits
Wow. Thanks for the odd and almost shocking read! I'm sure the Tower Cultists will say "But he isn't a REAL Jehovah's Witness!" -Martin
-
52
IT IS TIME FOR A___CONFESSION!
by Terry inthere is an old-fashioned definition of the word "confession" which is the public expression of one's deepest faith and belief.. take a deep breath and give a one or two paragraph summary of your deepest belief.. i'll go first.. from the time i was a small child i had a deep and abiding reverence for god as a father.
(my own father i never even met until i searched and found him when i was 25 years old.
) my grandmother had been raised in a catholic convent.
-
-
FireNBandits
Hi Terry. My experience is similar to your own, except that I'm a Gnostic not agnostic. I dumped all so-called "holy books" etc and believe my own inner Knowing of That which is so blithely referred to as "God." I don't have religious beliefs as such, but I do have some everyday mystical experiences as well as mystical experiences that only occur during meditation. These experiences are what I have faith in. The supreme reality, "God" if you prefer, is the Ground of my own consciousness and my own being. In fact, consciousness IS being. Do we continue to exist after death? Do we cease at death? Yes and no. Does a drop of water cease to exist when it returns to the ocean? Yes and no, no and yes. Though I am not a biblical literalist I do employ the bible to communicate spiritual truths because my culture is nominally Christian.
The universe, you and I included, are an emanation from and manifestation of Divine Consciousness. This elevates humankind while at the same time leveling the playing field. Humans are no more or less "God" than any other species. We evolved just as all life does.
Knowing God and "taking in knowledge of God" (as the NWT puts it) are two utterly different things. One can personally and experientially Know the supreme reality, the final truth. That Knowing isn't found in books, holy or otherwise. If one keeps on seeking, asking, and knocking the door will open for anyone. I can recommend some good books on how to meditate.-Martin
-
22
Looking for a scripture...
by Tuesday inany help would be fantastic.
the scripture is one that is lik luke 21:8 saying beware of those saying the end is near.
however i'm fairly sure it's in one of the books of timothy.
-
-
FireNBandits
Hi betterdaze. I just thought the subject matter might prove as fascinating to another as it is to me. -Martin
-
22
Looking for a scripture...
by Tuesday inany help would be fantastic.
the scripture is one that is lik luke 21:8 saying beware of those saying the end is near.
however i'm fairly sure it's in one of the books of timothy.
-
-
FireNBandits
The problem I see is that anyone can use this against anyone else who teaches differently than they do, or differently than their church/pastor/denomination/favorite tv preacher. Since the NT does not come with either an inspired Table of Contents (The current canon was brought together by the Catholic church, both Roman and Byzantine, by a number of church councils convened for the purpose) or a detailed Creed, it renders these verses almost useless. It leaves these verses in a subjective sea of opinion as to what constitutes "true Christianity." Everyone seems to be quite sure they know what it is, but they're all saying different things. Christnedom is broadly and deeply divided on every doctrinal issue imaginable. No, I don't pretend to have the answer, but neither do I exclude someone from the kingdom because they disagree with me. (Not saying you do either, that was just ageneral observation)
The following is an essay by Richard Carrier. It's a condensation of Bruce Metzger's book The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Clarendon, 1987). I have directly hyperlinked to the site where this condensed version of the book is found:
Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible. It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions. The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents. Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."Astonishingly, the story isn't even that simple: for the Catholic church centered in Rome never had any extensive control over the Eastern churches, which were in turn divided even among themselves, with Ethiopian and Coptic and Syrian and Byzantine and Armenian canons all riding side-by-side with each other and with the Western Catholic canon, which itself was never perfectly settled until the 15th century at the earliest, although it was essentially established by the middle of the 4th century. Indeed, the current Catholic Bible is largely accepted as canonical from fatigue: the details are so ancient and convoluted that it is easier to simply accept an ancient and enduring tradition than to bother actually questioning its merit. This is further secured by the fact that the long habit of time has dictated the status of the texts: favored books have been more scrupulously preserved and survive in more copies than unfavored books, such that even if some unfavored books should happen to be earlier and more authoritative, in many cases we are no longer able to reconstruct them with any accuracy. To make matters worse, we know of some very early books that simply did not survive at all (the most astonishing example is Paul's earlier Epistle to the Colossians, cf. Col. 4:16), and have recently discovered the very ancient fragments of others that we never knew existed, because no one had even mentioned them.
Consequently, to tell the story of how the Bible came to be requires an essay of some length, organized into sections of roughly chronological order. This is a summary of the consensus of scholars on the formation of the New Testament, drawn from Bruce Metzger's far more detailed survey of the subject, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Clarendon, 1987). All numbers in parentheses followed by "M" are pages in this text. I must excuse the tediousness of this essay--for the subject matter is inescapably complex and confusing. But I have condensed the material of Metzger's 300+ pages to less than 30 pages, added some of my own observations, and emphasized those facts most relevant to secularists and seekers.
Related documents:"The Canon of the Bible"
Larry Taylor's critique of Chapter 3 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict on the Christian canon. This goes into more detail about the use of books, the NT and OT canon, apocrypha, the effects of the Reformation, and most of all the modern rules and guidelines for defending canonicity.Old Testament Life and Literature
An out of print book by a respected professor of Biblical History, Dr. Gerald Larue, now available online. Covers the history of the Hebrews, with one chapter dedicated to the development of the Old Testament, including its reception by Christians. The following chapter discusses Old Testament translations and manuscript history. -
-
-
FireNBandits
I lived in an apartment for several years that had a mail slot on the door. I saw some Dubs coming down the street so I slipped on a hand puppet of Mickey Mouse (I gave puppet shows for the kids at church), and when the Dubs came to my door I stuck my hand with the puppet on it thru the mail slot and talked to the Dubs that way. My Mickey Mouse voice is perfect. They never so much as cracked a smile. Humorless people. I enjoyed it though! -Martin
-
45
Are You A Pharisee? No? Are You SURE? :-)
by FireNBandits inare you a pharisee?
have you ever wondered what the modern equivalent of a pharisee wearing a phylactery is?
(for those who dont know, a phylactery was a little box that ancient jews would secure to their forehead with a strap, and inside the box was the shema or other important scriptures.
-
-
FireNBandits
I think, DD, you need to ask yoursef IF YOU became a Christian. I became one by repenting, believing, and being baptized. By being born again and baptized in the Holy Spirit. The very fact that you ask such questions of me proves you're trying to turn this very generalized post about Pharisees into a "grace versus works" fight (which was not and is not the itent of the article) and it also reveals you as a believer in eternal security, that your ethics and morals don't matter because you've been justified by faith. My post wasn't about you DD, so I'm having to PM Simon about you and this personal vendetta against me you've got going. I'm not going to put up with being stalked by you whenever I post soething that steps on your toes. You have taken a generalized post that had NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU PERSONALLY and have made it personal. This post was also NOT ABOUT ANL. That was in another thread entirely, and YOU certainly arent ANL. You've tried very subterfuge to "get me" for having dared to post somehting that you didn't like. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU DD! This post certainly isn't but I'm writing one now that definitely is.
I will continue to write about modern-day Pharisees as well as crazy cyber-stalkers for as long as it pleases me to do so. -
45
Are You A Pharisee? No? Are You SURE? :-)
by FireNBandits inare you a pharisee?
have you ever wondered what the modern equivalent of a pharisee wearing a phylactery is?
(for those who dont know, a phylactery was a little box that ancient jews would secure to their forehead with a strap, and inside the box was the shema or other important scriptures.
-
-
FireNBandits
Hi Borgia. It's my understanding, at this point, that Christianity began as a messianic movement within Judaism and that elements of the Mystery religions were synthesized with Messianic ideas to produce an othwerworldy messiah for Jews. Hence the Pharisees would be strongly represented in early Christianity. I've found a fascinating group of people online that seem to have successfuly resurrected this ancient Judaic form of Christianity, though not precisely and exactly. http://essenes.net/new/subintro.html
Not that I'm interested in joining any religion, but these folks have an interesting site. -Martin -
45
Are You A Pharisee? No? Are You SURE? :-)
by FireNBandits inare you a pharisee?
have you ever wondered what the modern equivalent of a pharisee wearing a phylactery is?
(for those who dont know, a phylactery was a little box that ancient jews would secure to their forehead with a strap, and inside the box was the shema or other important scriptures.
-
-
FireNBandits
Hi Narkissos. Yes, I know, but the presentation of the Pharisees in the gospels is generally a caricature anyway. Actually, I'm a thoroughgoing Mythicist as to JC, though I am open to evemerism. In fact, I used to be an evemerist until I read Suns of God and Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Dr. Robert M. Price (a fellow of the Jesus Seminar among other impressive scholarly credentials) and some other books by Price, Earl Doherty, and Acharya all demonstrating the mythical nature of JC. (Yes, I'm aware of some of the scholarly "slipups" by Acharya in Christ Conspiracy, having spotted several myself) Robert Price has a really fun program on every Sunday at Freethought Media. You can sit in the chatroom while the live program unfolds and type in questions for Price to answer. The man is amazing in both his breadth and depth of knowledge. I listen every Sunday at 6 PM eastern time, USA. http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/RobertMPrice.ftm Thanks for dropping by Narkissos. -Martin
-
45
Are You A Pharisee? No? Are You SURE? :-)
by FireNBandits inare you a pharisee?
have you ever wondered what the modern equivalent of a pharisee wearing a phylactery is?
(for those who dont know, a phylactery was a little box that ancient jews would secure to their forehead with a strap, and inside the box was the shema or other important scriptures.
-
-
FireNBandits
Hey DD, why not let ANL defend himself? I didn't call you a Pharisee, so get down off your high horese, m'k? You keep trying to turn the focus away from that fact, and to make it seem like I did call you a Pharisee so that you can turn this into some kind of personal vendetta. I said before that I don't know you, but now I do. You're obsessive and compulsive with a martyr complex. If I want to write about Pharisees I will, even if it pisses you and ANL off bigtime. You fundiots are something else. Why not ask yourself WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? I did, that's why I'm refraining from really letting you have it. Jesus had plenty to say about Pharisees. Do you think he did so in order to make sure we would not be able to tell when we see it in our ourselves or in the Christian culture? Anyway, Jesus sho nuff wouldnt be stalking me the way you are! That post really set you off. What part was it that best described you DD? The ten pound phylactery Bible? The public prayers in restaurants? The spying and reporting on co-workers? The majoring in minors, such as thinking God Almighty shares your superficial concerns? Was it the mention of bibliolatry? Or of substituting a doctrinal or moral hobby-horse for God? What was it that fingered YOU SPECIFICALLY DD? You're trying to hide the fact that the article fingered you in some way, and therefore got your Pharisaic dander up, and now you're trying to hide it by pretending to be defending ANL. Keep this up and you and I and the owner of the board will have to talk about your stalking of me. I've had quite enough of your stalking and self righteousness. I say stalking because since I made this post you have tried to start a fight with me personally, as though I attacked you personally. I didn't. You're not a Pharisee and this post wasn't about you DD, m'k? ANL is quite able to defend himself. So chill.