My cousin was sliding off a 2nd story roof of a house. He used his power nailer to drive a nail through his foot into the roof. He said it hurt like Hell, but it was less painfull than landing on the rocks below.
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
20
Have you ever fell from the roof or do you know someone that fell from the roof?
by asilentone inhow long does it take for someone to recover from that kind of fall?.
-
-
-
68
Inability to take hints
by rebel8 inwhen people would say, "i don't understand your beliefs on dfing," or, "i don't understand your beliefs on the end times calculations," (even after these were explained)....i used to think i'm just smarter than them.. now i realize they comprehended it just fine but were trying to say, "i don't agree with you," in a softer way.when people would say, "i'm too busy to talk to you right now," i thought that was an invitation to return.. now i realize they were trying to say, "please go away and don't come back," in a softer way.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Ren and her false dichotomies. It appears that Ren is exhibit #1 in regards to the OP.
-
-
-
Mad Dawg
Ummm, I have a question for snowbird or B the X. If a young couple from West Virginia get married in Kentucky, move to Tennesee, then get a divorce in Alabama; are they still brother and sister?
-
14
Watchtower says Baptism does NOT save you -- or DOES IT?
by UnDisfellowshipped indo jehovah's witnesses teach that you must be baptized in order to be saved?.
the watchtower, november 15th, 2008 issue, pages 20-22:.
"we are "saved through faith," "not owing to works" of the mosaic law or of those performed as christians.
-
-
Mad Dawg
I think that Jehoober will kill every last person so He don’t have to listen to no damn whining about having to bury stinking carcasses or cleaning toxic dumps or that their faithful hubby didn’t get resurected or that the elder slave driver is a prick or they didn't get the big house they had been lusting for for 30 years . After all, nobody is perfect and this will make it easier on Jehoober’s angel’s.
-
37
Two Posers For You
by Farkel inhere are two ethical posers:.
i. would you rather your children grow up to be successful or happy?
explain your answer.. ii.
-
-
Mad Dawg
1) Happy, what is the point of being "succusful" if you aren't happy?
2) Don't cheat:
- It is wrong to cheat.
- If you don't have the talent to get admitted, you won't have the talent to pass the courses.
-
280
Jesus.....God or God's son?
by digderidoo infollowing on from a post of sacolton's on a recent thread.
i hope he doesn't mind me cutting and pasting it as i want to examine it.. was jesus our god?
consider these two scriptures:.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Ren said:
Trinitarians had control of all translations from very early on we are fortunate false additions like 1 john 5:7 were found out and not still seen as part of the bible.
Ren,
Are you saying that God was impotent to preserve His Word? Why would He allow His word to be preserved only in a corrupted form? What is your evidence that Scriptures have been messed with? If they have been corrupted, how do you know that any of it is reliable?
One of the best examples of a singular plurality is the word bunch. You buy a bunch (singular) of grapes (plural). While the bunch is singular, it implies a plurality of entities within it. The same holds true with the references to God in Hebrew.
MD
-
347
Are You Paul or are you Saul?
by reniaa inthis was the same man at different times in his life yet he changed his name because he completely changed his ideals and goals too.
both were extremely zealous, both thought they were doing gods work, both thought they were working for the greater good.. acts 8:3 (new international version)3but saul began to destroy the church.
going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.. soul thought gods work was to destroy the christians but paul.... acts 20: 19i served the lord with great humility and with tears, although i was severely tested by the plots of the jews.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Those that support a late date argue from silence and ad hoc excuses. In fact, many archeologists, textual critics, and such accept an early date.
From: Here
(1) New Testament Manuscript Copies:
Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute.
Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).
Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.
This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.
(2) Available Manuscripts:
A further criticism concerns whether the copies we possess are credible. Since we do not possess the originals, people ask, how can we be sure they are identical to them? The initial answer is that we will never be completely certain, for there is no means at our disposal to reproduce the originals. This has always been a problem with all known ancient documents. Yet this same question is rarely asked of other historical manuscripts which we refer to constantly. If they are held to be credible, let's then see how the New Testament compares with them. Let's compare below the time gaps for the New Testament documents with other credible secular documents.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. The chart below reveals the time gaps of these and other works from the ancient world and compares them to the earliest New Testament manuscripts (taken from McDowell 1972:42, & Bruce 1943:16-17).
Author
Date Written
Earliest Copy
Time Span
Copies (extent)
Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History)
480 - 425 BC
900 AD
1,300 years
8
Thucydides (History)
460 - 400 BC
900 AD
1,300 years
?
Aristotle (Philosopher)
384 - 322 BC
1,100 AD
1,400 years
5
Caesar (History)
100 - 44 BC
900 AD
1,000 years
10
Pliny (History)
61 - 113 AD
850 AD
750 years
7
Suetonius (Roman History)
70 - 140 AD
950 AD
800 years
?
Tacitus (Greek History)
100 AD
1,100 AD
1,000 years
20
Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)
1st century
50-60 AD
co-existant (?)
John Rylands (John)
90 AD
130 AD
40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)
90 AD
150-200 AD
60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)
1st century
200 AD
150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)
1st century
200 AD
150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)
1st century
325-350 AD
275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)
1st century
350 AD
300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)
1st century
400 AD
350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)What one notices almost immediately from the table is that the New Testament manuscript copies which we possess today were compiled very early, a number of them hundreds of years before the earliest copy of a secular manuscript. This not only shows the importance the early Christians gave to preserving their scriptures, but the enormous wealth we have today for early Biblical documentation.
What is even more significant however, are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both the biblical and secular manuscripts. It is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. The time span for the biblical manuscript copies listed above are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
Because of its importance to our discussion here a special note needs to be given to the Magdalene Manuscript mentioned above. Until two years ago, the oldest assumed manuscript which we possessed was the St. John papyrus (P52), housed in the John Rylands museum in Manchester, and dated at 120 AD (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). Thus, it was thought that the earliest New Testament manuscript could not be corroborated by eyewitnesses to the events. That assumption has now changed, for three even older manuscripts, one each from the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have now been dated earlier than the Johannine account. It is two of these three findings which I believe will completely change the entire focus of the critical debate on the authenticity of the Bible. Let me explain.
The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!
The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!
What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).
We have other manuscript evidence for the New Testament as well:
(3) Versions or Translations:Besides the 24,000 manuscripts we have more than 15,000 existing copies of the various versions written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some of which were written as early as 150 A.D., such as the Syriac Peshitta (150-250 A.D.) (McDowell 1972:49; 1990:47).
Because Christianity was a missionary faith from its very inception (Matthew 28:19-20), the scriptures were immediately translated into the known languages of that period. For that reason other written translations appeared soon after, such as Coptic translations (early 3rd and 4th centuries), Armenian (400 A.D.), Gothic (4th century), Georgian (5th century), Ethiopic (6th century), and Nubian (6th century) (McDowell 1972:48-50). The fact that we have so many translations of the New Testament points to its authenticity, as it would have been almost impossible, had the disciples or later followers wanted to corrupt or forge its contents, for them to have amassed all of the translations from the outlying areas and changed each one so that there would have been the uniformity which we find witnessed in these translations today.
(4) Lectionaries:The practice of reading passages from the New Testament books at worship services began from the 6th century, so that today we have 2,135 lectionaries which have been catalogued from this period (McDowell 1972:52). If there had been a forgery, they too would have all had to have been changed.
( 5) Early Church Father's Letters: But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.
Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell's Evidence..., 1972 pg. 51):
Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.
Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.
Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.
Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament -
347
Are You Paul or are you Saul?
by reniaa inthis was the same man at different times in his life yet he changed his name because he completely changed his ideals and goals too.
both were extremely zealous, both thought they were doing gods work, both thought they were working for the greater good.. acts 8:3 (new international version)3but saul began to destroy the church.
going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.. soul thought gods work was to destroy the christians but paul.... acts 20: 19i served the lord with great humility and with tears, although i was severely tested by the plots of the jews.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Pistoff said:
Yes, especially Rodney Stark. What I am interested in is historians and text scholars who are not interested in defending the text, only studying it.
You have obviously no clue as to Stark’s writings.
No, but no one else among the entire scholar community thinks like Rodney Stark.
How do you know this? Do you know what ALL scholars think? If you actually read Stark’s work, you would find that it is well documented.
Do the above verses suggest to you that the split between Jews and Christians may have occured in the first century??
The verses you cite, 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! And so forth are directed to a particular group of Pharasees andScribes. How does the condemnation of particular people in a particular place by Jesus prove that there was a split world-wide by everyone in these groups? I have condemned my government, does that mean I am not an American anymore?
-
280
Jesus.....God or God's son?
by digderidoo infollowing on from a post of sacolton's on a recent thread.
i hope he doesn't mind me cutting and pasting it as i want to examine it.. was jesus our god?
consider these two scriptures:.
-
-
Mad Dawg
It is ontological equality with functional subordination. Similar to the idea that all men are equal, yet men will subordinate themselves to others. "Equality" and "subordination" refer to two different aspects of God. Equality refers to the intrinsic being of God. Subordination refers to how the persons relate to each other.
-
280
Jesus.....God or God's son?
by digderidoo infollowing on from a post of sacolton's on a recent thread.
i hope he doesn't mind me cutting and pasting it as i want to examine it.. was jesus our god?
consider these two scriptures:.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Ren said:
The point is on the table and proved that biblically the word god or divine or godlike can be applied to others especially when they are representing God's purposes and given power by god.
Are you a god, Ren? If we are all made in the image of God, doesn’t that mean that we are all godlike, and therefore gods? The WTS states that angels and demons are gods. Animals, insects, fish, and birds are all like us in various ways hence, they are godlike. If you apply any word too broadly, it becomes absolutely meaningless. The WTS use of the word god is so broad that it is meaningless and nonsensical.
You have nerve to ask that we prove anything when you ALWAYS dodge questions yourself. Don’t tell us that we are out of line for equating the exact same phrase from the NT to that phrase in the OT, when you and the WT strings verses that have nothing to do with each other. Like saying that Dan 4 has anything to do with any verse in the NT.
Again:
Ø In the reference to gods, are they true gods or false gods?
Ø Doesn’t the WTS teach polytheism, making themselves and you hypocrites?
Ø The ‘gods’ (in Psalm 82) are wicked evil people, are you saying that the Son is evil and wicked?
Ø Answer the questions in the above paragraph.
Ren said:
…the bible theme on Jesus is that he is completely subordinate to his father God.
Did you learn this yourself, or did some one else tell you? Hello, McFly!? This is what trinitarians themselves teach. It is known as functional subordination. If you want to score points, you should figure out what trinitarians are talking about. Do you enjoy arguing against things nobody believes? Are you too: A) Lazy B) Ignorant C) Deceitful D) Indoctrinated to accurately represent what trinitarians believe? Or do you simply find burning straw men too fun to resist? Your posts show total ignorance as to what trinitarians believe. Hint:IT IS NOT MODALISM!!!
