Using? The fact that I mentioned a legend gets turned around into 'using'?
Lon..... you're contentious.....
Men were journeying from the ports of Sidon and Tyre to Cornwall two thousand years before Jesus walked along the Genesseret shoreline. You wouldn't know that because you only read the bible.
It's historical fact. I won't tell you 'why' because then you might actually seek to find out why and remember.
Joseph of A was a Priest, but he was alsio a Trader..... interesting.
The Cornish people's history says that he was known there....... interesting.
It's all just.... interesting.
So is the Holy Grail and King Arthur, and Robin Hood. And Oh Boy, contentious? You are telling everyone in this thread, including me, that they don't know the bible. :doh: I don't know if you realize it even yet, I came at about page 19 because 'you'....
Absolutely! Look at you for instance. But you know only the bible INTERPRETATION that you want to know and see.
:nono: Try just reading it over and over and over again. Context kind of sticks with you after that.
Many bible scholars don't agree with your interpretations.
I've never really thought of biblical Higher Criticism as much more than 'playing at it.' It was made popular by Germans. Most liberal/Higher Critics never let those wacky ideas go and should have. All of them have been put down and debunked forever. It is no longer 'higher' criticism. It is just plain wishful thinking and fanciful fictions. I have absolutely NO respect for so called 'higher' critics. Not sure if you are from there, just telling you they are junk academics.
Even many of the names that you read did not exist when Jesus and the disciples lived. But you don't seem to care.
Context before accusation. You seem to see a LOT of contentious in the other guy without seeing your own three fingers pointing back. Do you realize you marginalize and accuse and try to down-trod your opponents? Are you doing it unconsciously??? :think:
To Christians, you mean. Well, even Christians disagree with Christians about which books.
Er, no. I would even have 'Bel and the Dragon' in my Bible, but just realize it is fiction. The only thing we Protestants do, is gather scriptures that aren't fiction. I have copies of the others, just realize they don't go in the same book. In a library, some are in the fiction section, some in the nonfiction section. Such isn't that counter-intuitive. I'd think you'd get this part without a lot of fanfare.
You have not studied any other religions, then, because the Bahais, Amadiyyas, Shia, Sunnis, Zoroastrains and many others clainm that their writings are 'from God'.
:nono: You are making this part up. I've read the Quran, had a friend who was Ba'hai etc.
Most of the accusations are yours, Lon. Of course I refer to many other sources than the bible. I am a student of early 1st century 'Palestinian' provincial history. I can see that you are not.
"I can see that you are not..." Do you ever read yourself? You are full of accusations, Eider. You were doing it well before page 19 when I came in. I have several college degrees including biblical history classes. :doh:
So you are accusing even Popes of not being Christians. But I have read Catholcs who claim that the Pope only really becomes the instrument of God, a channel from God, when he sits upon St Peter's chair. Which means that priests can do bad things but STILL be Christians, Lon.
I made a general statement "Any time 'secular' men get a hold of the church...."
YOU are applying it to Catholics.
I was thinking of Kiwimacho's church and your other that has gay pastors, etc. Certainly godly men can regain control of those respective denominations though it takes a long time. I came from the United Methodist Church, they allowed gays as pastors clear back in 1980. I left immediately after that vote. I knew what the bible said. They ignored it. Nobody can be 'nicer' than God without condemning people to a life without Him. We cannot serve two masters.
