Random Politics & Religion #00

.... So unless you're an unbiased religious scholar making a determination based on historical knowledge, you're just picking the Bible used by the team you root for and calling it the best.

So unless you're an unbiased religious scholar making a determination based on historical knowledge, you're just picking the Bible used by the team you root for and calling it the best.

I won't say mine is the best, too violent by far.

It is, however, the orignal.

Paged!

....
You study theology, but your source for what they believe is a dumbed-down synopsis of their faith by a 3rd party on a Christian news site? Seems like you study theology in the same way you study politics.

Oneness Pentecostalism (also known as Apostolic or Jesus' Name Pentecostalism and often pejoratively referred to as the “Jesus only” movement in its early days) refers to a grouping of denominations and believers within Pentecostal Christianity, all of whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness, which is similar to Sabellianism (also referred to as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, modal monarchism, or Patripassianism)....

The Oneness doctrine of God

Advocating a non-traditional view of God, Oneness Pentecostals find in modalistic monarchianism of the fourth century a historical predecessor that affirmed the two central aspects of their own convictions:

there is one indivisible God with no distinction of persons in God’s eternal essence, and
Jesus Christ is the manifestation, human personification, or incarnation of the one God.

The Oneness doctrine differs from Sabellianism in that Oneness Pentecostals conceive of the “trimanifestation” of God as simultaneous instead of successive, as is the case with classical Modalism. They contend that, based on Colossians 2:9, the concept of God’s personhood is reserved for the immanent and incarnate presence of Jesus only. Hence, Oneness Pentecostals generally argue that the Godhead is in Jesus, yet Jesus is not in the Godhead.[6]
Characteristics of God

Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. It equally proclaims that God is not made of a physical body, but is an invisible spirit that can only be seen in theophanies (such as the burning bush) that he creates or manifests, or in the person of the incarnate Jesus Christ. In the person of Jesus, one sees the last, best, and complete theophany of God (Colossians 2:9 KJV: "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily").

Oneness Pentecostalism rejects all concepts of a subordination, duality, trinity, pantheon, co-equality, co-eternity, or other versions of the Godhead that assert plural gods, plural beings, divine "persons", individuals, or multiple centers of consciousness within that Godhead. It equally denies all concepts of Jesus as anything other than fully God and fully man, together with all teachings that assert that he was merely a "good man," or only a sinless man, high priest or prophet, rather than God himself. Oneness doctrine declares that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, but that this happened only when he was born from Mary on Earth. It rejects the view that any person can "obtain" the status of God whether by works or by grace, maintaining that Jesus Christ did not "obtain" his status, but rather that he is the one, eternal God himself manifested in the flesh according to the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:16, as is rendered in the King James Version.

You have a collection of all of the untranslated original documents penned by the original authors that hasn't crumbled to dust?

Yes, I read the Wikipedia article. Quite frankly I don't think their position makes any sense, but that also goes for almost every Christian interpretation of the Trinity where they try so very hard to make themselves out to be monotheistic. What you stated earlier was a gross oversimplification of a rather nuanced view.

"Good enough" is subjective. "Original" isn't. I think if we were able to look at the actual originals and compare them to what we have today, the degree of difference between them would shock a lot of people.

I think the date of the originals alone would shock a lot of people.

On a completely unrelated topic... Seha, is your avatar's outfit supposed to look like Dizzy's from Guilty Gear?

It's Terra cosplaying as Kuja. From a pic of Terra cosplaying as all FF villains:



I considered Cloud of Darkness and Jecht cosplays too, but I like Kuja more so chose that as avatar.

We have stuff far older than what the Catholics rewrotetranslated.

None of the gospels were written by the people they claimed to be. Most were written at least a hundred years after Jesus died.

An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.

When translating Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Latin there are cases where there are no direct translations of the words so translators had to pick the word they thought was being used.

An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.

An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.

According to the majority viewpoint the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, collectively referred to as the Synoptic Gospels, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus and of the religious movement he founded.[1][22][23] The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, differs greatly from the first three gospels. Historians often study the historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles when studying the reliability of the gospels, as Acts was seemingly written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke'.

Of course Jassik is correct.

Only someone completely naive would think otherwise.

Yet, don't mind us. We just don't take handed down bronze age goat herder myths to be reliable.

An awfully bold claim from someone who has no proof. Look, I don't doubt that the New Testament documents had been screwed with, but you're talking from a stance of irrefutable fact based on your bias as opposed to an objective observer.

I'm most definitely not a biblical historian, but the fact that the earliest versions of the gospels have been dated through multiple methods as being written between 150 and 300 ce is not a recent revelation. While older versions may have existed at some point, there is no evidence that they did or that they were even second hand accounts. And, as you've said several times, they were interpreted/translated multiple times throughout history. On top of that, much of church doctrine revolves around things that absolutely do not appear in any of the published gospels and were never things Jesus talked about in any of the accounts.

I'm not expressing a bias, 2000 years is a long time in the minds of men, but the inaccuracies in biblical history to almost every other historical record is pretty common knowledge at this point. Just the inconsistencies in the accounts of the crucifixion are pretty stark, and the Romans kept VERY good records.

Not entirely accurate. You're making a lot of arguments out of sweeping generalizations.

Then Bacon says he was right... by suggesting that the apostles could have contracted writers. Unless the dead apostles contracted writers hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, Bacon clearly missed the point.