Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: Where's Your Name?
Source:
Chick Publications
URL Source: http://www.chick.com/cartoons/preview.html
Published: Feb 24, 2015
Author: Jack Chick
Post Date: 2015-02-24 15:29:00 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 11221
Comments: 53
Poster Comment: Embed tract. Click on the lower left corner to turn the page.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-10) not displayed.
.
.
.
#11. To: redleghunter (#10)
Sure he does. The Catholic Church created the New Testament; it is called the Vulgate. All the other Christian religions simply use the work as they see fit for their own purposes.
All 27 NT books were complete before the end of the apostolic age. No church can claim "they" wrote or "approved" what the Holy Spirit inspired and the apostles wrote down. It is akin to a grand child taking their grand parents journal and telling people "I compiled this, and it would not exist without me."
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Come on Pridie. He is no evolutionist. You should pay better attention.
Wow. Someone who doesn't support the Declaration of Independence or the first amendment. Note to self. This one doesn't support the constitution. Or the American way of life.
What about the other 160 "agreed upon" omitted books by the Catholic church? Sure they can. All material books are manmade by some inconsequential human being located somewhere on this planet Earth inscribing an interpretation. That is why there are so many Christian churches.
Sure he is. From "redleghunter's perspective" there is an absolute value about the gospel of Christ. But, he only clings to the later interpretation(s) of Martin Luther while denouncing St. Jerome's Vulgate. "redleghunter" is one of the most adamant evolulutionists on the planet because of his interpretation of the Vulgate vs. some professional snake handler named, Martin Luther that he personally agrees with in the name of Christ.
Bizarre post by a so-called moderator. Speaking frankly, you have no clue about what or direction of "what" you are suggeting.
I almost forgot to consider your impressive credentials as a Bible scholar.... OH WAIT. Since you hang your hat on the Great Faerie Tale of "NOTHING-CREATED-EVERYTHING," according to your cult, how exactly did the Mother of All Amoebas get the party started?
Which Pope was it who first "decreed" the "Holy Bible"?
It is akin to a grand child taking their grand parents journal and telling people "I compiled this, and it would not exist without me." Good analogy. Almost as though the US Constitution were replaced and superseded by a Communist Manifesto and Presidency that was redefined as a dictatorship. (Sorta)
An assertion on your part. The 'so many' Christian churches can be whittled down to what they point to as their infallible authority. Some point to men for such and many more point to Holy Scriptures because of their Divine attributes. Please show me the "other 160 'agreed upon' omitted books." When you do I will point to you why they are not Holy Scriptures.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
"redleghunter" is one of the most adamant evolulutionists on the planet because of his interpretation of the Vulgate vs. some professional snake handler named, Martin Luther that he personally agrees with in the name of Christ. Thanks for the morning laugh. I will say the Latin Vulgate is a very good work of Jerome. I keep an English translation copy of the Vulgate at my finger tips and often refer to it via the lexicon. The Good News of Yeshua Messiah as Lord and Savior rings true in the Latin Vulgate. Now I don't know of any snakes in Germany that need to be handled:) Plus Luther, from paintings of him, does not look like he has the physical stature to handle snakes. So...when you are ready to discuss the issues let me know.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
My goodness! I had no idea. Thanks for the warning. Now that you've exposed him this way, I expect this so-called "redleghunter" to slink off in abject shame.
LOL.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
LOL not going anywhere:) In fact, just standing by for the next target. "Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
So you like that hard-ass Patton. No surprise really, he was a colorful, bold and successful officer. We don't seem to have many generals that have that successful bit down pat any more. Too many purely political promotions at the Pentagon and too many lawyers bossing the generals around.
Why on Earth would you find a memory loss, now? You make a large BANG based on silly assumptions. All my perspective represents is a simple formula: the Universe and all within "it" (or without "it") and all anything you or I can experience and all you or I can imagine or have knowledge about and everything about us is based on perception, intuition, cognition and varying conditions. The Universe is a mystery and can never be understood completely; all this with one minor exception: other than one single fundamental cognisant truth of mankind about being aware of being aware about ourselves. All the world wide religion nonsense is about the same but trapped in some form of complicated historical faerie tale translated into "books" based on tradition and designed for those that think they have no other route to understand their own being. Is there a GOD? The question has no answer because if one trully exists "it" is a mystery.
Pope Damasus I commissioned the study and later confirmation. The man does not exist anymore or any form that is known to the REAL world.
Men and/or documents decreed as "divine?" Whose leg are you pulling? You truly believe in nothing more than made up fantasies; true, the fantasies are traditional or historical records from farmers, sheepherders and folklore passed on from one generation to another that reveal an important "truth" to a small social society.
You are incorrect. Clearly you have not examined the Scriptures. I'll wait for you to support your assertions. I hope you know the difference between an assertion and an argument.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
LOL. If you were educated in a Catholic school please get your parent's money back. The 27 books we know as the NT were all complete and in circulation before the close of the 1st century AD. In the second century church theologians wrote commentaries and wrote letters and polemical arguments using the scriptures both OT and NT. There are enough writings from these church fathers to build the Bible we have today without the over 5000 manuscripts available. Sir, if you wish to debate this subject please suit up. The unfounded specious assertions won't work.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Let us start with ten for you to explain awy: "Q" I guess the above documents missed the review committee for adoption into the "New Testament." I shall now patiently await your "scholarly" post.
Jean-Paul Sartre could not say the above any better. He died in fear and deep depression.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
"Q": a 19th century liberal theological theory. Since the synoptic gospels have many of the same information and surprisingly match (in the liberal theologian mind this can't be!) they must have been from one source! Q theory discredited in the 20th century. No real theologian speaks of it except atheists today. There are no "Q" manuscripts. Third Letter to the Corinthians: not known in the sub apostolic era. Authorship is not Paul. The Didache: not a work of an apostle nor scribe of an apostle. Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter; Luke under Paul. Gospel of Thomas: dated to the late 2nd century. Thomas was long dead after that. No apostle no scripture. Attributed to 2nd century Gnostics. 1st Clement: not an apostle. Good for Christians to read and heed but Clement was not an apostle. Shepherd of Hermas: second century document. All apostles were already home with the Lord. Infancy Gospel of James: Another document dated in the 2nd second century. See above about the apostles no longer alive in the second century. The Epistle of Barnabas: Another good read. Earliest dating is to rule of Nerva at the end of the 1st century. The Barnabas who was a companion of Paul was long dead by then. Another work not authored by an apostle or scribe for living apostle. Apocalypse of Peter: attributed to the late 2nd century. See above about the apostles and all no longer alive after the 1st century. Lost Epistle to the Corinthians: I assume you mean the 3rd letter to the Corinthians. Dated to mid 2nd century. I think you know from the above the general timeframe of the 2nd century in relation to the 1st century. Paul was martyred in the mid 1st century. So again another work which is not of apostolic origin. For all of the above I didn't even get into some of them are of dubious origins, and not resembling a work of the supposed author attribution is given.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
So you ARE a "Bible Scholar" after all? Have you registered you credentials with the 0buma School of Choom? All my perspective represents is a simple formula: The Universe and all within "it" (or without "it") and all anything you or I can experience and all you or I can imagine or have knowledge about and everything about us is based on perception, intuition, cognition and varying conditions. But...what or who is the Master Programmer of such perception, imagination, intuition, fantasy, and self-realization? Surely the universal 'Big Nothing in the Big Void' didn't just randomly bestow you with such complicated cerebral and physical attributes, an individual identity, and spiritual means from which to sense discernment and purpose? The Universe is a mystery and can never be understood completely; all this with one minor exception: other than one single fundamental cognisant truth of mankind about being aware of being aware about ourselves. Again - IF you are convinced that there is indeed an individual conscious awareness, is there not a soul that accompanies it? There are only TWO distinct possibilities for the source of such consciousness and conscience: 1) NOTHING created you, your identity, and your spirit, and soul. 2) SOMETHING created you, your identity, and your spirit and soul. Is there a GOD? The question has no answer because if one trully exists "it" is a mystery. Since mathematically, nothing can create everything out of thin air -- never mind a conscious along with your unique identity -- by default, that leave #2: SOMETHING: aka, GOD. It's up to you to accept the truth. Closing you eyes and mind, reminding blind and willfully ignorant is counter-intuitive. Hating and resenting God for what you perceive as a bad deal is addressed in a well known best seller called The Bible. Your "Mystery" has made perfect sense to millions. Why not you? Unless your grudge is to be carried beyond the grave, the worst investment ever.
Pridie, your requests have been satisfied. I'm sure redleghunter can further clarify if you are truly hunger for the truth.
Based on my ignoring all his posts, Pridie is very hungry for the truth.
I see that you believe in "real theologians" as the source for your rebuttal and clearly reflects on your capability to discuss the Q hypothesis with any level of analysis. How do you know? Are you saying the Bible (the New Testament) is limited to a document published by an apostle? Why is your opinion a valid perspective? I get it; lets dispel all data from the Nag Hammadi library. For your position, it is very clever to hide from additional data that reveals another facet about the life and times of Jesus. Wait a minute! If the book is not included in the Holy Bible from the framework of your own arguments, how is this text "good for Christians"; don't you think you are committing some sort of sin by suggesting such blasphemous behaviour? The Shepard was referenced by many early church leeaders such as Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. But, the Acts just didn't quite make it into the back room for advancing into the New Testament? What makes any later writings about Jesus any less value than those accepted into the Bible? The ground rules are arbitrary and inconsistent that writings are accepted only by a self-elected committee that accept "certain" writings and not others considered "canonical." All you suggest is that you accept or grovel towards some self-selected or imposed long gone, committee cramming down your throat what is revered or not. Were you one of the members of and about the Synod of Carthage to tell us the criteria of acceptance of the 27 books as inspired? So what? You denounce "good reads" because some committee decided to remove the document as not being "canonical?" You are saying that you agree with some silly origin of the Catholic religion is all. Jesus did not initiate a church or some sort of religion. "attributed" is very suggestive to any readers by yourself masking the discussion. Yuppers. It actually predates 1st Corinthians: 5:9 “I wrote to you in my (previous) letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” You showed your true colours, though. Congratulations.
To answer your questions in order: Kinda and "no" to your official school board. A broad assumption about your own being. There just may not be any "master programmer" at all; other than yourself. After-all look at the way you phrased your own question. Why? Because you said so? Explain your findings; please use mathematical models to prove your thesis. I find your analysis intriguing to the discussion. What "truth?" Your opinion? Your opinion doesn't even pass a cursory interest other than a few moments of fun while I work away on serious projects.
They have? How do you know? What factual basis do you have to say, "your requests have been satisfied." You are outrageously presumptuous in scope of this discussion.
There's just no pleasing some people.
I see that you believe in "real theologians" as the source for your rebuttal and clearly reflects on your capability to discuss the Q hypothesis with any level of analysis. I agree with N.T. Wright regarding Q. "The blithe 'reconstruction' not only of Q, not only of its different stages of composition, but even of complete communities whose beliefs are accurately reflected in these different stages, betokens a naive willingness to believe in anything as long as it is nothing like Mark (let alone Paul)." N. T. Wright
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
Wasn't he a bishop for the "Church of England?" A strange brew, indeed.
Yes, he's strange, but extremely smart.
“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
So now we have a "smart" theologian from the Church of England to ensure some sort of concrete sanctity of opin. Too cool, Gary. Do you have any more candid remarcks?
Seems you have some researching to do. Recommend reading the posted article in the religion folder on how we got the canon. So you first have to know what is considered divine attributes of written Words of God. Start with that thread.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Now, there is a precondition to all this religious nonsense stuff? And where did you pickup your "divine" radar?
John chapter 3.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
How do you actually know that the contents of "John chapter 3" is any more divine than a roadmap, charting the travel plans from Lincoln Nebraska to Las Vegas Nevada in the hopes and dreams to make a million bucks at some slot machine?
You followed a map to get there didn't you? Did you read the map or trust your GPS?
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." (1 Timothy 6:6-7)
Nope. I just asked for directions at each gas station stop along the way; a lot of helpful people are out there.
Comments (52 - 53) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: Pridie.Nones (#11)
#13. To: Pridie.Nones (#7)
Do you really believe in faerie tales?
#14. To: Pridie.Nones (#11)
Sure he does. The Catholic Church created the New Testament; it is called the Vulgate. All the other Christian religions simply use the work as they see fit for their own purposes.
#15. To: redleghunter (#12)
All 27 NT books were complete before the end of the apostolic age.
No church can claim "they" wrote or "approved" what the Holy Spirit inspired and the apostles wrote down.
#16. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter (#13)
He [redleghunter] is no evolutionist.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#18. To: Pridie.Nones, redleghunter, A K A Stone (#16)
"redleghunter" is one of the most adamant evolulutionists on the planet because of his interpretation of the Vulgate vs. some professional snake handler named, Martin Luther that he personally agrees with in the name of Christ.
#19. To: Pridie.Nones (#9)
You believe in the Jewish faith...then you go further with the New Testament as decreed by the Pope as the Holy Bible.
#20. To: redleghunter, Pridie.Nones (#12)
No church can claim "they" wrote or "approved" what the Holy Spirit inspired and the apostles wrote down.
#21. To: Pridie.Nones, liberator, GarySpFc (#15)
Sure they can. All material books are manmade by some inconsequential human being located somewhere on this planet Earth inscribing an interpretation. That is why there are so many Christian churches.
#22. To: Pridie.Nones, A K A Stone, GarySpFc, liberator, TooConservative (#16)
Sure he is. From "redleghunter's perspective" there is an absolute value about the gospel of Christ. But, he only clings to the later interpretation(s) of Martin Luther while denouncing St. Jerome's Vulgate.
#23. To: Pridie.Nones, redleghunter (#16)
"redleghunter" is one of the most adamant evolulutionists on the planet because of his interpretation of...
#24. To: Liberator (#18)
how exactly did the Mother of All Amoebas get the party started?
#25. To: TooConservative, GarySpFc (#23)
Now that you've exposed him this way, I expect this so-called "redleghunter" to slink off in abject shame.
#26. To: redleghunter (#25)
#27. To: Liberator (#18)
I almost forgot to consider your impressive credentials as a Bible scholar....
Since you hang your hat on the Great Faerie Tale of "NOTHING-CREATED-EVERYTHING," according to your cult, how exactly did the Mother of All Amoebas get the party started?
#28. To: Liberator (#19)
Which Pope was it who first "decreed" the "Holy Bible"?
#29. To: redleghunter (#21)
The 'so many' Christian churches can be whittled down to what they point to as their infallible authority. Some point to men for such and many more point to Holy Scriptures because of their Divine attributes.
#30. To: Pridie.Nones (#29)
Men and/or documents decreed as "divine?" Whose leg are you pulling? You truly believe in nothing more than made up fantasies; true, the fantasies are traditional or historical records from farmers, sheepherders and folklore passed on from one generation to another that reveal an important "truth" to a small social society.
#31. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, liberator (#28)
Pope Damasus I commissioned the study and later confirmation
#32. To: redleghunter (#21)
Please show me the "other 160 'agreed upon' omitted books." When you do I will point to you why they are not Holy Scriptures.
Third Letter to the Corinthians
The Didache
Gospel of Thomas
1st Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Infancy Gospel of James
The Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
Lost Epistle to the Corinthians
#33. To: Pridie.Nones, liberator (#27)
You make a large BANG based on silly assumptions. All my perspective represents is a simple formula: the Universe and all within "it" (or without "it") and all anything you or I can experience and all you or I can imagine or have knowledge about and everything about us is based on perception, intuition, cognition and varying conditions. The Universe is a mystery and can never be understood completely; all this with one minor exception: other than one single fundamental cognisant truth of mankind about being aware of being aware about ourselves.
#34. To: Pridie.Nones, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, liberator, TooConservative (#32)
Let us start with ten for you to explain awy:
#35. To: Pridie.Nones (#27)
#36. To: redleghunter, Pridie.Nones, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, TooConservative (#34)
#37. To: Liberator (#36)
I'm sure redleghunter can further clarify if you are truly hunger for the truth.
#38. To: redleghunter (#34)
"Q": a 19th century liberal theological theory. Since the synoptic gospels have many of the same information and surprisingly match (in the liberal theologian mind this can't be!) they must have been from one source! Q theory discredited in the 20th century. No real theologian speaks of it except atheists today. There are no "Q" manuscripts.
Third Letter to the Corinthians: not known in the sub apostolic era. Authorship is not Paul.
The Didache: not a work of an apostle nor scribe of an apostle. Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter; Luke under Paul.
Gospel of Thomas: dated to the late 2nd century. Thomas was long dead after that. No apostle no scripture. Attributed to 2nd century Gnostics.
1st Clement: not an apostle. Good for Christians to read and heed but Clement was not an apostle.
Shepherd of Hermas: second century document. All apostles were already home with the Lord.
Infancy Gospel of James: Another document dated in the 2nd second century. See above about the apostles no longer alive in the second century.
The Epistle of Barnabas: Another good read. Earliest dating is to rule of Nerva at the end of the 1st century. The Barnabas who was a companion of Paul was long dead by then. Another work not authored by an apostle or scribe for living apostle.
Apocalypse of Peter: attributed to the late 2nd century. See above about the apostles and all no longer alive after the 1st century.
Lost Epistle to the Corinthians: I assume you mean the 3rd letter to the Corinthians. Dated to mid 2nd century. I think you know from the above the general timeframe of the 2nd century in relation to the 1st century. Paul was martyred in the mid 1st century. So again another work which is not of apostolic origin.
For all of the above I didn't even get into some of them are of dubious origins, and not resembling a work of the supposed author attribution is given.
#39. To: Liberator (#35)
So you ARE a "Bible Scholar" after all? Have you registered you credentials with the 0buma School of Choom?
But...what or who is the Master Programmer of such perception, imagination, intuition, fantasy, and self-realization? Surely the universal 'Big Nothing in the Big Void' didn't just randomly bestow you with such complicated cerebral and physical attributes, an individual identity, and spiritual means from which to sense discernment and purpose?
Again - IF you are convinced that there is indeed an individual conscious awareness, is there not a soul that accompanies it? What is the difference between a "soul" and your own "awareness" about the world around yourself?
There are only TWO distinct possibilities for the source of such consciousness and conscience: 1) NOTHING created you, your identity, and your spirit, and soul. 2) SOMETHING created you, your identity, and your spirit and soul.
Since mathematically, nothing can create everything out of thin air -- never mind a conscious along with your unique identity -- by default, that leave #2: SOMETHING: aka, GOD.
It's up to you to accept the truth. Closing you eyes and mind, reminding blind and willfully ignorant is counter-intuitive. Hating and resenting God for what you perceive as a bad deal is addressed in a well known best seller called The Bible. Your "Mystery" has made perfect sense to millions. Why not you? Unless your grudge is to be carried beyond the grave, the worst investment ever.
#40. To: Liberator, redleghunter, GarySpFc, BobCeleste, TooConservative (#36)
Pridie, your requests have been satisfied.
#41. To: Liberator, Pridie.Nones (#40)
#42. To: Pridie.Nones (#38)
#43. To: GarySpFC (#42)
#44. To: Pridie.Nones (#43)
Wasn't he a bishop for the "Church of England?" A strange brew, indeed.
#45. To: GarySpFC (#44)
#46. To: Pridie.Nones (#38)
#47. To: redleghunter (#46)
#48. To: Pridie.Nones (#47)
And where did you pickup your "divine" radar?
#49. To: redleghunter (#48)
#50. To: Pridie.Nones (#49)
How do you actually know that the contents of "John chapter 3" is any more divine than a roadmap, charting the travel plans from Lincoln Nebraska to Las Vegas Nevada in the hopes and dreams to make a million bucks at some slot machine?
#51. To: redleghunter (#50)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]