Converting Jews to Christianity

[brutally honest]

I don't remember Arius commenting in these threads …

Arius was refuted, but his ideas live on. His theological descendants regularly post here and “upstairs”.

 

[brutally honest]

I do understand that you don't like to hear what Ehrman and others have to say …

“Not liking” and “not caring” are two different things. I belong in the latter camp.

 

[bullethead]

“Not liking” and “not caring” are two different things. I belong in the latter camp.

Well you seem to care enough to mention him.

 

[oldfella1962]

Arius was refuted 1700 years ago.

Was he a GON forum member?
Day late and a dollar short - bullet head already said this. I just got back from the store and didn't read all the comments that popped up in my absence.

 

[oldfella1962]

Ehrman is like the “Republicans” who comment on MSNBC. They get a platform because they gleefully denounce other Republicans.

Likewise, Ehrman attacks the Bible and historic Christianity and is promoted because of that.

Bart doesn't "attack the Bible" so much as expose the holes in it. That happens a lot with people who take very deep dives into the Bible. So what do you consider "historic Christianity"? If it's historic then historians must have been examining it and writing about it for many years. If other professional, educated historians come up with different conclusions - possibly because more data or evidence is being exposed - that may ruffle feathers, so be it. That's how science (even often subjective science like history) works. If you start out with the conclusion/presupposition and search for evidence that might support your presupposition that's weak sauce science.

 

[Spotlite]

Bart Ehrman knows his stuff. A lot of apologists don't like him and try to debunk his ideas, so he must be doing something right!

his ideas align with atheism - it’s natural for you think like he does.

 

[oldfella1962]

Arius was refuted, but his ideas live on. His theological descendants regularly post here and “upstairs”.

I'll take a few minutes to check out Arius online. Thanks!

 

[Spotlite]

Bart doesn't "attack the Bible" so much as expose the holes in it. That happens a lot with people who take very deep dives into the Bible. So what do you consider "historic Christianity"? If it's historic then historians must have been examining it and writing about it for many years. If other professional, educated historians come up with different conclusions - possibly because more data or evidence is being exposed - that may ruffle feathers, so be it. That's how science (even often subjective science like history) works. If you start out with the conclusion/presupposition and search for evidence that might support your presupposition that's weak sauce science.

Bart has been owned more times than a 49 year old truck.

 

[bullethead]

Bart has been owned more times than a 49 year old truck.

To clarify,
Was Bart owned when he said that Jesus existed?
Or is he just owned on the things that believers don't agree with?

 

[Spotlite]

To clarify,
Was Bart owned when he said that Jesus existed?
Or is he just owned on the things that believers don't agree with?

A lot of non religious believe Jesus existed. Him saying things isn’t getting owned. When his ideology doesn’t pass the smell test - he’s owned.

The Bible isn’t complicated. The very book they dispute tells them it requires a spiritual understanding that only comes from one source. Bart is carnally educated well above his spiritual intelligence.

 

[bullethead]

A lot of non religious believe Jesus existed. Him saying things isn’t getting owned. When his ideology doesn’t pass the smell test - he’s owned.

The Bible isn’t complicated. The very book they dispute tells them it requires a spiritual understanding that only comes from one source. Bart is carnally educated well above his spiritual intelligence.

Any book that tells a person such things smells worse than the test.

 

[oldfella1962]

Bart has been owned more times than a 49 year old truck.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have seen Bart hand apologists their collective hineys on numerous occasions. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on our interpretations.

 

[oldfella1962]

his ideas align with atheism - it’s natural for you think like he does.

And naturally your ideas align that of the apologists.

 

[oldfella1962]

A lot of non religious believe Jesus existed. Him saying things isn’t getting owned. When his ideology doesn’t pass the smell test - he’s owned.

The Bible isn’t complicated. The very book they dispute tells them it requires a spiritual understanding that only comes from one source. Bart is carnally educated well above his spiritual intelligence.

Interesting! Bart knows the Bible inside and out, sideways and upside down (I guess that is being "carnally educated") but because he doesn't come to the same conclusions as the Christian community - which he used to be a part of - he lacks the "spiritual intelligence" thus he is "owned" by default even when he debates an apologist who cannot count to potato.

Speaking of "spiritual understanding" and "the Bible not being complicated" what are your thoughts on there being hundreds - some say thousands but I'm skeptical of that claim - of Christian denominations in America alone? Whatever that source is that gives believers "spiritual understanding" I'd say it's running a bit dry. I'm sure somebody will clear that up for me.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Even if one is a Trinitarian, The 1 John passage should not be used as proof.

Does 1 John 5:7 Teach the Doctrine of the Trinity? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Does 1 John 5:7 Teach the Doctrine of the Trinity?

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[Ruger#3]

Isn’t like the carnally educated weren’t foretold.

Matthew 7:15​

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

 

[Spotlite]

And naturally your ideas align that of the apologists.

Now you get my point. There’s no “proof”

“knowing his stuff” to you only means he think like you do.

 

[Spotlite]

Isn’t like the carnally educated weren’t foretold.

Matthew 7:15​

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”

Yup, you’re exactly right. And so is the part where God reveals this to us. If they knew the book like they claim……

 

[Spotlite]

Interesting! Bart knows the Bible inside and out, sideways and upside down (I guess that is being "carnally educated") but because he doesn't come to the same conclusions as the Christian community - which he used to be a part of - he lacks the "spiritual intelligence" thus he is "owned" by default even when he debates an apologist who cannot count to potato.

Speaking of "spiritual understanding" and "the Bible not being complicated" what are your thoughts on there being hundreds - some say thousands but I'm skeptical of that claim - of Christian denominations in America alone? Whatever that source is that gives believers "spiritual understanding" I'd say it's running a bit dry. I'm sure somebody will clear that up for me.

My thoughts are still the same. Everyone that says Lord Lord will not enter in. There’ll be those that claim they find things in Gods name.

Everyone isn’t getting different interpretations from the sane source.

Bart uses the Bible to justify himself. There’s a difference in the “knowing”.

 

[Spotlite]

Any book that tells a person such things smells worse than the test.

All books, fiction and non fiction, contains contents of what is within the book.