- Joined
- Dec 21, 2013
- Messages
- 13,309
- Reaction score
- 1,307
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Please restrict yourself to only linking to sites having some relation to the post you're responding to.
Please restrict yourself to only linking to sites having some relation to the post you're responding to.
The one that has existed since Apostolic times.
I did. You said that there is a translation that has existed since "apostolic times," and I linked to a page that shows the overwhelming different interpretations and translations of the bible that exist. Thus, proving my earlier point that even the various christian cults can't decide on what the book should say or mean.
Sorry that you can't see the obvious.
Does that mean you're Catholic?
You keep saying that, as if it actually has any meaning.It would be really helpful if you would actually read my posts before responding.
You keep saying that, as if it actually has any meaning.
So, again, I'll say that until the various cults in Christianity can determine ONE interpretation of the bible as being "the" correct one, the bible means exactly nothing.
It seems we are at an impasse.
So I'll go on having an intelligent conversation. And you'll go on babbling as if I said anything about there being one true translation.
The mere fact that you SAY there is "one true translation," in light of the myriad of translations that exist, just proves my point. The cult of Christianity can't even come to an agreement on what the bible should say or mean.
So, you go on to your "intelligent conversation" then, since that probably just means you are looking for people who won't actually provide questions or challenges that you can't answer.
I never said that, but feel free to continue going on about something that I never said.
I'm looking for someone who at least will refrain from making stuff up.
Do you even KNOW what you said? It sounds to me like you don't. The only one making stuff up here, sweetheart, is you.
Again, you have said absolutely nothing that disproves my point about Christians being unable to come to any sort of consensus as to what the bible actually says and means.
But, you said that in response to me talking about the bible...so, that miscommunication is all yours, sport.I said that there was a single Church that has existed since apostolic times. Where you got one true translation from that is beyond me.
Christianity (or reality in general for that matter) is not based on consensus.
I'm sorry, but it is based on consensus when it comes to the bible. If you want any "the bible says" argument to be worth a hill of beans, you can't claim that only one church's version of the bible needs to be taken seriously.
Why not? Because until there is just ONE version of the bible out there that Christians of all stripes can agree on, then any argument is simply arrogant posturing.Why not? Ecclesia has always logically and chronologically preceded Scriptura in Christianity.
Why not? Because until there is just ONE version of the bible out there that Christians of all stripes can agree on, then any argument is simply arrogant posturing.
Non-sequitur. The Church existed before the Bible.
Non-sequitur. This isn't about "The Church," it's about how Christianity builds its arguments today from what the bible says, and yet they can't agree on what the bible says.
Sorry, there is NOTHING you can say to alter that fundamental, undeniable, wholly accurate fact.