• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Can one part of the Bible prove the historical veracity of another?

RGacky3 said:
No ... he didn't ... again, that passage isn't in the origional John.
Click to expand...

You forget there was a strong oral tradition also. It's entirely feasible he did in fact say it, so that it was added.
 
Logicman said:
Nice try. You forget there was a strong oral tradition also. It's entirely feasible he did in fact say it, so that it was added.
Click to expand...

1. It's not in any of the early manuscripts, meaning John didn't Write it, meaning it isn't inspired.
2. The earliest manuscript With it is in the late 4th or early 5th Century .... Oral traditions don't go that long especially if the traditions are being written Down.
3. Being added in the 4th Century isn't apostolic or inspired.
 
Originally Posted by Logicman
Nice try. You forget there was a strong oral tradition also. It's entirely feasible he did in fact say it, so that it was added.
Click to expand...

RGacky3 said:
1. It's not in any of the early manuscripts, meaning John didn't Write it, meaning it isn't inspired.
2. The earliest manuscript With it is in the late 4th or early 5th Century .... Oral traditions don't go that long especially if the traditions are being written Down.
3. Being added in the 4th Century isn't apostolic or inspired.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint, but oral traditions go back a long, long ways.

What's more, there's only two entities that we see in the New Testament who have formal approval to put people to death: God (Acts chapter 5), and government (Romans 13).
 
Logicman said:
Sorry to disappoint, but oral traditions go back a long, long ways.

What's more, there's only two entities that we see in the New Testament who have formal approval to put people to death: God (Acts chapter 5), and government (Romans 13).
Click to expand...

There is 0 evidence that it comes from an Oral tradition, and 0 evidence that it goes back to Jesus, there is also no evidence that oral traditions last that long AND DON'T GET WRITTEN DOWN (when all the other ones are being written Down).

Someone in the 4th Century changed what John wrote .... John didn't Write that, and you're quoting it as if it we're inspired.

Romans 13 doesn't say governments are allowed to put People to Death ..... Not anywhere there.
 
RGacky3 said:
There is 0 evidence that it comes from an Oral tradition, and 0 evidence that it goes back to Jesus, there is also no evidence that oral traditions last that long AND DON'T GET WRITTEN DOWN (when all the other ones are being written Down).

Someone in the 4th Century changed what John wrote .... John didn't Write that, and you're quoting it as if it we're inspired.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a change, but an addition, probably from oral tradition.

RGacky3 said:
Romans 13 doesn't say governments are allowed to put People to Death ..... Not anywhere there.
Click to expand...

It says government is an agent of wrath on the evildoer. So wise up.
 
Logicman said:
It wasn't a change, but an addition, probably from oral tradition.

It says government is an agent of wrath on the evildoer. So wise up.
Click to expand...

1. It was a change, they added something in John that John didn't write .... Also it wasn't probably from oral tradition, it was probably just made up later, or a later oral tradition, had that story been historical it wouldn't have taken till the 4th/5th century to show up.

Romans 13 has to be taken along with scriptures saying that our struggle is against the governments and authorities, and all the scriptures condemning governments of man. Also saying it's an agent of wrath on the evil dower doesn't mean it's talking about capital punishment, that's YOUR assumption. I don't know why you're bringing up Romans 13 .... Other than the fact that you got caught trying to appeal to an uninspired text.

This is what happens when you try and argue from scripture without doing any scriptural studying.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. It was a change, they added something in John that John didn't write .... Also it wasn't probably from oral tradition, it was probably just made up later, or a later oral tradition, had that story been historical it wouldn't have taken till the 4th/5th century to show up.

Romans 13 has to be taken along with scriptures saying that our struggle is against the governments and authorities, and all the scriptures condemning governments of man. Also saying it's an agent of wrath on the evil dower doesn't mean it's talking about capital punishment, that's YOUR assumption. I don't know why you're bringing up Romans 13 .... Other than the fact that you got caught trying to appeal to an uninspired text.

This is what happens when you try and argue from scripture without doing any scriptural studying.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

Please see my last post on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom