got ya.

It it a bit of a pitch to say, well all the names of the books could be wrong and not written by who are purported to write it, BUT everything else is perfectly the word of God.

The authorship question is a small piece, yes, but it is a part of a larger picture that shows the books of the New Testament were molded together in ways that fit ideals of those in power.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

It it a bit of a pitch to say, well all the names of the books could be wrong and not written by who are purported to write it, BUT everything else is perfectly the word of God.

The authorship question is a small piece, yes, but it is a part of a larger picture that shows the books of the New Testament were molded together in ways that fit ideals of those in power.

---

Mark doesn't say, "I wrote this book". IF he did, and IF he wasn't the author then obviously that would be a major problem and cast doubt on everything written in it. You just added something that is extra-biblical to the argument.

I didn't say that it says "I am Mark". But in every version of the Bible today it is called the "Book of Mark". Now in a book that is the Word of God and passed down through the generations through the invisible hands of God who has guided every aspect so that it is THE word of God. Why would He allow it to be labeled universally incorrectly?

It has always interested me that 90% of believers believe the same things about "inerrancy" but will still argue about what that term even means.

So miraculous that there are countless amounts of sects of Christians who vary in beliefs of VERY doctrinal issues.

You are the one that seems perturbed that I am simply saying that there is not enough convincing evidence to say that Mark indeed wrote the Book of Mark word for word.

I am not saying that if Mark didn't write the Book of Mark then Jesus can't be the son of God.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

So miraculous that there are countless amounts of sects of Christians who vary in beliefs of VERY doctrinal issues.

You are the one that seems perturbed that I am simply saying that there is not enough convincing evidence to say that Mark indeed wrote the Book of Mark word for word.

I am not saying that if Mark didn't write the Book of Mark then Jesus can't be the son of God.

---

Hate to break it to you this way, but sin has corrupted everything (including the people in the church and led to division) I think all Christians and eating food, but some are just eating better than others with what they are being fed.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

So miraculous that there are countless amounts of sects of Christians who vary in beliefs of VERY doctrinal issues.

You are the one that seems perturbed that I am simply saying that there is not enough convincing evidence to say that Mark indeed wrote the Book of Mark word for word.

I am not saying that if Mark didn't write the Book of Mark then Jesus can't be the son of God.

---

You know people say they disagree on stuff but it is fascinating how in real life believers generally believe and act the same way. They are all members of the Body of Christ.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

So miraculous that there are countless amounts of sects of Christians who vary in beliefs of VERY doctrinal issues.

You are the one that seems perturbed that I am simply saying that there is not enough convincing evidence to say that Mark indeed wrote the Book of Mark word for word.

I am not saying that if Mark didn't write the Book of Mark then Jesus can't be the son of God.

---

Let's take baptism for example...

Time to start a Christian fight. The Anabaptist probably had good reason to desire "believer baptism", because baptism had become nothing more than getting wet at the hands of a fire hose. I can see how it could make sense to someone that they must first come to faith and then be baptized also. But, as a Lutheran I think they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know that the Baptist church is still preaching the redemptive message of Christ crucified. How does this "doctrinal difference" condemn someone?

(they are just sitting at the kiddie table, while I'm drinking wine with the grownups)...

Why do we have four different gospels written by four different people?

Why dont we have one Gospel according to Jesus,

Or was Jesus if he existed illiterate.

This is something that has bothered me for a long time, if Jesus was the truth, he made it very confusing and foggy by not clearly stating his beliefs

Too many contradictions in the gospels, even geography problems indicating the writers didnt even know the local areas.

Poke_the_Bear said:

---

Why do we have four different gospels written by four different people?

Why dont we have one Gospel according to Jesus,

Or was Jesus if he existed illiterate.

This is something that has bothered me for a long time, if Jesus was the truth, he made it very confusing and foggy by not clearly stating his beliefs

Too many contradictions in the gospels, even geography problems indicating the writers didnt even know the local areas.

---

This is such a loaded pile. I think the correct flag is "flame post with nothing meaningful"

Must have hit a nerve

dermdoc said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

So miraculous that there are countless amounts of sects of Christians who vary in beliefs of VERY doctrinal issues.

You are the one that seems perturbed that I am simply saying that there is not enough convincing evidence to say that Mark indeed wrote the Book of Mark word for word.

I am not saying that if Mark didn't write the Book of Mark then Jesus can't be the son of God.

---

You know people say they disagree on stuff but it is fascinating how in real life believers generally believe and act the same way. They are all members of the Body of Christ.

---

I have friends and acquaintances that are Mormon, 7th Day, CoC, Southern Baptists, and Calvinists (to name a few) who all think each other will probably go to hell, but hey, people are pretty good at not talking about that part of their beliefs around others.

I have had debates for hours on end with Southern Baptists who 100% do not believe it is possible to go to heaven if you were not baptized regardless of your belief. And they know scripture like the back of their hand.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I have had debates for hours on end with Southern Baptists who 100% do not believe it is possible to go to heaven if you were not baptized regardless of your belief. And they know scripture like the back of their hand.

---

.They can debate it if they want.

Poke_the_Bear said:

---

Must have hit a nerve

---

HAHA, your post was pretty week and that's saying something for this site.

Psst Mark wasn't one of the Twelve.

I'm always amused by the idea that the Church at some point decided to attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as opposed to say Jesus.

At least Matthew and John were disciples, even though Matthew was a tax collector (basically a government-employed thief and extortionist) and John was a fisherman (in "bless your heart" category of Jewish professions). Then you have Mark, Peter's secretary who wasn't one of the Twelve but at least was a bishop and founded churches. Then we get to Luke, Paul's personal doctor and the only Gentile author in either testament (except maybe Job). Not only did Luke not witness any of Christ's teachings or miracles, his friend Saul was either not present or an antagonist while Jesus lived.

If I were trying to fake an All-Star lineup my top 4 would definitely be Jesus, Mary, Peter, and James.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I have had debates for hours on end with Southern Baptists who 100% do not believe it is possible to go to heaven if you were not baptized regardless of your belief. And they know scripture like the back of their hand.

---

Any person who believes he is certain of the eternal destination of anyone else is fooling himself and is entirely off the subject of Christianity.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Name one

---

Ehrman believes that earthly pain and suffering is evidence that God doesn't exist and that moral absolutes don't exist. It's quite the conundrum and beyond laughable. He's a fraud to put it mildly and his books are not worthy of a serious discussion imho. But those with itchy ears, let them hear.

aggiedad20 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Name one

---

Ehrman believes that earthly pain and suffering is evidence that God doesn't exist and that moral absolutes don't exist. It's quite the conundrum and beyond laughable. He's a fraud to put it mildly and his books are not worthy of a serious discussion imho. But those with itchy ears, let them hear.

---

Let me guess that you are a Calvinist?

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I have had debates for hours on end with Southern Baptists who 100% do not believe it is possible to go to heaven if you were not baptized regardless of your belief. And they know scripture like the back of their hand.

---

Since when do the baptist believe baptism is necessary for salvation? WOW news to me lol

aggiedad20 said:

---

Texaggie7nine said:

---

I have had debates for hours on end with Southern Baptists who 100% do not believe it is possible to go to heaven if you were not baptized regardless of your belief. And they know scripture like the back of their hand.

---

Since when do the baptist believe baptism is necessary for salvation? WOW news to me lol

---

Umm, where do you think the term Baptist came from?

aggiedad20 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Name one

---

Ehrman believes that earthly pain and suffering is evidence that God doesn't exist and that moral absolutes don't exist. It's quite the conundrum and beyond laughable. He's a fraud to put it mildly and his books are not worthy of a serious discussion imho. But those with itchy ears, let them hear.

---

That's not one. The problem of evil is very old and not one with any clear answers with people mostly choosing what they prefer to think, and moral absolutes have nothing to do with NT scholarship. So name one way in which he's been discredited as a scholar...

Baptist as a whole believe only SAVED individuals are candidates for immersion, an outward sign of inward change, unless something has changed in the last 50 years?

Ok. He's a scholar and a fraud.

Aggrad08 said:

---

aggiedad20 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Name one

---

Ehrman believes that earthly pain and suffering is evidence that God doesn't exist and that moral absolutes don't exist. It's quite the conundrum and beyond laughable. He's a fraud to put it mildly and his books are not worthy of a serious discussion imho. But those with itchy ears, let them hear.

---

That's not one. The problem of evil is very old and not one with any clear answers with people mostly choosing what they prefer to think, and moral absolutes have nothing to do with NT scholarship. So name one way in which he's been discredited as a scholar...

---

I personally do not feel he has been discredited as a scholar. I think he has been shown to have a bias. Just like the Christian biased authors do. The question is do you admit he is biased like I will admit my side is biased?

aggiedad20 said:

---

Baptist as a whole believe only SAVED individuals are candidates for immersion, an outward sign of inward change, unless something has changed in the last 50 years?

---

Raised and baptized Baptist and this is not what Baptist's believe from my experience.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one from a previous thread who argued against baptism by referencing the thief on the Cross? And now you're arguing baptism is essential for salvation? If so, I'm very confused.

If that wasn't you, my apologies...

dermdoc said:

---

aggiedad20 said:

---

Baptist as a whole believe only SAVED individuals are candidates for immersion, an outward sign of inward change, unless something has changed in the last 50 years?

---

Raised and baptized Baptist and this is not what Baptist's believe from my experience.

---

You're kidding, right? Lol