How Jesus could be left alone?

[Lacewing]

I stated... /... then i stated... /...i also stated

Statements... that's ALL they are... which you state with arrogance and stupidity that get in the way of discussing anything with you.

[gaffo]

I stated... /... then i stated... /...i also stated

Statements... that's ALL they are... which you state with arrogance and stupidity that get in the way of discussing anything with you.

So if i may translate,

you choose vitriol over discussion about the Gospel of Mark.

sad - we have enough of twitter/bots/trolls.

sad you choose them over discussion.

but if so - see ya. we have nothing to discuss.

[bahman]

I have thought of this a fair ol' bit with my gnosis.

Seems apparent to me that the system of 'God' has quite a TEST in store for man that quest_ion IT.

TEST_AMEN_t.

God will take you to the ultimate extreme B4 it relinquishes U from its test....from experience.

So.

Y did Christ (who yes, I believe is God incarnate) state this? C above.

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

make it simpler, he believes Jesus is God (as the Gospel of John does) - and only that gospel.

not mark not matt not luke nor sauls letters.

----get on the right mental field (i.e. understand his perspective) before you debate Sir.

Do Catholic believe in other books rather than book of John?

[gaffo]

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

make it simpler, he believes Jesus is God (as the Gospel of John does) - and only that gospel.

not mark not matt not luke nor sauls letters.

----get on the right mental field (i.e. understand his perspective) before you debate Sir.

Do Catholic believe in other books rather than book of John?

of course they do - as to Prots (they both beleive in the same Bible and Sola Scritpure (one whole thing) (ya Catholic also affirm the other 1/20th via the Apocripha - but not relivent here in this discussion). Christians distort mark/matt/luke and force them into John's theology. they ignore any and all differences that conflict with John, and accept any parts of the Synopics that happen to agree with John, and then take the latter (well so and so agrees with John - (if only 1/5 of the time - lol), so John is affirmed and correct! thus Christianity = John.

not Mark/Luke/Matt --or even Saul for that matter, Saull never affirms the prexistance of Christ and so denies Gospel of John's Preamble.

i howere do not, me being an Athiest, am fine with reading each of the 430? worth of the NT - and seeing how they are not a unified theology, but many theologies - depending upon the time/place/theme the author when writing thought was important.

Christians - prots or caths have a problem with my stating the obious - that the author of Mark did not think Christ was God EVER, and not the son of before age 30. while John said he was always not just the Son of God but God himself and not only that but was never born! "read the premble of John" - in the begining.................

so ya.

your point?

[bahman]

make it simpler, he believes Jesus is God (as the Gospel of John does) - and only that gospel.

not mark not matt not luke nor sauls letters.

----get on the right mental field (i.e. understand his perspective) before you debate Sir.

Do Catholic believe in other books rather than book of John?

of course they do - as to Prots (they both beleive in the same Bible and Sola Scritpure (one whole thing) (ya Catholic also affirm the other 1/20th via the Apocripha - but not relivent here in this discussion).

i howere do not, me being an Athiest, am fine with reading each of the 430? worth of the NT - and seeing how they are not a unified theology, but many theologies - depending upon the time/place/theme the author when writing thought was important.

Christians - prots or caths have a problem with my stating the obious - that the author of Mark did not think Christ was God EVER, and not the son of before age 30. while John said he was always not just the Son of God but God himself and not only that but was never born! "read the premble of John" - in the begining.................

so ya.

your point?

My point is that how they could believe in theologies that conflict with each other?

[gaffo]

Do Catholic believe in other books rather than book of John?

of course they do - as to Prots (they both beleive in the same Bible and Sola Scritpure (one whole thing) (ya Catholic also affirm the other 1/20th via the Apocripha - but not relivent here in this discussion).

i howere do not, me being an Athiest, am fine with reading each of the 430? worth of the NT - and seeing how they are not a unified theology, but many theologies - depending upon the time/place/theme the author when writing thought was important.

Christians - prots or caths have a problem with my stating the obious - that the author of Mark did not think Christ was God EVER, and not the son of before age 30. while John said he was always not just the Son of God but God himself and not only that but was never born! "read the premble of John" - in the begining.................

so ya.

your point?

My point is that how they could believe in theologies that conflict with each other?

they just pict John, note where the others in places agree with John, and ignore the rest!!!!!!!

noting new here, we all do that! - i bet all religions do that. I know the Jews fixate on the Torah and ignore the Minor Prophets (both in the OT - and the minor Prophet's works are supporior morally) - but the torah affirms the concept of a jewish homeland, while the minor prophets claim that is not a garentee, but a responsiblilty and will be taken away from you if your fuck up.

so Jews don't like to hear what Amos had to say, so just ignore it and champion the Torah.

and so on.

[gaffo]

another example - Muslims.

i've not read the Koran since the 80's and only then 1/3 (it was very redundent - basically The APocolypse in 600 pages instead of the usual 40) of it (full disclosure - so no expert).

the oldest parts of the Koran champion understanding and peace and reads nice, the latter parts are mean.

Islamic tradition is that the older parts when they conflict with the newer parts are to be ignored.

----- i do not think the above is actually written in the Koran (if there are any Muslims on this forum, and you think i am wrong i welcome the "Sura" where it is stated in that Holy Book "early parts that conflict with newer parts are to be ignored").

and yes Wahhbists, being "hard core" do just that! no quote to affirm it, they just do it! to serve their agenda.

as i would assume Sufi do (Uniterian-type Muslims) - in the opposite - if there were such a quote, they would ignore it.

[attofishpi]

So you believe that God was testing Himself.

make it simpler, he believes Jesus is God (as the Gospel of John does) - and only that gospel.

not mark not matt not luke nor sauls letters.

----get on the right mental field (i.e. understand his perspective) before you debate Sir.

Do Catholic believe in other books rather than book of John?

Er, yes. I believe in bits and bobs of ALL of it, and disbelieve bits and bobs of ALL of it.

[attofishpi]

I am suggesting that Christ stated that, WITHOUT actually believing he had been forsaken.

so: he was lyin'

Yep. ( but not literally - he was dangling)

[henry quirk]

I am suggesting that Christ stated that, WITHOUT actually believing he had been forsaken.

so: he was lyin'

Yep. ( but not literally - he was dangling)

now, that there is funny...

[Lacewing]

People pick and choose what to believe, based on what suits them...
then they call that the correct interpretation or "the truth" amongst all others.

It seems so absurd, but so many are completely serious about it.

[attofishpi]

People pick and choose what to believe, based on what suits them...
then they call that the correct interpretation or "the truth" amongst all others.

It seems so absurd, but so many are completely serious about it.

Crazy ain't it? There R bimbos out there that think esoteric writing should be taken as binary - as in - believe it all or discard it all.

[Lacewing]

People pick and choose what to believe, based on what suits them...
then they call that the correct interpretation or "the truth" amongst all others.

It seems so absurd, but so many are completely serious about it.

Crazy ain't it? There R bimbos out there that think esoteric writing should be taken as binary - as in - believe it all or discard it all.

Are there? Or are you, as usual, creating an interpretation that suits you rather than acknowledging broader truth?

[attofishpi]

People pick and choose what to believe, based on what suits them...
then they call that the correct interpretation or "the truth" amongst all others.

It seems so absurd, but so many are completely serious about it.

Crazy ain't it? There R bimbos out there that think esoteric writing should be taken as binary - as in - believe it all or discard it all.

Are there? Or are you, as usual, creating an interpretation that suits you rather than acknowledging broader truth?

...and you must have the broadest shoulders among us, since you see that we should either believe it all or dismiss it all.

Finally, here is your soapbox LW - tell me, what IS this broader truth?

[attofishpi]

...ah shit. I forgot what makes bimbos think....here:---