Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Quark2005
Which of the dozens of Gospels that existed in circulation in the 2nd Century A.D. (before the final amalgamation of the modern Bible) do you consider to be part of this so-called "purist" form?

Let me guess...you're going to "educate" me as to the "actual" Bible and what "actually" happened, and how it is "actually" a disjointed conglomeration of text written by men, changed, played with, handed down, adulterated and that a group of people just "picked" out and put together for their own purposes to oppress people by controlling the text and thus the Bible we know today is nothing like the Bible which was written centuries ago, am I right?

OR

Are you seriously asking a question here which you do not know the answer to?

OR

Are you trying to lawyer me by asking a question to which you feel you have the "absolute" answer to which supports your view which, if I am correct, is to simply discredit the Bible altogether?

524 posted on 11/14/2005 3:07:27 PM PST by ICE-FLYER (God bless and keep the United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies ]


To: ICE-FLYER
Let me guess...you're going to "educate" me as to the "actual" Bible and what "actually" happened, and how it is "actually" a disjointed conglomeration of text written by men, changed, played with, handed down, adulterated and that a group of people just "picked" out and put together for their own purposes to oppress people by controlling the text and thus the Bible we know today is nothing like the Bible which was written centuries ago, am I right?

No. I actually think very highly of the Bible. But one cannot appreciate it unless you have an honest view of where it came from. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do know the Bible didn't reach a finished form until sometime around the 4th Century. Until then, there was no organized canon of the New Testament - the state of organized Scripture was quite chaotic.

Are you seriously asking a question here which you do not know the answer to?

I don't honestly know what you think about it, so I guess I could say yes.

Are you trying to lawyer me by asking a question to which you feel you have the "absolute" answer to which supports your view which, if I am correct, is to simply discredit the Bible altogether?

I don't think it's possible to "discredit" the Bible. It stands as a finished work of literature, history, moral guidance and it is what it is. I'm just pointing out that the Words were not spoken by God, put directly on paper, and preserved unequivocably in their original form without any controversy whatsoever. I am however, a little wary of people who are so eager to claim they fully understand this complex piece of outstanding literature, particularly the more esoteric parts that are laden with heavy symbolism.

526 posted on 11/14/2005 3:51:21 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson