Posted on 06/25/2005 12:30:52 PM PDT by Alusch
You failed the first test.
You should actually know at least a little bit of the posted subject matter before embarrassing yourself in front of God and FReepers alike.
God is forgiving, FReepers aren't so like minded.
Mene mene tekel upharsin and ZOT.
Is the canon controversial? No.
here http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html for the Old Testament
here http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html for the New Testament:
The idea of a "canon" is a cultural norm of the ancient Near East, not something the Jews just "made up".
There are some clear criteria that were used to determine what belonged in the canon.
Those who dispute this need to "make a case" for any book they want added in or taken out -- not just make a list as though this proves anything.
Ultimately, what is true is more important than what is "canonized".
The canonizers were qualified to determine what was or was not canonical.
See here. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/dumbdad2.html
'Supposed' copies of 'supposed' originals? So maybe there never were any originals? But if there were true, where did the first copy come from? Maybe these are all copies going back to the beginning of time ad infinitum. Of course, these are only 'supposed' copies. Maybe they are really originals, but the originals are only 'supposed', so maybe they are all copies. I give up. I suggest you work on this.
Adios you schmuck. And by the way Howard Dean? Next time you want to post on FR, try to be a little less obvious, eh?
Good bye.
The web site you've linked is well known for UFO conspiracy and lunatic fringe dabblings. It does provide a nice compendium or roundup of conspiracy theory and occult studies, however such a complement must also be framed in the context of recognizing the same authors also proffer opinions that Jesus Christ never existed or deny His status and existence.
I'm always amazed at how well studied some men can become and yet foolishly expose their true arrogance by their outlandish denials of Jesus Christ.
IMHO, there are far more doctrines of demons being promoted in the 1000s of web pages at cassiopeia than simple well educated truth. However, if one bumps into goings-on and plots which smell of occultic conspiracy, cassiopaeia isn't that bad of a site to refer for other circumstantial evidence and corroborating testimony of similar lunatic fringe occultists.
God is dead... alusch, alusch is DEAD... Moderator
Since I fired the first shot, in Post #1 -- as soon as this clymer raised his head above the slime -- shouldn't I be entitled to claim the whack....
Semper Fi
BTW, the Bible isn't a book per se. It is an anthology of some 66 books written over several Millenia. In another sense, it is a method by which God has communicated with man in written media over the millenia.
The arguments posed to denounce Scripture in the article merely reflect a lack of sincere veracity in the author. For this reason doubt is cast upon his credibility in the other more extensive studies presented at cassiopaeia.
"Alusch "
A Lush?
You sound like one.
That's a surprise. I would have guessed 666.
Yes, good shootin.
your name is idiocy.
Good post!
Thanks!
I never thought I would ever see a "Bible" zot, though.
This is a first for me. ;o)
Sounds like something Dan Rather was involved in.
So sorry if I didn't follow protocol. My apologies.
The first two chapter of Exodus don't really leave room for that interpretation if you take them at face value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.