A challenge to Atheists

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by garbonzo, Mar 12, 2011.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    That was done pages ago.

    You made the claim (at least twice). Support it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Now this one I will jump back in the thread for.

    Can you find me something anywhere that states the same thing but is from an unbiased, non-religious source?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    OK, that appears to be correct, but they did decide on some major issues of orthodoxy, thus excluding popular acceptance of certain gospels to the contrary.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Sorry, I confused post #120 to #112, which is actually a perfect example of how 1 misunderstanding can ruin a whole conversation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Say what?
     
  9. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Quitcherbitchen. You know I love you baby!

    :roflmao:
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    :thankyou:
     
  11. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ;-)

    Good times, great oldies. Oldies 103.3.... oh wait... um..... wrong medium....................where am I? :shrug:
     
  12. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    For all we know, that could have been taken out of context. It doesn't plainly say that Christ came to earth at that time. That would go against everything the JWs believe. I can't find anything official of this source and could be something just made up as the only sites that have this info are, as JWs would say, "Apostate" sites.
     
  13. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Your in my nightmare. Welcome!
     
  14. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Gday,

    Well, I cited you the actual original document that the Council of Nicea produced. Did you bother to read it ?

    Or do you somehow think the CoN lied about their OWN official decisions?


    How about this non-religious un-biased site on the formation of the NT canon :
    http://www.ntcanon.org/
    Note that the CoN is NOT mentioned.

    Or how about a quick check of non-religious un-biased Wiki on the CoN :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
    Note that the NT canon is NOT mentioned.

    Or how about a quick check of non-religious un-biased Wiki on the NT canon :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon
    Note that the CoN is NOT mentioned.

    What about non-religious un-biased Encyclopedia Britannica on the CoN :
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413817/Council-of-Nicaea
    Note that the NT canon is NOT mentioned.

    Or how about this non-religious un-biased essay by a historian Richard Carrier :
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

    What about this essay by non-religious un-biased Roger Pearse who specifically discusses this false claim here :
    http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html


    The facts are crystal clear - the Council of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible. Every historical source says the same thing.

    Anyone who checks the facts will find it is clear and certain - the CoN did NOT chose the books of the NT at all. But for some reason it's become a popular online meme, endlessly repeated over and over, again and agaim, ad nauseum, over and over, again and again, on and on....


    K.
     
  15. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    No, they plainly said Jesus was returning in 1914. They were wrong and now they're trying to save face.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Huh?
    And you're saying that because... it ruins your argument about 1914 being the first prediction?
    Regardless of how literally it was meant it DOES show that 1914 was NOT the first date to be predicted by the JWs.
     
  17. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    I can imagine that defending your faith against impossible odds and legitimate logic is really a nightmare.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Just remember, 1+1 ≠ 5
     
  18. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Yes, but I don't put it past theists to fabricate sources to prove a point. But I will say that I am impress with your findings. I guess you really do learn something every day.
     
  19. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Gday,

    Thank you for that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It increases my respect for you - most posters in places like this cannot admit error.


    Oh yes, their decisions were important and certainly indirectly influenced which books came to be accepted. (At that time it appears Hermas and Barnabas were still in the canon. But by late 3rd C. it was settled.)


    Of course, what THEY considered important issues were a little odd to modern ears -

    Here is the FIRST Canon in their list :
    "If you chopped you own balls off - you can't be a priest; but if a Greek doctor did it - then that's OK."(Paraphrased a bit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    K.
     
  20. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    No one has Watchtowers back that far except for a few collectors and the Society themselves

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I can't find an official source for Watchtower, Oct 1879, p. 4. Your not going to take someone's word for it, are you?
     
  21. Kapyong Writer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Gday,

    Thanks for that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Actually yes - church history is full of fabrications, like the Donation of Constantine - in which emperor Constantine declared the Pope to be superior to him and indeed all rulers, and to even hold the official divine right to crown all kings !

    This fantastic document turned up in the 8th C. IIRC, when the Pope was struggling for political power. Hallelujah !


    K.
     
  22. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You didn't know about the non-canonical gospels?
     
  23. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Worlds;_or_Plan_of_Redemption

    This.

    So your first citation has been blown out of the barrel, and if they had the belief of 1914 in 1877, I have little reason to believe that they would change it suddenly in 1979 and then change it back in 1890!
     

Share This Page