How good are your reasoning skills? ... and historical background on the conception of the NT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grndslm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grndslm said:
I haven’t dismissed anything yet. You’d be very hard-pressed to find someone with a mind more open than mine.
Click to expand...
I’ll take your word for that.

It’s just that you did sound a bit dismissive of folklore in that other thread.

You’re not dismissive of folklore?
 
grndslm said:
Now I need to research more about the Council of Nicaea, but at quick glance… it is interesting that the focus of the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus. And not every bishop back then believed Jesus to be anymore the son of God than the rest of God’s children… Who called that meeting together? Emperor Constantine. Who condemned Arius’ doctrine? Constantine, again! Who exiled those who refused to accept the Nicene Creed, or even condemn those who did not accept the Nicene Creed? You got it – Constantine!! Who ordered the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned? You’re on a roll – Constantine!!
Click to expand...
Sources? Were these sources at the Council of Nicea? What books did you read that tell you this?

I’m not necessarily doubting you, I’m just wanting you to maintain the same critical analysis that you demand for Scripture on these details about Constantine. Were they written by secular sources?
 
PRmerger said:
Ah, therein lies the rub, grndslm!! *Somebody *had to lie. Someone had to create this great big hoax, all the while keeping those who really knew the truth–that Jesus actually died and was buried–silent.

That’s really more incredulous than believing God became Man!
Click to expand...
It’s not too terribly hard a concept to grasp. Magicians have the slight of hand. A determined group of followers could take on a group of soldiers, who might not want to admit they were defeated by some civilians with rocks…

Or perhaps even the works of Paul were created by someone working for an emperor who wanted people to be more subservient? Ya got me. That’s why I’m trying to brush up on my Christian history. A chronological plot of events would help me understand things a bit more. And if bishops were already doubting the divinity of Jesus in the early 300s… I’m not sure why I’d want to focus on anything after that point.
PRmerger said:
There was a challenge in the nineteenth century by a Christian, Julius Muller, to produce *a single example *anywhere in history of a myth or great legend arising around a historical figure that was generally believed within 30 years of the figure’s death. To my knowledge, no one has been able to answer him.
Click to expand...
If the U.S. Government can take down THREE skyscrapers in one day (Building 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft, yet every side fell uniformly at free fall speed in a vacuum)… and the whole world can believe that there were foreign terrorists in control of every aspect of that plot, including telling NORAD to stand down… then I think I can rest my case on this subject. If the myth is repeated long enough, then it becomes truth… and soon enough nobody would know the difference.

“If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough the people will believe it.”

Knowing that Constantine had more to do with the foundation of the Catholic Church than any other person (possibly including Jesus :cool:), I’m starting to lean my belief toward the government compiling a lot of these works in order to control people somehow. But that’s still a pretty wild guess.
PRmerger said:
It’s deep inside you that we’re made in the image of God? Really? That idea just came to you? Forgive me if I sound skeptical. 🤷
Click to expand...
My bad. I was basically just saying that I believe God would not rely on so many hearsay stories written down and becoming LAW with the aid of an emperor and assistance in the form of helping to “regulate” the Church.
 
grndslm said:
Because none of those historical figures are backed by a cult of followers claiming that said historical figure is the only begotten son of God.
Click to expand...
I see.

So you believe, on faith, that the Peloponneisan Wars occurred?

It seems to me that you have this backward. You ought to demand more historical rigor for historical facts, than you do for a religion that claims it’s based on faith and reason. 🤷
 
grndslm said:
“If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough the people will believe it.”
Click to expand...
*But, you still haven’t answered the question as to why. * Why would someone lie about this? What benefit did they get for promoting this hoax, except a horrible, bloody, gruesome death?
 
PRmerger said:
It’s just that you did sound a bit dismissive of folklore in that other thread.

You’re not dismissive of folklore?
Click to expand...
Just depends, I guess. First-hand accounts are traditionally more accurate than Fourth-hand accounts, tho… aren’t they?
PRmerger said:
Source for this, please?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Deedat#Deedat_and_the_Pope
PRmerger said:
Sources? Were these sources at the Council of Nicea? What books did you read that tell you this?

I’m not necessarily doubting you, I’m just wanting you to maintain the same critical analysis that you demand for Scripture on these details about Constantine. Were they written by secular sources?
Click to expand...
This source would be the same as my other source – my professor, Mr. Wiki Pedia. 😃

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#The_First_Council_of_Nicaea_and_its_aftermath
 
grndslm said:
If the U.S. Government can take down THREE skyscrapers in one day (Building 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft, yet every side fell uniformly at free fall speed in a vacuum)… and the whole world can believe that there were foreign terrorists in control of every aspect of that plot, including telling NORAD to stand down… then I think I can rest my case on this subject. If the myth is repeated long enough, then it becomes truth… and soon enough nobody would know the difference.
Click to expand...
Wow.

I am out of here.

I thought I was having a discourse with a different type of thinker.

sigh!
 
PRmerger said:
I see.

So you believe, on faith, that the Peloponneisan Wars occurred?

It seems to me that you have this backward. You ought to demand more historical rigor for historical facts, than you do for a religion that claims it’s based on faith and reason. 🤷
Click to expand...
Really… I don’t make claims about historical figures, because I have no care either way. It’s in the past, then it’s done. I never paid attention in history class, and I only care to spend hours studying certain things that find appealing. For example… Jesus and the Founding Fathers of the US of A. Other than these guys, any “historical” figures I study are from no later than the 20th Century. So I’ve made no beliefs about historical figures that you might have made decisions on. The Peloponnesian War makes no difference to me, tho it probably will before I die… and possibly even before this thread is over. 😉
PRmerger said:
*But, you still haven’t answered the question as to why. * Why would someone lie about this? What benefit did they get for promoting this hoax, except a horrible, bloody, gruesome death?
Click to expand...
I could give you a thousand theories, but they aren’t founded in reality. They’re merely hypothetical guesses. An emperor wanted more control of the people, so he solidified the Church’s ideas of the divinity of Jesus by exiling those who disagreed with that. Even throw away those who won’t condemn those that you exile and then pretty soon 100% of the Catholics will believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Or how about Jesus started off trying to get the pharisees to lax their alcoholic beverage laws, and it just turned into something very ungraceful.

I really don’t know, and I don’t see how uneducated guesses is gonna help prove your point.
 
PRmerger said:
Wow.

I am out of here.

I thought I was having a discourse with a different type of thinker.

sigh!
Click to expand...
If you knew what I know about 9/11, you’d know that there were bombs planted in buildings. You’d know that it’s not PHYSICALLY possible thru NATURAL LAW for a building to collapse in such a uniform manner AT FREE FALL SPEED IN A VACUUM, as Building 7 did, if only one side had any damage.

Watch the videos. Building 7 was NOT hit by a jet liner. Building 7 was not one of the Twin Towers. And perhaps you could watch the video recording of the Twin Towers. When the audio is sped up to account for the miles of difference between the camera and buildings… you actually hear the explosions going off right before the Towers begin falling. People say that there were no explosions, but there were.

How about the video of Bin Laden that the government released? It was NOT him.
If you can’t tell that that’s not Bin Laden… then we know who the one not thinking is. If you can’t realize why the government would release such a fraudulent video… again, we know who the one not thinking is.

If you want more videos that point out the blatant holes in the Osama & Al Qaeda theory, I can give you plenty. But I’ve already formulated my decision on that and am not coming back to it here… at least not until you point me to a thread that’s already been made in the off-topic section. 😃

9/11 is a great example about how getting away from the source destroys the authenticity of the REAL story. Even tho three towers fell on 9/11/01 (not even a decade ago), the news media only talks about two!! Why don’t they mention Building 7? Why did the National Institute of Science and Technology lie TWICE about Building 7 not falling at free fall speed… and THEN finally retract this error just a few months ago??

Again… the very fact that people don’t even know Building 7 fell on 9/11, yet it wasn’t even hit by a plane is very similar to how Christians believe the authors of the gospels were the same Apostles that actually followed Jesus around. The truth is hidden from people all the time. The source is blurred and then you have no choice but to believe what you’ve been spoonfed.
 
AHEM…

And here’s the video I was talking about that shows you the unedited version of the Towers falling and then shows you the version with the audio actually in sync with what those standing right next to the Towers heard as it actually happened…
But I won’t mention that anymore. Just don’t want people to think that “9/11 Truthers” are crazy. Tell me that there weren’t eerily similar explosions when all three of those buildings collapsed. Tell me that that WAS Bin Laden in the video. Tell me that it’s normal for a building to collapse onto itself, just like a controlled demolition, after only one side of the building gets slight damage.
 
grndslm said:
AHEM…

And here’s the video I was talking about that shows you the unedited version of the Towers falling and then shows you the version with the audio actually in sync with what those standing right next to the Towers heard as it actually happened…
But I won’t mention that anymore. Just don’t want people to think that “9/11 Truthers” are crazy. Tell me that there weren’t eerily similar explosions when all three of those buildings collapsed. Tell me that that WAS Bin Laden in the video. Tell me that it’s normal for a building to collapse onto itself, just like a controlled demolition, after only one side of the building gets slight damage.
Click to expand...
grndslm said:
…If the U.S. Government can take down THREE skyscrapers in one day (Building 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft, yet every side fell uniformly at free fall speed in a vacuum)… and the whole world can believe that there were foreign terrorists in control of every aspect of that plot, including telling NORAD to stand down… then I think I can rest my case on this subject. If the myth is repeated long enough, then it becomes truth… and soon enough nobody would know the difference…
Click to expand...
Texas_Roofer said:
Mr Deedat has pasted away he has been gone a few years. I think we have to consider the possiblity our words are dismissed by the OP before they are written. If that is correct the whole thread is a waste of time
Click to expand...
And there you go
 
PRmerger said:
Then, IMO, your reading it would be a waste of time. The Bible is not a book of morals.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

A careful reading of the Bible, particularly the New Testament is exactly what grndslm needs.

grndslm-

I recommend you begin with the Gospel of Luke followed immediately by the book of Acts. This will give you a broad overview of the life of Christ and the early NT era. Luke was a Greek, an educated man and a physician, and his mentor, Paul, was one of the greatest students of the most revered Rabbi Gamaliel.

Reading the works of Luke, you will get the thinking of the best of the best.

Why not take a break from this thead and forum, and knock that out over the next few days? We can get back together when you have questions about your reading.

Sound like a plan?🤷
 
grndslm said:
Tell me that it’s normal for a building to collapse onto itself, just like a controlled demolition, after only one side of the building gets slight damage.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to respond to any more of this, but I do want to give you some food for thought:

The explosive was liquid jet fuel. When the planes hit on ONE side of the buildings, the liquid poured out of the ruptured fuel tanks running all over the place. Ignition was obviously instantaneous and the burning fuel was spread throughout the entire area impacted.

Again, the nature of the combustible material, liquid as opposed to solid explosives, explains the point which you questioned above.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I’m not going to respond to any more of this, but I do want to give you some food for thought:

The explosive was liquid jet fuel. When the planes hit on ONE side of the buildings, the liquid poured out of the ruptured fuel tanks running all over the place. Ignition was obviously instantaneous and the burning fuel was spread throughout the entire area impacted.

Again, the nature of the combustible material, liquid as opposed to solid explosives, explains the point which you questioned above.
Click to expand...
ignited jetfule is no where hot enough to cause the steel in the concrete to melt for the building to collapse unto itself like that. Foreign engineers have stated that fact many times
 
And there you go the key to the Immaculate Conception is the heat on damaged steel in New York
 
Randy_Carson said:
grndslm-

I recommend you begin with the Gospel of Luke followed immediately by the book of Acts. This will give you a broad overview of the life of Christ and the early NT era. Luke was a Greek, an educated man and a physician, and his mentor, Paul, was one of the greatest students of the most revered Rabbi Gamaliel.

Reading the works of Luke, you will get the thinking of the best of the best.
Click to expand...
I think I’ll read the works that are believed by “modern thought” to have actually been written by Apostle Paul.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of_the_Bible

I will read those, and those that were “perhaps” written by Paul, and those possibly written or finished by his students. That is the source. You’ll realize [if you watch my videos below] that everybody has their own interpretation of what happened on 9/11. It really is a great example about how a lie/myth could be perpetuated by just dirtying the well with more untruths and irrelevant theories. Basically, if you watch the three Eyewitness videos I linked to earlier, you actually hear the explosions and see the buildings collapse. Everything you need to know about the collapse is in the Eyewitness videos. Then first-hand accounts with Larry Silverstein himself show that he told the fire department to pull Building 7. Forget the hearsay… I saw him say it HIMSELF. But yea… after I read Paul’s work, I’ll consider reading the works of the others at a later time, but I really don’t see the point.
Randy_Carson said:
Why not take a break from this thead and forum, and knock that out over the next few days? We can get back together when you have questions about your reading.

Sound like a plan?🤷
Click to expand...
Heh… I’ll get to reading it soon enough.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I’m not going to respond to any more of this, but I do want to give you some food for thought:

The explosive was liquid jet fuel. When the planes hit on ONE side of the buildings, the liquid poured out of the ruptured fuel tanks running all over the place. Ignition was obviously instantaneous and the burning fuel was spread throughout the entire area impacted.

Again, the nature of the combustible material, liquid as opposed to solid explosives, explains the point which you questioned above.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the 3 Eyewitness videos above? Because the liquid jet fuel would have burned INSTANTANEOUSLY, just like you said. The strange thing is that these explosions don’t happen until an hour or so AFTER the Towers were hit. I’m thinking that your theory is that most of the jet fuel was still in side the tank, right? Well… even if that were the case and it took that fire an hour to reach the tank to cause those explosions… (A) the tank would have made one explosion… not gradually increasing explosions, and (B) then that theory proves that the fire couldn’t have gotten hot enough to weaken the support structure.

Watch the second of those 3 “Eyewitness” videos, starting at minute 14:00 (I’ll make it easy for you… here… minute 14:00), and you’ll start to see the ANALYSIS of the explosions, and then they sync the audio with the video as heard and seen by those standing at the foot of the towers. Do you guys think that the firefighters, janitor, etc. were talking about the explosions of the planes hitting the Towers?!? No, they were talking about the explosions IMMEDIATELY before the Towers fell.

I guess I am gonna have to retract my comment about not continuing this conversation here. Simply watch these videos and learn something (None of these videos are rated less than 4.5 outta 5 stars)…
Soo… what does all this mean?? It means that Building 7 could not POSSIBLY DISINTEGRATE at FREE FALL SPEED if the cause of the “collapse” was due to a small fire and some fragments of rubble hitting it. Even the NIST admitted that the rubble did not cause the collapse. Their official explanation is fire alone. They said TWICE that the building did not collapse at free fall speed after YEARS of analysis… yet they could not keep perpetuating THAT lie anymore thanks to the 9/11 Truthers, as seen in their new report. Thank God!

So if you want to say I’m not a “different kind of thinker”, perhaps you should try answering these questions first and tell me I haven’t put enough thought into 9/11. Then perhaps we could talk about Apostle Paul and the Q, which I consider to be the only true “eyewitness” account(s) of Jesus…

(1) What caused the building to “collapse” (read: disintegrate) in such a uniform effect at free fall speed?? If only one side of the building was damaged, wouldn’t it have tilted and fallen over on its side? If fire was the true cause of the “collapse”, wouldn’t ANY of the beams have enough structural integrity to stop the “collapse” from moving at FREE FALL SPEED IN A VACUUM?!? Essentially… how did EVERY load bearing member fail at the EXACT same moment???

(2) Why would the government need to release fake videos of Bin Laden?

(3) Isn’t it peculiar that Larry Silverstein signed a new 99-year contract not even five months before 9/11 and then later admits to telling the fire chief to “pull it”?? (P.S. - Silverstein got $7.1 billion after only putting up $14 million of his own money. Just so ya know.)

(4) Why did the President place VP Dick Cheney in charge of “‘all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…’ , which] included all ‘training and planning’ which needed to be ‘seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive’ in order to ‘maximize effectiveness.’ This mandate created the Office of National Preparedness in FEMA, overseen by Dick Cheney.”???!?!???

Essentially… why was the VP given such a role ONLY FOUR MONTHS prior to 9/11?!? Why was he the first VP in America’s history with power to tell the head of NORAD what to do? Sure… it was just a coincidence that Cheney had control of this JUST when he could most effectively put radar blips on the FAA flight controllers’ screens. Right.
(5) After you see the first three Eyewitness videos linked to above, and you’ve heard the audio in sync with the visuals as seen by those at the foot of the Towers… don’t you think that the gradually increasing number & intensity of these explosions prove that fire alone did not take down these three buildings? Also, don’t you find it ironic that all three explosions happen as a helicopter is flying immediately overhead each of the buildings? I do.
 
P.S. - why is this in the “Non-Catholic Religions” section?

All of this has to do with how Catholics should know that Apostle Paul is the only first-hand account we have of Jesus. The 9/11 tangent was requested by someone else as an example of how a myth/lie could be believed in less than 30 years, right?

I didn’t want to talk about that. I want to talk about chronological history of authors of the New Testament… more specifically, Paul and his students. There should be no religion, nor any denomination of Christianity, that knows any more about Paul than Catholics. Right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top