16 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusThat's not the atheist's stance Darf. That's the a-GospelO'Q's stance.
On the contrary, my authority is the Word of God, and Paul says we should judge those who call themselves believers.
Guess what, the Gnostics fail the test of the Word of God.
Learn before you speak.
I guess this is where I'll take the atheist's stance and say I simply have a "lack of belief in the Gospel of Q" because I can't see it.
16 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusYour opinion of the Gnostics and the Gospel of Q is irrelevant. There is substantial evidence towards their historical authenticity. I would concur with you that I disagree with the document, but again, that is irrelevant. no1 made a valid point, and you owe him an apology for your unkind and unsubstantiated remarks.
On the contrary, my authority is the Word of God, and Paul says we should judge those who call themselves believers.
Guess what, the Gnostics fail the test of the Word of God.
Learn before you speak.
I guess this is where I'll tak ...[text shortened]... e a "lack of belief in the Gospel of Q" because I can't see it.
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by OmnislashThere is only evidence for Q if one does not think the Gospels were divinely inspired or if one believes the authors weren't Apostles or disciples of apostles.
Your opinion of the Gnostics and the Gospel of Q is irrelevant. There is substantial evidence towards their historical authenticity. I would concur with you that I disagree with the document, but again, that is irrelevant. no1 made a valid point, and you owe him an apology for your unkind and unsubstantiated remarks.
I 'owe' no1 nothing. His hatred should not be tolerated, by me or anyone.
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusSo much for turning the other cheek, eh?
There is only evidence for Q if one does not think the Gospels were divinely inspired or if one believes the authors weren't Apostles or disciples of apostles.
I 'owe' no1 nothing. His hatred should not be tolerated, by me or anyone.
I reinerate, his point was valid and your insults were both unwarranted and unfounded. You owe him an apology by any measure of common courtesy, not to mention the ideals of scripture.
Perhaps you need a break from the forums, as this is very bad form, especially for one who proclaims to act as a messenger of God. I can understand if what is said offends you, but that does not equate your callous retort to be justified.
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusHas I've said many times, Paul wasn't God even according to your fundamentalist cult. And you aren't either.
On the contrary, my authority is the Word of God, and Paul says we should judge those who call themselves believers.
Guess what, the Gnostics fail the test of the Word of God.
Learn before you speak.
I guess this is where I'll take the atheist's stance and say I simply have a "lack of belief in the Gospel of Q" because I can't see it.
Read the Wallace article and you might learn something. I have to go now, but you're still a lowlife for calling me a liar when I made a true and factual statement that "many early Christians didn't believe in the resurrection". You may call them "heretics" or "non-Christians", but for me to have been lying I must have made a statement knowing it to be false. Since I obviously did not (and still do not just because YOU have adopted your own definition of Christian), you have violated the Commandments by bearing false witness against me. And the "Wages of Sin is Death", so you're screwed, Darfius.
16 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusShoot, Darf, why do you waste your time getting a lit degree at that mediocre state university. They don't fathom the Bible like you do. You should be a professor at Harvard! Just submit the above statement with your CV.
On the contrary, my authority is the Word of God, and Paul says we should judge those who call themselves believers.
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by no1marauderthe cult of the Paulines ?
Has I've said many times, Paul wasn't God even according to your fundamentalist cult. And you aren't either.
Read the Wallace article and you might learn something. I have to go now, but you're still a lowlife for calling me a liar when I made a true and factual statement that "many early Christians didn't believe in the resu ...[text shortened]... earing false witness against me. And the "Wages of Sin is Death", so you're screwed, Darfius.
typical Paulinism : "I know Christ said that , but THIS is what PAUL said he meant.(insert contrary saying here) ' you don't know nothing about the word of God , do you? , you're going to hell for not making the savior speech ! what are you an atheist or worse a Catholic?"
any of thaat sound familiar?
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusAh, here we go. This is what I have said all along. Darfius, you are not a follower of God, but of the man-made so-called Word of God. By calling it the ultimite athority you clinched it--if it is the ultimite athority then it is your paper idol/God.
On the contrary, my authority is the Word of God, and Paul says we should judge those who call themselves believers.
Guess what, the Gnostics fail the test of the Word of God.
Learn before you speak.
I guess this is where I'll take the atheist's stance and say I simply have a "lack of belief in the Gospel of Q" because I can't see it.
One other thing along these lines. You and your ilk keep going on about how the Bible is provable fact. Well fiddle me this: how can an ultimate athority be proven anything? Nevermind. My thought has been trunctated by my growing apathy on the subject.
... --- ...
22 Apr 05
Originally posted by DarfiusI retract the statement calling you a liar, as your claim was correct, many Gnostics didn't believe in a bodily Resurrection.
You're simply lying or have a very messed up source. The Gnostic movement didn't threaten true Christianity until the 2nd century under Valentinus. It was by no means ever the "main sect" of Christianity and in fact it predated Christ and only attempted to embrace Him because of His huge following.