Re: Ammunition for Michael -- The PM Refugees' Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:42:56 03/31/08 Mon
Author: Johnny Reb
Subject: Re: Ammunition for Michael
In reply to: Roger 's message, "Re: Ammunition for Michael" on 14:58:41 03/28/08 Fri

>>Here is something for Michael to use if he is still
>>posting to religious threads in forums. It comes from
>>Conspiracy Planet, which isn't the most authoritative
>>source, but it has some interesting things to say.
>><a rel=nofollow target=_blank href="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/review.cfm?rtype=22">http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/review.cfm?rtype=22</a>
>
>I'll say it's not authoritative. I would like to know
>what his sources and evidence are. If he is actually
>getting some of this stuff from writings of the era,
>it is no more speculative to suggest that the rumours
>about Jesus whassisname and Judas Krestus are the
>urban legends of the time about Jesus, collected from
>rumour and gossip and deliberate misdirection to
>weaken the Christian Church.
>
>I find nothing sinister in a convention to decide what
>works would be included in the collection that became
>the Bible. Someone had to make the decision, and that
>this decision was made upon unity of voice is not
>unreasonable.
>
>No serious biblical scholar would make the mistakes
>about the King James Bible that this author presents,
>although they are fairly common amongst uneducated
>Christians.

Let a simple Kraut ask you a simple question: why do y'all refer to the King James version? Luther was the first one to issue a European (still written in German "only" back then) version. There were quite a few others, more skilled scholars even, working on the subject later. The King James version is not an authority for an interpretative bible any more.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Ammunition for Michael -- Paul, 14:50:53 04/01/08 Tue