Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?

[NTNT58]

So, they are suspect? If that’s the case, so is Peter, cause they say he was one of them also.

I'm not sure what you mean. All 3 were part of the original Catholic church.

 

[posthuman]

You haven't provided any evidence for questions 1 and 2.

How derailed do. you want this thread to get?
we can talk about either of those for 50 pages, easy.

 

[posthuman]

I'm not as concerned about textual criticism

then i suggest you don't make comments about it, because along will come someone with knowledge, and ignorance will be apparent to them.

i'm still going to go learn about it all week. you remain as uneducated about it as you wish; it's not important to doctrine.

 

[posthuman]

Catholic church traces it's roots to the original apostles. The 3rd century is when they became officially recognized. Polycarp and Ignatious were both part of that church.

i do happen to know a little about church history, and everything you said here is 100% false.

i advise also that you don't make comments about these things while you remain ignorant of them.

i further advise that you go learn those things you know little or nothing about.
it is simply wise.

 

[NTNT58]

How derailed do. you want this thread to get?
we can talk about either of those for 50 pages, easy.

Let's just start with your best evidence. In Mathew 23:2-3 Jesus says Pharasees sit in the seat of Moses, therefore they have the authority and they run the one true synagogue. The same way Papists sit in the seat of Peter. They're both evil hypocrites that came up with a bunch of man-made rules, but nonetheless Jesus said they have the authority. That authority was passed to Peter when Jesus gave him the keys to heaven.

As far as the Sabbath goes, you don't get to pick and chose which commandment you want to follow. Jesus did not mention all 10, he only mentioned the most important ones, but that doesn't negate the other ones.

 

[NTNT58]

then i suggest you don't make comments about it, because along will come someone with knowledge, and ignorance will be apparent to them.

i'm still going to go learn about it all week. you remain as uneducated about it as you wish; it's not important to doctrine.

I suggest you don't reply about things you have no clue about.

 

[NTNT58]

i do happen to know a little about church history, and everything you said here is 100% false.

i advise also that you don't make comments about these things when you are ignorant of them.

Prove it then. I cited proof several times in this post, and all you've done is spew out accusations of ignorance with no proof of your own.

 

[Sipsey]

I'm not sure what you mean. All 3 were part of the original Catholic church.

Do you distinguish between the Catholic and Roman Catholic Church?

 

[posthuman]

I suggest you don't reply about things you have no clue about.

i don't.

i also don't have a lot of time to waste on ignorant men with deaf ears.

i have a seminary class on textual criticism to go listen to, atm.

ciao

 

[NTNT58]

Do you distinguish between the Catholic and Roman Catholic Church?

Roman papists sit in the seat of Peter, therefore they are the true church, just like Pharasees who sat in the seat of Moses were the true synagogue (before Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven).

 

[Sipsey]

Roman papists sit in the seat of Peter, therefore they are the true church, just like Pharasees who sat in the seat of Moses were the true synagogue (before Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven).

ok. Seems you have much to learn.

 

[posthuman]

Prove it then.

get back to me after you listen to this

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....ly=true&SourceID=shermanbible&AudioOnly=false

And this

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....ap&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Church+History


that should be a good start. only about 130 hours.

or don't do your homework, your choice.

 

[NTNT58]

ok. Seems you have much to learn.

It seems like you don't have any contrary evidence, otherwise you would have been able to summarize it in a short answer, instead of vague, vain objection.

 

[NTNT58]

get back to me after you listen to this

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....ly=true&SourceID=shermanbible&AudioOnly=false

And this

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....ap&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Church+History


that should be a good start. only about 130 hours.

or don't do your homework, your choice.

You obviously did not learn much if anything from those 130 hours, otherwise you would be able to provide a concise answer. Einstein once said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

 

[posthuman]

I suggest you don't reply about things you have no clue about.

it was unrealistic for me to expect you to spend that amount of time studying. my apologies.

so.
let me briefly refute your ignorant comment from earlier:

Catholic church traces it's roots to the original apostles. The 3rd century is when they became officially recognized. Polycarp and Ignatious were both part of that church.

No such thing as a pope in the sense of sole rule over a church until Gregory I around 600AD. at this time though the Roman bishopric was not at all representative of the church writ large, Rome wasn't even the capital of the Roman empire (and hadn't been for 300 years), so the 'papacy' didn't exist as 'the one true church' as much as it existed as a sect in rebellion against the unbroken line of co-equal bishoprics that remained in the actual Roman empire, whose capital was Constantinople, for another thousand years after the western sect began to openly reject its authority and devolve.

go look it up.

Polycarp was in Smyrna and Ignatius in Antioch. quite far from Rome, and wholly removed from any pretense of Roman authority superceding all other bishoprics. Eastern empire. modern day Turkey and Syria. think Eastern orthodox.

go look it up.

The catholic church infamously rewrites and lies about history. the church fathers refer to both Peter and Paul founding both the churches in Rome and Corinth. so the Corinthian church has every but as much primacy as Rome and Paul has every bit as much primacy as Peter.

go.
look it up.
Irenaus 'against heresies' book III.

 

[posthuman]

short answer

You are asking for things that take a great deal of time to explain.

But this is all a diversion on your part from what I originally replied to:

• You said the Bible is full of contradictions.
• I said it is not.
• you said there are tens of thousands of manuscripts
• i said let's spend a week learning something about textual criticism so we can speak in an informed way about this topic instead of carrying on like fools
• you said you weren't interested in learning the truth concerning whether your comment about the Bible being full of contradictions had any merit, and started carrying on about various other huge topics.

so I'm going to go learn about textual criticism for a week. it's not going to make me an expert but i hope to at least be informed enough to have an actual conversation about your assertion that the Bible is full of contradictions.

meanwhile I suggest you listen to some of those church history courses i linked for you. you really don't seem to have a clue about the origins of Catholicism. it's kinda important.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

I ended up doing my first degree in Biology & Biochemistry and even trained as a high school science teacher before changing career direction. During my teaching course I was asked to write an essay on a topic of relevance to science education, so you might guess what I hit them with…

Spoiler

“Earlier in the 20th Century, the famous Scopes "Monkey" Trial proved to be a turning point in science education. The State of Tennessee brought John Thomas Scopes to trial for teaching evolution in a public school, in opposition to the Butler Act.

This act declared that no theory in conflict with the biblical story of creation, as laid down in the first chapters of Genesis should be taught. Although Scopes was found guilty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and freedom of scientific enquiry finally triumphed.

This decision opened the way for scientific findings to be presented in educational establishments, regardless of their implications for religious faith or cherished beliefs. Evolution was quickly embraced by the educationalists of the day, and so certain did the theory seem to its exponents that many were led to state that it was a fact.

Two years after the trial, Prof. George Gaylord Simpson wrote that "Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as fact". In England the same year, Sir Arthur Keith wrote in his 'Concerning Man's On'gin, (1927) "Will Darwin's victory endure for all time? So strong has his position become that I am convinced it will never be shaken".

However, half a century later many scientists were not so sure. Dr Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, addressed over fifty classification specialists at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 with the question "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution any one thing, any one thing that is true?" After a long silence, one listener volunteered: "I know it should not be taught as fact in schools".

The probability that evolution could have produced life in the first place has been questioned by many scientists. Sir Fred Hoyle wrote (Evolution from Space, 1981): "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero".

Professor H.J.Lipson (A Physicist looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 1980) sums up the thinking of a growing number of scientists when he writes: "I think, however, that we must go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it".

Despite a growing number of scientists who are abandoning evolutionary ideas, when it comes to what should be taught in schools, evolution is presented as the accepted theory of origins. It is commonly contended that “Evolution is science”, whereas “Creation is religion”.

The philosopher Karl Popper has argued that for any hypothesis to be within the realm of scientific theory, it must be phenomenon that may be tested by human observers and be repeatable. It is only then subject to the scientific method.

Creation has not been observed by human witnesses and since creation would involve unique, unrepeatable historical events, it is not subject to the scientific method. As a theory it is non-falsifiable as it is impossible to conceive of an experiment that could disprove it. Though creation does not fulfil the criteria of a scientific theory, that in itself does not invalidate it.

Evolution likewise sufferers from this problem. World-famous evolutionist Dr T. Dobzhansky stated the problem lucidly (American Scientist, Dec. 1957) "These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable and irreversible. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted". Dr L. Merson Davies (The Bible and Modem Science, 1953) [a founding father of CSM Ed.] wrote: "It is Darwin's habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted, to my mind, the most unforgivable offence against science".

It follows that the dogmatic claims that “evolution is a fact", made by early evolutionist writers as well as contemporary ones like Prof R.Dawkins, are ill-founded. So is the tired claim that "Evolution is science but Creation is religion".

In his book "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", Gillespie points out that in Darwin’s day, creationists frequently pleaded ignorance of the means of creation yet always affirmed the fact of creation. Patterson perceptively noted that the boot was now on the other foot. Evolutionists are now pleading ignorance of the means of evolution while always affirming the fact of evolution. On this point he states that it is hard to distinguish creationist attitudes of the past from evolutionists today!

In this climate of scientific debate, and the lack of clear difference in the scientific nature of these theories, surely no-one interested in academic freedom would seriously oppose the presentation in the classroom of scientific facts from both sides of the debate.

Would it not be better for the cause of scientific enquiry (and teach students more about the areas of experimental and investigative science), to allow the diversity of scientific view on origins to be honestly presented in schools? If both views were presented, allowing the main points of scientific evidence to be aired, surely this would not be detrimental to the cause of true science?

This situation would not be a 'Trojan Horse for religious fundamentalism infiltrating the world of science teaching, but rather, provide some much needed scientific objectivity to the question.

Where does all this leave the cause of science education? Does the teaching of origins in schools reflect open minded scientific questioning, or do we stand again in that hot Tennessee courtroom and and hear religious evolutionists trying a school teacher for inferring that the scientific evidence may not favour evolution?“

i know after the launch of the Hubble Telescope, many big name Scientists and Atheist promoters sung a new Song when they claim to have seen the Origin of the Big Bang. and what convinced them it was GOD, was there was no EVIDENCE for anything in existence to create and cause the Bang, like written in 1960s. energy solidifying and heating and cooling and eventually annihilating which was the "Bang." only the astrophysicist from ASU actually still tried to connect the "String Theory," but no one bit.

and speaking of another leaky Theory, Many, question. the Soup Theory, the cause of Life.


but i definitely did enjoy the Read and Agree

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

• Every New Testament book was referred to prior to A.D. 150, with the possible exception of Philemon and 3 John.
Authentication of the New Testament
The apostolic fathers Ignatius (A.D. 30–107 ), Polycarp (A.D. 65–155), and Papias (A.D. 70–155) cite verses from every New Testament book except 2 and 3 John. So just these three early Church Fathers authenticated nearly all of the New Testament.
CLEMENT OF ROME
In his Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in about A.D. 97 Clement cites verses from Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
The letters of Ignatius (dated A.D. 115) were written to several churches in Asia Minor and cites verses from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus.
These letters indicate that the entire New Testament was written in the first century A.D.
JUSTIN MARTYR
Justin Martyr, (A.D. 110–165), cited verses from the following thirteen books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation.
IRENAEUS
In his book Against Heresies Irenaeus, (A.D. 130–20), quoted from every book of the New Testament except for 3 John.
Irenaeus made over 1,200 quotations from the New Testament in his writings, and about 1,800 quotations and references from the New Testament
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
Clement of Alexandria, writing from A.D. 193 to 220, made about 2,400 quotations and references to every New Testament book except Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John.
CYPRIAN
Cyprian, A.D. 200–258, made about 1,030 quotations and references from the New Testament. His quotes include every book except Philemon and 2 John, and possibly 3 John, which are the three shortest books in the New Testament.
There are enough quotations from the early Church Fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

“The early church leaders wrote and quoted from the New Testament so that the New Testament could be re-written from their quotations with the exception of 11 verses.” Geisler and Nix

 

[posthuman]

concise

The word "catholic" means "general"

when you see that word prior to the 16th century it isn't talking about the RCC.
it's talking about the church in general.

prior to the great schism around the 11th century it ia talking about the church in both the western and eastern halves of the roman empire. after this both sides of the empire might use it to refer either only to their side of the empire or potentially to all of the church.

 

[posthuman]

Roman papists sit in the seat of Peter, therefore they are the true church, just like Pharasees who sat in the seat of Moses were the true synagogue (before Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven).

papists get this idea from Tertullian, but what Tertullian actually said was that all Christians have these keys. (On Modesty, ch. 21)