Man is Polluting Science

[bhsmte]

Any time you're done being needlessly insulting, you can contribute to the discussion at hand.

It is what he is best at.

 

[RickG]

Are biographies written today about Alexander the Great written by anyone who met him? Are they any less credible?

Nice Red Herring. What was written about Alexander the Great has nothing to do with what we are discussing. You also seem to have a misconception about what I'm saying. I am neither saying the Gospels are wrong or correct. Just that the possibility of variations and actual events as well as context to their meanings is quite great.

 

[Heissonear]

If you're done touting your own alleged superiority, will you be adding anything constructive to the discussion?

You have nicely set aside how the Church began on the Day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

You have nice set aside those who in our time are baptize and filled with the Holy Spirit.

People who lack the Holy Spirit do not understand the Author of the Bible, and how He writes verses on tablets of peoples hearts, and makes the Word very near and very clear.

Then someone like you cannot say "the Bible is not from God".

Pretty basic, Sarg. Yes, I have experienced an Acts 2 Pentecost Outpouring of His Spirit from on High within that awakened my spirit, being born again. His Kingdom is in our midst.

All you have witnessed is there is no God any more than there can be a monster made from enriched wheat spaghetti.

 

[Heissonear]

Pollution has went forth from mankind. It fills ditches of book knowledge.

There is not a problem with science. The problem is man who uses science. Man pollutes science. Just like mankind pollutes all other things he touches.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You have nicely set aside how the Church began on the Day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

You have nice set aside those who in our time are baptize and filled with the Holy Spirit.

People who lack the Holy Spirit do not understand the Author of the Bible, and how He writes verses on tablets of peoples hearts, and makes the Word very near and very clear.

Then someone like you cannot say "the Bible is not from God".

Pretty basic, Sarg. Yes, I have experienced an Acts 2 Pentecost Outpouring of His Spirit from on High within that awakened my spirit, being born again. His Kingdom is in our midst.

All you have witnessed is there is no God any more than there can be a monster made from enriched wheat spaghetti.

A simple "no" would've sufficed, Heiss.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Pollution has went forth from mankind. It fills ditches of book knowledge.

There is not a problem with science. The problem is man who uses science. Man pollutes science. Just like mankind pollutes all other things he touches.

Polluters such as yourself, Heiss?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Any time you're done being needlessly insulting, you can contribute to the discussion at hand.

I am not being "needlessly insulting", I just find it "adorable" how easily you dismissed eye witness testamony from people who were actually involved in the Jonestown massacre just because it disagrees with your beliefs. I concluded that you dismissed the gospels for similar reasons. You rejected God and you are either too afraid of being wrong or too proud to admit you could be wrong. In order to protect your pride, you have set up a filter that expells anything that could show you to be wrong. It also explains why you are so convinced that there is no evidence for God. Its all around, you just filtered it out.

 

[rjs330]

The ones who pursue the facts, wherever they may lead.



I notice you don't have an estimate -- just a lot of talk.

I already told you that I think John wrote the book. There is evidence that he did so as early as AD 50.

That's the problem with all this. Its all guesswork. Archeology and ancient writings is NOT an exact science. Estimates are just that, they are NOT facts. And those estimates can be off by decades when dealing with this kind of thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am not being "needlessly insulting", I just find it "adorable" how easily you dismissed eye witness testamony from people who were actually involved in the Jonestown massacre just because it disagrees with your beliefs. I concluded that you dismissed the gospels for similar reasons. You rejected God and you are either too afraid of being wrong or too proud to admit you could be wrong. In order to protect your pride, you have set up a filter that expells anything that could show you to be wrong. It also explains why you are so convinced that there is no evidence for God. Its all around, you just filtered it out.

Oh well, maybe tomorrow, then.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I already told you that I think John wrote the book. There is evidence that he did so as early as AD 50.

AD 50? When the non-synoptic nature makes it obvious that it was most likely written after Christianity officially schismed from Judaism, which was in the late 80s? "Evidence" that the book was written which the apostle Paul was still alive and writing his epistles?

On what "evidence" are you basing that?

That's the problem with all this. Its all guesswork.

Educated guesswork. So find one educated scholar who says AD 50.

Archeology and ancient writings is NOT an exact science. Estimates are just that, they are NOT facts. And those estimates can be off by decades when dealing with this kind of thing.

So that's where you got AD 50...

 

[Heissonear]

Polluters such as yourself, Heiss?

You deny that the Acts 2 account of the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit "Day of Pentecost" happened?

 

[RickG]

You deny that the Acts 2 account of the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit "Day of Pentecost" happened?

It has nothing to do with science or this thread.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You deny that the Acts 2 account of the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit "Day of Pentecost" happened?

You deny that you yourself, as a man, pollutes everything you touch?

 

[rjs330]

AD 50? When the non-synoptic nature makes it obvious that it was most likely written after Christianity officially schismed from Judaism, which was in the late 80s? "Evidence" that the book was written which the apostle Paul was still alive and writing his epistles?

On what "evidence" are you basing that?



Educated guesswork. So find one educated scholar who says AD 50.



So that's where you got AD 50...

The non synoptic,nature has nothing to,do,with the date. Why Because it was written by a person that was an actual witness of the events. To be more specific a date of 50AD to 70AD is acceptable. Just like the,dates you throw out are a range so are mine. And if the gospel was written by an eye witness the disciple he absolutely would be a contemporary of Paul.

The writing of Johns Gospel has a different purpose than the other,gospels which is obvious. But it's still a gospel.

As far as the date is concerned;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggxMAg&usg=AFQjCNEwfEixT5TV8GX5mXoeRhKMk_ZY1w

 

[TLK Valentine]

The non synoptic,nature has nothing to,do,with the date. Why Because it was written by a person that was an actual witness of the events. To be more specific a date of 50AD to 70AD is acceptable. Just like the,dates you throw out are a range so are mine. And if the gospel was written by an eye witness the disciple he absolutely would be a contemporary of Paul.

From your source: "Second, the question of authorship naturally coincides with the date of composition for the Gospel of John. This article will assume, rather than attempt to prove, that John the apostle and son of Zebedee was the human author of the fourth Gospel."

We all know what happens when you assume...

The writing of Johns Gospel has a different purpose than the other,gospels which is obvious. But it's still a gospel.

The writing has a different theme, motive, chronology, and narrative structure, which is equally obvious. That "it's still a Gospel" is true, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Have you actually read Stegall's attempt to refute the claims of later authorship? Lot of empty assertions; no real facts. In fact, Stegall even admits that an authorship date of around AD 80-90 is the majority view, but of course, blames it on "liberalism," everyone's favorite boogeyman.

As far as the date is concerned;
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggxMAg&usg=AFQjCNEwfEixT5TV8GX5mXoeRhKMk_ZY1w

It's not often that a source explicitly admits to a biased agenda; to wit:

"if a second century date is permitted for the composition of John in its final form as claimed by some critical, non-evangelical scholars, then the historical reliability and divine authority of the book is automatically impugned."

Sounds like your source is rejecting later ranges based not on the facts, but on what will happen to the reputation of the Gospel if the later ranges are true.

Word of advice: any source which is more concerned about reputation than truth is unreliable.

 

[rjs330]

From your source: "Second, the question of authorship naturally coincides with the date of composition for the Gospel of John. This article will assume, rather than attempt to prove, that John the apostle and son of Zebedee was the human author of the fourth Gospel."

We all know what happens when you assume...



The writing has a different theme, motive, chronology, and narrative structure, which is equally obvious. That "it's still a Gospel" is true, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Have you actually read Stegall's attempt to refute the claims of later authorship? Lot of empty assertions; no real facts. In fact, Stegall even admits that an authorship date of around AD 80-90 is the majority view, but of course, blames it on "liberalism," everyone's favorite boogeyman.



It's not often that a source explicitly admits to a biased agenda; to wit:

"if a second century date is permitted for the composition of John in its final form as claimed by some critical, non-evangelical scholars, then the historical reliability and divine authority of the book is automatically impugned."

Sounds like your source is rejecting later ranges based not on the facts, but on what will happen to the reputation of the Gospel if the later ranges are true.

Word of advice: any source which is more concerned about reputation than truth is unreliable.

However his thoughts are sourced with plenty of footnotes that support his assertions.
And just because you poo poo the liberalism thought doesn't make it not real. Much of this thought has krept into this scholarly assertions and it's interesting how it all seems to try and discredit the bible. While anything that credits Gods word is summarily dismissed. Not surprising really.

 

[bhsmte]

You deny that the Acts 2 account of the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit "Day of Pentecost" happened?

Dont worry, you can still believe it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

However his thoughts are sourced with plenty of footnotes that support his assertions.

Not if the footnotes only lead to more assertions, as opposed to actual support.

And just because you poo poo the liberalism thought doesn't make it not real.

Yes, yes.... liberalism is evil, and all that. Facts, please?

Much of this thought has krept into this scholarly assertions and it's interesting how it all seems to try and discredit the bible. While anything that credits Gods word is summarily dismissed. Not surprising really.

Spare me the sob story -- facts, not paranoia, will tell the tale.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Just like mankind pollutes all other things he touches.

Obviously we have to get rid of mankind to stop this pollution !

Or we can be more rational and understand that science works, e.g. talk to the millions of people with smallpox today - whoops you cannot!, and so any "pollution" is moot. Simple cost/benefit analysis - would you like to save the lives of millions of people using medicine or throw away medicine because of "pollution"? Ditto for other areas of science.

 

[Heissonear]

It has nothing to do with science or this thread.

You have produced pollution for others to see by such a reply about Pentecost and the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit listed in Acts 2.

The Outpouring event was an initiation relationship with the Divine Nature of God.

Stated again, the filling of the Holy Spirit bring God's Nature into man from on High.

This is the way we set pollution aside. Man can stop polluting when filled and led by the Holy Spirit.

Why have you set aside this profound fact to bring man out of corruption and pollution, particularly to state is has nothing to do the this thread.

When God is at work in us, He is leading us to godliness, and to no longer corrupt and pollute.

Man is a polluter until he is filled and led by God's Holy Spirit.

The outward expression before the world of man being filled by the Holy Spirit was at Pentecost.

Again, you have produced pollution for others to see by such a reply about Pentecost, the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit listed in Acts 2.