Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The School of Prayer, ( part 1)

Happy Camper = Prophet Beto?

Happy Copeland = sockpuppet troll playing a religous zealot persona for kicks, control, and attention.

Yep. Fake prophet like fake mexican

Prophet Beto Copeland

Yes, ‘money’ is absolutely important to organized religion.

But when it is said that there is only one mediator between God and men, that’s what it means: one. Period. People who are seeking God don’t have to go through anything else or anyone else to get to Him. Period. Not a Catholic priest, and not a Protestant pastor either, and not organized religion in any way…not a church…and certainly not an orthodoxy, and not a book. None of that is absolutely necessary. Can any of it be helpful…? Yes. Can any of it be edifying…? Yes. Can any of it be harmful…? Yes. Clearly. But when it gets down to the nut-cuttin’…people only need to go through Jesus to get to God.

It’s very simple. And it’s very easy. Once people know the truth, everything else is just cheap whisky.

What did people do before Jesus?

Now that is a great question. I can't wait to see the answers.

Burn in hell, apparently.


Well, maybe there was a grandfather clause.

Dang, looks like I missed the deadline......

Which "people" are you referring to?

The Tribes? The Gentiles?

Native Americans? Australian Aborigines? Mongols? "Chinese"?

Africans of all sorts?

Celts? Huns? Those damn Skanahoovians? Slavs?

Its a good question for discussion. I was asking it more specifically of antlers. He has pretty much dismissed the new testament and Old Testament to the point of trashing them as useless and having no connection to modern Christianity, the church etc. his isolated view creates problems for everyone before Christs life.

The Old Testament doesn’t go into a lot of detail about true faith prior to Moses and the law but it indicates that there was true and false worship. From what we are starting to understand about the far ancient world through archeology it was much more advanced than we have comprehended and connected across the globe. I personally believe that the message has always been there for everyone even though we don’t comprehend how before what is recorded early in the Old Testament.

The story of how we got ‘the Bible’ begins with a single event. An event that was so extraordinary that it was worth writing about.

The story of ‘the Bible’ does not begin with Genesis; the story of ‘the Bible’ actually begins with Jesus. The story of ‘the Bible’ actually begins in the first-century when Jesus’ tomb was found empty, and then later He was seen. And His cowardly followers who ran and hid when He was arrested…and later crucified…showed up in the streets of Jerusalem and said “He’s back, He’s alive from the dead.” They said this to the very power structure…the very men…who had Jesus crucified. And many Jewish people in the same area where Jesus was arrested and crucified…in the area of Judea and the city of Jerusalem…embraced Him as their savior.

And the church launched, the church began. And then there was interest in documenting the words and the works and the life of Jesus.

If Jesus had stayed dead, we likely would have never even heard of Him because there would have been no church, and there would have been no Christianity, and there would have been no ‘the Bible.’

The story of ‘the Bible’ actually begins with the resurrection of Jesus. And He is infinitely more important than “modern Christianity” and the church, etc.. And He always will be.

The original version of Christianity was an event-based faith; not a text-based faith. The shift from the resurrection of Jesus to a Bible centered faith…which was done by man…has left us with an anemic version of Christianity evidenced by a poor evangelistic effectiveness and an undermined credibility. Which is the clearly the polar opposite of the original, first-century version of Christianity.

So many people fighting and bickering, hateful and spiteful assertions and accusations, wholesale slaughter of countless numbers of people, manipulated for power and money, and countless people who have simply thrown their arms up in the air and walked away and/or want nothing to do with the faith…all over a book that didn’t even exist when Christianity first began.

The first century apologetic was not ‘the Bible.’ Period. And Apostle Peter’s living hope…the foundation of his faith…was not ‘the Bible.’ Period, on steroids.

Really? I guess we'll have to take your word for that, or not.

Antlers

As I’ve read your posts on the subject I’ve the last few months I appreciate that you’ve gone a long way in developing the argument for your view. I also appreciate that you have an emotional attachment to that view because of learning it from your grandfather. I’ll share my view which is in no way an attack.

I see three major obstacles to your position. There are tangent points but the three is enough for a forum. Jesus said of himself that the law and prophets testified about Him. That’s true and is the major theme of the Old Testament. The Apostles preached to the early church from the OT and recognized their writings as carrying an equal weight. History is a graveyard of movements that have tried to recreate what they thought the new norm was based in the book of acts. As I previously stated, all churches that trace their roots to the restoration movement and Azusa St revival fall into that category. Absolute failures at recreating what happened in Acts. The Anabaptists in the counter reformation in Germany and all denominations that find their roots there. There are other movements but that’s a large chunk that are easily referenced.

Yes he did.

Again, consider the thief on The Cross.

I believe that is true.

I wish I'd move the masks before I took that.

It’s not an “argument” for my view. It’s simply a different apologetic. It’s the same apologetic held by the first followers of Jesus, those literally closest to Him when He was here on the earth. And it has zero to do with my grandfather. My grandfather was a staunch Church of Christ member, and his theology and beliefs were very different from mine.

When Paul and others left Judea and began telling Gentiles about Jesus, they became enamored with the life and the message of Jesus. And when they became enamored with this one particular Jew, they became enamored with the sacred text of the Jews. Before Jesus came along, this was not the case.

The Old Testament didn’t become the first part of the Christian Bible, first. What we consider to be the Old Testament in Christianity today is actually the Hebrew Bible, what they called the Law and the Prophets. Early Jesus followers took the Hebrew Bible and found patterns in the laws, narratives, and psalms of the Hebrew Bible that acted as allegories and metaphors that pointed to the Messiah, who they recognized and believed to be Jesus.

And they moved to adopt the Hebrew Scripture as part of their own. And the stage was set for the later inclusion of the Jewish Scripture with the New Testament documents to create ‘the Bible’ as we know it today. The Bible itself exists as we know it today because of the resurrection of Jesus. Had Jesus not risen from the dead, the New Testament documents would have never been written, and ‘the Bible’ as we know it would not even exist.

The ancient Hebrew text would exist by itself.

None of this has anything to do with the Azusa Street Revival, or the Anabaptists, or the Charismatic Movement, or the Restoration Movement.

Well of course you are indeed playing switch.

Consider what you have just posted: "Those allegations were made based on your posts on the other thread and past posts." [b]This is just pure baloney. You cannot back up your allegations so you just conjure up something and pretend that your baloney somehow justifies a very specific allegation you made.

You bob and weave avoid backing up your own baseless allegation.... get this..by doing it again..... you try to back up your baseless allegation that I "reject truth" by making even more baseless accusations!

Note that you again back away .... playing switch...backing away from even trying to justify your baseless accusations by asking off topic and "new" questions like "Do you believe etc..."

I have a theory.... Starman was YOUR sockpuppet.

Meh....



Edit to add: From an article on "debate" that describes Starman's "switch/bob & weave" style.....ONE OF THE MOST common ways to be intellectually dishonest in a debate is to dodge questions while pretending you’re answering them. You’re not telling a lie, but you’re being dishonest when you manipulate the discussion this way.

Sorry for the bold text... got a new computer with a very touchy pad.
[/quote]


Hahahaha..........you're kind of funny.
Still bobin' and weavin' aren't you. LOL[/quote]




Nope, not me.... you are still the one that shot off your mouth and then backed away from backing it up.


Let me copy a line or two from an article on "dishonest debaters.:....."

:"ONE OF THE MOST common ways to be intellectually dishonest in a debate is to dodge questions while pretending you’re answering them. You’re not telling a lie, but you’re being dishonest when you manipulate the discussion this way."

Yep.... that's you.


Another from the previous post.....

"playing switch..." switch" style....."....This technique is normally invoked by people faced with unanswerable argument to the contrary of their position, or when faced with a relevant question that they cannot answer consistently with their stated claim.

Yep, that's you.... you cannot back up what you say....

Meh....