Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is Faith so Important to God?
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5974 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 58 of 88 (432857)
11-08-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by pelican
10-30-2007 7:49 PM


Re: Why is faith so supremely important to God
Solar energy is invisible? When's the last time you looked into the sun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by pelican, posted 10-30-2007 7:49 PM pelican has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5974 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 59 of 88 (432859)
11-08-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
10-31-2007 3:02 PM


Re: Then I saw her face. Now I'm a believer. Cause/Consequence
"I don't believe you exist but if you do then... Lord I need you"
As an agnostic, I pray something similar from time to time. This is sometimes accompanied by vaguely warm fuzzy feelings, but in no way does it convict me of anything like there being a personal God who loves me. Instead, it says to me that for some reason, praying helps me in emotionally difficult situations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 10-31-2007 3:02 PM iano has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5974 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 60 of 88 (432860)
11-08-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by goldenlightArchangel
11-05-2007 2:34 PM


Re: proof that faith is very important to the absent god
proving that in all the places of the New Testament in Ancient Roman Language, the word fidelitate --Heb. emunah-- i.e. Fidelity;
Except the NT wasn't written in Latin or Hebrew. It's written in Greek and Aramaic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-05-2007 2:34 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-09-2007 4:04 PM bernerbits has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5974 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 62 of 88 (433034)
11-09-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel
11-09-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Impossibility of recognizing that it's impregnated of originally Roman terminolog
Yeah, except for all your rationalizing, it's a fact the earliest known manuscripts of the new testament are in Greek and Aramaic.
The vernacular of the Jews in first century Rome was Koine Greek, NOT Latin. This is well-established. Re-read your Jewish history please.
Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-09-2007 4:04 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-12-2007 12:53 PM bernerbits has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5974 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 64 of 88 (433549)
11-12-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by goldenlightArchangel
11-12-2007 12:53 PM


Re: There is a disconnection in substituting Roman with Latin
All the romance languages -- Medieval Latin, Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese -- derive primarily from an early unified form of Latin, which you refer to as Ancient Roman, which, while you are correct in that it could be called proto-Italian, it could also be called proto-Spanish or proto-Romanian. It's commonly referred to in linguistic circles as Ancient Latin.
any physical Greek occupancy in the Roman provinces
The Jews in the Roman Provinces descended from the Hellenized Jews, of the early Jewish post-exile Diaspora. The so-called founder of the Catholic Church, Simon Peter, is widely agreed to have spoken Greek (although the body now known as the Catholic Church was not established until the 300s), as did most first-century Christians.
but the over 1,000 years of spiritually imposed occupancy in the field of eternal words of Scripture by the Mother (great in size) Roman church and the State of Vatican.
So, I'm confused. You believe the scriptures were written in Ancient Italian because of the authority of the Catholic Church as opposed to all historical evidence to the contrary?
The facts are indisputed: we know that the Hebrews were exiled from the Promised Land roughly 400 BC, and in that time were dispersed among all of Eurasia. Historians and theologians call this the Diaspora. During the ensuing centuries, the Hellenized Jews incorporated Greek culture and language into their own. Jesus was born into a Hellenized Jewish province of the Roman Empire. As a direct result, the earliest Christians spoke Greek and not Latin. Nobody disputes this -- not even conservative Christian scholars.
It wasn't until the Christian church was Romanized in the 300s AD that the ancient Roman translations of the scriptures became "authoritative". If you're going to argue NT Theology based on linguistics, you must use the Greek manuscripts. We have plenty of them, faithfully preserved, and they even pre-date the Catholic Church. Saying the original scriptures are in the Ancient Roman language is simply a lie.
At any rate, we're definitely going off topic and I'm not going to respond to further posts on this thread about the current subject. We can start a new thread to continue this discussion if you would like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-12-2007 12:53 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-12-2007 4:01 PM bernerbits has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024