Dear fellow christian, judge not lest you be judged

Yey. I'll be reading them, thanks Jar baba.

Assuming it is, what makes it a verifiable source? No, Mike. They don't need to be changed, nor have you met them. I ask you again... if I tear a chapter out of my copy of a book, does that make the chapter a separate book?The answer is: you're retarded. Of course it doesn't. I very much doubt it was. By all appearances, it's lodged firmly between your ears.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Prove the Gospel of Peter was in the bible, or torn out. But notwithstanding that - the fact is that this Gospel and others, are not in and/or part of the bible (which is what counts). Likewise with the acts of pilate, or any other early writings.So, by your rules, I have shown the prophecy of Isaiah, which is verified in Peter, which IS independent of the bible.Now what did I say earlier - you'd come up with some other way of ridding anything which validates bible prophecies.So, if anything - this evidences your utter rejection of anything biblical, even when they pass your rules you seek more banter against them. hey, lemme tellya, your rules are stools, but my stool rules.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-20-2004 08:19 PM

A specific prophecy that Christians often point to as verifying the Messiah as Jesus is
Isaiah 7:14--(KJV)Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,a virgin shall conceive,and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
According to Strong`s Concordamce, Immanuel occurs twice
Isaiah 7:14--above
Isaiah 8:8--And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over,he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of the land, O Immanuel.
The other related Scripture is for Emmanuel
Matthew 1:23--Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Going back to the original prophecy
'A virgin will conceive'--agreed
'And bear a son'--agreed
'and shall call his name Immanuel'--?
Nowhere in the whole of the NT is Jesus ever referred to as Immanuel apart from the mini-prophecy in Matthew which was written after the events of Jesus` life were over.
Therefore, using Isaiah`s prophecy, Jesus can not be the Messiah. Now I know the ducking and weaving will start about the 'interpretation' of the name is what counts, but the prime reading of Isaiah is unfulfilled. Jesus was never Immanuel.

Gospel of Peter, outside of the bibleIsaiah; He was wounded and crushed because of our sins;
by taking our punishment
he made us completely well

​

All of us were like sheep that had wandered off
We had each gone our own way
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deservedExcerpt from Peter'We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?'Excerpt from PeterAnd they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them.Excerpt from Peter 'If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,'Nightttrain, your assertions are opinion, and certainly don't mean he couldn't have been Immanuel. Especially if the NT says he was, like you've just admitted. Lol. How anything you said at all makes Jesus unable to be the Messiah would take a big stretch of imagination even from an ardent skeptic.

Then Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy of Jesus?

You wanna play this game? Okay. Your prophecy refers to "the Lord". Prove that "the Lord" exists, or it can be considered ambiguous whether your prophecy has even been fulfilled.In the meantime, Jar's link that you were so up on a page back refers several times to the Gospel of Peter as exegetical interpretation of the Bible, based on oral tradition of the church. In other words, these apocryphal gospels are writings about the Gospels, not extra-Biblical accounts that corroborate the story.In fact, it states:

quote:

---

The developed apologetic technique typical of the Gospel of Matthew and of Justin (a church writer who lived in the middle of the second century), which seeks to demonstrate a correspondence between so-called prophetic "predictions" in the scriptures and their "fulfillments" in the fate of Jesus, is lacking.

---

No, Mike. Being physically outside the current collected edition does not place it outside the Bible, anymore than you tearing a chapter out and saying "look! It's outside the Bible!" would.If you don't get that, you're either genuinely retarded, or playing bullshit semantic wordgames. Pointing out that you're acting like an idiot is not handily rejecting the Bible.Do you have anything that doesn't rely on bullshit wordgames to work around the rules, rather than actually following them?This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-21-2004 09:29 AM

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

DanI just wanted to insert a couple thoughts into your ongoing discussion with Mike and I hope that he will also consider these points and comment on them.First, the use of the word Gospel was very loose in the early church. Basically, it refered to any teaching aimed at a general audience. That distinguished Gospel from Epistle which was a letter addressed to a specific audience and histories which were an account of activities of specific (although often unnamed because the audience understood who were the people involved) group.Second, during the early days of the Christian Church (and the Jewish Church as well) there were many independant teachings being circulated (we are still finding new ones fairly regularly) that were both oral only, written only and versions of an oral tradition that was later written down. Often there were two or more versions of a given teaching.TTBOMK, the original versions of all of the teachings have been lost and only copies remain.The concept of a Bible, a particular content, didn't come about until 3-400 years after Christ's time. Even today there is no one approved content and canon varies from Church to Church.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm with you... the point I'm trying to drive into Mike's head (and I'm gonna need a mallet soon) is that all these Gospels or non-Gospels or what-have-you are part of the same Church teaching... whether oral, written, or pantomime. None of them count as an extra-Biblical corroboration of the events of Christ's life, because they are all part of the story told by the Church.Mike is trying to pass the gospel of Peter off as this independent source that has no relation to the Bible, when the facts just don't bear that out.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-21-2004 10:03 AM

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

No. Because if they were, why would they reject say, Peter or Thomas?Now your rule requires that I provide something outside the bible, I assume you cannot prove your claim that Peter was once in it. But the facts are this; 1. Peter isn't in the bible 2. That's all your rule requires.Furthermore, it matters not if they were possibly once big vast bible, (I doubt it) - you are talking like the same guy wrote them all, but the "bible" as Jar said, was a collection of books - so it isn't like ripping pages from a book. So your comment; Is not applicable.If the bible was written by one author - your analogy would be logical, however 1. You cannot prove Peter was ever in the bible (for all you know the guy wrote it on his own and it was considered heresy or something like that) and 2. There are hundreds of books like Peter, together they make of one ginormous extra biblical source or they would be in the bible.All I need is a witness outside of the bible. But your stubborn pre-conception is that anything found in favour of the bible - is the bible, so just HOW am I supposed to prove a prophecy if;1. Dan doesn't accept any books within the bible, despite different authorship.
and;
2. He doesn't even accept books outside the bible - even if he doesn't know who wrote them, even if nobody else can know for sure, and ALSO - even if the church counts them as invalid.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-21-2004 01:11 PM

Closing this topic soon (15 minutes?).Final off-topic remarks?Adminnemoosues

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the Proposed New Topics forum

Sorry, Dan insists on me not "weasling out of this one" - Maybe we could go back on topic, or agree to disagree.

When people ask for independent confirmation of Biblcal accounts, they aren't asking for Christian material that didn't happen to get included in the Biblical canon. Peter was never part of the Bible, but it was definitely written by either the same communities that produced the New Testament, or by closely related sister communities. It is true that as you yourself say, there is a large volume of Christian material that didn't make it into the Bible, but they were all produced by Christian communities.Historians like Josephus and Pliny are examples of source from which independent confirmation can sometimes be drawn.--Percy

Boy do I have great timing lately - I keep posting to threads that are about to be closed. I must just have a nose for off-topic threads. Or maybe it's just that they don't capture my interest until they're really seriously off-topic. Ah, well!--Percy

Percy and Jar summed up the point pretty well. (Although you don't seem to have understood it any better from them.) You're trying to use Christian religious source material as extra-Biblical confirmation.You not understanding what "extra-Biblical" means does not mean that you have found an extra-Biblical source. And yet you continue to do so, with the same bullshit "you just won't accept the Bible" crap that began all this.Final thought? I don't know why I bothered trying to hammer a little reason into your head, Mike. You need your hand held tight for every single little thought, and constant repetition in order to get even the tiniest morsel into your brain. You use ridiculous logical loops like the above "extra-Biblical-according-to-Mike" in an effort to score a semantic point, while ignoring the actual issue. On the off chance anything does sink in, you wait a month, ignore it, and repeat your original stance.In short, you're a dishonest debater.Or a genuine idiot. I really can't tell which.It's good to know the Bible's such a piss-weak source of prophecy, though. The only way you can present a prophecy is to start playing semantic games? Sad testament to the Bible, let me tell you. Once again... you'd think the true, almighty GOD could present a prophecy that was simply valid, without games, without obfuscation, and could stand up to even a little critical analysis.Apparently, this is not the case.But I fully expect you to claim it is about a month or so from now. Looking forward to it.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-21-2004 01:36 PM

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin