kate4christ03 wrote:Sorry about the caps. First off, its not logical to quote bits and pieces of the bible, believing them, but then denying the parts you don't want to believe.
Indeed, but it's not logical to believe in any of the Bible until you've proved certain parts of it to be true. Now I know from my own resesarch that Christ did exist and was crucified, by checking secular sources. However, I cannot state for sure whether Paul really did see Christ on the road to Damascus (his story sounds suspiciously like a hallucination and nothing divine).
Quote:That is why i said you have to believe it all or nothing. You can't quote Christ's words from the book of john, then deny other books john wrote.
You have a twisted point there.
If you trust the Book of John, you may be able to trust the other books John wrote. But you certainly can't trust the books he didn't write.
Quote:That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense because John didn't write all the other books of the Bible.
Let's do a thought experiment.
Let's say you can trust everything I wrote and my books are published in an anthology filled with other writings from other people, of whom at least one is completely untrustworthy. Does that mean you can trust the entire book? No. Does that mean you can't trust the entire book? No.
Quote:Thirdly, the topic had nothing to do with the gnostic texts or other supposed books of the bible. The topic was scriptural proof that Christ was God.
The topic has everything to do with the Gnostic Texts, because if the Nicean Council had not decided to go with the Trinitarian Doctrine, those Gospels would be in the Bible.